/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3245968
Hoho, what bullshit, inconnectuivity has nought to do with innovation, nevermind slowing it down. If anything collaboration breeds better science, and better science breeds better technology.

isolation = destruction via stagnation.

>>3245989
>collaboration

Are you sure you don't want to take the majority opinion and go with competition instead?

http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/wordpress/2011/04/parallel-innovation-in-isolation/

http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/10/inefficiency-of-social-isolation.html

I'm just saying. That, and evolutionary theory also seems to support the notion that innovation occurs best in isolation.

>>3245992

I was reading De Architectura by Vitruvius. Wow, those Romans had some amazing shit.

They were basically making something akin to roller compacted concrete bricks two thousand years ago. That's why so much of the stuff they built is still standing today.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00356.x/abstract

http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/wordpress/2011/04/parallel-innovation-in-isolation/

I'm just saying. That, and evolutionary theory also seems to support the notion that innovation occurs best in isolation.

>>3246033
It's not a dichotomy between collaboration and competition.

>>3246045
Ancient Rome was badass. And the American Rome today is mighty impressive as well.

>>3246058
>people can both work together and against each other simultaneously

I don't quite understand...

>>3246073
You never seen The Apprentice? They all work together to sell stuff but are competing for 1 permanent job.

>>3246082
Nope don't watch hardly any TV.

However I'd say that if they're all trying to sell the same thing then more/better than the other people then it's not collaboration. It's just redundancy, it occurs constantly in competitive market systems. Consumer electronics are good example, they're mostly all the same save for what name is plastered on them.

>>3246093
>don't watch hardly

HOLY SHIT I'm getting tired.

>>3246093
I don't watch it either. it was an example.

the point is scientists collaberate all the time, and you're an idiot

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evolution/change+isolation/evolution_change+isolation.html

>>3246138
wrong subject

>>3246119
I have no doubt scientists collaborate, I'm more concerned how that means they're competing with each other.

I mean competition usually results in people keeping secrets from other people to gain an advantage. Which is detrimental to collaboration.

>>3246156

the answer is actually to team up then split up regularly. a big group does starts something together then forms competing teams, then they get back together and pool their results, then split up again with all this new information to apply in their own way. repeat ad infinitum.

i forget where i read this so i can't cite a source, but that's how to advance as quickly as possible.

an example would be formula 1 cars; they develop in secret as much as possible but the results are still pooled every time they race. then they all steal each others ideas and develop it in secret. that's how to do advancement.

>>3246064

>American Rome

lolwut. are people still doing that "x country/empire is the successor to rome!" thing? (btw the actual successor is russia via byzantium. the more you know!)