A Quote by Henry Latham Doherty

Some of our problems can no more be solved correctly by majority opinion than can a problem in arithmetic and there are few problems that cannot be solved according to what is just and right without resort to popular opinion.
If explicit metadata is a real problem, it raises problems that just can't be solved. It's not that we're not good at it; it's the problems cannot be solved because we're not going to agree about these deep questions of how we organize.
We are more than our problems. Even if our problem is our own behavior, the problem is not who we are-it's what we did. It's okay to have problems. It's okay to talk about problems-at appropriate times, and with safe people. It's okay to solve problems. And we're okay, even when we have, or someone we love has a problem. We don't have to forfeit our personal power or our self-esteem. We have solved exactly the problems we've needed to solve to become who we are.
Some major problems can be solved by our political process and our leaders. Others can be solved only when there is popular demand and insistence and politicians feel at risk of unemployment if they ignore the groundswell.
When you start a company, it's more an art than a science because it's totally unknown. Instead of solving high-profile problems, try to solve something that's deeply personal to you. Ideally, if you're an ordinary person and you've just solved your problem, you might have solved the problem for millions of people.
Our problems are not solved by physical force, by hatred, by warOur problems are solved by loving kindness by gentleness, by joy
I tended to write poems about both social and spiritual problems, and some problems one doesn't really want to solve, and so the problems themselves are solved. You certainly don't want to solve problems in poems that haven't been solved in the world.
There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved.
The real value of science is in the getting, and those who have tasted the pleasure of discovery alone know what science is. A problem solved is dead. A world without problems to be solved would be devoid of science.
Problems cannot all be solved, for, as they are solved, new aspects are continually revealed: the historian opens the way, he does not close it.
A solved problem creates two new problems, and the best prescription for happy living is not to solve any more problems.
The rationale for accepting or rejecting any theory is thus fundamentally based on the idea of problem-solving progress. If one research tradition has solved more important problems than its rivals, then accepting that tradition is rational precisely to the degree that we are aiming to "progress," i.e., to maximize the scope f solved problems. In other words, the choice of one tradition over its rivals is a progressive (and thus a rational) choice precisely to the extent that the chosen tradition is a better problem solver than its rivals.
To politicians, solved problems represent a dire threat - of unemployment and poverty. That's why no problem ever tackled by the government has ever been solved. What they want is lots of problems they can promise to solve, so that we'll keep electing them - or letting them keep their jobs in a bureaucracy metastasizing like cancer.
To my mind, the best SF addresses itself to problems of the here and now, or even to problems which have never been solved and never will be solved - I'm thinking of Philip K. Dick's work here, dealing with questions of reality, for example.
You can't solve problems for someone whose problem is that they don't want problems solved.
The skill-providers want to have more impact and solve problems; the problem people want new tools to get their problems solved.
Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which the problems were created.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!