and if you disclose those, then engineers at all of your competitor companies won't have to waste that same time, money and effort to find the same solution. Instead, they can focus on the next problem. This is how patents encourage innovation.
Actually, engineers at all your competitor companies will have to waste more time, money, and effort to figure out a way to do the same thing you did, but not the same way you did it. And make sure that it is a sufficiently different approach so that you can't sue them for patent violation. I wouldn't call that encouraging innovation. It's also hindering innovation when you have a small company with a great idea, but can't implement it because they would not be able to pay for patent licensing. As a result the great idea never gets made, all because someone has a monopoly on an idea. It happens often enough that it's a very bad thing.
And you know their solution won't work because...oh, yeah, you're smarter than they are. I suspect the real issue is that you have not communicated all the requirements correctly, but since you are very familiar with the problem, you know more than you have told them, and that biases your view on their solution.
You assume that every candidate will be able to solve every problem you give them. You don't think it's possible for a candidate to come up with a solution that is incorrect despite being given correct requirements? Also, if I tell them their solution wouldn't work and they disagree and show me I'm wrong and their solution does work, then I'd be impressed that they were able to come up with a solution I hadn't thought of. It has nothing to do with me being smarter than them or not, just being more familiar with the problem. You shouldn't be asking a question to a problem that you aren't familiar with, simply by being very familiar with the problem I would be able to tell with pretty good accuracy if a particular solution would work or not. Obviously you know more than you have told them, you at least know 1 or more valid solutions. It would be pointless to give them the solution:).
And, unless the problem is still trivial, the only correct answer is "how about we meet tomorrow at 2pm, which will give me time to see if it can be done at all, and give you time to think about the change you requested and better define it so that we don't make the same mistake of not having all the requirements up front". Seriously, if you change your mind a few minutes after seeing something that meets all your requirements, you really do need to sit back and think about what the requirements really are before asking someone to waste money (somebody's...you, pretending to be the client, the company, etc.).
You have never come up with a solution to a problem and then found an edge case that meets the requirements, but the current design would not be sufficient to fix? In such a case the only solution is to modify the design to accommodate the new case. You also assume that clients are always capable of describing all the requirements they need the first time and never make mistakes or forget something, all of which is very common. Not to mention that this is a hypothetical situation that is fabricated specifically to see how the candidate would respond in a similar real-world situation. Thus you seem to be taking this way too seriously.
The company I work for is small enough that programmers are likely heavily involved in requirements gathering, but for larger companies, that might be something only system analysts do. Depending on the job opening, your test might seem completely out of left field to a programmer who has never done formal analysis tasks.
I can understand this to a point, but we aren't talking about a formal analysis. We're talking about "you need to design something that achieves this specific goal." Something that every programmer who is capable of working on their own should be able to do. If you have to design everything for the programmer and they can only implement someone else's design, then they aren't an extremely useful programmer.
To test "collaboration", you need to assign a current employee to be the candidates "team" and let them solve the problem jointly. Either that, or you can be the collaborator, but then don't get to be the client, too, which would mean no "surprises" to spring on them
"Surprises" could simply be edge cases the candidate hadn't thought of. The point is to get a dialogue going and see how they think, how they approach the problem, how they react if things don't go smoothly, etc. Collaboration would evolve normally from this type of discussion where you aren't sitting and waiting for responses from the candidate but actually discussing the problem with them.
What is your point? Google is an advertising company that makes products which are then vehicles for advertising. They aren't good developers because the product they created doesn't make money for them directly? That's a completely ridiculous way of looking at it.
Can he remain polite when frustrated? Can he admit that his first approach to a problem was wrong?
Why do you assume this will happen? Is it because you don't give them all the real requirements until after he takes a stab at the answer? That's a common trick that interviewers use to make themselves feel smarter than the candidate. What do you do when someone asks you to give them a real, written requirements list before they start, as they would get if this was a real work situation?
The frustrated part is not something I assume will happen, neither do I assume that the first approach to the problem will be wrong. However, when giving an interview problem, if they get the answer to the problem there are two ways to continue the interview. You can ask a different problem, or you can continue with the current problem and take it further. Usually, the most common solution to a few design problems that I ask during an interview falls apart if you extrapolate and add new requirements. Not only that, but frequently (very frequently unfortunately) a candidate will start working on a solution that just will not work. You don't correct them immediately, you see whether they recognize that their solution won't work and admit they are wrong and change their approach.
While I don't assume that this will happen, I do try to purposely cause this to happen. If they come up with a solution that works, I will purposely say "ok, now what if you need to do this...." which will be something that I know will require them to change their current design to accommodate. The point is not to "make myself feel smarter than the candidate" the point is to see whether the candidate is able and willing to modify their current design to changing requirements. This is an important skill, and one that I've seen many candidates lack.
Can he work collaboratively at all, or does he have to solve problems entirely by himself.
If your "test" is simple enough to do on a whiteboard, many good programmers won't need any help after reading the written requirements.
"Many" good programmers is not "all" good programmers. Not only that, but "needing help" is not the same as "working collaboratively". If they can't work collaboratively, that's a bad sign.
Hmm, that "obsolete" droid you have? I did a little searching a while ago, downloaded an application, and then installed a custom rom on the phone (I'm assuming you're talking about the original droid which was unlocked). Now, my "obsolete" phone is only as obsolete as its hardware, running 2.3.7
IE has bitten me many times....big ole red welts on the massive rewrites of web site code for things that work standard in other browsers but require special IE handling...
Having your OS be managed code is a horrible idea. The OS should be native code. Otherwise you'll have to write a native code JIT anyways which needs to run....inside an OS...you see the problem. You could always bootstrap it, but that just seems messy.
In addition, C++ optimizes exceptionally well. You can see massive improvements simply from compiler optimizations. Would you care to have some kind of source backing up your claim that Objective-C optimizes better than C++? It seems highly unlikely. As far as compilers, I agree that LLVM is definitely better than gcc, but nothing really stops you from using LLVM to compile Android instead of gcc.
Lastly, whole program optimization is useful for any program. Doesn't matter how dynamic it is, no one rights fully optimized code that is optimized in every possible way (unless you're awesome and writing assembly directly which very few people do anymore). The compiler will always find things it can optimize, and whole program optimization will find more optimizations to make than simply running optimizations on the individual modules only.
If you attempt to run such optimizations on something like Android, you get a bloated memory footprint and a miniscule performance improvement, leaving you worse off than you would otherwise have been.
Care to back up that statement? By definition, the difference between whole program optimization and per module optimization, is that the whole program optimization can do more optimizations. It can be certain about the safety of more things like inlining thus reducing the memory footprint and improving performance.
JIT has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the applications that are running on top of it. The JIT was for dalvik running applications, the OS is, for the most part, compiled C++.
Actually, to be pedantic cause it's fun. Catering your business to people with an IQ over 60 will cost you less than half of potential customers, 100 is the average IQ by definition. Thus everyone with an IQ over 60 is catering to more than half the people in the world.:)
I was arguing AGAINST apple. GP said questioned whether it could be a natural progression from the standpoint that Apple "re-invented" the touch screen. But just because Apple made the touchscreen technology more popular with a good product does not mean that the idea of icons on a screen to touch was not a natural progression from the desktop model of a mouse and clicking on things.
Apple should NOT be allowed to stop others from implementing stuff, especially because it's not even anything novel, it's just a natural progression of ideas.
Nice assumption you're making. I was not voting in apple's favor at all. In fact, i was pointing out that Apple didn't "re-invent" the touchscreen. I was pointing out that making some old technology popular by getting to market with something that people liked more, does not prohibit something from being a natural progression.
It is definitely a sad fact that requirements for obviousness are not followed well enough. And I do not like the iPhone better. Best not to make assumptions. I avoid all Apple products.
I think you're referring to the hardware, as in having one whole touch screen rather than a split phone with a touch screen and keyboard. Which is only a small piece of the claims.
The idea of a screen, with icons and apps, etc. that you could touch, was how android was developed from the beginning. Considering the announcement of Android was only 10 months after the iPhone's announcement (5 months after it's release) there's no way they could have entirely redesigned it as people claim in order to "steal" the iPhone ideas. There's two things that happened: simultaneous development of ideas between Android and iOS, and normal competition (Hey, that guy's product does this. People love this. Let's do it too). But the behavior and ideas of a touch screen, with apps, icons, etc. weren't stolen. In fact, Android released with the android market and ability to get apps. The iPhone did not.
So reading through your link it seems that the problem here was that Skyhook was set as default and would prevent them gathering any location information. This does not contradict the statement that "Google allows competition on Android with their own services." They only required that the Google service was the default.
Not only that, but it doesn't prevent you from launching an android phone if you don't follow their tests. Nothing stops an OEM from loading stock android without Google's apps and releasing it. They just can't claim it is Google Approved and use the Google Apps, which is perfectly reasonable.
You're assuming that Company B told Company C how they did it. Otherwise Company C has to either spend their R&D on developing their own idea (usually what happens) or spend their R&D on figuring out how Company B solved it, which usually leads to improving on the idea. Not only that, but if the price was determined based on how much was spent in R&D (for tech) then surely the price should go down after a while? The two major factors for price in tech are market prices of comparable products and manufacturing costs. So sorry, I don't buy your argument.
While agreeing with you that a Unix equivalent would likely have shown up, I'm not so sure about C. (Granted this goes for Kerninghan too, not just Ritchie.) The world prefers to take something it has and continue to improve upon it. C had a ridiculous impact on the syntax and usage of programming languages. The most widely used languages all use many facets of C-Like syntax. Especially in the tech world where legacy code frequently causes projects to never get re-written in a better language. A Unix equivalent would have been written in one of the available languages or a new/completely different language. But it wouldn't have been C.
Despite how long our industry has existed and how fast it moves, the advent of widely used programming languages is surprisingly slow.
I'll agree that we would have equivalents to the languages, devices, and software we have now. But it wouldn't be the same at all, maybe better, maybe worse, but not the same. But you have to admit that the advent of C and Unix shaped the entire direction of the Computing field. It's similar to Steve Jobs. You can't claim that others would not have come up with the same advances in computing, smart phones, portable devices, etc. without him, but you can definitely see that he shaped the entire direction of these things.
not for the things he did not do, which is be the only person who could have moved the community on.
No one said he was the only person, obviously we also have Thompson, Kerninghan, McIlroy, and Ossana. However, without any one of them, the result would have been much different and it is right to point out that the community as it is right now, is what it is due to his accomplishments.
Unfortunately more times than not, companies will pay the license fee regardless of applicability due to it being cheaper to just pay up than to go to court....which is not how patents are supposed to work.
Also let me ask the obvious question : what would it take for you to change your mind about this ?
Evidence. Nice, simple, evidence. You continue to say that I'm disagreeing with long accepted theories, that "majority of studies" find "significant increases in violent behavior". Yet you continually have no evidence to back up your claim. You are convinced that games definitively do increase violence yet have provided not a shred of evidence. The people who performed the study this article is about claimed that they only saw an increase in competitive aggression, and it was not limited to the violent games. Now you say the study itself is not freely readable. Well, then I'll take their word for the results of the study and not yours, if you don't mind.
Then please explain why you know better than 40 years of psychological research.
I never said that I did. I only said that after that 40 years of psychological research, the people who are performing the studies STILL don't agree with each other. Some remain steadfast that they increase violent behavior, others don't.
You disagree with long accepted theories, without any explanation, and without doing any research of your own (and despite agreeing that "there is an effect" whatever you mean by that).
What long accepted theories am I disagreeing with? I'm merely agreeing with one set of studies, and you agree with a different set of studies. The fact that so many studies can have such wild variety in results when studying the same thing means someone is making mistakes somewhere either in interpretation of results, methodology, or whatever. But what it does mean, is that there is no "accepted" theory yet. There are merely a few different theories that each have their own following of small numbers of people. I've done research of my own!:)
There's two studies here, complete with hypotheses tested, studies carried out, etc. The first study was to determine whether short-term aggression in a laboratory environment could be replicated for violent vs non-violent games (hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar). They determined that males were more aggressive than females. However ther was no evidence to suggest that people who play and prefer violent games are innately more aggressive than those who do not, aside from the biological effect of males being more aggressive than females. The second study examined whether video game violence exposure retains a predictive value regarding violent crime (controlling for family violence exposure, trait aggression and gender). Turns out it doesn't.
Here's a lovely paper about the overinterpretation of these "studies" and the myths about video game violence.
This one is a meta-analysis of a few different studies, showing some flaws in both the methodology, conclusions, and how these could be fixed to get better, more accurate studies. In addition, adequately explaining certain variables and theoretical questions that need to be addressed before any study could adequately explain the effects of violent video games.
I can provide more if you like. If you'll actually read them or care what they say. Essentially, there's a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that claim video games cause violence. While there's also a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that say they don't. So far neither side has conclusively proved anything. This one covers that angle and also talks about the limits to the ability of actually testing and measuring violence and aggression caused by video games.
Violent video games do not cause an increase in violent behavior in someone who does not already have a problem with violent behavior.
They can however, as do movies, books, comics, music, and basically all other media (not restricted to violent) cause an increase in aggression temporarily. Not permanently, and not significantly.
However this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the many studies I have read, and the results they have found. I would not presume to state that my opinion is the "settled" opinion of the science by psychologists, because there is no settled and agreed opinion that violent video games do or do not cause violent behavior. Which is the point I've been saying all along. You are claiming that they "definitely cause violent behavior" and that it is "settled science" and anyone who disagrees with you is "ignoring common sense". All of that is completely wrong.
If you were to read the actual study (not publicly accessible), you'd see the EXACT experiment done:
Well, until I read the study, I'm not just going to take your word on it.
Observation violent behavior increased, except in the case of "marble blast ultra".
How was 'violent behavior" measured? One of the biggest problems with many of these studies is that the "measurement of violent behavior" is often ridiculous, convoluted, and stupid. Many times they are measuring aggression not violent behavior, but calling it violent behavior anyway. Giving someone "explo_e" and seeing who puts a "d" for explode versus an "r" for explore doesn't measure anything, yet there was a study that used that as part of its measure of "aggressive thoughts."
Note that this experiment *does* prove causality, if it sufficiently excludes other influences between steps 1 and 3. It is not mere correlation (you're only stuck with correlation if you can only do passive experiments. This is an active experiment : you actually influence those people)
Really? What was the control group? You listed four experimental groups. If there was no control group then this can't prove causation because it did not sufficiently exclude other influences. Also, how did they chose who got to play which game? Did the subjects know specifically what they were being tested for? Do they account for this? How do they explain the studies which don't show this increase for violent video games? You want to back the study off your own interpretation of what things mean, answer the questions.
the game "Fuel" was more effective in creating violent responses than Left 4 Dead 2 (but what was left out is that there are 2 possible allowed tactics : either you race, or you try to destroy your opponents). But "Mortal Kombat" took the crown spot, and left 4 dead 2 still increased violent responses.
Racing and running an opponent off the road or causing him to crash is just not comparable to shooting/gore/beating up/etc. Unless the racing game in question is arming the cars with guns and explosives, I would not call it a violent game. Aggressive perhaps, but not violent. If the scientists who ran the study didn't consider it violent, then either you're calling into question their methodology at which point all of the results are suspect and need to be gone over again, or you're wrong.
Politics refuses to accept the answer that media (whether it's movies, video games, punk rock, comic books, etc.) is just not as influencing of behavior as they like to believe. People need to be able to blame something other than themselves for the perceived "immorality" of young people today...
Cute, very nice way of throwing in the assumption that games don't have any effect. Nicely done. Of course, the position of psychology science is just the opposite, so isn't your response a very good example of letting your politics override your common sense ?
Hmmm, nice way of twisting my words around. I stated that they are just not as influencing of behavior as people like to believe. I did not state they "don't have any effect." I did however state they have no greater effect than that of movies, books, comics, etc. To which you had no response. I also gave you the example that the position of Psychological studies is not settled. There is no consensus by psychologists that video games do or do not cause violent behavior. There are many who believe it does and there are just as many who believe it does not. There are flawed studies that attempt to show video games increase violence and there are flawed studies that attempt to show they do not. Do not go around stating the falsehood that it is settled and agreed by psychologists that violent video games cause violent behavior. You are attempting to claim that it's "common sense" that violent video
Slashdot Mirror
The President can urge, suggest, bitch and moan but PotUS has no more ability to enact law than we do.
Executive Orders have the force of law.
and if you disclose those, then engineers at all of your competitor companies won't have to waste that same time, money and effort to find the same solution. Instead, they can focus on the next problem. This is how patents encourage innovation.
Actually, engineers at all your competitor companies will have to waste more time, money, and effort to figure out a way to do the same thing you did, but not the same way you did it. And make sure that it is a sufficiently different approach so that you can't sue them for patent violation. I wouldn't call that encouraging innovation. It's also hindering innovation when you have a small company with a great idea, but can't implement it because they would not be able to pay for patent licensing. As a result the great idea never gets made, all because someone has a monopoly on an idea. It happens often enough that it's a very bad thing.
And you know their solution won't work because...oh, yeah, you're smarter than they are. I suspect the real issue is that you have not communicated all the requirements correctly, but since you are very familiar with the problem, you know more than you have told them, and that biases your view on their solution.
You assume that every candidate will be able to solve every problem you give them. You don't think it's possible for a candidate to come up with a solution that is incorrect despite being given correct requirements? Also, if I tell them their solution wouldn't work and they disagree and show me I'm wrong and their solution does work, then I'd be impressed that they were able to come up with a solution I hadn't thought of. It has nothing to do with me being smarter than them or not, just being more familiar with the problem. You shouldn't be asking a question to a problem that you aren't familiar with, simply by being very familiar with the problem I would be able to tell with pretty good accuracy if a particular solution would work or not. Obviously you know more than you have told them, you at least know 1 or more valid solutions. It would be pointless to give them the solution :).
And, unless the problem is still trivial, the only correct answer is "how about we meet tomorrow at 2pm, which will give me time to see if it can be done at all, and give you time to think about the change you requested and better define it so that we don't make the same mistake of not having all the requirements up front". Seriously, if you change your mind a few minutes after seeing something that meets all your requirements, you really do need to sit back and think about what the requirements really are before asking someone to waste money (somebody's...you, pretending to be the client, the company, etc.).
You have never come up with a solution to a problem and then found an edge case that meets the requirements, but the current design would not be sufficient to fix? In such a case the only solution is to modify the design to accommodate the new case. You also assume that clients are always capable of describing all the requirements they need the first time and never make mistakes or forget something, all of which is very common. Not to mention that this is a hypothetical situation that is fabricated specifically to see how the candidate would respond in a similar real-world situation. Thus you seem to be taking this way too seriously.
The company I work for is small enough that programmers are likely heavily involved in requirements gathering, but for larger companies, that might be something only system analysts do. Depending on the job opening, your test might seem completely out of left field to a programmer who has never done formal analysis tasks.
I can understand this to a point, but we aren't talking about a formal analysis. We're talking about "you need to design something that achieves this specific goal." Something that every programmer who is capable of working on their own should be able to do. If you have to design everything for the programmer and they can only implement someone else's design, then they aren't an extremely useful programmer.
To test "collaboration", you need to assign a current employee to be the candidates "team" and let them solve the problem jointly. Either that, or you can be the collaborator, but then don't get to be the client, too, which would mean no "surprises" to spring on them
"Surprises" could simply be edge cases the candidate hadn't thought of. The point is to get a dialogue going and see how they think, how they approach the problem, how they react if things don't go smoothly, etc. Collaboration would evolve normally from this type of discussion where you aren't sitting and waiting for responses from the candidate but actually discussing the problem with them.
What is your point? Google is an advertising company that makes products which are then vehicles for advertising. They aren't good developers because the product they created doesn't make money for them directly? That's a completely ridiculous way of looking at it.
Can he remain polite when frustrated? Can he admit that his first approach to a problem was wrong?
Why do you assume this will happen? Is it because you don't give them all the real requirements until after he takes a stab at the answer? That's a common trick that interviewers use to make themselves feel smarter than the candidate. What do you do when someone asks you to give them a real, written requirements list before they start, as they would get if this was a real work situation?
The frustrated part is not something I assume will happen, neither do I assume that the first approach to the problem will be wrong. However, when giving an interview problem, if they get the answer to the problem there are two ways to continue the interview. You can ask a different problem, or you can continue with the current problem and take it further. Usually, the most common solution to a few design problems that I ask during an interview falls apart if you extrapolate and add new requirements. Not only that, but frequently (very frequently unfortunately) a candidate will start working on a solution that just will not work. You don't correct them immediately, you see whether they recognize that their solution won't work and admit they are wrong and change their approach.
While I don't assume that this will happen, I do try to purposely cause this to happen. If they come up with a solution that works, I will purposely say "ok, now what if you need to do this...." which will be something that I know will require them to change their current design to accommodate. The point is not to "make myself feel smarter than the candidate" the point is to see whether the candidate is able and willing to modify their current design to changing requirements. This is an important skill, and one that I've seen many candidates lack.
Can he work collaboratively at all, or does he have to solve problems entirely by himself.
If your "test" is simple enough to do on a whiteboard, many good programmers won't need any help after reading the written requirements.
"Many" good programmers is not "all" good programmers. Not only that, but "needing help" is not the same as "working collaboratively". If they can't work collaboratively, that's a bad sign.
Hmm, that "obsolete" droid you have? I did a little searching a while ago, downloaded an application, and then installed a custom rom on the phone (I'm assuming you're talking about the original droid which was unlocked). Now, my "obsolete" phone is only as obsolete as its hardware, running 2.3.7
IE has bitten me many times....big ole red welts on the massive rewrites of web site code for things that work standard in other browsers but require special IE handling...
Having your OS be managed code is a horrible idea. The OS should be native code. Otherwise you'll have to write a native code JIT anyways which needs to run....inside an OS...you see the problem. You could always bootstrap it, but that just seems messy.
In addition, C++ optimizes exceptionally well. You can see massive improvements simply from compiler optimizations. Would you care to have some kind of source backing up your claim that Objective-C optimizes better than C++? It seems highly unlikely. As far as compilers, I agree that LLVM is definitely better than gcc, but nothing really stops you from using LLVM to compile Android instead of gcc.
Lastly, whole program optimization is useful for any program. Doesn't matter how dynamic it is, no one rights fully optimized code that is optimized in every possible way (unless you're awesome and writing assembly directly which very few people do anymore). The compiler will always find things it can optimize, and whole program optimization will find more optimizations to make than simply running optimizations on the individual modules only.
If you attempt to run such optimizations on something like Android, you get a bloated memory footprint and a miniscule performance improvement, leaving you worse off than you would otherwise have been.
Care to back up that statement? By definition, the difference between whole program optimization and per module optimization, is that the whole program optimization can do more optimizations. It can be certain about the safety of more things like inlining thus reducing the memory footprint and improving performance.
JIT has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the applications that are running on top of it. The JIT was for dalvik running applications, the OS is, for the most part, compiled C++.
Actually, to be pedantic cause it's fun. Catering your business to people with an IQ over 60 will cost you less than half of potential customers, 100 is the average IQ by definition. Thus everyone with an IQ over 60 is catering to more than half the people in the world. :)
Gah, why is my statement being so misunderstood.
I was arguing AGAINST apple. GP said questioned whether it could be a natural progression from the standpoint that Apple "re-invented" the touch screen. But just because Apple made the touchscreen technology more popular with a good product does not mean that the idea of icons on a screen to touch was not a natural progression from the desktop model of a mouse and clicking on things.
Apple should NOT be allowed to stop others from implementing stuff, especially because it's not even anything novel, it's just a natural progression of ideas.
Nice assumption you're making. I was not voting in apple's favor at all. In fact, i was pointing out that Apple didn't "re-invent" the touchscreen. I was pointing out that making some old technology popular by getting to market with something that people liked more, does not prohibit something from being a natural progression.
It is definitely a sad fact that requirements for obviousness are not followed well enough. And I do not like the iPhone better. Best not to make assumptions. I avoid all Apple products.
I think you're referring to the hardware, as in having one whole touch screen rather than a split phone with a touch screen and keyboard. Which is only a small piece of the claims.
The idea of a screen, with icons and apps, etc. that you could touch, was how android was developed from the beginning. Considering the announcement of Android was only 10 months after the iPhone's announcement (5 months after it's release) there's no way they could have entirely redesigned it as people claim in order to "steal" the iPhone ideas. There's two things that happened: simultaneous development of ideas between Android and iOS, and normal competition (Hey, that guy's product does this. People love this. Let's do it too). But the behavior and ideas of a touch screen, with apps, icons, etc. weren't stolen. In fact, Android released with the android market and ability to get apps. The iPhone did not.
So reading through your link it seems that the problem here was that Skyhook was set as default and would prevent them gathering any location information. This does not contradict the statement that "Google allows competition on Android with their own services." They only required that the Google service was the default.
Not only that, but it doesn't prevent you from launching an android phone if you don't follow their tests. Nothing stops an OEM from loading stock android without Google's apps and releasing it. They just can't claim it is Google Approved and use the Google Apps, which is perfectly reasonable.
You're assuming that Company B told Company C how they did it. Otherwise Company C has to either spend their R&D on developing their own idea (usually what happens) or spend their R&D on figuring out how Company B solved it, which usually leads to improving on the idea. Not only that, but if the price was determined based on how much was spent in R&D (for tech) then surely the price should go down after a while? The two major factors for price in tech are market prices of comparable products and manufacturing costs. So sorry, I don't buy your argument.
You do realize that Android was in development far before the release of the iPhone right?
Xerox did no such thing. If they did, then why did they sue?
Just because the idea is a natural progression, doesn't mean that the implementation before this was really good.
Oh goddamn it.
The world just doesn't sit stagnant like that.
While agreeing with you that a Unix equivalent would likely have shown up, I'm not so sure about C. (Granted this goes for Kerninghan too, not just Ritchie.) The world prefers to take something it has and continue to improve upon it. C had a ridiculous impact on the syntax and usage of programming languages. The most widely used languages all use many facets of C-Like syntax. Especially in the tech world where legacy code frequently causes projects to never get re-written in a better language. A Unix equivalent would have been written in one of the available languages or a new/completely different language. But it wouldn't have been C.
Despite how long our industry has existed and how fast it moves, the advent of widely used programming languages is surprisingly slow.
I'll agree that we would have equivalents to the languages, devices, and software we have now. But it wouldn't be the same at all, maybe better, maybe worse, but not the same. But you have to admit that the advent of C and Unix shaped the entire direction of the Computing field. It's similar to Steve Jobs. You can't claim that others would not have come up with the same advances in computing, smart phones, portable devices, etc. without him, but you can definitely see that he shaped the entire direction of these things.
not for the things he did not do, which is be the only person who could have moved the community on.
No one said he was the only person, obviously we also have Thompson, Kerninghan, McIlroy, and Ossana. However, without any one of them, the result would have been much different and it is right to point out that the community as it is right now, is what it is due to his accomplishments.
Aren't patents that are "the only way to do it" considered to be invalid an unpatentable?
Unfortunately more times than not, companies will pay the license fee regardless of applicability due to it being cheaper to just pay up than to go to court....which is not how patents are supposed to work.
Also let me ask the obvious question : what would it take for you to change your mind about this ?
Evidence. Nice, simple, evidence. You continue to say that I'm disagreeing with long accepted theories, that "majority of studies" find "significant increases in violent behavior". Yet you continually have no evidence to back up your claim. You are convinced that games definitively do increase violence yet have provided not a shred of evidence. The people who performed the study this article is about claimed that they only saw an increase in competitive aggression, and it was not limited to the violent games. Now you say the study itself is not freely readable. Well, then I'll take their word for the results of the study and not yours, if you don't mind.
Then please explain why you know better than 40 years of psychological research.
I never said that I did. I only said that after that 40 years of psychological research, the people who are performing the studies STILL don't agree with each other. Some remain steadfast that they increase violent behavior, others don't.
You disagree with long accepted theories, without any explanation, and without doing any research of your own (and despite agreeing that "there is an effect" whatever you mean by that).
What long accepted theories am I disagreeing with? I'm merely agreeing with one set of studies, and you agree with a different set of studies. The fact that so many studies can have such wild variety in results when studying the same thing means someone is making mistakes somewhere either in interpretation of results, methodology, or whatever. But what it does mean, is that there is no "accepted" theory yet. There are merely a few different theories that each have their own following of small numbers of people. I've done research of my own! :)
There's two studies here, complete with hypotheses tested, studies carried out, etc. The first study was to determine whether short-term aggression in a laboratory environment could be replicated for violent vs non-violent games (hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar). They determined that males were more aggressive than females. However ther was no evidence to suggest that people who play and prefer violent games are innately more aggressive than those who do not, aside from the biological effect of males being more aggressive than females. The second study examined whether video game violence exposure retains a predictive value regarding violent crime (controlling for family violence exposure, trait aggression and gender). Turns out it doesn't.
Here's a lovely paper about the overinterpretation of these "studies" and the myths about video game violence.
This one is a meta-analysis of a few different studies, showing some flaws in both the methodology, conclusions, and how these could be fixed to get better, more accurate studies. In addition, adequately explaining certain variables and theoretical questions that need to be addressed before any study could adequately explain the effects of violent video games.
I can provide more if you like. If you'll actually read them or care what they say. Essentially, there's a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that claim video games cause violence. While there's also a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that say they don't. So far neither side has conclusively proved anything. This one covers that angle and also talks about the limits to the ability of actually testing and measuring violence and aggression caused by video games.
Your move, if you decide to respond. I've provid
My opinion is extremely clear.
Violent video games do not cause an increase in violent behavior in someone who does not already have a problem with violent behavior.
They can however, as do movies, books, comics, music, and basically all other media (not restricted to violent) cause an increase in aggression temporarily. Not permanently, and not significantly.
However this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the many studies I have read, and the results they have found. I would not presume to state that my opinion is the "settled" opinion of the science by psychologists, because there is no settled and agreed opinion that violent video games do or do not cause violent behavior. Which is the point I've been saying all along. You are claiming that they "definitely cause violent behavior" and that it is "settled science" and anyone who disagrees with you is "ignoring common sense". All of that is completely wrong.
If you were to read the actual study (not publicly accessible), you'd see the EXACT experiment done :
Well, until I read the study, I'm not just going to take your word on it.
Observation violent behavior increased, except in the case of "marble blast ultra".
How was 'violent behavior" measured? One of the biggest problems with many of these studies is that the "measurement of violent behavior" is often ridiculous, convoluted, and stupid. Many times they are measuring aggression not violent behavior, but calling it violent behavior anyway. Giving someone "explo_e" and seeing who puts a "d" for explode versus an "r" for explore doesn't measure anything, yet there was a study that used that as part of its measure of "aggressive thoughts."
Note that this experiment *does* prove causality, if it sufficiently excludes other influences between steps 1 and 3. It is not mere correlation (you're only stuck with correlation if you can only do passive experiments. This is an active experiment : you actually influence those people)
Really? What was the control group? You listed four experimental groups. If there was no control group then this can't prove causation because it did not sufficiently exclude other influences. Also, how did they chose who got to play which game? Did the subjects know specifically what they were being tested for? Do they account for this? How do they explain the studies which don't show this increase for violent video games? You want to back the study off your own interpretation of what things mean, answer the questions.
the game "Fuel" was more effective in creating violent responses than Left 4 Dead 2 (but what was left out is that there are 2 possible allowed tactics : either you race, or you try to destroy your opponents). But "Mortal Kombat" took the crown spot, and left 4 dead 2 still increased violent responses.
Racing and running an opponent off the road or causing him to crash is just not comparable to shooting/gore/beating up/etc. Unless the racing game in question is arming the cars with guns and explosives, I would not call it a violent game. Aggressive perhaps, but not violent. If the scientists who ran the study didn't consider it violent, then either you're calling into question their methodology at which point all of the results are suspect and need to be gone over again, or you're wrong.
Politics refuses to accept the answer that media (whether it's movies, video games, punk rock, comic books, etc.) is just not as influencing of behavior as they like to believe. People need to be able to blame something other than themselves for the perceived "immorality" of young people today ...
Cute, very nice way of throwing in the assumption that games don't have any effect. Nicely done. Of course, the position of psychology science is just the opposite, so isn't your response a very good example of letting your politics override your common sense ?
Hmmm, nice way of twisting my words around. I stated that they are just not as influencing of behavior as people like to believe. I did not state they "don't have any effect." I did however state they have no greater effect than that of movies, books, comics, etc. To which you had no response. I also gave you the example that the position of Psychological studies is not settled. There is no consensus by psychologists that video games do or do not cause violent behavior. There are many who believe it does and there are just as many who believe it does not. There are flawed studies that attempt to show video games increase violence and there are flawed studies that attempt to show they do not. Do not go around stating the falsehood that it is settled and agreed by psychologists that violent video games cause violent behavior. You are attempting to claim that it's "common sense" that violent video