Can you clarify a bit?
-
-
Replying to @gsvigruha
As a source for undiscovered ideas, or negative knowledge, or obscure as in not currently hyped?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gsvigruha
Without differentiation there are no profits. Therefore, in order to have profitable ideas you need differentiated knowledge.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Molson_Hart @gsvigruha
So, I guess you could say "Undiscovered ideas."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Molson_Hart
I think it can be useful as long as you keep the investment (time mostly, not money) low.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gsvigruha
Obscure does not necessarily mean bad, it could have stayed that way for many reasons (bad implementation, ahead of its time, randomness).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gsvigruha
I need to work out how to find obscure but good books - not so easy!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Molson_Hart @gsvigruha
Judge them by their covers probably
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Molson_Hart
I just thought of sg, domain matters. In physics new discoveries depend on latest tech, in human/social domain not so much (old can work)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gsvigruha
sg? Perhaps in physics, but not in invention or engineering field. Old stuff can work wonders there. Discovery of oil for example.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
(Its discovery and uses were spurred on by legends of villagers dipping cloth in tar sands and applying it to wounds in early medicine)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.