Hey guys, this is probably in rupees. So, 5-6 figure salary in dollars.
Still, hats off to the guy for turning down a large pay hike.
i couldn't put it in the main article, but i spoke to Madhu back in november, and it was USD $24 million. i still won't say who the company was but you can guess easily. and yes, turning down that much money is extremely brave. basically he realised that he could either be another PhD in amongst 100 other PhDs, or he could go back to his country and help his citizens reclaim sovereignty over their computing devices. when you're faced with that kind of decision it's not really a choice that you can walk away from with a clear conscience.
with their children unable to hold pencils due to smartphone overuse
This struck me as interesting...
So, can you use a quill pen? How about clay tablet and stylus? If not, why not?
the report, which was linked here on slashdot a few weeks ago, was more worrisome than that. they said that kids who use tablets and smartphones persistently have significantly degraded fine motor control skills in their fingers and hands. they're not even using keyboards, they're pecking and tapping on a capacitive touchpanel.
It's a pretty logical move since as the summary says it's the fastest growing mobile market. It'll surely allow Samsung to sell the phones cheaper than if they brought them from abroad.
there's actually more to it than that. india, like a lot of countries, has a law that requires a foreign company that imports product to match those sales with *70%* locally-manufactured product *within india's borders*.
it is particularly telling that apple tried to demand an exemption to this law.
let us imagine for a moment that this law did not exist. or that apple got their way. apple iphones sell for what.. USD $1,000? what do you think would happen if every person in india - all billion-or-so of them - bought an apple iphone every year, just like people do in the West? that's a *TRILLION* dollars A YEAR flooding out of a sovereign nation to a foreign company.
such an exodus of cash would literally bankrupt the country, wouldn't it?
so this is why i am working with the IIT Madras and the Shakti Group, to create a libre risc-v processor (http://libre-riscv.org/shakti/m_class/) and it's also - completely independently - why Samsung has invested in this factory. they're taking Indian Law seriously.
but my feeling is: there's more to it, even than that.
i don't know if you're aware of this but the cost of living is getting so high in Shenzhen that it's becoming economically less and less attractive to have electronics products manufactured there. apple products being manufactured by foxconn, with an insatiable demand for components in massive volumes, does not help. but also, Western journalists interfering and sticking their noses in, claiming that standards of living are low, when even a few decades ago the parents and grandparents of the people working in the "sweat-shops" would live in the corner of a field, keeping warm at night by sleeping with cows, a pipe in the corner to provide water, and they would LITERALLY STARVE over the winter...... all that happened is that in the short term there was massive economic disruption to the Shenzhen ecosystem (which immediately pushed up prices), and in the long term Foxconn and other factories were forced to move manufacturing further north, to areas were Western Journalists are not granted visas. this story was one that i heard from some *who worked* at a Foxconn factory, explaining that the standard of living that people have in those factories, with light, and power, and heat, and four walls and a roof (instead of just a roof with no walls) and a bed to sleep on (instead of the ground) and food that they can get from food stalls in the street, 24 x 7 all year round, is a HUNDRED TIMES higher than anything that their parents and grandparents had.
so that disruption and interference by the West has caused large companies like Samsung to look at countries that have a much bigger economic gap: places where the wages are once again ten to a hundred or more times less than in the West, but where the sheer quantity of people available is overwhelming. India fits that extremely well. the only concern that i have is: will they be able to resist the deleterious effects of economic growth, and will they end up as mind-numbed as the rest of China, Taiwan and the West, with their children unable to hold pencils due to smartphone overuse, and will the population be unable to express or comprehend and read basic human facial expressions due to complete lack of social interaction as they stare at screens instead of *each other*?
a desktop app rolls out on a per-user basis, over time, and the desktop app is behind a users' own firewall (or NAT), which is their responsibility to maintain.
a webapp: you make one deployment error or one security snafu and the entire userbase - your entire business - comes crashing to a halt, effective immediate.
there's really no comparison. running a web service is scarily unforgiving of mistakes. the only real way for this to be fixed is to change the paradigm of what constitutes a web app: distributed services, distributed databases, and the web "app" be downloaded by the user and under the user's control as to when and whether they "upgrade". which requires such a large paradigm shift as to make it extremely difficult to consider. the only company that can be said to have successfully deployed this paradigm is google, with ChromeOS.
this is *very* interesting. i was aware that the cost of living in china has been rising for some time, but this makes it plain that with the increase in cost of living has also come an increase in income. consequently ordinary chinese citizens are BUYING from ABROAD, ONLINE: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sta...
if the USA starts screwing around with a trade war, they're going to lose out basically.
And what EXACTLY would be a way of going about it all right? We've tried court orders, we've tried asking politely, we've tried everything imaginable and China has laughed while stealing intellectual property from American businesses and destroying American jobs. It was time to stand up the international criminals in China. Trump did that. I don't love the guy by any means, but what he did needed to be done and, as GerryGillmore said, it should have been done 30 years ago.
so... i've been reading this quuite a lot recently http://www.crnhq.org/12-Skills... because of an ongoing situation on the riscv mailing lists. what all that stuff on crnhq tells me is that it's best to look for win-win situations. not to try to prove yourself right by making other people look wrong, for example.
world-wide, trade for basic goods right the way to high-tech goods is critically dependent on china. we did that to ourselves, world-wide, no excuses, by buying goods based on price instead of loyalty to our own country. the only real big exception that i know of to that rule in america is the Ford Mustang. look up the story behind the Ford Probe (aka the Mazda MX3). that was supposed to be the 1990s Mustang.
now look at how large China is, in terms of population. you think they have it easy? you think 1.3 going on 1.4 billion people can be kept under control through "democracy"?? you're deluding yourself if you think that "mob rule" is a good idea for keeping that many people under control. they keep people under control by making sure that they're kept busy, kept occupied in factories that any other country in their right mind would automate.
now take a look at how a self-righteous US perspective "y'all stealing our shit" might pan out, given the above context. what's the first and foremost priority of any Chinese Strategic decision-maker? keeping their citizens occupied so that they don't riot, such that they have to start an international war to take their minds off of killing each other with civil war instead, isn't it? that's their top priority, isn't it?
and we have some fucking idiot president in the USA who, just like you, anonymous coward, wants to get all uppity and "protect america's rights"... by starting a trade war?? i mean wtf?? are you high? are you smoking crack?? you have *no idea* of how dangerous it is to piss china off these days.
the only hope that we have is that the people making decisions in China are smarter than the extremely dumb "reactive" mentally-retarded ones in the USA. i *believe* that they will have people doing strategic scenario analysis that minimises the chances of china ending up rioting and consequenly having to start a war. such as working out where and how to influence people in the USA by hitting imports with agricultural trade tariffs of over 20%, and starting patent lawsuits that hit the largest US semiconductor companies.
China is acting EXTREMELY smart, here, basically, by putting warning shots across the US economic bow. but for god's sake Anonymous Coward you *have* to understand and take seriously that the consequences of China going down the shitter is basically that the USA's stupid, stupid reactionary politics will indirectly start World War 3, alright?
so if you don't want that to happen, get off your high horse, call your Congressman, call your Senator, and tell them to pressurise Trump to back the fuck off, ok? give them that crnhq.org website link and tell them to damn well read it, ok?
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
that's down to creating a "brand" - a trademark in which people can "trust". it's a very reasonable, rational argument that assumes that there is a central "higher" authority to which one may appeal in the instance(s) where attackers make attempts to "phish" that name "bruce perens". for example by attackers registering bruceperens.info, or bruceperens.io, or bruceperens.name and so on. all of these you can go to a court of law for trademark infringement - the "higher authority" - or present a copyright registration certificate to nominet - the "higher authority" - and so on.
now let's roll back about 15+ years, to before these insane and extremely dangerous real-name policies existed. you're on the internet, it's lawless, you have *no* idea who you are talking to. you have no idea if they're a real person. you have no idea if they're who they say they are... and ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
consequently, because everyone KNOWS that you absolutely do not, under ANY circumstances, EVER trust someone by their ***NAME AND NAME ALONE***, everything's fine. even people who use GPG *know* that the digital signature does not authenticate the *person*, it authenticates the *key* that the person is *responsible* for. or, if they don't, they're damn fools, but that's another story.
now let's move forward to the incredibly dangerous and extremely insidious but "perfectly justified" real-name policies. google. facebook. establishing themselves as "god". the "higher authority" to which we must appeal. the "higher authority" that we must place our absolute absolute faith and trust in, or be told "go fuck yourself and oh incidentally we're terminating access to 10 years worth of business email (and we don't give a fuck) because you REFUSED to accept our google+ real-name policy".
what effect do these "real name" policies have? where previously EVERYONE KNEW that you NEVER trusted an online identity... suddenly we can?? oink?
and what happens when that system fails? what happens when someone claims via one of these "real name" policies to be the President of the United States and sends out a "fake message" that there's a nuclear strike been ordered? what happens when someone claims to be their doctor, and orders them to send pictures of themselves naked for quotes medical review quotes? what happens when the "real named" account is COMPROMISED?
it's *unbelievably* dangerous to blindly place our trust and faith in these criminally-pathological companies that are so deluded by their belief that they can take away our right to be responsible for our own lives and decisions that we LET them, en-masse, sleep-walking into incredibly dangerous scenarios.
PLEASE WAKE UP, people. take responsibility for checking if people are who they say they are NOT by their "real name" but by heuristics on their *behaviour*.
i got phished on facebook by someone pretending to be my deputy head-master from 30 years ago. it took me almost 10 minutes to work out that they weren't that person. facebook had allowed the phisher to use the EXACT same name - and their photograph. if instead facebook had gone by "handles", like people used to 15+ years ago, (and like yahoo still does) the extra numbers on the end of the name would have given the game away almost immediately.
The use of the x86 instruction set wasn't the big issue with Larrabee. Larrabee would have been a bad idea no matter if it used ARM or MIPS opcodes instead. Using x86 didn't help, but that was just one among many issues of that architecture. The issues of the Larrabee architecture are things such as no fixed function hardware for things such as z-buffering or rasterization, not enough hardware threads to hide the memory latency, memory interface with not that much bandwidth but expensive but not that often usefull cache coherency, etc, SIMD units were not wide enough etc.
this pretty much hits it on the nail: it's the fixed functions that get the high-performance, and larrabee was specifically designed to experiment with *general-purpose* 3D software rendering (so things like fixed-functions were *deliberately* left out). jeff bush from nyuzi did the research and also published some posts describing his findings and analysis of other architectures https://jbush001.github.io/ - well worth reading.
i've pointed this out here on slashdot a number of times, dating back at least... six years possibly more. the first really clear signs were when ARM came out with the first dual-core ARM Cortex A9 side-by-side demonstration of running a web browser (linux desktop OS) side-by-side with a 1.6ghz intel Atom. it kept up and in some cases loaded pages before the intel processor. at the end of the demo they showed the clock rate of the ARM chip: only 600mhz.
intel was a memory company. they're proud of their heritage. they designed the world's most efficient and compact memory-efficient instruction set because memory was damn expensive. if you got more instructions into memory, you ran faster, you needed smaller caches, and your product was cheaper.... except... decoding those instructions takes time. you now have to run the clock at twice the speed of a RISC core in order to decode those "compact" instructions into the same equivalent RISC ones. and that's where things go wrong for intel, because power consumption is a SQUARE law. if the clock rate has to be double, the power consumption is FOUR times greater.
i've made comments regularly about this: it's only because intel was putting vast sums of money into foundries, staying at least one geometry ahead (28nm when everyone else was using 40nm), that nobody really noticed or complained too much, because by being one geometry ahead you reduce power by a factor of 2.... but they're no longer ahead, now, are they?
now that the power advantages of geometries are beginning to run out (as well as the cost being higher and the yields lower), intel's *really* in trouble, and it all boils down to the design of the instruction set.
they have one hope left: abandon x86 and start making non-x86 instruction set designs. it'll be a really *really* tough sell, but if they can do that they have a chance.
If your code is so complex that you need significant amounts of work just to maintain it, you have done something wrong.
i replied to this already (and moderators reacted badly to plain simple facts and the detrimental consequences that had for my health and my family's well-being, so i'll have to repeat it again). certain classes of (desirable) technical designs / problems are simply not possible to implement in "simple" ways. you just can't. these include things like dynamic name-registration / publication / defending services (like nmbd and sadly zeroconf which is nearly identical to nmbd), NT Domains Interoperability, MSRPC, DCOM, Firefox, webkit, and pretty much absolutely anything and everything to do with cryptography.
anyone can *and has* written a web server, and anyone can and has written a web framework. modular, too, and damn good designs.
but things like the NT SpoolSS service took TWO YEARS to reverse-engineer. the network neighbourhood in samba for example took THREE years to implement correctly - that was with about 3 separate people working on it at different points.
Firefox is a particularly sad case, unfortunately, where even with money and funding they still didn't go far enough in the "complexity". if you recall that adage "must be as simple as possible but no simpler", Firefox's XPCOM was "based" around DCOM. DCOM is *extremely* well-designed and when you drop a dynamic programming language (like python) on top of DCOM it's absolutely unbelievable: so simple to use that absolutely nobody using it has any idea that there's been man-decades of work gone in behind it: everything "just works".
in DCOM there's something called co-classes. co-classes are like the dynamic run-time equivalent of c++ multiple-inheritance. even using c you can do "default parameters" by declaring two (or three, or four) near-identical functions, each slightly longer (one extra parameter), and declare a "co-class" that MERGES all those near-identical functions into one (new) interface.
Firefox failed to implement co-classes in XPCOM.
that resulted in some absolutely disastrous consequences. absolutely any and every change to the API resulted in a cascade of incompatibility for 3rd parties trying to use the XULRUNNER engine in their code. why did they change the API? because normally you would declare a new interface and co-class it. without co-classes you're completely f*****d, you *must* change the API, and that completely and utterly wrecks interoperability: it's not like gcc dynamic linking, the actual *interface* DISAPPEARS because it gets renumbered as part of the change.
am i painting a picture here that this sort of thing simply is too complex for a single person, part-time, to cope with? am i painting a picture that trying to SIMPLIFY something that should not have been simplified results in disastrous consequences? if so then i've managed to get the point across.
p.s. you can fund my current work here - http://liberapay.com/lkcl - that's a libre version of patreon.
Oh shut up, you live in Taiwan, you need like 50 dollars a year to live there.
actually it's around USD $1200 a month ($400 for rent, and food for myself and my family is around $700, because things like butter cost around USD $3 for 250 grams, and a 1L bottle of milk is around USD $4). if i was in taipei city that would be around USD $3,000 or above, as rent there is about the same level as shenzhen, london and cambridge.
You doing that after work. On weekends. For the community.
Work in your free time so the programs you support do one thing and do it well.
*NO*. this is extremely dangerous advice, for certain classes / types of projects: those with extreme complexity. you're no doubt familiar with the adages and articles that have made the rounds here on slashdot: the ones about attention span (how it takes 20 minutes to recover from interruptions), about information retention (the "7 things in your head" myth), and so on.
an article that *hasn't* made its way onto here in the 15+ years i've been on slashdot is the difference between, and purpose of, electrical and chemical neuron memory. electrical is the short-term "immediate" memory. it's what you lose if you get hit on the head. chemical memory is long-term retrieval and it's much more difficult to access ("it's on the tip of my tongue", "just sleep on it", "author syndrome" and so on).
what happens is that things that you can't recall and those things you're not recalling regularly are swapped over during sleep. it's why you can remember things if you're working on them regularly, and why if you're struggling to remember something you can do so the next day (it's also why not getting decent sleep before exams is not a good idea).
you should by now have the basics of why i'm posting this, but it's worth explicitly writing: certain kinds of complex tasks, which require *significant* information retrieval and cross-referencing, as well as creativity *and* engineering, are just far too much for any human being on the planet to achieve without ***FULL TIME*** focus.
reverse-engineering is one such task. it literally took me six to eight weeks in some cases to find a single bit amongst hundreds of packet replays, that one bit being responsible for whether it was possible to proceed to the next packet or not. that was six to eight weeks FULL TIME at 12 to 14 hours a day.
and that resulted in me going into serious, serious debt... which i'm still paying back, over 12 years later! why? well... was any fucking fucking fucker paying me to do that work? was anyone fucking well giving me money to do that work? no they fucking well weren't. and when that work was released under GPLv2+ licenses, what did people do? they went "oo thank you very much, i'll have that, it saves my business an absolute fortune"... completely failing to reward or compensate me for that work. some other free software projects actually even blatantly copied my work (used it as a template) and failed to give credit so it's not even *known* that i did that work.
several people in high-profile projects - myself included - have not been properly compensated for our work, and gone into serious, serious debt as a result. the gentoo developer who ended up with USD $40,000 of credit-card debt and had to get a job with *microsoft* of all companies. the GPG developer who ended up with USD $10,000 of debt despite the fact the GPG is one of *the* most widely-used security programs around!
the only reason why certain critical software projects (openssl for example) actually started to get funded a few years back was because of shellshock, heartbleed and other serious vulnerabilities. companies started to realise that they were making an absolute fortune but were spongeing off of peoples' expertise and not properly paying them to be able to do the work to fix even basic security vulnerabilities.
so no. it is NOT the case that everything can be broken down into the unix maxim "do one thing and do it well". certain classes of engineering projects simply do not succeed until they have reached a particularly high level of internal complexity (DCOM is one extremely good example, i won't go into details like i have in the past).
to imply that *all* free software projects can be broken down into small tasks that can be done "in people's spare time" is to completely misunderstand software engineering and to do free software
i've mentioned this before, on other articles that mention lithium batteries and electric vehicles. cobalt is not the only element involved that's in short supply: there isn't enough copper, there isn't enough neodymium, and lithium is a material that explodes when brought into contact with air and water. copper piping and wiring is already stolen from buildings and from church roofs.
neodymium, i don't know if you've ever investigated how it's refined, but it's a radioactive-decay byproduct, meaning that it's only found in amongst *radioactive* deposits (where do you think those are dumped?) and the actual refining itself requires a THOUSAND LITRES of boiling sulphuric acid per 1kg of neodymium. the black market factory photos from remote places in china are shocking... chimney stacks just dumping sulphuric acid fumes directly into the air, and the waste dumped in the nearest river, poisoning the local environment for hundreds of miles downstream.
and we have western governments, whose populations of course do not live anywhere near these mines and factories in Congo or China, banning diesel cars on the basis that they "create pollution", i mean...i'm really shocked by the total lack of understanding and appreciation of the true consequences of tthese "environmentally-friendly" decisions.
i've been trying for many years now, but i honestly have absolutely no idea how to get this across to people that we need to trim down the *amount* of materials needed in vehicles. Category L7e "Heavy Quadricycles" such as Riversimple's design concept, the Renault Twizzy and so on, these are perfect: tuned up these small sub-350kg vehicles can go nearly110km/h (70mph), just like some quad-bikes, and that's with only 25HP!
the concept is called "Mass Decompounding", you don't need power-assisted brakes, you don't need power-steering, you can use cross-radial hard silicon compound tires which will last 80,000 miles and have a rolling resistance coeffficient three times less than a standard tire... *all because of the dramatically-reduced weight*. and that reduced weight means a smaller engine, and if it's hybrid or electric it means a smaller battery.
please do not assume that you know what is going on in my mind. you don't have the right to tell me what i think.
can do that will guarantee him fame and fortune, whatever the nay-sayers may do to quash him. It is this: predict something the Large Hadron Collider will detect, after its upgrade, that is not predicted by the Standard Model.
Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of science. If you don't make a new prediction, you can mess around all day - like the string theory folks - but you're not doing science.
you're absolutely right.... but he would not receive funding for doing so, would he? he's *specifically* focussing on servicing the needs of the investors, isn't he? because they're the ones that were prepared to give him money, aren't they?
where would he get the money from to fund the 5-10 years needed to get to the point of making the predictions that you suggest?
and what would be achieved by doing so? would people say "well done, here's some money for succeeding, to repay the massive financial debt that you had to accrue in order to get to this point" ?
the work that he did branched off from the neutron, proton, neutrino, electron and muon, into the periodic table instead, because *that's what investors would give him money for*. it would be a MASSIVE effort to take the path that you've suggested. i know... because it's the one that i've chosen to pursue, and i can only pursue that path due to having done part-time *THIRTY YEARS* of parallel research and investigation.
so i hear what you're saying... it's just that there's no financial reward for pursuing the avenue that you suggest, whereas the one he chose does (and i'm personally not in the slightest bit interested in that path)
it makes sense, it's consistent, it's self-consistent, there *are* mistakes, there *are* "missing pieces"... but the core makes perfect sense even to me with A-Level maths.
You're OK with a theory with mistakes visible and missing pieces... but you're bothered by theories with "magic constants"? Interesting double standard you have going there.
not at all. there's a huge difference between the theories. also, please don't think that by saying "yes i have noticed mistakes" that those mistakes are deal-breakers: the signs are, to me - (the hypothesis that i am working on is ) - that there's simply a third or fourth term missing from some of the equations that results in inaccuracies creeping in at the *TENTH* decimal place and beyond. you can't possibly tell me that inaccuracy at the TENTH decimal place means that an entire theory should be thrown out.
* firstly, dr mill's work branches off after working out formulae for electrons, neutrons, protons and neutrinos, with a small (accurate) side-diversion into the muon (so my interest is in pursuing and extending that base, where dr mills made a pragmatic practical decision to get the work funded by focussing on what would attract investment). the Standard Model covers a much wider range of particles, however newer ones are no longer fitting in it, and the ones that *do* "fit" are done by... creating tables with "magic constants" based on the **EXPERIMENTAL DATA**, *not* on **ACTUAL MATH OR THEORY**.
* secondly, the Standard Model moves absolutely everything into the frequency domain, then uses partial differential equations, approximations, supercomputers and outright plain-and-simple hand-pushed, hand-crafted "magic constants", whereas, Dr Mill's work keeps it in the "real" world, uses Fourier Transforms *where necessary*, has only speed of light, alpha and planck's as "fundamental constants", has NO partial differential equations OF ANY KIND, has no approximations OF ANY KIND, and, whilst hard to follow (for me), are logical, step-by-step and consistent.
in other words the Standard Model is a "house of cards" based on a stack of 26+ completely unexplained "magic constants" (where alpha and planck's are two of them, which is perfectly understandable, but a whopping 18 are a pair of 3x3 matrices based on experimental data which most certainly is not) whereas dr mill's work uses planck's and alpha and NOTHING else. there's zero supposition, zero approximation, zero guess-work, zero postulation.
applying occam's razor or kolmogorov complexity, whatever metric you choose, there's absolutely no comparison between the two theories.
An important ability among scientists is a strong grasp of critical thinking. This should have led you, to researching Randall Mills, and seeing his track record for fantastic claims and promised technological advances, which come to nothing - yet which keeping fooling investors into giving him millions.
Use your head...apply you critical thinking abilities a bit more consistently...
if i had followed the advice that you've given back in 1996 i would never have succeeded in the NT Domains 4.0 reverse-engineering for samba, which saved companies world-wide hundreds of millions of dollars in proprietary microsoft server licensing fees.
i'm going to have to stop pointing out things on this thread as too many people are repeating the same fundamentally-flawed logical reasoning. reverse-engineering requires that you not "pass judgement" even when looking at a single bit. my peers at the time were unable to follow this rule, passing "judgement" on the "stupidity" of decisions made by microsoft engineers in, for example, passing in parameters for graphical window handles that were always NULL and were *always* passed over the network.
a sane well-designed API would never have been allowed to do such stupid things, and my peers' *disbelief* at such stupidity - "judgement" - *ACTIVELY* prevented and prohibited them from being successful reverse-engineers.
so let me go through it, one more time, to point out the logical flaw in the reasoning that you're working with
* a theory was developed from the ground up in multiple stages * the first stages established the ground rules * based on those first stages the electron, proton, neutron and neutrino formulae were developed * the formulae are dead-accurate to 10dp of experimental real-world measurements. * subsequent work went into depth on top of that base [which i'm personally not interested in] * hydrino theory and the promise of clean energy, just like with nikolai tesla's promises, resulted in long-term investment (where earlier stages of the theory clearly do not).
now.
here's where everyone is going wrong. they haven't even bothered to read the papers to the point where they can even do the above kind of simple analysis, have they?
so what is the *actual* connection between fuckwits who are incapable of or cannot be bothered to even read a published work, and the "judgement" that you make which throws the entire work out based on OTHER PEOPLE'S MASS-PREJUDICE.
bottom line: instead of reading the PAPERs, you read someone else's mass-hysterical mass-prejudiced OPINION, didn't you? if you didn't actually read the PAPERs yourself, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me what i should or should not do, absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me how i should go about making decisions, do you?
the point is, you conflate "critical thinking" with "passing judgement based on laziness, opinion and prejudice". sorry to have to be the one to inform you of that.
Anyway, if you really are looking for alternate theories, might I suggest my own alternate theory?
appreciated. to evaluate it, i need to see some papers: some mathematical equations, i don't mind if they're in text form or PDF form, however PDF is the standard format. words outlining the "features and benefits" without actually giving the *actual* maths and a step-by-step recipe on how a mathematician can follow them, won't help, and nor will videos of the same.
do you have something like that available? i use vixra as it's self-publishing.
Is there a short article I can read to learn the basic terminology of particle colliders? I just need to make condescending remarks about this device and dismiss the efforts of hundreds of experts.
try looking on twitter: i'm told it's a good site for short opinions below 140 characters, 280 for more recent ones (wow!). i hear you can then use the same platform to reach millions of people with the proposed dismissive condescending remarks, too!:)
I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.
sorry, the answer was: despite wishing that science actually worked that way (that eventually someone notices the theory and it gets the attention it deserves), in this particular case i suspect that, sadly, that will be several decades before it occurs. some time after the Standard Model's flaws are finally admitted and people *finally* start looking for alternatives. right now, they're just so blinkered that you could walk up to one of them in the street, put the paper in front of them and go "HERE! ANSWERS!" and they'd outright reject them. you can't force people to listen, basically, not in any field, no matter how much they *think* they are "open-minded", even if they *call* themselves "scientists".
I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.
btw, it doesn't bother me that there are magic numbers. We have the gravitational constant, and no one has any clue why that is the number it is.
yeah, i know: that one really bothers me that it's only accurate to around 6 decimal places, planck's constant is 10 if recall without looking at nist.gov CODATA website.... the most accurate is the rydberg constant at 12... but planck's constant trashes the accuracy of a whole stack of constants down to only 10, including electric charge, as, fascinatingly, the constants involving planck, mass and electric charge are all self-referential (cyclic). bit of a bummer, that!:)
as a reverse-engineer i've had to totally avoid gravity or anything to do with gravity because of the inaccuracy of G. you just can't do statistical analysis to any level of certainty. 10dp and above is where it starts to get *really* interesting.
i hear you on the "magic numbers", though. as a reverse-engineer i fully appreciate that it's absolutely essential to defer "understanding" until later, working on the pieces of the puzzle that you *can* work on. they're basically place-holders which, *hopefully*, at some point in the future, someone *might* come up with a good theoretical derivation for them, and we're "home and dry". the problem is, there's over *twenty six* in the standard model. two whopping great 3x3 matrices with *nine* totally unexplained entries each are just the start.
but, the bigger problem is: those magic constants have been there for decades. *surely* by now you'd think that, after all this time, thousands of scientists working on the "Standard" Model would have *some* idea about what's behind them, right?
this is the "warning sign" that the Standard Model is in a dead-end rut.
Einstein did some of his most insightful work while making a living as a patent specialist. Don't blame "**FUNDING**" for the inability of all the alternative theories to come up with testable predictions. If the theory doesn't have obvious flaws and has a testable prediction, it will eventually gain enough respect from the theorist and enough curiosity from experimental scientists. Even Einstein's groundbreaking "special relativity" was mostly ignored at first
i honestly and truly wish that what you say here had happened. i wish that theoretical physicists would even take a single glance at the work, on the basis that the calculations for the electron g/2 and mass come out to 10 decimal places accurate. can you tell me, why are theoretical physicists from the rest of the scientific community not looking at that?
i have friends in a small group, we're supposed to be open-minded, having seen how closed-minded the scientific community can be when it comes to "against the grain" ideas. i put dr mill's work in front of them... and what happened? total disbelief!! it was a bit of an eye-opener, and we managed to work out why over a period of a few months. the disbelief was down to the fact that Dr Mills does *NOT* use Yang-Mills (Maxwell's Equations moved to the Frequency Domain i.e. Quantum Mechanics). instead what he does is, he uses *straight* Maxwell's Equations, applies FFT's *WHERE NEEDED*, and uses Special Relativity corrections to the particle's radius. all of which he goes through in detail, step-by-step, from first principles.
this demonstrates the sorts of blindspots that even theories that have the "correct answer" come up against. they're rejected due to peoples' *disbelief*. they don't even *look* at it. i wish that that wasn't the case, but it is, Dorianny. that's just how people are.
So, I think we can safely ignore this. At least until a physics defying battery shows up on the market.
ath1901: the battery is just one direction, that mills was forced to explore because, just like tesla, mills was only able to get investor funding for the *theoretical* work by promising something that would "make money".
unfortunately, as you've probably seen from the wikipedia page (which i deliberately haven't read), there are a lot of fuckwits who are basically doing the secular "mob rule" equivalent of an Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
do you follow "mob rule", ath1901? you know how that works, right? i don't want you to feel offended by me asking that question: it's rhetorical: i'm simply asking you to consider re-reading that page with the phrases "mob rule" and "Gallileo's Inquisition" foremost in your mind, ok?
i've deliberately ignored *all* that crap. i'm not interested. i'm not even interested in whether hydrinos are real or theoretical or not. i'm interested in how the hell he managed to get 10 decimal places of accuracy for the electron and proton mass and g/2 magnetic moment without any approximations, postulations, speculation or partial differential equations. because that's just an absolutely astounding mathematical achievement that's completely unparalleled.
the _really_ interesting bit to me is the fact that his work is *only* around 10 decimal places of accuracy, not 12 (the current experimental uncertainty on the electron g/2 magnetic moment). it means that dr mills has missed something: an extra term in the theoretical equations, somewhere. that's possibly going to take decades to analyse and explore.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey guys, this is probably in rupees. So, 5-6 figure salary in dollars.
Still, hats off to the guy for turning down a large pay hike.
i couldn't put it in the main article, but i spoke to Madhu back in november, and it was USD $24 million. i still won't say who the company was but you can guess easily. and yes, turning down that much money is extremely brave. basically he realised that he could either be another PhD in amongst 100 other PhDs, or he could go back to his country and help his citizens reclaim sovereignty over their computing devices. when you're faced with that kind of decision it's not really a choice that you can walk away from with a clear conscience.
Please attempt to develop English language abilities expected of a high school freshman before trying to be cute with things like "El Reg."
Really. This is absurd.
it's what they call themselves! and i lurnd inglish from bwainiac https://google.com/search?q=br..."i+can+do+science"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://google.com/search?q="el+reg"
*sigh* it worked fine when i previewed it. https://groups.riscv.org/forum... - i've emailed help@slashdot.org they should fix it soon enough
i wanted to provide lots for people to debate, rather than just "repeat someone else's story" like much of the internet "news" tends to be these days.
This struck me as interesting...
So, can you use a quill pen? How about clay tablet and stylus? If not, why not?
the report, which was linked here on slashdot a few weeks ago, was more worrisome than that. they said that kids who use tablets and smartphones persistently have significantly degraded fine motor control skills in their fingers and hands. they're not even using keyboards, they're pecking and tapping on a capacitive touchpanel.
It's a pretty logical move since as the summary says it's the fastest growing mobile market. It'll surely allow Samsung to sell the phones cheaper than if they brought them from abroad.
there's actually more to it than that. india, like a lot of countries, has a law that requires a foreign company that imports product to match those sales with *70%* locally-manufactured product *within india's borders*.
it is particularly telling that apple tried to demand an exemption to this law.
let us imagine for a moment that this law did not exist. or that apple got their way. apple iphones sell for what.. USD $1,000? what do you think would happen if every person in india - all billion-or-so of them - bought an apple iphone every year, just like people do in the West? that's a *TRILLION* dollars A YEAR flooding out of a sovereign nation to a foreign company.
such an exodus of cash would literally bankrupt the country, wouldn't it?
so this is why i am working with the IIT Madras and the Shakti Group, to create a libre risc-v processor (http://libre-riscv.org/shakti/m_class/) and it's also - completely independently - why Samsung has invested in this factory. they're taking Indian Law seriously.
but my feeling is: there's more to it, even than that.
i don't know if you're aware of this but the cost of living is getting so high in Shenzhen that it's becoming economically less and less attractive to have electronics products manufactured there. apple products being manufactured by foxconn, with an insatiable demand for components in massive volumes, does not help. but also, Western journalists interfering and sticking their noses in, claiming that standards of living are low, when even a few decades ago the parents and grandparents of the people working in the "sweat-shops" would live in the corner of a field, keeping warm at night by sleeping with cows, a pipe in the corner to provide water, and they would LITERALLY STARVE over the winter... ... all that happened is that in the short term there was massive economic disruption to the Shenzhen ecosystem (which immediately pushed up prices), and in the long term Foxconn and other factories were forced to move manufacturing further north, to areas were Western Journalists are not granted visas. this story was one that i heard from some *who worked* at a Foxconn factory, explaining that the standard of living that people have in those factories, with light, and power, and heat, and four walls and a roof (instead of just a roof with no walls) and a bed to sleep on (instead of the ground) and food that they can get from food stalls in the street, 24 x 7 all year round, is a HUNDRED TIMES higher than anything that their parents and grandparents had.
so that disruption and interference by the West has caused large companies like Samsung to look at countries that have a much bigger economic gap: places where the wages are once again ten to a hundred or more times less than in the West, but where the sheer quantity of people available is overwhelming. India fits that extremely well. the only concern that i have is: will they be able to resist the deleterious effects of economic growth, and will they end up as mind-numbed as the rest of China, Taiwan and the West, with their children unable to hold pencils due to smartphone overuse, and will the population be unable to express or comprehend and read basic human facial expressions due to complete lack of social interaction as they stare at screens instead of *each other*?
a desktop app rolls out on a per-user basis, over time, and the desktop app is behind a users' own firewall (or NAT), which is their responsibility to maintain.
a webapp: you make one deployment error or one security snafu and the entire userbase - your entire business - comes crashing to a halt, effective immediate.
there's really no comparison. running a web service is scarily unforgiving of mistakes. the only real way for this to be fixed is to change the paradigm of what constitutes a web app: distributed services, distributed databases, and the web "app" be downloaded by the user and under the user's control as to when and whether they "upgrade". which requires such a large paradigm shift as to make it extremely difficult to consider. the only company that can be said to have successfully deployed this paradigm is google, with ChromeOS.
this is *very* interesting. i was aware that the cost of living in china has been rising for some time, but this makes it plain that with the increase in cost of living has also come an increase in income. consequently ordinary chinese citizens are BUYING from ABROAD, ONLINE: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sta...
if the USA starts screwing around with a trade war, they're going to lose out basically.
And what EXACTLY would be a way of going about it all right? We've tried court orders, we've tried asking politely, we've tried everything imaginable and China has laughed while stealing intellectual property from American businesses and destroying American jobs. It was time to stand up the international criminals in China. Trump did that. I don't love the guy by any means, but what he did needed to be done and, as GerryGillmore said, it should have been done 30 years ago.
so... i've been reading this quuite a lot recently http://www.crnhq.org/12-Skills... because of an ongoing situation on the riscv mailing lists. what all that stuff on crnhq tells me is that it's best to look for win-win situations. not to try to prove yourself right by making other people look wrong, for example.
world-wide, trade for basic goods right the way to high-tech goods is critically dependent on china. we did that to ourselves, world-wide, no excuses, by buying goods based on price instead of loyalty to our own country. the only real big exception that i know of to that rule in america is the Ford Mustang. look up the story behind the Ford Probe (aka the Mazda MX3). that was supposed to be the 1990s Mustang.
now look at how large China is, in terms of population. you think they have it easy? you think 1.3 going on 1.4 billion people can be kept under control through "democracy"?? you're deluding yourself if you think that "mob rule" is a good idea for keeping that many people under control. they keep people under control by making sure that they're kept busy, kept occupied in factories that any other country in their right mind would automate.
now take a look at how a self-righteous US perspective "y'all stealing our shit" might pan out, given the above context. what's the first and foremost priority of any Chinese Strategic decision-maker? keeping their citizens occupied so that they don't riot, such that they have to start an international war to take their minds off of killing each other with civil war instead, isn't it? that's their top priority, isn't it?
and we have some fucking idiot president in the USA who, just like you, anonymous coward, wants to get all uppity and "protect america's rights"... by starting a trade war?? i mean wtf?? are you high? are you smoking crack?? you have *no idea* of how dangerous it is to piss china off these days.
the only hope that we have is that the people making decisions in China are smarter than the extremely dumb "reactive" mentally-retarded ones in the USA. i *believe* that they will have people doing strategic scenario analysis that minimises the chances of china ending up rioting and consequenly having to start a war. such as working out where and how to influence people in the USA by hitting imports with agricultural trade tariffs of over 20%, and starting patent lawsuits that hit the largest US semiconductor companies.
China is acting EXTREMELY smart, here, basically, by putting warning shots across the US economic bow. but for god's sake Anonymous Coward you *have* to understand and take seriously that the consequences of China going down the shitter is basically that the USA's stupid, stupid reactionary politics will indirectly start World War 3, alright?
so if you don't want that to happen, get off your high horse, call your Congressman, call your Senator, and tell them to pressurise Trump to back the fuck off, ok? give them that crnhq.org website link and tell them to damn well read it, ok?
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
that's down to creating a "brand" - a trademark in which people can "trust". it's a very reasonable, rational argument that assumes that there is a central "higher" authority to which one may appeal in the instance(s) where attackers make attempts to "phish" that name "bruce perens". for example by attackers registering bruceperens.info, or bruceperens.io, or bruceperens.name and so on. all of these you can go to a court of law for trademark infringement - the "higher authority" - or present a copyright registration certificate to nominet - the "higher authority" - and so on.
now let's roll back about 15+ years, to before these insane and extremely dangerous real-name policies existed. you're on the internet, it's lawless, you have *no* idea who you are talking to. you have no idea if they're a real person. you have no idea if they're who they say they are... and ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
consequently, because everyone KNOWS that you absolutely do not, under ANY circumstances, EVER trust someone by their ***NAME AND NAME ALONE***, everything's fine. even people who use GPG *know* that the digital signature does not authenticate the *person*, it authenticates the *key* that the person is *responsible* for. or, if they don't, they're damn fools, but that's another story.
now let's move forward to the incredibly dangerous and extremely insidious but "perfectly justified" real-name policies. google. facebook. establishing themselves as "god". the "higher authority" to which we must appeal. the "higher authority" that we must place our absolute absolute faith and trust in, or be told "go fuck yourself and oh incidentally we're terminating access to 10 years worth of business email (and we don't give a fuck) because you REFUSED to accept our google+ real-name policy".
what effect do these "real name" policies have? where previously EVERYONE KNEW that you NEVER trusted an online identity... suddenly we can?? oink?
and what happens when that system fails? what happens when someone claims via one of these "real name" policies to be the President of the United States and sends out a "fake message" that there's a nuclear strike been ordered? what happens when someone claims to be their doctor, and orders them to send pictures of themselves naked for quotes medical review quotes? what happens when the "real named" account is COMPROMISED?
it's *unbelievably* dangerous to blindly place our trust and faith in these criminally-pathological companies that are so deluded by their belief that they can take away our right to be responsible for our own lives and decisions that we LET them, en-masse, sleep-walking into incredibly dangerous scenarios.
PLEASE WAKE UP, people. take responsibility for checking if people are who they say they are NOT by their "real name" but by heuristics on their *behaviour*.
i got phished on facebook by someone pretending to be my deputy head-master from 30 years ago. it took me almost 10 minutes to work out that they weren't that person. facebook had allowed the phisher to use the EXACT same name - and their photograph. if instead facebook had gone by "handles", like people used to 15+ years ago, (and like yahoo still does) the extra numbers on the end of the name would have given the game away almost immediately.
The use of the x86 instruction set wasn't the big issue with Larrabee. Larrabee would have been a bad idea no matter if it used ARM or MIPS opcodes instead. Using x86 didn't help, but that was just one among many issues of that architecture. The issues of the Larrabee architecture are things such as no fixed function hardware for things such as z-buffering or rasterization, not enough hardware threads to hide the memory latency, memory interface with not that much bandwidth but expensive but not that often usefull cache coherency, etc, SIMD units were not wide enough etc.
this pretty much hits it on the nail: it's the fixed functions that get the high-performance, and larrabee was specifically designed to experiment with *general-purpose* 3D software rendering (so things like fixed-functions were *deliberately* left out). jeff bush from nyuzi did the research and also published some posts describing his findings and analysis of other architectures https://jbush001.github.io/ - well worth reading.
i've pointed this out here on slashdot a number of times, dating back at least... six years possibly more. the first really clear signs were when ARM came out with the first dual-core ARM Cortex A9 side-by-side demonstration of running a web browser (linux desktop OS) side-by-side with a 1.6ghz intel Atom. it kept up and in some cases loaded pages before the intel processor. at the end of the demo they showed the clock rate of the ARM chip: only 600mhz.
intel was a memory company. they're proud of their heritage. they designed the world's most efficient and compact memory-efficient instruction set because memory was damn expensive. if you got more instructions into memory, you ran faster, you needed smaller caches, and your product was cheaper. ... except... decoding those instructions takes time. you now have to run the clock at twice the speed of a RISC core in order to decode those "compact" instructions into the same equivalent RISC ones. and that's where things go wrong for intel, because power consumption is a SQUARE law. if the clock rate has to be double, the power consumption is FOUR times greater.
i've made comments regularly about this: it's only because intel was putting vast sums of money into foundries, staying at least one geometry ahead (28nm when everyone else was using 40nm), that nobody really noticed or complained too much, because by being one geometry ahead you reduce power by a factor of 2. ... but they're no longer ahead, now, are they?
now that the power advantages of geometries are beginning to run out (as well as the cost being higher and the yields lower), intel's *really* in trouble, and it all boils down to the design of the instruction set.
they have one hope left: abandon x86 and start making non-x86 instruction set designs. it'll be a really *really* tough sell, but if they can do that they have a chance.
If your code is so complex that you need significant amounts of work just to maintain it, you have done something wrong.
i replied to this already (and moderators reacted badly to plain simple facts and the detrimental consequences that had for my health and my family's well-being, so i'll have to repeat it again). certain classes of (desirable) technical designs / problems are simply not possible to implement in "simple" ways. you just can't. these include things like dynamic name-registration / publication / defending services (like nmbd and sadly zeroconf which is nearly identical to nmbd), NT Domains Interoperability, MSRPC, DCOM, Firefox, webkit, and pretty much absolutely anything and everything to do with cryptography.
anyone can *and has* written a web server, and anyone can and has written a web framework. modular, too, and damn good designs.
but things like the NT SpoolSS service took TWO YEARS to reverse-engineer. the network neighbourhood in samba for example took THREE years to implement correctly - that was with about 3 separate people working on it at different points.
Firefox is a particularly sad case, unfortunately, where even with money and funding they still didn't go far enough in the "complexity". if you recall that adage "must be as simple as possible but no simpler", Firefox's XPCOM was "based" around DCOM. DCOM is *extremely* well-designed and when you drop a dynamic programming language (like python) on top of DCOM it's absolutely unbelievable: so simple to use that absolutely nobody using it has any idea that there's been man-decades of work gone in behind it: everything "just works".
in DCOM there's something called co-classes. co-classes are like the dynamic run-time equivalent of c++ multiple-inheritance. even using c you can do "default parameters" by declaring two (or three, or four) near-identical functions, each slightly longer (one extra parameter), and declare a "co-class" that MERGES all those near-identical functions into one (new) interface.
Firefox failed to implement co-classes in XPCOM.
that resulted in some absolutely disastrous consequences. absolutely any and every change to the API resulted in a cascade of incompatibility for 3rd parties trying to use the XULRUNNER engine in their code. why did they change the API? because normally you would declare a new interface and co-class it. without co-classes you're completely f*****d, you *must* change the API, and that completely and utterly wrecks interoperability: it's not like gcc dynamic linking, the actual *interface* DISAPPEARS because it gets renumbered as part of the change.
am i painting a picture here that this sort of thing simply is too complex for a single person, part-time, to cope with? am i painting a picture that trying to SIMPLIFY something that should not have been simplified results in disastrous consequences? if so then i've managed to get the point across.
p.s. you can fund my current work here - http://liberapay.com/lkcl - that's a libre version of patreon.
Oh shut up, you live in Taiwan, you need like 50 dollars a year to live there.
actually it's around USD $1200 a month ($400 for rent, and food for myself and my family is around $700, because things like butter cost around USD $3 for 250 grams, and a 1L bottle of milk is around USD $4). if i was in taipei city that would be around USD $3,000 or above, as rent there is about the same level as shenzhen, london and cambridge.
You doing that after work. On weekends. For the community.
Work in your free time so the programs you support do one thing and do it well.
*NO*. this is extremely dangerous advice, for certain classes / types of projects: those with extreme complexity. you're no doubt familiar with the adages and articles that have made the rounds here on slashdot: the ones about attention span (how it takes 20 minutes to recover from interruptions), about information retention (the "7 things in your head" myth), and so on.
an article that *hasn't* made its way onto here in the 15+ years i've been on slashdot is the difference between, and purpose of, electrical and chemical neuron memory. electrical is the short-term "immediate" memory. it's what you lose if you get hit on the head. chemical memory is long-term retrieval and it's much more difficult to access ("it's on the tip of my tongue", "just sleep on it", "author syndrome" and so on).
what happens is that things that you can't recall and those things you're not recalling regularly are swapped over during sleep. it's why you can remember things if you're working on them regularly, and why if you're struggling to remember something you can do so the next day (it's also why not getting decent sleep before exams is not a good idea).
you should by now have the basics of why i'm posting this, but it's worth explicitly writing: certain kinds of complex tasks, which require *significant* information retrieval and cross-referencing, as well as creativity *and* engineering, are just far too much for any human being on the planet to achieve without ***FULL TIME*** focus.
reverse-engineering is one such task. it literally took me six to eight weeks in some cases to find a single bit amongst hundreds of packet replays, that one bit being responsible for whether it was possible to proceed to the next packet or not. that was six to eight weeks FULL TIME at 12 to 14 hours a day.
and that resulted in me going into serious, serious debt... which i'm still paying back, over 12 years later! why? well... was any fucking fucking fucker paying me to do that work? was anyone fucking well giving me money to do that work? no they fucking well weren't. and when that work was released under GPLv2+ licenses, what did people do? they went "oo thank you very much, i'll have that, it saves my business an absolute fortune"... completely failing to reward or compensate me for that work. some other free software projects actually even blatantly copied my work (used it as a template) and failed to give credit so it's not even *known* that i did that work.
several people in high-profile projects - myself included - have not been properly compensated for our work, and gone into serious, serious debt as a result. the gentoo developer who ended up with USD $40,000 of credit-card debt and had to get a job with *microsoft* of all companies. the GPG developer who ended up with USD $10,000 of debt despite the fact the GPG is one of *the* most widely-used security programs around!
the only reason why certain critical software projects (openssl for example) actually started to get funded a few years back was because of shellshock, heartbleed and other serious vulnerabilities. companies started to realise that they were making an absolute fortune but were spongeing off of peoples' expertise and not properly paying them to be able to do the work to fix even basic security vulnerabilities.
so no. it is NOT the case that everything can be broken down into the unix maxim "do one thing and do it well". certain classes of engineering projects simply do not succeed until they have reached a particularly high level of internal complexity (DCOM is one extremely good example, i won't go into details like i have in the past).
to imply that *all* free software projects can be broken down into small tasks that can be done "in people's spare time" is to completely misunderstand software engineering and to do free software
i've mentioned this before, on other articles that mention lithium batteries and electric vehicles. cobalt is not the only element involved that's in short supply: there isn't enough copper, there isn't enough neodymium, and lithium is a material that explodes when brought into contact with air and water. copper piping and wiring is already stolen from buildings and from church roofs.
neodymium, i don't know if you've ever investigated how it's refined, but it's a radioactive-decay byproduct, meaning that it's only found in amongst *radioactive* deposits (where do you think those are dumped?) and the actual refining itself requires a THOUSAND LITRES of boiling sulphuric acid per 1kg of neodymium. the black market factory photos from remote places in china are shocking... chimney stacks just dumping sulphuric acid fumes directly into the air, and the waste dumped in the nearest river, poisoning the local environment for hundreds of miles downstream.
and we have western governments, whose populations of course do not live anywhere near these mines and factories in Congo or China, banning diesel cars on the basis that they "create pollution", i mean.. .i'm really shocked by the total lack of understanding and appreciation of the true consequences of tthese "environmentally-friendly" decisions.
i've been trying for many years now, but i honestly have absolutely no idea how to get this across to people that we need to trim down the *amount* of materials needed in vehicles. Category L7e "Heavy Quadricycles" such as Riversimple's design concept, the Renault Twizzy and so on, these are perfect: tuned up these small sub-350kg vehicles can go nearly110km/h (70mph), just like some quad-bikes, and that's with only 25HP!
the concept is called "Mass Decompounding", you don't need power-assisted brakes, you don't need power-steering, you can use cross-radial hard silicon compound tires which will last 80,000 miles and have a rolling resistance coeffficient three times less than a standard tire... *all because of the dramatically-reduced weight*. and that reduced weight means a smaller engine, and if it's hybrid or electric it means a smaller battery.
question: why is this company seeking funding based exclusively round a *patented* interface? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is one thing your hero Randall Mills
please do not assume that you know what is going on in my mind. you don't have the right to tell me what i think.
can do that will guarantee him fame and fortune, whatever the nay-sayers may do to quash him. It is this: predict something the Large Hadron Collider will detect, after its upgrade, that is not predicted by the Standard Model.
Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of science. If you don't make a new prediction, you can mess around all day - like the string theory folks - but you're not doing science.
you're absolutely right.... but he would not receive funding for doing so, would he? he's *specifically* focussing on servicing the needs of the investors, isn't he? because they're the ones that were prepared to give him money, aren't they?
where would he get the money from to fund the 5-10 years needed to get to the point of making the predictions that you suggest?
and what would be achieved by doing so? would people say "well done, here's some money for succeeding, to repay the massive financial debt that you had to accrue in order to get to this point" ?
the work that he did branched off from the neutron, proton, neutrino, electron and muon, into the periodic table instead, because *that's what investors would give him money for*. it would be a MASSIVE effort to take the path that you've suggested. i know... because it's the one that i've chosen to pursue, and i can only pursue that path due to having done part-time *THIRTY YEARS* of parallel research and investigation.
so i hear what you're saying... it's just that there's no financial reward for pursuing the avenue that you suggest, whereas the one he chose does (and i'm personally not in the slightest bit interested in that path)
You're OK with a theory with mistakes visible and missing pieces... but you're bothered by theories with "magic constants"? Interesting double standard you have going there.
not at all. there's a huge difference between the theories. also, please don't think that by saying "yes i have noticed mistakes" that those mistakes are deal-breakers: the signs are, to me - (the hypothesis that i am working on is ) - that there's simply a third or fourth term missing from some of the equations that results in inaccuracies creeping in at the *TENTH* decimal place and beyond. you can't possibly tell me that inaccuracy at the TENTH decimal place means that an entire theory should be thrown out.
* firstly, dr mill's work branches off after working out formulae for electrons, neutrons, protons and neutrinos, with a small (accurate) side-diversion into the muon (so my interest is in pursuing and extending that base, where dr mills made a pragmatic practical decision to get the work funded by focussing on what would attract investment). the Standard Model covers a much wider range of particles, however newer ones are no longer fitting in it, and the ones that *do* "fit" are done by... creating tables with "magic constants" based on the **EXPERIMENTAL DATA**, *not* on **ACTUAL MATH OR THEORY**.
* secondly, the Standard Model moves absolutely everything into the frequency domain, then uses partial differential equations, approximations, supercomputers and outright plain-and-simple hand-pushed, hand-crafted "magic constants", whereas, Dr Mill's work keeps it in the "real" world, uses Fourier Transforms *where necessary*, has only speed of light, alpha and planck's as "fundamental constants", has NO partial differential equations OF ANY KIND, has no approximations OF ANY KIND, and, whilst hard to follow (for me), are logical, step-by-step and consistent.
in other words the Standard Model is a "house of cards" based on a stack of 26+ completely unexplained "magic constants" (where alpha and planck's are two of them, which is perfectly understandable, but a whopping 18 are a pair of 3x3 matrices based on experimental data which most certainly is not) whereas dr mill's work uses planck's and alpha and NOTHING else. there's zero supposition, zero approximation, zero guess-work, zero postulation.
applying occam's razor or kolmogorov complexity, whatever metric you choose, there's absolutely no comparison between the two theories.
An important ability among scientists is a strong grasp of critical thinking. This should have led you, to researching Randall Mills, and seeing his track record for fantastic claims and promised technological advances, which come to nothing - yet which keeping fooling investors into giving him millions.
Use your head...apply you critical thinking abilities a bit more consistently...
if i had followed the advice that you've given back in 1996 i would never have succeeded in the NT Domains 4.0 reverse-engineering for samba, which saved companies world-wide hundreds of millions of dollars in proprietary microsoft server licensing fees.
i'm going to have to stop pointing out things on this thread as too many people are repeating the same fundamentally-flawed logical reasoning. reverse-engineering requires that you not "pass judgement" even when looking at a single bit. my peers at the time were unable to follow this rule, passing "judgement" on the "stupidity" of decisions made by microsoft engineers in, for example, passing in parameters for graphical window handles that were always NULL and were *always* passed over the network.
a sane well-designed API would never have been allowed to do such stupid things, and my peers' *disbelief* at such stupidity - "judgement" - *ACTIVELY* prevented and prohibited them from being successful reverse-engineers.
so let me go through it, one more time, to point out the logical flaw in the reasoning that you're working with
* a theory was developed from the ground up in multiple stages
* the first stages established the ground rules
* based on those first stages the electron, proton, neutron and neutrino formulae were developed
* the formulae are dead-accurate to 10dp of experimental real-world measurements.
* subsequent work went into depth on top of that base [which i'm personally not interested in]
* hydrino theory and the promise of clean energy, just like with nikolai tesla's promises, resulted in long-term investment (where earlier stages of the theory clearly do not).
now.
here's where everyone is going wrong. they haven't even bothered to read the papers to the point where they can even do the above kind of simple analysis, have they?
so what is the *actual* connection between fuckwits who are incapable of or cannot be bothered to even read a published work, and the "judgement" that you make which throws the entire work out based on OTHER PEOPLE'S MASS-PREJUDICE.
bottom line: instead of reading the PAPERs, you read someone else's mass-hysterical mass-prejudiced OPINION, didn't you? if you didn't actually read the PAPERs yourself, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me what i should or should not do, absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me how i should go about making decisions, do you?
the point is, you conflate "critical thinking" with "passing judgement based on laziness, opinion and prejudice". sorry to have to be the one to inform you of that.
Anyway, if you really are looking for alternate theories, might I suggest my own alternate theory?
appreciated. to evaluate it, i need to see some papers: some mathematical equations, i don't mind if they're in text form or PDF form, however PDF is the standard format. words outlining the "features and benefits" without actually giving the *actual* maths and a step-by-step recipe on how a mathematician can follow them, won't help, and nor will videos of the same.
do you have something like that available? i use vixra as it's self-publishing.
Is there a short article I can read to learn the basic terminology of particle colliders? I just need to make condescending remarks about this device and dismiss the efforts of hundreds of experts.
try looking on twitter: i'm told it's a good site for short opinions below 140 characters, 280 for more recent ones (wow!). i hear you can then use the same platform to reach millions of people with the proposed dismissive condescending remarks, too! :)
I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.
sorry, the answer was: despite wishing that science actually worked that way (that eventually someone notices the theory and it gets the attention it deserves), in this particular case i suspect that, sadly, that will be several decades before it occurs. some time after the Standard Model's flaws are finally admitted and people *finally* start looking for alternatives. right now, they're just so blinkered that you could walk up to one of them in the street, put the paper in front of them and go "HERE! ANSWERS!" and they'd outright reject them. you can't force people to listen, basically, not in any field, no matter how much they *think* they are "open-minded", even if they *call* themselves "scientists".
I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.
btw, it doesn't bother me that there are magic numbers. We have the gravitational constant, and no one has any clue why that is the number it is.
yeah, i know: that one really bothers me that it's only accurate to around 6 decimal places, planck's constant is 10 if recall without looking at nist.gov CODATA website.... the most accurate is the rydberg constant at 12... but planck's constant trashes the accuracy of a whole stack of constants down to only 10, including electric charge, as, fascinatingly, the constants involving planck, mass and electric charge are all self-referential (cyclic). bit of a bummer, that! :)
as a reverse-engineer i've had to totally avoid gravity or anything to do with gravity because of the inaccuracy of G. you just can't do statistical analysis to any level of certainty. 10dp and above is where it starts to get *really* interesting.
i hear you on the "magic numbers", though. as a reverse-engineer i fully appreciate that it's absolutely essential to defer "understanding" until later, working on the pieces of the puzzle that you *can* work on. they're basically place-holders which, *hopefully*, at some point in the future, someone *might* come up with a good theoretical derivation for them, and we're "home and dry". the problem is, there's over *twenty six* in the standard model. two whopping great 3x3 matrices with *nine* totally unexplained entries each are just the start.
but, the bigger problem is: those magic constants have been there for decades. *surely* by now you'd think that, after all this time, thousands of scientists working on the "Standard" Model would have *some* idea about what's behind them, right?
this is the "warning sign" that the Standard Model is in a dead-end rut.
Einstein did some of his most insightful work while making a living as a patent specialist. Don't blame "**FUNDING**" for the inability of all the alternative theories to come up with testable predictions. If the theory doesn't have obvious flaws and has a testable prediction, it will eventually gain enough respect from the theorist and enough curiosity from experimental scientists. Even Einstein's groundbreaking "special relativity" was mostly ignored at first
i honestly and truly wish that what you say here had happened. i wish that theoretical physicists would even take a single glance at the work, on the basis that the calculations for the electron g/2 and mass come out to 10 decimal places accurate. can you tell me, why are theoretical physicists from the rest of the scientific community not looking at that?
i have friends in a small group, we're supposed to be open-minded, having seen how closed-minded the scientific community can be when it comes to "against the grain" ideas. i put dr mill's work in front of them... and what happened? total disbelief!! it was a bit of an eye-opener, and we managed to work out why over a period of a few months. the disbelief was down to the fact that Dr Mills does *NOT* use Yang-Mills (Maxwell's Equations moved to the Frequency Domain i.e. Quantum Mechanics). instead what he does is, he uses *straight* Maxwell's Equations, applies FFT's *WHERE NEEDED*, and uses Special Relativity corrections to the particle's radius. all of which he goes through in detail, step-by-step, from first principles.
this demonstrates the sorts of blindspots that even theories that have the "correct answer" come up against. they're rejected due to peoples' *disbelief*. they don't even *look* at it. i wish that that wasn't the case, but it is, Dorianny. that's just how people are.
So, I think we can safely ignore this. At least until a physics defying battery shows up on the market.
ath1901: the battery is just one direction, that mills was forced to explore because, just like tesla, mills was only able to get investor funding for the *theoretical* work by promising something that would "make money".
unfortunately, as you've probably seen from the wikipedia page (which i deliberately haven't read), there are a lot of fuckwits who are basically doing the secular "mob rule" equivalent of an Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
do you follow "mob rule", ath1901? you know how that works, right? i don't want you to feel offended by me asking that question: it's rhetorical: i'm simply asking you to consider re-reading that page with the phrases "mob rule" and "Gallileo's Inquisition" foremost in your mind, ok?
i've deliberately ignored *all* that crap. i'm not interested. i'm not even interested in whether hydrinos are real or theoretical or not. i'm interested in how the hell he managed to get 10 decimal places of accuracy for the electron and proton mass and g/2 magnetic moment without any approximations, postulations, speculation or partial differential equations. because that's just an absolutely astounding mathematical achievement that's completely unparalleled.
the _really_ interesting bit to me is the fact that his work is *only* around 10 decimal places of accuracy, not 12 (the current experimental uncertainty on the electron g/2 magnetic moment). it means that dr mills has missed something: an extra term in the theoretical equations, somewhere. that's possibly going to take decades to analyse and explore.