Wow, you must be right... the many physicists I've spoken to at conferences, at the three different physics departments I've worked in, almost all of whom thought string theory was bullshit must have been in my imagination.
No, it goes from looking like a plane to looking like a plane with the wings on a funny angle. My laptop screen can rotate through a larger angle than these wings. My examples were sarcastic. Understand sarcasm before you indulge in your slashdot penis waving attempt to correct someone.
Well, the fact that a computer is flying it could be a big help. Plus, if it was an easy thing to make work, they wouldn't be shelling out ten million bucks for a set of blueprints.
So, having one part of the plane change its angle is now shape shifting? WOW. My laptop is a shapeshifter, because the lid opens. My car must be a shape shifter too, the sunroof can take several positions!
String theory doesn't "predict" gravity. One of a gazillion possible ways of interpreting string theory happens to be compatible with gravity. Greeks worshipping gods to explain natural disasters was an attempt to explain something physical. String theory is barely more scientific than that.
Until it makes some real postulates that lead to TESTABLE predictions - not just tweaking the parameters to fit what we already know, most physicists outside the little string theory bandwagon will continue to say it's bullshit and not science.
Uh... what books have you been reading, exactly? It seems to me that your "pretty decent grasp of the physical world" includes some fundamentally flawed ideas.
I notice you didn't counter my argument, that the lack of any ability to predict things means it isn't a theory.
Much easier to attack the messenger (which I fully expected would happen) than the message. I don't understand the many details of scientology either, but I can still sit here and confidently say it's a bullshit scam.
Ah, string theory elitism... "you can't understand it because you need this, that, and the other thing".
Here's the problem, though... I don't NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT! I don't NEED to understand UFO theories or ghost stories either. In THIRTY YEARS string theory has not produced a single testable prediction. That isn't physics, and it sure as hell isn't a theory. String theory might be a fascinating topic. It might be mathematically beautiful. And it might be out of my reach due to my complete lack of desire to understand its nuances. However, until it starts to predict something, it isn't physics. If people want to study that garbage, they should move to the mathematics department. I'd respect string theorists a whole lot more if they weren't misrepresenting what it is they do.
My favorite part of "pop string theory" is the way they explain strings. Hey guys, there are all these strings, but they are too small for us to ever observe. They might as well say what they really mean - "we can get funding for this stupid ass idea, because right from the beginning we claim it's impossible to prove or disprove our fundamental assumption"
And that's why you're an engineer and not a scientist. You can't TEST a theory unless you can see whether that theory actually WORKS to predict what really happens. It's kind of hard to carry out the calculations by hand to test a model that includes a thousand atoms.
So you're a computer scientist, but you apparantly don't understand Big-O notation or the concept that algorithms don't neccesarily scale linearly with the number of elements.
You aren't exactly the target market for Apple to sell shake to. This isn't a home user software package - it's a high end pro package. And with that high end pro price tag comes high end pro service. A production shop that actually needs this kind of software to do real work will gladly pay a couple grand for a software package for the support that comes along with it. Plus, when you're using hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computers to do your editing, shake doesn't look so expensive anymore.
Let's look again at your "no possible way to justify" bullshit statement. If I develop a game, say Sims 2, I might sell a couple of million copies. At 50 bucks a copy, that's a healthy profit. If I develop, say, a motion compositing program used by animators and effects people, there might only be a couple of thousand people who even have any desire to use such functionality. I need to charge a lot more money to even recoup the costs of writing the software, let alone making a profit.
So, I guess it just took one clever Apple hacker to get the idea to use the SMS for something - looks like it wasn't that hard to access the data on a PC.
Actually my research has practical applications. You've shown your self-centered view again, by automatically assuming just because I support funding things, I must be working on them. I work in neither cosmology nor art, yet I support funding both - and I honestly don't really care about art. Some of us ARE, in fact, willing to use our own money to fund things that may never benefit us directly. And some of us are willing to use the money of selfish jackasses like you, whether you like it or not, to do the same. If you don't like it, voice your opinion with your vote, or find somewhere else to live.
The difference between me and you is, I am capable of seeing human lives enriched by more than just tangible objects. I see art as capable of inspiring, I see study of the cosmos as capable of bringing enjoyment and satisfaction to the lives of not just those who do the studying, but those they share the knowledge with.
If no one ever paid taxes for things they didn't see value in - the country would be unable to function. I see zero value in programs to build a soccer park for kids, because I don't have kids and don't like soccer. I'm not going to bitch and moan if the government decides to support soccer parks, though. I am frankly appalled at the ignorance that would cause one to claim there's no value in scientific exploration beyond material returns.
More importantly, who modded this UP?!? For those thinking of clicking out of morbid curiosity - its a picture of senior citizen gay group sex. Yes, I did click it:(
The fact that you compare "contemplating your navel" to understanding the cosmos shows how ignorant you are.
You seem to judge "value to me" to be the same as "value to people". To me, personally, a lot of art has no value, but I'm not going to tell the government to stop funding it because I personally don't get anything out of it. You have a mighty selfish world view.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you must be right... the many physicists I've spoken to at conferences, at the three different physics departments I've worked in, almost all of whom thought string theory was bullshit must have been in my imagination.
So let me get this straight...
The 'editors' at slashdot refuse to correct misspellings, typos, and grossly inaccurate statements.
Put in an informative link, though, and they are ALL ABOUT removing that shit.
You really need more than a knee-jerk intellect to be using political terminology, so you don't end up just diluting the definitions.
Shut up, commie!
you win :(
No, it goes from looking like a plane to looking like a plane with the wings on a funny angle. My laptop screen can rotate through a larger angle than these wings. My examples were sarcastic. Understand sarcasm before you indulge in your slashdot penis waving attempt to correct someone.
Well, the fact that a computer is flying it could be a big help. Plus, if it was an easy thing to make work, they wouldn't be shelling out ten million bucks for a set of blueprints.
So, having one part of the plane change its angle is now shape shifting? WOW. My laptop is a shapeshifter, because the lid opens. My car must be a shape shifter too, the sunroof can take several positions!
Are you on crack? Viewing a webpage automatically authorizes someone to modify my computer without my knowledge?
String theory doesn't "predict" gravity. One of a gazillion possible ways of interpreting string theory happens to be compatible with gravity. Greeks worshipping gods to explain natural disasters was an attempt to explain something physical. String theory is barely more scientific than that.
Until it makes some real postulates that lead to TESTABLE predictions - not just tweaking the parameters to fit what we already know, most physicists outside the little string theory bandwagon will continue to say it's bullshit and not science.
Uh... what books have you been reading, exactly? It seems to me that your "pretty decent grasp of the physical world" includes some fundamentally flawed ideas.
Right... point out the lack of science in the argument made by the people who write pop books about this string crap, and I'm a troll.
Gotta love slashdot.
I notice you didn't counter my argument, that the lack of any ability to predict things means it isn't a theory.
Much easier to attack the messenger (which I fully expected would happen) than the message. I don't understand the many details of scientology either, but I can still sit here and confidently say it's a bullshit scam.
Ah, string theory elitism... "you can't understand it because you need this, that, and the other thing".
Here's the problem, though... I don't NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT! I don't NEED to understand UFO theories or ghost stories either. In THIRTY YEARS string theory has not produced a single testable prediction. That isn't physics, and it sure as hell isn't a theory. String theory might be a fascinating topic. It might be mathematically beautiful. And it might be out of my reach due to my complete lack of desire to understand its nuances. However, until it starts to predict something, it isn't physics. If people want to study that garbage, they should move to the mathematics department. I'd respect string theorists a whole lot more if they weren't misrepresenting what it is they do.
My favorite part of "pop string theory" is the way they explain strings. Hey guys, there are all these strings, but they are too small for us to ever observe. They might as well say what they really mean - "we can get funding for this stupid ass idea, because right from the beginning we claim it's impossible to prove or disprove our fundamental assumption"
And that's why you're an engineer and not a scientist. You can't TEST a theory unless you can see whether that theory actually WORKS to predict what really happens. It's kind of hard to carry out the calculations by hand to test a model that includes a thousand atoms.
So you're a computer scientist, but you apparantly don't understand Big-O notation or the concept that algorithms don't neccesarily scale linearly with the number of elements.
And a pathetically tiny amount of storage space, and no domain name registration.
I'd register a dotmac account in a second, if they didn't max out at two gigs of storage.
Yeah, I was thinking macbook pro - must stop replying to slashdot posts before I've had my coffee.
Yeah, because it's not like you can connect a 30" monitor to a macbook or anything...
You aren't exactly the target market for Apple to sell shake to. This isn't a home user software package - it's a high end pro package. And with that high end pro price tag comes high end pro service. A production shop that actually needs this kind of software to do real work will gladly pay a couple grand for a software package for the support that comes along with it. Plus, when you're using hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computers to do your editing, shake doesn't look so expensive anymore.
Let's look again at your "no possible way to justify" bullshit statement. If I develop a game, say Sims 2, I might sell a couple of million copies. At 50 bucks a copy, that's a healthy profit. If I develop, say, a motion compositing program used by animators and effects people, there might only be a couple of thousand people who even have any desire to use such functionality. I need to charge a lot more money to even recoup the costs of writing the software, let alone making a profit.
Economics of scale is a bitch.
Someone has actually implemented the same idea as smackbook on an IBM laptop. http://micampe.it/2006/06/04/here-comes-the-smackp ad
So, I guess it just took one clever Apple hacker to get the idea to use the SMS for something - looks like it wasn't that hard to access the data on a PC.
Actually my research has practical applications. You've shown your self-centered view again, by automatically assuming just because I support funding things, I must be working on them. I work in neither cosmology nor art, yet I support funding both - and I honestly don't really care about art. Some of us ARE, in fact, willing to use our own money to fund things that may never benefit us directly. And some of us are willing to use the money of selfish jackasses like you, whether you like it or not, to do the same. If you don't like it, voice your opinion with your vote, or find somewhere else to live.
The difference between me and you is, I am capable of seeing human lives enriched by more than just tangible objects. I see art as capable of inspiring, I see study of the cosmos as capable of bringing enjoyment and satisfaction to the lives of not just those who do the studying, but those they share the knowledge with.
If no one ever paid taxes for things they didn't see value in - the country would be unable to function. I see zero value in programs to build a soccer park for kids, because I don't have kids and don't like soccer. I'm not going to bitch and moan if the government decides to support soccer parks, though. I am frankly appalled at the ignorance that would cause one to claim there's no value in scientific exploration beyond material returns.
More importantly, who modded this UP?!? For those thinking of clicking out of morbid curiosity - its a picture of senior citizen gay group sex. Yes, I did click it :(
The fact that you compare "contemplating your navel" to understanding the cosmos shows how ignorant you are.
You seem to judge "value to me" to be the same as "value to people". To me, personally, a lot of art has no value, but I'm not going to tell the government to stop funding it because I personally don't get anything out of it. You have a mighty selfish world view.
My Wii is powered by your mom.