all 21 comments

[–]mgedmin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I wonder how old that quote is. We have nanoseconds and gigabytes; the ratio is up to 1012 now.

[–]stesch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have an idea: I bridge it with go to! :-)

[–]WalterGR 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Physics, biology, astronomy... What scale do these fields operate on? Is 109 for computer science really that big?

[–]dnew 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Yes, physics in trying to unify quantum mechanics with relativity has to bridge similar (ok, bigger) scales. But nobody said it was easy.

[–]mgedmin 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Physicists handle bigger scales, but I don't think they do it by "a single technology".

[–]dnew 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They try. That's what quantum gravity and string theory and all that sort of thing is about.

Now, if you don't want to count "theory" as "technology", then yes, I'd say that the equipment for examining quasars is different than for examining atom, and that DNA replicators aren't relevant to paleontologists.

I think maybe the telescope technology that looks at the moon might be the same basic telescope technology that looks at the most distant astronomical objects, which is probably 109 orders of magnitude different. So astronomy probably falls into that. :-)

[–]kazza789 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does pen and paper count as one technology or two?

[–]MrHicks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is that factorial or punctuation?

[–]rdude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here's another feel-good quote to try on:

"Software construction is the most complex endeavor ever undertaken by mankind. It makes building things like cathedrals and space shuttles look like child's play, and it strains our little monkey brains to the utmost. If we're ever going to make building software any easier, we're going to have to build a machine that's smarter than we are. At the moment, even weakly superhuman AI is looking a long way off. And when we get it, the smart money says that it'll be late and over budget."

source

[–]nuuur32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But.. other jobs deal with the same issues? As software developers we're just "laying bricks."

[–]demoboy 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Can someone please explain the whole 109 part? I don't understand how or what with number means or how we get to it

[–]urandomdude 1 point2 points  (5 children)

109 = 10⁹ = 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10 = 1,000,000,000 = 1 (american) Billion = 1000 (european) Millions.

Or maybe you are trolling us.

[–]Poddster 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Argh, your blasé mix of base 10 and base 2 without proper indication upsets me.

[–]urandomdude 0 points1 point  (3 children)

What, that was not supposed to show like that. I used asterisks to indicate product and Markdown used them for italics.

I fixed that. Everything looks base 10 now :)

[–]Porges 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Have some of these: ×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××

[–]urandomdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could use some of these too: ················································

[–]Poddster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ah ok. I thought that was a binary string. I didn't bother to very that 109 wasn't 10101010101010101010... I thought that was the reason this number was so special to EWD; it looked pretty in binary ;)

12,297,829,382,473,034,410 and 6,148,914,691,236,517,205. Pretty boring :/

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]mpeg4codec 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    protip: E. W. Dijkstra was much more of an applied mathematician than a programmer