Debunk was probably a poor choice of words. But there have numerous times along the way when science has stated theory as fact only to later reverse. One obvious example that comes to mind is Dirac's equation which "solved" physics. Protons, electrons and nuetrons were the three "fundamental" bulding blocks of everything. You have to admit that what we call quantum mechanics today doesn't much resemble the quatum mechanics of the 1930's. But in the 1930's the perception was that physics had been "solved". I guess my point is more of a thought - I wonder how much of the modern day theory will be unchanged 50 years from now?
As I responded in a different post, I just think we need to be sure and keep the perspective that these aren't necessarily truths but just the best information we have to date.
Well that is my point - we will never KNOW. We'll have theories that haven't been disproven yet. Although I would not argue that we shouldn't pursue knowledge - I'd just argue that we keep it in perspective.
But you are still relying on observations as the basis for your assumptions - so what if the observations are inaccurate? Or incomplete? As we develop new technologies that will enhance our ability to observe, isn't it likely we'll end up discarding much of today theory? For example, I've always had a hard time with Heisenberg's uncertainty principal and the move into Quantum Mechanics - so because we can't measure the position and velocity of a particle without affecting the position and/or velocity we end up with an assumption that the particles can have multiple states? huh? It seems we are just proving our inability to observe.
Does anyone else get the impression that we keep "proving" our physical observations which are incredibly limited by current technology only to revise as our technology gets better?
I wonder how long it will be before we debunk all quantum mechanics?
I disagree that the majority of the public doesn't want good resolution. HDTVs are actually selling quite well even though you can't get much programming (if any) for them.
They offer free software initially as part of their startegy to be the ONLY software provider on EVERY home computer. Look at the Price of Office XP. I don't have the hard numbers to back it up, but I seem to remember getting Office for around $99 way back when. Now that its the standard its a $250 UPGRADE price! The strategy is to gain the market and THEN soak you for your dollars. Its a good strategy to make money but it IS illegal to leverage your monopoly in such a manner. Its called predatory pricing when you give software away for free that other companies charge money for. M$ has somehow been able to keep the government "watchdogs" (joke) completely SNOWED!
I like Nvidia technology but how long before we, as end-users, suffer from the lack of competition in the graphics chip area?
Its good to see another Intel competitior though!
Slashdot Mirror
Another Star Wars dissappointment
Holy Crap - it sounds like you feel bad for IBM?!?! Don't forget, they were the evil empire before Microsoft earned the title.
Debunk was probably a poor choice of words. But there have numerous times along the way when science has stated theory as fact only to later reverse. One obvious example that comes to mind is Dirac's equation which "solved" physics. Protons, electrons and nuetrons were the three "fundamental" bulding blocks of everything. You have to admit that what we call quantum mechanics today doesn't much resemble the quatum mechanics of the 1930's. But in the 1930's the perception was that physics had been "solved". I guess my point is more of a thought - I wonder how much of the modern day theory will be unchanged 50 years from now?
If your are dizzied by my intellect you are an idiot
As I responded in a different post, I just think we need to be sure and keep the perspective that these aren't necessarily truths but just the best information we have to date.
Well that is my point - we will never KNOW. We'll have theories that haven't been disproven yet. Although I would not argue that we shouldn't pursue knowledge - I'd just argue that we keep it in perspective.
But you are still relying on observations as the basis for your assumptions - so what if the observations are inaccurate? Or incomplete? As we develop new technologies that will enhance our ability to observe, isn't it likely we'll end up discarding much of today theory? For example, I've always had a hard time with Heisenberg's uncertainty principal and the move into Quantum Mechanics - so because we can't measure the position and velocity of a particle without affecting the position and/or velocity we end up with an assumption that the particles can have multiple states? huh? It seems we are just proving our inability to observe.
Depends on the E given off
Does anyone else get the impression that we keep "proving" our physical observations which are incredibly limited by current technology only to revise as our technology gets better? I wonder how long it will be before we debunk all quantum mechanics?
I disagree that the majority of the public doesn't want good resolution. HDTVs are actually selling quite well even though you can't get much programming (if any) for them.
I was refering to the upgrade version - Maybe I'm wrong.
They offer free software initially as part of their startegy to be the ONLY software provider on EVERY home computer. Look at the Price of Office XP. I don't have the hard numbers to back it up, but I seem to remember getting Office for around $99 way back when. Now that its the standard its a $250 UPGRADE price! The strategy is to gain the market and THEN soak you for your dollars. Its a good strategy to make money but it IS illegal to leverage your monopoly in such a manner. Its called predatory pricing when you give software away for free that other companies charge money for. M$ has somehow been able to keep the government "watchdogs" (joke) completely SNOWED!
I like Nvidia technology but how long before we, as end-users, suffer from the lack of competition in the graphics chip area? Its good to see another Intel competitior though!