c3d

Also, things are always described in a sociological context. What we would call "automobiles" would have been called "chariots of fire" by our elders.

Do you really state that modern science does not violate any principle of what was considered the best of physics knowledge 500 years ago? We are talking about 1512 here, the year Copernicus started writing what would turn into De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. It would take practically another 150 years for people to start thinking about explaining the motion of planets with an inverse square law.

For the record, the classical period of witch hunt was 1480-1750, and many of the things that are part of our daily life would have sent us directly to be burnt at the stake back in 1512:

- Creating light without fire

- Driving vehicles that move without being drawn by an animal, in a devilish smell

- Watching talking heads in a box

- Speaking to people who are over a mile away

- Resurrecting dead people (at least, "dead" as far as 1512 physicians could tell)

The problem with your reasoning is that you filter ancient "science" according to today's knowledge, instead of considering what was considered knowledge back then. As a result, you don't see a contradiction between what we know today and what was known back then, when there really is one.

Here is a great example. Isaac Newton today is considered as a great scientist. Yet to him, his physics work was secondary to his alchemy work. Do you think Newton was stupid not to know that alchemy was a "pseudo science"? Or does that indicate that back then, alchemy was as valid a field of research as the motion of planets? For that reason alone, I claim that our current technological advancements "categorically violate principles of physics" as they were known at the time of Newton.

A more recent example is the theory of aether, which was considered perfectly legitimate less than 150 years ago. And let's not even talk about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which even Einstein had trouble digesting, or Goedel's theorem, which was the exact opposite of what leading 1900-era mathematicians like Poincarre were expecting.

Science is a belief system. What makes it strong is that it changes over time. Unfortunately, some take science as a complete and eternal belief system, i.e. what is not scientific provable cannot be taken seriously, and what we know today constrains what we will know tomorrow. Both arguments are often used by "skeptics" as a "rationale" against God or UFOs. The truth is that science is not complete: what we cannot experiment with is not scientific. That includes, in the current state of know-how, both God and UFOs. Self-proclaimed "skeptics" should take a hard look at past "knowledgeable people" who fought Pasteur, Einstein, Galileo or other revolutionaries based on established knowledge.

Let me finish with the fact that UFO observations do not violate known physics laws. Some people observe what appears to be devices traveling at high velocity, with very high accelerations and often without emitting (much) sound, and with an intent (if not an intelligence). Often, observations are made by a sufficiently large body of people and correlated with enough physical evidence to make it as solid as the advance of Mercury's perihelion. Occam's razor recommends that we take the simplest explanation. If it flies like an alien spaceship and quacks like an alien spaceship, then it is likely to be an alien spaceship.

While we do not know how to build such devices, there is no theoretical impossibility that I'm aware of. Even assuming an intelligent extraterrestrial origin does not violate laws of physics. We observe that we are the third most intelligent species on this planet, but nothing dictates that we have to be even in the top 10 in the universe. At worst, faster-than-light travel violates special relativity, which is an outdated understanding of the structure of space-time by today's standards. Many serious physicists have proposed ways to travel faster than light. And even if there is no practical way to travel faster than light, there's nothing to say that extraterrestrial don't have extremely long lifespans.

In short, deciding to dismiss UFOs out of hand is highly non-scientific. It seems to be little more than a deep-rooted fear of the unknown. There is evidence for UFOs, not just sociological, but also a few rare leftovers (e.g. radar recording, radioactivity in the soil, etc). It's not enough data to be able to build solid science yet, but then, that was the case for planetary motion data 500 years ago.

Both nVidia and ATI have committed to supporting these older APIs for the foreseeable future.

The description of slides looks close to what you are calling for:

slide "test",

    * "First point"

    * "Second point"

Regarding the more general problem: what about economics? Even if it is technologically viable for us to go into space, it is remarkably expensive. We couldn't sustain a Moon program, for all its scientific interest. So we need a pretty big return on investment to do further space exploration.

To me, there are really only two options:

1) Speed of light can't be broken, and colonization only happens by losing any practical contact with your descendants (a ping time of 1s is bad enough, think about 100 years). This reduces its economic appeal to practically zero. No return on investment at all. Not even intellectual satisfaction: you will not even know in your lifetime if your expedition was a success. So why bother?

2) Faster-than-light travel is possible, and relativity tells us it's basically equivalent to time travel. Now, just try to imagine how well our own economy would survive the availability of time travel... This is one thing that Star Trek or Star Wars or Galactica never get right, it's a problem they never consider because it's too hard to think about it. If you can jump or warp or whatever, then to the best of our knowledge, you can travel back and forth in time. How does a civilization survive this? I have no idea. A good example of singularity.

One final thought: the Fermi paradox always start with the premise that we don't see aliens. But most serious work on UFOs claims that a fraction of UFOs can't be explained away. In short, some UFOs appear to be artificial, to exhibit intelligent behavior, and to show technological capabilities well beyond our own. I'm quite surprised to write this comment at a point where there are 86 comments, and I'm the first one writing UFO. Taboo?

As a result, Apple was one of the few companies that self-improved with each flaw in its products. Self-improvement is hard, and it takes a lot of discipline. Jobs' screaming and shouting may have not been the best way to achieve the goal, but it worked. And until we have proof by counter-example, it may be the most efficient way to achieve the greater good.

Think about your own teachers or coaches. For me, the ones I remember most are not the one who always told me "good job". It's the teachers who fought my flaws, pushed my limits. In many cases, that involved tedious exercises, boring discipline, "coldness" or shouting. I have yet to see a good sports coach who is always smiling on the field and drives the team with "good job" during the match.

To me, Jobs is the best illustration of "There's a difference between knowing the way and walking the way." Jobs knew the way, and made others walk it.