> Or, to paraphrase a quote I found, "A computer is to computer science
> what a telescope is to Astronomy."
And yet they don't call it "Telescope Science"?
> The people that actually work on new implementations of algorithms,
> the
> people working on finding new ways of getting a computer in a car to
> drive itself, play chess beyond the skill of the best human, and
> understand what you're saying into your telephone so the nice people
> at
> the NSA don't have to pay people to do it, those people are
> scientists.
I know what a scientist is thanks :)
BTW, I AM developing a new algorithm, far more complex than any other
algorithm I can think of.
I've spoken to some people in the field of bio-informatics, and I've
had many of them tell me they've heard of no one using an approach
remotely similar to mine. So I really have an original approach to a
field with existing solutions.
Whether or not my approach will be a dead end or not... is another
matter :) Only time will tell. Either way, I could write a paper on
the subject. Either to warn people off from going down a dead end...
or more hopefully, to let people know how I acheived the super-fast
speeds I do.
And yes, I am both a scientist and an inventor. A proper one.
--
http://elfdata.com/plugin/
"String processing, done right"
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|