reminded me elsewhere I have an apology to make. ?
http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/ACC.Laws.html
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke’s First Law:
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Clarke defines the adjective ‘elderly’ as :”In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory”. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke’s Second Law:
“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”
Clarke’s Third Law:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Thought he wrote after the laws that “Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here”, he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states Clarke’s 69th Law:
“Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.”
There was a broadcast on the BBC today, and it reminded me how much I’ve always liked the old buffer. As I was misquoting him in conversation yesterday without realising it, a tribute post and a link to the Listen Again seems like a good plan.
October 6th, 2005
Posted by
MatGB |
Uncategorized |
3 comments
Bus, you say? Bus!
http://www.roberts-mapp.com for the benefit of the new readers not understanding the bus obsession. The Icons site looks quite cool though.
October 6th, 2005
Posted by
MatGB |
Uncategorized |
one comment
Well, I remembered why I switched from Mozilla to Firefox, and went and did an OK Cupid! test. The browse didn’t crash. Shame I can’t say the same about Thunderbird; I’ve found all the mail, and been told how to reboot it so it loads it back up, but it won’t give me a profile with access to it. Gah!
Anyway, to topic. I took the
and found the results to be a little weird to say the least, although they didn’t surprise me. Essentially, I’mstrong on social freedoms, but strong on social protection. The problem with these things is it judges a desire to give a safety net and an equal start to everyone as being economically controlling, and makes me non economically permissive.
Wrong! I’m a strong believer in the principles of a market economy, the Market is undoubtedly the most efficient means of distribution and exchange yet discovered, and it’s pretty good with assessing the value of an individual product, as long as it is a functioning market.
The thing is, I don’t believe in corporate ownership, and would rather shop in small, local businesses than chain stores whenver possible. But every tick in favour of controls on corporations makes me “less” in favour of economic freedoms. This isn’t tied to online tests, it’s endemic within commentary on economics. It’s assumed you’re either ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ economically, there doesn’t seem to be any understanding of the difference between social justice, fair trade and a functioning market analysis.
Sorry, rant over, I return you to your regularly schedule of me bouncing all over the room and worrying about the phone bill.
October 6th, 2005
Posted by
MatGB |
Uncategorized |
8 comments
