I would like to emphasize that synergies are not linear in return. If we add a component in business and it seems to generate a set amount of additional revenue, we nor the accounting department cannot calculate the long-term benefits, the total throughput of benefits yielded by the addition of a specific element. Because an additional element is not just another source of revenue, it is more complex than that. An element, vague as the term may seem, may have additional features and properties that make it much more than just mere profit; the returns are exponential.

The other definition of synergy is a dynamic state in which combined action is favored over the sum of individual component actions. We see collectivism is popular in certain types of companies. During board meetings, mutual consensus is reached and there are no debates on how to run the company, and a single direction exists. By working together instead of conducting office politics for personal gain, a company can offer a more competitive product than its rivals.

http://www.brianallan.com/

The best synergies often arise when two very different persons or components of a company, are put together. Of course we can hire many like-minded and talented individuals, but that would be overkill for a certain task. Instead, you downsize the number of employees, since less members with different talents can often achieve more by doing multiple tasks at once, and hire a competent manager that is not only able to harness the different talents, but also see to that the members get along.

A manifold of issues assault the traditional tried-and-proven model, on the magnitude of strategy, economics, and a political dominance. Strategically, the problem with a standard business model can be summed up as such: “I know how you operate, but you don’t know me. Now I will beat you.” With an understanding of how the majority of business operates, one can develop a organizational model to out-maneuver the targeted businesses in fields of advertising, sales, financing, and management. Also, the other problem many corporations face is that they are extremely effective in one field, and weak in another. The skill and experience found in one department may be too effective - or overkill. Perhaps that resource or talent could be better used when alloted to another task.

Economically, the main issue with a standard model is that it is susceptible to the rise and tidings of the economy. A non-standard models does not follow these rules, and thus remains largely unaffected. If the world is just a collection of set variables and rules, like what we find in a physics textbook, then we should act in our best interest to optimize these conditions, and avoid age-old traps, such as over-speculation.

Politically, a standard corporate model would make it vulnerable to arbitrary decisions of those in power. A small but powerful elite dictates the market, all others are disenfranchised and must follow to gain corporate respect and prestige. Nothing would be more senseless when conditions degrade to this level. Because a standard procedure is popular, it must be effective ad populum. Laws and legislation often have entire business models built around them. What happens when the government administration shifts its policies? We see this today as business owners and trade associations gather and confront the mounting challenges of a new administration and new laws that may or may not make a conducive environment for conducting business; it is the responsibility of executives to create new models.

From a programming standpoint, static and dated structures such as C will have to give way to more dynamic and object-oriented styles of languages such as C++, Java, and Perl. Although block programming can be far more useful in specific tasks (e.g. a smaller kernel), class construction is far more effective at handling large projects. Abstraction will pave the way for managing complexity, so that a large program can be divided amongst several team members.

What is software? Nothing more than our intellectual creations. Software takes time and money to develop, but far less than tangible goods. They also last rarely as long. So why are there monopolies, such as Microsoft and Apple, on certain programs (operating systems, music creation software), and many others lacking in quality (just visit any freeware and shareware site)? Uniform standards are one such reason for the discrepancy. However, the cost of important software for productivity is still overly exorbitant. The common people can hardly afford such bundles, packages, and suites of digital information, all of which last a short period of time. Although software should in theory drive our productivity, software at its best only improves our use of computers, which fuels the bubble of IT speculation.

Free trade and the rise of eCommerce has only accelerated the pace at which software is sold and distributed, but we have yet to see its positive effects, since they do take up a significant portion of what the common man pays for with his earned money. What are the ramifications on the US economy as a whole? On the world economy? And is it moral for a country to charge monthly costs and create multi-million dollar industries out of online games?

The future, being equally as elusive, remains a dim shadow, only to be lighted by our thoughts translated into action. Although we do not know the ultimate fate of universe, whether there will be an end to all things, we should seek to understand the present and what factors brought the present into being.

Time does not flow as we perceive it to be. From a purely physical standpoint, only the present exists. What is considered the past, falls under “does not exist” boundaries and infinite limits. The past then, was designed to be locked into place and irretrievable from a data standpoint; the past does not exist. In a four-dimensional model of the universe, time does not flow but experiences continuous behavior, like a smooth curve on the width and interval of Planck time and space.

As much as we create the future, we create the past. Our power to influence the nature of time itself is analogous to large waves emanating all from the present moment, which is the epicenter. This is because whenever we do something in the present, it becomes the past. So if time is a metal ruler, and we place a thin dark blue sliding marker as the present moment, everything to the left side of the marker is considered irretrievable and called the past of the past, much like the past participle in grammar. As we move the marker, simulating the movement of time, the area that is covered by the movement, which we can imagine as shaded red, to be called the past, since after we finish moving the marker, what was originally known as the present and the future has become the past. So perhaps the future is the past. From a scientific standpoint, we cannot tell the difference. The law of entropy is symmetric for both past and future, so entropy increases for both the past and the future. The increase of entropy in the past is counter-intuitive and does not correpond to our memories, and the arrow of time, arbitrary. Thus, the past can only be created from the present.

Since the human mind is a quantum computer itself, time is subject to even more subjective interpretation, as Einstein noted, depending on the activity of neurons, often passing by more quickly in meditation and more slowly during intensive information processing. No final word exists on the purpose or the nature of time itself, taken from the interpretations of various cultures and religions around the world, and thus time cannot be understood by anyone except oneself.

One has often heard from those who advocate living in the present, but such words ring hollow without the right mindframe. Carpe Diem is not enough; every moment is precious, whether it being seemingly dull routine or one-in-a-lifetime experience. During our pleasant moments, we should appreciate the full experience of the world. When angered, when irritated, we should remember that only the present matters to us, and that we should not let anyone or anything affect us. Old age too, is not a limiting factor towards our experiencing of the world, as age represents our greater spiritual growth as a higher intelligence life form, provided that we have taken care of ourselves during youth.

Most students pore over arcane formula such as sin x, arctan y, and manipulate them with much skill, but few understand them. To quote a friend, to be good at mathematics does not mean being smart, quick, or accurate with numbers. To be truly good at mathematics, means that one can invent his own method of calculating and requires an understanding far deeper than what lies on the surface.

In geometry, it is impossible to ignore the significance of Trigonometry, the study of the relationship between angles and sides in a triangle and their functions, and π, the study of the circle.

A circle then, is actually composed of triangles. Sine and cosine are but ratios, ratios of two lies that form a triangle with respect to the origin. There are only two lines that are significant, either the line opposite and the hypotenuse, or the line adjacent and the hypotenuse. The movement and wavelike alternation of sine and cosine, as they move around the unit circle, come to form the perfect circle we know as presently. Note that, when the ratios of the two lines are at zero (0:1) or infinite (1:0), form the four points on the circle on the top, bottom, left and right, because one line has infinitely no length, and the other has the maximum length, or vice-versa.

The other method of constructing a circle and obtaining the value π, or 3.1416 involves taking the limits of inscribed and circumscribed shapes, which is actually integration. For demonstration, we imagine a shape inside a circle, with the circle being the maximum possible area.

The triangle is the most basic of shapes. Next is the square, pentagon, hexagon, and till we get to a polygon with 96 sides, and then towards infinity.

Archimedes was the first, in ancient times, to approximate π rigorously, using bounds between 3.1429 < π < 3.1408. An improved version arose later, by Liu Hui of Wei Kingdom, who used a 3072-gon to obtain the close estimate of π we know as 3.1416.

So the circle is bigger than the inscribed square both in area and circumference, as well as any shape that comes between. Also, the circle has something to do with the square, because the area of any circle, is π multiplied by the square of the radius of the circle.

Because of π’s transcendental nature, the digits not only never repeat and decimal expansion remains infinite, but also no known formulas exist to obtain the exact value of π. This has puzzeled countless mathemeticians and laymen over the centuries, and the nature of the circle remains all the more mysterious. The truth is, we still don’t fully understand the circle.

The chilling and dismaying reality of π leads some to speculate that other bases than 10 should be tried to test if the repeating of the digits are truly random, such as binary, sexagesimal (base 12), and hexadecimal (base 16). Unfortunately, too little data exists at the moment for study. This has lead certain leading scientists to conjecture that, in the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula, that the normality and standard deviation of π in base 2, can be reduced to an explanation of chaos theory.

After thousands of years of study, we come to the conclusion that the circle is related to every other shape, the most complete of them. The circle is the ultimate expression of fulfillment.

The ancient Chinese were the first formulate a philosophy that showed a mature understanding of the circle and apply it. Taoism as well as similar beliefs that arose under the same time period, all place the circle as being the ultimate. Creation is summed as thus: from nothing came one (visually depicted as a circle), from one became two (light and dark arise in the Yin-Yang), and from two, a myriad of things. A holiday was even created to worship the moon, known as the Moon Festival, which celebrates the completeness of a full moon and the coming of Autumn.

The three dimensional version of the circle, or the sphere, is also derived from integrating the circle using circular disks. From planets to billiard balls, from stars to the universe as a whole, all are based upon this basic shape.

The martial arts of Ba Gua and Tai Ji were developed based on the circle, and represent the ultimate flexibility and invulnerable defense against linear approaches of fighting. Everywhere we go in ancient Chinese culture, we find that completeness and roundness are virtues. Although many a straightforward, linear, accurate, predictable, square aspects of life should be retained, the abilities and natural properties of the circle, those which we can apply in our everyday life, should be understood and never be forgotten.

The all-inclusiveness of the circle is what we should all strive to be. Easy it is to act in a linear fashion, by basing our life upon squares and straightness. Difficult, it is to replicate the of creation of all matter, and the curves of the circle. Dissection and analysis is easier than integration and whole understanding. Acting according to fixed rules and laws is easier than adopting a rounded and more flexible approach. In our studies as well as business, we prefer to split disciplines and tasks, but hardly do we know that in the end, in order for everything to work correctly, learning as well as making profit requires the student, or the corporation to work as a whole.

Too often do we offer individual products and packages, but can we do as the Japanese have done, to integrate an entire theme, feel and look, associated with a certain product, whether it be clothing or electronics, to provide customers a complete package and simplicity in their life? Noteworthy companies include Citibank, Sony Corporation, and The Sharper Image, and many top department stores, such as Nordstrom and Macy’s. But even then, the majority of businesses have a long way to go to improve our traditional method of making transactions.

Whenever an equal sign (=) is placed, the machine automatically discards previously stored values. This has monumental significance when the information is made public, because accessing entirely new commands, functions, and classes can be performed, not just changing a constant x from 5 to 6.

Traditional relationships between two objects is a “has a” connection. The new object-oriented design implements a “is a” relationship between two objects through inheritance. This is quite a breakthrough because hierarchical logic can replace linear A to B, AND/OR/NOR logic. An object can be two things simultaneously, on different levels.

A generous number of developments follow from an “is a” relationship. Nested classes become possible, which can be thought of as ideas within ideas. Inheritance can also occur, and combined with metamorphism, classes can become static or dynamic. Static polymorphism can be thought of as templates. Dynamic polymorphism can be thought up as dynamic, per-instance structure and behavior. Similarly, an intelligent being is able to apply inheritance in order to adapt to similar situations of infinite permutation.

Once inheritance is learned, we can re-classify functions as opposed to overloaded functions. Overloaded functions require multiple versions of functions. Redefining, however, can dynamically modify definitions with a single function. Perhaps this is why we are constantly redefining our models and conceptions of reality and the world. And perhaps we should, because a static model would only limit our performance and creativity. For example, “redefining progress” became one of the key themes in the 21^st century environmental movement.

Constructors, like classes, can be inherited. Copy constructors and destructors cannot be, showing the temporal value of these mechanisms. Assignment statements, of course, are also not inherited. The relationship between pointer and linked list is not an inheritance “is a” relationship, but rather a “has a” relationship. The relationship between a stack and list is inherited.

Empty spacetime is the ultimate expression of metamorphism. The empty grid of space has been scientifically discovered to be “not empty.” In empty space alone, elementary particles such as quarks and neutrinos, as well as unknown phenomenon, whiz to and fro. Perhaps, it is impossible to isolate nothing. If the universe is indeed one giant computer, then the values that are set to null or zero can always potentially change. Ancient Chinese philosophy reminds us that “from nothing came a myriad of things.”

Searching

In a traditional search, because the computer is unable to tell whether it has gone too far, in order to find the number 14, for example in a list of 6, 9, 12, 15, 20, after 12 is passed, the computer must backtrack from 15 in order to obtain the number 14. A doubly-linked list, however, is still advantageous because the search can leave the pointer anywhere, and does not have to go back to the beginning each time a search is called.

Innovative new algorithms have been developed by Google, Inc as well as Amazon.com and there are entire commercial industries dedicated to the development of searching. Google’s search engine is a remarkably efficient case because it uses parallel, distributive searching, where millions of users can search for relevant articles at the same time.

Neural Nets