Why don't they call a 'radiation detector' by its name? It's a Geiger Counter. Way to make a name for something fall out of common usage...
There is not much description in the article, but I don't think it is a Geiger tube, as that requires high voltages and is fairly bulky. This is probably some sort of silicon detector.
And what he has is flawed as well. For example, he marked R as having issue with big data which is quite wrong - I routinely analyze multi-GB datasets in memory, and my databases go into TB.
Dude. That's not what people mean when they say big data. HP and Dell will both quite happily sell you machines with 2TB of main memory, and SGI will go to 16TB, and anything which can fit in memory on a single machine without custom hardware isn't big data. It's only big data once you get up to a few hundred terabytes.
Heh ! I am sure I can use R on such hardware, as long as I have access to it
I think the difference is when you use file formats that are flatter than databases and certain GUIs. In those cases, rather than taking the data as it needs it, it attempts to load all of it into memory and can max out the memory allowed to the process in 32 bit systems. But even then, there are ways around that through smart planning, variable use, and multiple data files for different variables so not all are in memory at once (of course databases implements all three at once internally).
This only happens if you issue a call like read.table("mytable.txt") - you can read the file piece by piece if you want to. Granted, this requires some work (unlike SAS), but in return you can do loops
Keep in mind that Universities, one of the biggest centers of innovation (often government funded), tend to have massive patent portfolios. They license them out to companies and that in turn funds more fundamental research^W^W^W bigger stadium. So if we killed the system completely we would also have to restructure how basic research is done... which would probably be a good, thing.. just pointing out that corporations are not the only ones utilizing this system.
FTFY. Sorry..
Edison's lightbulb is a really bad example. Edison took something which was already working in a lab (wire emitting light when you send electricity through it) and made it actually useful. Before Edison it was a scientific curiousity.
That is not fundamental research, it is directed product development.
Since we are on the topic, I once chanced on an issue of "Review of Scientific Instruments" from around 1900s. I was amazed by lots of articles on many ingenious devices based on transformers, vacuum bulbs and many unlike anything I heard before. Nowadays we look back and think "Lightbulb, Fleming valve, Multiphase motor" but there was a lot of research..
The whole article was not much more than a high level review. The graphic naturally draws attention to the parameters the writer wanted to cover but he did not back up his graphic with any sort of serious textual review of what he felt were the weaknesses or advantages of the different programming language at least not in any detail.
And what he has is flawed as well. For example, he marked R as having issue with big data which is quite wrong - I routinely analyze multi-GB datasets in memory, and my databases go into TB. Of all the three languages R is the only one to have a native format (data.frame) that interfaces easily to database queries. Both Octave (Matlab) or Python have to use compound types which make addressing difficult.
Also, I found R easier to master than either Octave or Python, but this is probably because I am familiar with Lisp.
No, all fundamental discoveries are made by government. Commercial entities have never invented anything.
That is because profit is incompatible with social benefit.
We need to encourage more funding from government through taxation of corporation. Let's give government more control over corporations.
There are intermediate entities like old AT&T labs where invented transistor was invented. Note that because AT&T was a monopoly the patent was licensed for only a nominal fee. If it was a pure commercial company expect the computer revolution delayed by a decade.
About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.
I know of very few cases when a fundamental discovery was made by a commercial company, they usually shy away from anything that takes a decade or more to develop. Usually this is funded by the goverment which is supposed to have a longer term view.
From spooky to downright disturbing, because if that is true, then the passengers of the very first viable colony expedition to another star will look back and see a super flare roast the Earth to a cinder just as soon as they are out of range.
Too complicated. We'll just get a signle Boltzmann brain.
"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards
