Get little overexcited pressing that elevator button too hard and you can cause property damage that may end up costing the owner hundreds of dollars in repairs. You may not have had that intention but they got you on camera and they're gonna sue.
On the other hand, if they got you on camera stealing money or goods of the same nominal value - they'll just call the cops on your ass. Cause it's a completely different situation.
People tend not to accidentally steal other people's property. But people tend to want to be reimbursed for the damage that other people do to their property. Accidentally or not.
They just haven't patented it yet, so they can't use the term as such but they can iMply it. Which is also a technology that Apple is currently in the process of patenting.
That even with the current vaccine which clearly does not cure the flu, they are able to maintain a government subsidized monopoly with "almost no spare capacity", even though it is supposedly "not very profitable".
On top of that the new, effective, vaccine which would be protected by patents, would replace the old one (while keeping the government subsidies) AND it should clearly be more expensive to produce - both because there's "almost no spare capacity" AND because it is new technology. And that's just regarding those measly 300 million or so US Americans.
The market, protected by patents, is THE WORLD. Seven billion humans and climbing. Every year. Just in time for the holidays.
Enough to make a CEO of a pharmaceutical company believe in Santa Claus.
Flu isn't prevalent in Q4 or any specific time of the year at all, especially on a global scale. The reason why people get flu more often in bad weather conditions is because they all crowd inside and the contamination risk is much higher when the people density is up.
"Why" is of no importance as far as profits go, as long as it happens with predictable and noticeable enough intensity during a "when" which is Q4.
If I was a multibillion dollar industry I'd very much appreciate the fact of having a product that gets sold to every human being on the planet, every year right about the time for holidays, scoring me a big boost in the Q4.
But then again I also believe that based on available evidence it was Lee Harvey Oswald that shot Kennedy.
What if the charger starts making those claims after 15-37 charges? So you start checking the connections one by one... plugging and unplugging items...
After all... if they are after your data, they should let you accumulate some data on the device first, right?
but even now that I'm 27 I still don't like going into my parents bedroom without telling them.
...when you started locking them up in their "rooms" on second offense? And do you use a modern device like a taser or is a stick enough to "persuade" them?
And fully-realized means that it's immersive enough that the AI reflects the differences when dealing with each race, rather than the same exact dialogue regardless of which alien picture is on the screen.
Ah, so it's more like designed and developed in detail.
I agree with everything denzacar said except: "We want to see humanoid aliens"... I want to show aliens that are cool, and at least interesting even if they're not completely believable
All I'm saying is, look at statistics. We tend not to popularize those few non-anthropomorphic aliens shown on ANY screen or drawing. For every Horta there are literally thousands of centrally symmetric bipedal aliens with very distinct facial features.
And how do we instantly recognize the bad guys? No faces.
You anthropomorphize transparently and automatically, in your head. Empathizing while looking at images of centipedes the whole day on the other hand... Well, let's just say that we have this thing for faces. Also, that when we think of cuddly and friendly - we tend to disregard insects.
- Modular ships and technology that can make a difference. Both in tactical combat and civilization/empire building.
- Species traits that really matter during the entire course of the game. Same goes for leaders.
- A simple interface that didn't require you to go back to the main screen for every single action, select a submenu, then another one, then choose an option...
- Build queues that worked and didn't require scrolling. Also, everything that you could build was always on a single screen, available by a single click but it was separated so you didn't have to scroll through your buildings looking for ships and vice versa. And you could sort your colonies by how fast they will build stuff - i.e. by production.
- Pretty graphics. Planetscapes were simple yet beautiful. Elerians were hot AND a very powerful race.
- But most importantly, HUMANOID SPECIES. Even Silicoids looked somewhat bipedal. Which is very important if you're supposed to empathize with the species you're playing. Among other things MOO3 managed to fuck up was the look of the game - most species now looked like bad modern art. Practically all of them could be considered "repulsive".
Really alien looking species are a nice touch from time to time on an episodic show like Star Trek but there is no appeal for a weekly show whose main characters resemble puddles of mud. We want to see humanoid aliens with humanoid expressions on their humanoid faces.
Which is why I'm having a bad feeling about this whole "as fully-realized as possible" thing. Smells a lot like MOO3.11 for workgroups.
What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots.
Your understanding of IQ, social interactions and your purported hiring practices match up really well.
First off... That 100 average IQ is a normalized value. It will never change, no matter how many "stupid" people or geniuses are out there. 100 will always be average. Now, thing with bell-shaped curves is, they have this nasty habit of being evenly distributed on both sides. Also, there's this thing of them having 95% of all values within 2 sigma - which are in this case conveniently situated around that 100 IQ average.
What that means in real life is that 95% of people in the world fall within 2 sigma from 100 IQ. I.e. Almost everyone is within IQ 70 and IQ 130. Leaving ~2.5% people with IQ over 130, and just as much of those with the IQ of under 70.
Now here's the fun part. It's a bit counter intuitive, so try to keep up. First of all, those with IQ below 70 don't really count. We're talking "definite feeble-mindedness" there. Those people are not what you can in any way call active members of the society.
Then comes that second sigma - those falling in that group between 70 and 85. Within those 15 IQ points falls 14.591% of humanity. And guess what? Most of those don't count either! Cause those ranging from 70 to 85 IQ points are what we call "borderline deficient", "borderline impaired or delayed", "well below average" or "borderline mentally retarded". Again... this being the place on the scale where those number really count, about two thirds of those people are closer to retarded than to plain old "stupid". You're pretty much not interacting with them online, and very likely not in real life either.
Which leaves us with 95 - 9.7 - 47.5 = 37.5% of humanity that falls within 80 - 100 IQ range, which you might call "stupid people". In all fairness, actual number of "stupid people" is closer to 30%, as the closer you get to that average of 100 IQ, the more people there are and there is a greater chance that many of them are closer to 100 than measured.
Now, one third of humanity MAY seem like a "very large number of people" - but they are actually a MINORITY compared to the 50% of humans who are of ABOVE AVERAGE intelligence.
So... umm... yeah... Your "arguments" about all those idiots? More like arrogance. And that's more dangerous than plain old low intelligence cause it masquerades as wisdom creating that warm feeling of being right - even when you're completely clueless. BTW, love the way you managed to weave in a (completely meaningless and valueless) comparison of YOUR company with those on F500 list though nobody asked for it AND though you're posting anonymously.
Arrogance will also leave you safely inside your cocoon of cluelessness regarding human interactions beyond those that you can hire out or were born into. Or you would have figured out or guessed by know that people tend to have these groups of people called families, friends, acquaintances, school friends etc. None of whose IQ or personal preferences or simply lack of paranoia regarding privacy they can't control nor can they just cut out those persons from their life or ignore them when they reappear in their life. And many of those people just happen to find social media like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr etc. as highly useful/entertaining/practical/fun.
And if you're really limiting your own pool of potential talent by adding such an arbitrary limitation as you say you do - you might as well be chucking out all people who's favorite color is blue. Or green. Or whatever.
But hey... Do keep up with that. I'm certain your competition has nothing against the idea of you limiting your own options. I sure love it.
What loony world do you live in, that children should be regularly given soda and candy? I suspect it's the same world where they'll get the diseases that a poor diet causes.
If I may intrude on your righteous indignation for a bit...
They see the money they spend on a soda, and the money they need to send their kid to college as completely unrelated.
He's talking about saving for FUTURE college education of children.
Now, I'm not trying to fight you here or anything. You are completely correct in the math part of your assessment and in many of your other comments there. It's just my opinion that you are perhaps a tad overinvolved emotionally in the argument here, and that it may be clouding your judgement. Like in reply to this comment here.
From where I sit it seems like you are getting way much more from that comment, going on about education and CEOs... of which the original poster made no mention. In fact, I don't think that his/her comment derides the poor in any way. All that poster talks about is his/her anecdotal experience with "handouts".
And frankly, yes, I can see some truth in that. Now, I can't say at this point if "handouts" there means "welfare" or "giving change to beggars" or "being Secret Santa for the poor" or "magically creating money in poor people's pockets". I'm not the OP and my telepathy helmet's range has been severely shortened since the hits it took during the last alien invasion.
Taking it for just what the OP says, yes - handouts are bad. Jobs that they could work to provide for themselves would be much better.
And just to make my position on the subject clear, yes, there are those who can't provide for themselves due to illness or what ever reason, and yes, they should be provided some sort of monetary and other assistance from the government. Not just cause it is humane, though that should be enough but this is not that kind of a universe... yer. But because it is sure as hell cheaper for the society than letting them "fend for themselves" by turning to crime.
Back to the original comment... Saving money on sodas makes more sense when it's for the education of one's children. If anything, it does so on paper. I fear that the problem is not in the overabundance of expenses on sodas or cigarettes but in the fact that there is a high chance of that money melting away on some other necessity that may arise many times before those kids reach the college age. Stuff like rent, medicine, food...
And then there's the situation where you have a single parent with three small kids who can't afford any other gift for them than that soda. Should he/she really put them on the lap and explain each of them that they're not getting any sweets that the other kids are getting so that one day, three or four of their entire lifetimes away, they could go to even MORE school?
Ah, so the classic "we should all live in the dark and grow our own food" argument. Beautiful. Give King Ludd my warmest regards.
This guy is basically arguing (among other things) that because 100% of the energy from He-3 mining would not be used to directly power "a great life-enhancing project" - it is all bad and it should not be done.
Furthermore, in the absence of a radical alteration in patterns of human behaviour, a good deal of energy from He-3 mining is unlikely to go towards a great life-enhancing project. It is likely to be used for comparatively trivial purposes such as advertising, waste and the enhancement of prestige. This is part and parcel of living in a society where choice is valued. However, there are some choices (the choice to be cruel, aggressive, destructive or wasteful) which may not be worth having and which, in some cases, we ought not to have.
You know... kinda the way paper and pens should not be produced because not all of them are used to create works of Shakespeare or Michelangelo.
Anyone willing to dig for more pearls of wisdom, here is his academia.edu page with his other works.
It won't work. When you hold your hand out from your body for an extended period of time, your arm gets tired and begins to droop. This is known as "gorilla arm syndrome" and is used as a textbook example of what not to do when designing user interfaces.
Every single input device does not have to be universal or suitable for every single task - which is why we use a mouse AND a keyboard.
Don't think of it as a user interface. Think of it as a virtual 3D sculpting tool.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean... It's not mine to judge people slapping the elevator controls with their dick and then punching them.
Get little overexcited pressing that elevator button too hard and you can cause property damage that may end up costing the owner hundreds of dollars in repairs.
You may not have had that intention but they got you on camera and they're gonna sue.
On the other hand, if they got you on camera stealing money or goods of the same nominal value - they'll just call the cops on your ass.
Cause it's a completely different situation.
People tend not to accidentally steal other people's property.
But people tend to want to be reimbursed for the damage that other people do to their property.
Accidentally or not.
Sure. Just like aspirin.
Eat them like candy and die a horrible bleeding death.
Or... you know... Indoor plumbing.
People slip and crack their skulls in the shower all the time.
Scary stuff.
Cats still dig fags?
iRony.
They just haven't patented it yet, so they can't use the term as such but they can iMply it.
Which is also a technology that Apple is currently in the process of patenting.
After tracking down that particular issue, I've found out that the referenced story is Gyro-less.
It's a Goofy only story.
So even their fake reference is referencing fake authors.
That even with the current vaccine which clearly does not cure the flu, they are able to maintain a government subsidized monopoly with "almost no spare capacity", even though it is supposedly "not very profitable".
On top of that the new, effective, vaccine which would be protected by patents, would replace the old one (while keeping the government subsidies) AND it should clearly be more expensive to produce - both because there's "almost no spare capacity" AND because it is new technology.
And that's just regarding those measly 300 million or so US Americans.
The market, protected by patents, is THE WORLD.
Seven billion humans and climbing.
Every year. Just in time for the holidays.
Enough to make a CEO of a pharmaceutical company believe in Santa Claus.
...which they also list under references. Or at least it used to exist from 1974 until its cancellation in 2001.
It was a comic book magazine featuring stories with Disney characters.
[18] Silja, P. Pronalazac. "Odgovoran zadatak". in M. Meraklija,T. Luftika (eds.) Mikijev zabavnik, no. 1233 pp. 19-21, 2000.
They referenced Goofy and Gyro Gearloose.
Flu isn't prevalent in Q4 or any specific time of the year at all, especially on a global scale. The reason why people get flu more often in bad weather conditions is because they all crowd inside and the contamination risk is much higher when the people density is up.
"Why" is of no importance as far as profits go, as long as it happens with predictable and noticeable enough intensity during a "when" which is Q4.
If I was a multibillion dollar industry I'd very much appreciate the fact of having a product that gets sold to every human being on the planet, every year right about the time for holidays, scoring me a big boost in the Q4.
But then again I also believe that based on available evidence it was Lee Harvey Oswald that shot Kennedy.
What if the charger starts making those claims after 15-37 charges?
So you start checking the connections one by one... plugging and unplugging items...
After all... if they are after your data, they should let you accumulate some data on the device first, right?
Next thing we know you'll have issues with him putting a "rubber plug into the wood shaft".
but even now that I'm 27 I still don't like going into my parents bedroom without telling them.
...when you started locking them up in their "rooms" on second offense?
And do you use a modern device like a taser or is a stick enough to "persuade" them?
And fully-realized means that it's immersive enough that the AI reflects the differences when dealing with each race, rather than the same exact dialogue regardless of which alien picture is on the screen.
Ah, so it's more like designed and developed in detail.
I agree with everything denzacar said except: "We want to see humanoid aliens"... I want to show aliens that are cool, and at least interesting even if they're not completely believable
All I'm saying is, look at statistics. We tend not to popularize those few non-anthropomorphic aliens shown on ANY screen or drawing.
For every Horta there are literally thousands of centrally symmetric bipedal aliens with very distinct facial features.
And how do we instantly recognize the bad guys? No faces.
It's because you're reading about them.
You anthropomorphize transparently and automatically, in your head. Empathizing while looking at images of centipedes the whole day on the other hand...
Well, let's just say that we have this thing for faces.
Also, that when we think of cuddly and friendly - we tend to disregard insects.
- Modular ships and technology that can make a difference. Both in tactical combat and civilization/empire building.
- Species traits that really matter during the entire course of the game. Same goes for leaders.
- A simple interface that didn't require you to go back to the main screen for every single action, select a submenu, then another one, then choose an option...
- Build queues that worked and didn't require scrolling.
Also, everything that you could build was always on a single screen, available by a single click but it was separated so you didn't have to scroll through your buildings looking for ships and vice versa.
And you could sort your colonies by how fast they will build stuff - i.e. by production.
- Pretty graphics. Planetscapes were simple yet beautiful. Elerians were hot AND a very powerful race.
- But most importantly, HUMANOID SPECIES. Even Silicoids looked somewhat bipedal.
Which is very important if you're supposed to empathize with the species you're playing.
Among other things MOO3 managed to fuck up was the look of the game - most species now looked like bad modern art.
Practically all of them could be considered "repulsive".
Really alien looking species are a nice touch from time to time on an episodic show like Star Trek but there is no appeal for a weekly show whose main characters resemble puddles of mud.
We want to see humanoid aliens with humanoid expressions on their humanoid faces.
Which is why I'm having a bad feeling about this whole "as fully-realized as possible" thing.
Smells a lot like MOO3.11 for workgroups.
It's usually the parts of the screen with all the smudges and fingerprints.
Microsoft eloped with Nokia?
What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots.
Your understanding of IQ, social interactions and your purported hiring practices match up really well.
First off... That 100 average IQ is a normalized value.
It will never change, no matter how many "stupid" people or geniuses are out there. 100 will always be average.
Now, thing with bell-shaped curves is, they have this nasty habit of being evenly distributed on both sides.
Also, there's this thing of them having 95% of all values within 2 sigma - which are in this case conveniently situated around that 100 IQ average.
What that means in real life is that 95% of people in the world fall within 2 sigma from 100 IQ.
I.e. Almost everyone is within IQ 70 and IQ 130.
Leaving ~2.5% people with IQ over 130, and just as much of those with the IQ of under 70.
Now here's the fun part. It's a bit counter intuitive, so try to keep up.
First of all, those with IQ below 70 don't really count. We're talking "definite feeble-mindedness" there.
Those people are not what you can in any way call active members of the society.
Then comes that second sigma - those falling in that group between 70 and 85.
Within those 15 IQ points falls 14.591% of humanity. And guess what? Most of those don't count either!
Cause those ranging from 70 to 85 IQ points are what we call "borderline deficient", "borderline impaired or delayed", "well below average" or "borderline mentally retarded".
Again... this being the place on the scale where those number really count, about two thirds of those people are closer to retarded than to plain old "stupid".
You're pretty much not interacting with them online, and very likely not in real life either.
Which leaves us with 95 - 9.7 - 47.5 = 37.5% of humanity that falls within 80 - 100 IQ range, which you might call "stupid people".
In all fairness, actual number of "stupid people" is closer to 30%, as the closer you get to that average of 100 IQ, the more people there are and there is a greater chance that many of them are closer to 100 than measured.
Now, one third of humanity MAY seem like a "very large number of people" - but they are actually a MINORITY compared to the 50% of humans who are of ABOVE AVERAGE intelligence.
So... umm... yeah... Your "arguments" about all those idiots? More like arrogance.
And that's more dangerous than plain old low intelligence cause it masquerades as wisdom creating that warm feeling of being right - even when you're completely clueless.
BTW, love the way you managed to weave in a (completely meaningless and valueless) comparison of YOUR company with those on F500 list though nobody asked for it AND though you're posting anonymously.
Arrogance will also leave you safely inside your cocoon of cluelessness regarding human interactions beyond those that you can hire out or were born into.
Or you would have figured out or guessed by know that people tend to have these groups of people called families, friends, acquaintances, school friends etc.
None of whose IQ or personal preferences or simply lack of paranoia regarding privacy they can't control nor can they just cut out those persons from their life or ignore them when they reappear in their life.
And many of those people just happen to find social media like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr etc. as highly useful/entertaining/practical/fun.
And if you're really limiting your own pool of potential talent by adding such an arbitrary limitation as you say you do - you might as well be chucking out all people who's favorite color is blue.
Or green. Or whatever.
But hey... Do keep up with that.
I'm certain your competition has nothing against the idea of you limiting your own options.
I sure love it.
What loony world do you live in, that children should be regularly given soda and candy? I suspect it's the same world where they'll get the diseases that a poor diet causes.
Not sure if serious or something-something.
We did finally get a plausible explanation for both Batman's and Lex Luthor's extremely high intelligence.
If I may intrude on your righteous indignation for a bit...
They see the money they spend on a soda, and the money they need to send their kid to college as completely unrelated.
He's talking about saving for FUTURE college education of children.
Now, I'm not trying to fight you here or anything.
You are completely correct in the math part of your assessment and in many of your other comments there.
It's just my opinion that you are perhaps a tad overinvolved emotionally in the argument here, and that it may be clouding your judgement.
Like in reply to this comment here.
From where I sit it seems like you are getting way much more from that comment, going on about education and CEOs... of which the original poster made no mention.
In fact, I don't think that his/her comment derides the poor in any way. All that poster talks about is his/her anecdotal experience with "handouts".
And frankly, yes, I can see some truth in that.
Now, I can't say at this point if "handouts" there means "welfare" or "giving change to beggars" or "being Secret Santa for the poor" or "magically creating money in poor people's pockets".
I'm not the OP and my telepathy helmet's range has been severely shortened since the hits it took during the last alien invasion.
Taking it for just what the OP says, yes - handouts are bad.
Jobs that they could work to provide for themselves would be much better.
And just to make my position on the subject clear, yes, there are those who can't provide for themselves due to illness or what ever reason, and yes, they should be provided some sort of monetary and other assistance from the government.
Not just cause it is humane, though that should be enough but this is not that kind of a universe... yer.
But because it is sure as hell cheaper for the society than letting them "fend for themselves" by turning to crime.
Back to the original comment...
Saving money on sodas makes more sense when it's for the education of one's children. If anything, it does so on paper.
I fear that the problem is not in the overabundance of expenses on sodas or cigarettes but in the fact that there is a high chance of that money melting away on some other necessity that may arise many times before those kids reach the college age.
Stuff like rent, medicine, food...
And then there's the situation where you have a single parent with three small kids who can't afford any other gift for them than that soda.
Should he/she really put them on the lap and explain each of them that they're not getting any sweets that the other kids are getting so that one day, three or four of their entire lifetimes away, they could go to even MORE school?
Ah, so the classic "we should all live in the dark and grow our own food" argument. Beautiful. Give King Ludd my warmest regards.
This guy is basically arguing (among other things) that because 100% of the energy from He-3 mining would not be used to directly power "a great life-enhancing project" - it is all bad and it should not be done.
Furthermore, in the absence of a radical alteration in patterns of human behaviour, a good deal of energy from He-3 mining is unlikely to go towards a great life-enhancing project. It is likely to be used for comparatively trivial purposes such as advertising, waste and the enhancement of prestige.
This is part and parcel of living in a society where choice is valued. However, there are some choices (the choice to be cruel, aggressive, destructive or wasteful) which may not be worth having and which, in some cases, we ought not to have.
You know... kinda the way paper and pens should not be produced because not all of them are used to create works of Shakespeare or Michelangelo.
Anyone willing to dig for more pearls of wisdom, here is his academia.edu page with his other works.
Tony Stark is a bit of a self-obsessed jerk. That's what happened.
It won't work. When you hold your hand out from your body for an extended period of time, your arm gets tired and begins to droop. This is known as "gorilla arm syndrome" and is used as a textbook example of what not to do when designing user interfaces.
Every single input device does not have to be universal or suitable for every single task - which is why we use a mouse AND a keyboard.
Don't think of it as a user interface. Think of it as a virtual 3D sculpting tool.