"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dd7244$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> I can't say that since money was pumped in before and we got great
> results, then if you pump in more you'll get even more achievements
> (particularly given that we don't even know if those achievements are
> realizable by the laws of this universe).
>
> Do you really think that as long as we pump enough money into it,
> Moore's law will hold forever?

No, but we are nowhere a physically imposed limit, that much I know for
sure, as should any reasonably educated person. We are already moving
towards parallelization, which is a new angle on Moore's law (paradigm
shift).

And I can say, with certainty, that we are nowhere near any biological or
physical limits when it comes to medicine. That much, again, should be
obvious to any reasonably eduated person.

And there's a very simple empirical method to determine if research
stangnates and is insensitive to funding or manpower. Just make a plot of
advances. If you hit a plateau, you *may* be nearing stagnation, but more
tellingly, lack of plateau means you are not stagnating. Again, by all
measures, medical science has hit no such plateau yet. Even if we hit a
biological limit in some distant future, who says we cannot move on to
non-biological domains? Already, with implants and prosthetics, we have
initiated a paradigm shift.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48dd5346@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > They will have better technology than us.

> They won't, because some idiot on a forum called half of the current
> research as useless. How do you expect it to progress from now to 300
> years "if it's all useless"?

Who is that idiot who called it all useless? I have a word or two to say to
him.

Post a reply to this message

somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-26 16:41 -->
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48dd34c7$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is
> it
>>> called that now.
> 
>> You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the
>> discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was,
> 
> No, it wasn't.
> 
>> and nobody  knew when they discovered it what it would lead to.
> 
> So if X is a member of Y and Z and if Q is a member of Y, then Q is also a
> member of Z?
> 
> Ie: Radiation, which when we observed it we didn't know what it would lead
> to, actually led to useful applications, so, say, Higgs, which we don't know
> what it may lead to, will lead to useful applications when observed. Such
> reasoning doesn't follow.
> 
> Moreover, radioactivity obviously *did* have an effect on everyday life.
> That was how it was discovered (much like how magnetism or electricity was
> discovered in ancient times).
> 
> HEP operates in a domain not presently or foreseeably applicable to everyday
> life. We are not trying to explain an observed phenomenon, we are trying to
> "observe" something, that which is not even currently a phenomenon.
> Unfortunately, not all discoveries will bear fruit in a lifetime or twenty.
> There's no such physical law. Some discoveries will remain academic for a
> long, long time.
> 
> 
It's true that some researches, and discoveries, will remain academic for a 
long, long time, some from the antiquity are still mostly academic even today...

You can never say if any research will remain only academic, and, if so, for how 
long, or lead to every days applications within a few years.

Today, we are at a point where "chance" discovery tend to get rare. If we are to 
discover something new, that may lead to every days applications, we must do 
some, often prety weird looking/sounding, advanced experiments and researches. 
Sometimes, we do the experiments only to discover if a given theory is or is not 
correct, and, sometimes, those experiments do provide us with some new every 
days benefits... But only a few to many years later.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you have ever snuck out of your 
bedroom to moniter the progress of an overnight render.
     -- Stephan Ahonen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
> news:48dd2921$1@news.povray.org...
>> Modern die technology
> 
> You mean dye, right? However, let me jump on the "die technology". We have
> been developing casting methodologies for millenia. It's all an incremental
> business. And it's hard work. It's trial and error, theory... etc. Countless
> technicians and scientists have worked on the process with the *express
> intent* of improving the process. Next time you see an object of industrial
> design, don't dismiss its realization as "accidental". It's a result of
> focused development. Same for any technology, be it electronics, computers,
> medical... etc. Don't buy into the Hollywood version of science and
> technology. 

Yeah. Dye. And I wasn't talking about more recent developments, many of 
them derived from figuring "why" that original accident worked. As for 
Hollywood versions.. I am not talking about fracking Hollywood versions 
of science, I am talking about what a fair number of scientists in the 
fields have said on the subject. The company that makes Teflon 
"specifically" told their people to look for such accidental 
discoveries, precisely because they do happen, and they usually get 
missed. And, more to the point, the "reason" for this is often because 
the people doing "directed" research are "specialists" who don't have 
sufficient cross discipline knowledge to recognize when they have 
stumbled over something new. There are even businesses arising within 
the last 5-10 years "specifically" directed at hiring large numbers of 
specialists to work in teams, for the express purpose of advising the 
people you are talking about, to check over the stuff they are doing, to 
see if they are blindly missing developments in other fields that could 
improve their own projects. This is a *new* development.

Experts are often blinded by their own narrow expertise. And as much as 
you hate examples. One group of Computer Science people went in to look 
over the systems used by Astrological researchers and found that their 
"expertise" was so narrow they had no clue that modern debuggers 
existed, where still coding their projects by hand using text editors, 
and that 9 out 10 ten of all experimental projects would **failing**, 
for no other reason than that they couldn't debug the complex code well 
enough to make those experiments "work properly".

You have a much higher estimation of what directed/applied research can 
and does do than I do, and a much lower one than most scientists have 
for "lucky accidents".

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
news:48de7b90@news.povray.org...

> Experts are often blinded by their own narrow expertise. And as much as
> you hate examples. One group of Computer Science people went in to look
> over the systems used by Astrological researchers and found that their
> "expertise" was so narrow they had no clue that modern debuggers
> existed, where still coding their projects by hand using text editors,
> and that 9 out 10 ten of all experimental projects would **failing**,
> for no other reason than that they couldn't debug the complex code well
> enough to make those experiments "work properly".

I assume you mean "astronomy", not "astrology". Yes, I agree with the fact
that today's science is extremely specialized and often, scientists miss
cross discipline applications, or, like you mention above, don't work
efficiently because they do not keep up with technology. But neither of
these are specific to science. I know many manufacturers firsthand that
employ outdated technologies, and do things the hard way. That's not an
argument against directed research. The solution is not to do away with
directed research, but to hire programmers and organize the research so that
the astronomers write the specifications, and pass in on to coders; they do
not write code. It's absurd to expect an astronomer to wear a programmer's
hat too *and* excel at both tasks.

And yes, unexpected applications of scientific discoveries of course occur
from time to time. But that's not an argument against directed research
either. By definition, there's no telling when or what the unexpected
applications may be. It's a bonus when they happen, but you cannot model a
research project after that. You still plan your research, set your goals,
but keep an ear and eye open to other researchers who are doing interesting
things, as well as communicate your discoveries to them so that you can
maybe mutually benefit. There's already the mechanism of refereed journals
to facilitate this type of communication. Again, it gets harder and harder
as volume and depth of research increases. But doing away with directed
research is not the solution.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
> news:48de7b90@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Experts are often blinded by their own narrow expertise. And as much as
>> you hate examples. One group of Computer Science people went in to look
>> over the systems used by Astrological researchers and found that their
>> "expertise" was so narrow they had no clue that modern debuggers
>> existed, where still coding their projects by hand using text editors,
>> and that 9 out 10 ten of all experimental projects would **failing**,
>> for no other reason than that they couldn't debug the complex code well
>> enough to make those experiments "work properly".
> 
> I assume you mean "astronomy", not "astrology".

Sigh.. Been spending too much time arguing with quacks, I am starting to
sound like them. lol

> Yes, I agree with the fact
> that today's science is extremely specialized and often, scientists miss
> cross discipline applications, or, like you mention above, don't work
> efficiently because they do not keep up with technology. But neither of
> these are specific to science. I know many manufacturers firsthand that
> employ outdated technologies, and do things the hard way. That's not an
> argument against directed research. The solution is not to do away with
> directed research, but to hire programmers and organize the research so that
> the astronomers write the specifications, and pass in on to coders; they do
> not write code. It's absurd to expect an astronomer to wear a programmer's
> hat too *and* excel at both tasks.
> 
The problem being.. A programmer is not, somewhat ironically, competent
enough to *code* for such a discipline, without in depth knowledge of
the math and theories either. So.. Your stuck with either an astronomer
that hasn't a clue how to code, or a coder that hasn't a clue how to
design the applications needed. :p Its kind of a mess in some
disciplines, due to those issues.

> And yes, unexpected applications of scientific discoveries of course occur
> from time to time. But that's not an argument against directed research
> either. By definition, there's no telling when or what the unexpected
> applications may be. It's a bonus when they happen, but you cannot model a
> research project after that. You still plan your research, set your goals,
> but keep an ear and eye open to other researchers who are doing interesting
> things, as well as communicate your discoveries to them so that you can
> maybe mutually benefit. There's already the mechanism of refereed journals
> to facilitate this type of communication. Again, it gets harder and harder
> as volume and depth of research increases. But doing away with directed
> research is not the solution.
>  

Never said that there is anything wrong with applied or directed
research. The issue is.. major leaps don't happen via that methodology.
There are several key factors that make it very unlikely, or even
impossible, in some cases. 1) accidents don't get recognized, 2)
progress is calculated based on results, not discoveries in general, and
3) most businesses are "so" focused on the result they want, that they
will shut down programs that fail to produce the results they want, even
if they are producing results that *could* be later beneficial to
someone else. Things have gotten so specific now that research that is
targeted at specific goals will simply either a) fail to meet them, do
to too many people having all the wrong pieces, and none of them either
sharing those, or even aware they exist, or b) reach them in a way that
is more expensive than necessary, more time consuming than needed, and
result is a product that falls "below" what is actually possible. The
only time this isn't true is when some lab doing this stuff drops
chemical X in test tube Y by accident and it turns out to work 50 times
better than the "directed", and carefully planned, path being followed.

Research that only looks at the end goal, and ignores everything else,
especially basic research, where people just ask questions for the sake
of figuring things out, can and do dead end "often", due to being "too"
focused on those goals. Many companies have figured this out and now
support "basic research" within the bounds to their own directed system.
But, they are not going to be the people finding some new energy source,
based on yet unknown math, involving factors about matter, which we
don't yet understand, resulting in something the size of a battery that
is 500 times as efficient. They are going to be the guy that stumbles on
a way to make a battery 3% more efficient, based "purely" one the
"known" data. Such companies are, based on the same argument used here,
**never** going to build a LHC to find that information in the first place.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:14:01 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> I think ticking off creationists who think the universe is only 5000
> years old can be classed as a benefit.

LOL!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:20:11 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:51:01 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical
>> > application in the next, say, 100 years?
> 
>> Do you really believe it *won't*?
> 
> Yes.

On what scientific basis to you hold that belief?

>> Can you *prove* that?
> 
> No. Proof is for mathematicians and spirits.

Ah, so science doesn't prove anything, then?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:07:37 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> I can see you did not bother answering how much you'd like to see
>> medical research get before you're willing to be OK with spending $10
>> billion for the LHC.
> 
> That's easy: $100,000 billion.

Tell me, do you go to the movies?  You know, all that money that's dumped 
into entertainment might be better spent on medical research.  Stop 
spending your money at the movies, and start donating it all to medical 
research.

What else do you do for fun?  Well, let's see, you use Microsoft Outlook 
Express, so presumably you use Windows.  You bought a computer - you use 
it for posting to online forums.  You pay Shaw Cable, what, $22/month 
maybe for 'net connectivity?  Or do you bundle and get basic cable 
(another $32.95/month), or add phone service for another $20.95/month?

That's an awful lot of money you spend on something as frivolous as 
entertainment.  Seems to me that money would be better spent by donating 
it (let's assume you bundle the first two lowest-cost services and spend 
only about $55 before taxes per month) - that's $660/year you could be 
donating to cancer research.  Better yet, why don't you go into the field 
so you can actually do some of the research as well as donating your 
frivolously spent money to that research?

Do you eat out much, go for drives around the rural parts of or locale.

After all, if the end-all be-all of living on this planet is to prolong 
our lives and "better mankind", then doing things that don't work towards 
those goals are ALL frivolous, not just HEP experiments.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:26:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
> And the benefit to mankind of  "having the estimates of the ages of cratered
> worlds much futher away from the Moon" is what exactly? :) In your eagerness
> to counter my point, you are emphasizing it.

They do that to determine the history of those worlds, so that they'd be
able to compare those with Earth and each other to better understand the
history of our solar system, including that of Earth.

> They will have better technology than us. Let *them* lazy bums figure
> out things if they *need to* at that time. They will be able to do it
> much more efficiently. If knowing the "estimates of the ages of cratered
> worlds much futher away from the Moon" is of no practical benefit to our
> generation, it is crime to our contemporaries to waste present resources
> on such pursuits, when we could make a dent with those resources in the
> suffering of *already existing* people.
> 

For them to have better technology than us, we'd have to do our part of
the development or they'd have more work to do.

> You hopless romantics are completely missing the trees for the forest.
> While thinking about a future billion years from now (!??), you miss
> what we could be doing for ourselves and for our fellow people. Africa
> is at most 10 hours away, not a billion years. And I am sure there's
> suffering right at your doorstep too.
> 

We can think about what may go on a billion years from now because we're
not in Africa or the soup kitchen 24/7.

People who want to do comsology or high energy physics will still do it
and find the funding from somewhere because you don't control their minds
or all of the money in the world. It's also human nature to investigate
the nature of the world we live in.

Brendan

Post a reply to this message