The way I see it: if you're an engineer, then you're-- by definition--
interested in *useful* applications of science and technology. If it's
useful, then it has commercial value.
In general, I'm not sure that follows. As an extreme example: a
sufficiently advanced piece of nanotech could construct anything,
including a replica of itself. It would mean an end to poverty, which
would certainly be useful; but it would have zero commercial value,
because the first one you sold would destroy your market.
Closer to home: I used to work for a videoconferencing company. We had
good tech, and it was useful, but not useful enough be commercially
viable. We had some sales, but nearly all of them were for people to try
out the product in their test labs. We didn't make money; we lost money.
To me, that says that this useful technology had negative commercial
value.
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke |Principal Engineer |
|jstracke(_at_)incentivesystems(_dot_)com |Incentive Systems, Inc. |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. |
|=============================================================|
|Nondeterminism may or may not mean never having to say you're|
|wrong. |
\=============================================================/