Motorola did indeed make excellent items back in the day. eg. phones and modems. I had a phone that was just plain not breakable, it was dropped many times, fell into mud and water and always worked. Bought a new phone dropped it once it fell apart. I also had a motorola digital box for four years no problem. Rented a new digital box/DVR a year ago, I have gone through five boxes. Two co-workers have gone through two DVR/digital boxes each in the past year. Their products are starting to look bad, a true shame they were an excellent product.
I voted no, Outside In is not awesome. Here is why: One too many gimmes. By making one of the rules that sides can pass through each other, you're basically making a rule that says, "We're going to break a fundamental rule of physics to make this possible." It's like asking whether we can make a car that goes 10,000 miles per hour, and then saying, "Yes -- as long as we suspend all the rules of aerodynamics."
Of course, I hate math, so take it with a grain of salt.
One too many gimmes. By making one of the rules that sides can pass through each other, you're basically making a rule that says, "We're going to break a fundamental rule of physics to make this possible."
That's because it's not a physics problem: it's a math one. That set of rules is common and, for math purposes, incredibly useful. It's no more arbitrary than stating that parallel lines can never cross, or by defining what a "regular" polyhedron entails.
I wonder what the practical application of the outside in thing is. Mathematicians are not as ivory-tower as one usually thinks, so I wonder where that came from.
I'm with the awesome croud, but I also rather like maths anyways. One of the things I aim to do is fully understand the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, and there's absolutely no good reason for it
I'm with the awesome croud, but I also rather like maths anyways. One of the things I aim to do is fully understand the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, and there's absolutely no good reason for it
Unless you want a deepr understanding of elliptical curves.
The organization that made this, the Geometry Center at the University of Minnesota, is now defunct, but their website is still up, and their software is still in use.
I was wondering why you didn't find it necessary to talk about PASCAL. I don't know if it's just a europe thing, but it's considered to be of the 5 most important languages here.
It was difficult to grasp at first, but in time I understood the concept. I must say that it was incredibly awesome, especially since it could be explained purely in a mathematical sense as well as in layman's terms.
Well the sphere business feels like one of those wooden puzzles you take forever to figure out. Like the final bit of transferring one of the towers of Hanoi.
Comments
Two co-workers have gone through two DVR/digital boxes each in the past year. Their products are starting to look bad, a true shame they were an excellent product.
Of course, I hate math, so take it with a grain of salt.
I really liked the Outside in video, and I despise math on a regular basis.
One of the things I aim to do is fully understand the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, and there's absolutely no good reason for it
I don't know if it's just a europe thing, but it's considered to be of the 5 most important languages here.
and yes, OsI is awesome.