Posts by vrghost

S60 knows where you're at

Forget me not, my dearest owner

I think we are considering this the wrong way around, because lets face it, the last thing we want is a new way for Mc Donald’s to tell me I can get a 99 pence hamburger, and just to prove that I harbour any bad feelings towards Mc Donald’s, I don’t really need to know that the stations burger king will sell me a much nicer tasting (according to 10 out of 10 burger king customers asked) for the same price. I am even ready to bet that there will be companies other then hamburger joints that would be so kind as to offer me advice on how to transfer money from my valet to an unnamed corporate account, all to save me from having to carry to much money around, there are many such organisations around who works tirelessly day and night to help me do just this.

What I’m thinking is more the possibility of getting the thing to tell me when I’m leaving, if I walk out of my house for example, fifty meters down the road would be a bad place to be reminded of the fact that I promised to lend a friend some unusual book, but not quite as bad as one hours commute later when this currently about to be ex-friend comes and ask me for it.

New Scientist goes innumerate in 'save the planet' special

“Polar bears swims to far, therefore dying”

Does people read before replying?

The article does is not questioning weather or not we really have a problem with using up sand, or any of the number of resources we do not have infinite amount of resources for, the article is questioning the methodology and the problem statement on which the suggested solution is based.

To say that reducing the economic growth will reduce the expenditure of resources to a representative amount is incorrect because there is no absolute connection between economic growth and required resources. So in the case of the sand, we can prove the economic growth can be stimulated by reduced usage of natural resources, and as such I could make a theory stating that we must speed up economic growth in order to reduce the usage of natural resources, and I can use pretty much the same examples as the opposition making my point, and according to the statement be just as correct as anyone opposing my statement.

I could make a similar argument as that of economic growth to natural resources by presenting a couple of solutions to the polar bears dying out (I’m not an employee of any US wildlife agency so can discuss the poor things however much I like).

Polar bears are dying out because the polar caps are melting and the icebergs are further apart, forcing the bears to undertake swimming expeditions far exceeding their physical ability, resulting in them drowning, or dying from exhaustion.

If I in my problem statement give undue weight to the fact that polar bears are forced to swim further then they are capable of, something that clearly is in some way connected to the problem, it is killing them as stated earlier, I can still come to a sensible solution, somehow stopping the icecaps from melting might actually save them, I could also argue that we must drain the ocean, which will also reduce the amount of swimming required, or sending a team of specially trained animal trainer to teach the polar bears better techniques for swimming, all of the above solutions are valid according to our pseudo science problem statement “Polar bears swims to far, therefore they are dying”.

We must question the problem statement to ensure that it is correct, as any solution based on an incorrect problem statement that actually solves the issue would solve it by luck, and there is reason why the roulette table seldom features as a vital part of problem solving.