There's a certain segment of the population that enjoys finding obscure stuff. I'm not sure of the size, but I'd guess it's about the same size as the introverted segment of the population, around 25%, as the two behaviors are somewhat correlated. (i.e. folks who actively stray from the herd socially are more likely to express interest in consumables that are different from the herd's preferences) So, given that assumption, the drivers of a long tail market, "funky stuff seekers," could be overpowered by the general population.
On top of that, it's my guess that researchers in this area, as researchers in most areas, tend to be "funky stuff seekers" themselves. (I mean, it's their job to search and speculate on the edge of their field of study.) So, right off the bat, there's a bit of inherent bias in interpreting the effect of their cohort on the market. In other words, they're following the non-herd herd.:)
This reminds me of a party and a game of charades. To be perverse I decided to have my charade be "ionosphere" figuring I'd stump everybody and wouldn't be bugged anymore about playing.
Wouldn't you know it? Somebody guessed it in 15 seconds. Yeah, I hadn't counted on a radar systems engineer being at the party.:)
Know the end? Big deal...
on
Zoe's Tale
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You watch a Shakespeare play over and over while knowing the end. Does it make it any worse? Nope. And, seriously, how many times have ya'll watched "Empire Strikes Back"?:)
As for comparisons between Scalzi and Heinlein, it never really occured to me, and I've read just about everything by both authors at least twice. It makes sense now that the review mentioned it, but I don't think it's significant enough to get worked up about.
But how do your agnostic views distinctively (from an atheist) affect your own actions in everyday life?
There is no absolute certainty, and agnosticism means you're always aware of that and respect that. This does not mean that action and decision making is impossible, but you always must be aware that there is error inherent in every action and decision. The hope is that this leads to more humility and a desire to know more. Believing that you know the truth means there is no more seeking necessary. For an agnostic this cannot be the case. There is always a healthy dose of "I don't know."
But you're wrong even then. There are all sorts of phenomena about which you currently can't make accurate assertions, but their existence is undeniable. Nobody really knows how a tornado forms, yet you wouldn't want to act like it didn't exist if you met one.:)
You can, in practical everyday situations, live that way just fine. And using the "most people" argument is weak. I'm a self proclaimed agnostic and, in practice, I'm an agnostic. YOu just get used to saying "I don't know" all of the time.:)
...unless you find a way to actually measure it (like in a double blinded test) it might as well not exist.
That's not the right way to look at it. If you can't find a way to measure it, then the only thing you can say is "I can't make any verifiable assertions about that." Asserting that it does not exist, by your own definition, is an unverifiable assertion.
Do not ascribe powers to science that it does not possess.
If you use a living celebrity ("Come on, people, let's kill him for Oprah's sake!") there's always the risk your Chosen One will step up and say "WTF are you thinking?"
For crying out loud. Why do you even care? I just don't get folks getting their undies in a bundle over whether stories are properly categorized. I really don't.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, in fulfilling SOX, you're too busy to steal anything. Viola! SOX works!
Seriously? The man probably isn't in the rgound yet and his death is "old news"?
There's a certain segment of the population that enjoys finding obscure stuff. I'm not sure of the size, but I'd guess it's about the same size as the introverted segment of the population, around 25%, as the two behaviors are somewhat correlated. (i.e. folks who actively stray from the herd socially are more likely to express interest in consumables that are different from the herd's preferences) So, given that assumption, the drivers of a long tail market, "funky stuff seekers," could be overpowered by the general population.
On top of that, it's my guess that researchers in this area, as researchers in most areas, tend to be "funky stuff seekers" themselves. (I mean, it's their job to search and speculate on the edge of their field of study.) So, right off the bat, there's a bit of inherent bias in interpreting the effect of their cohort on the market. In other words, they're following the non-herd herd. :)
I second your comment. "Effective Java" is the programming book I quote most often. Those who ignore it are full of fail.
astro
turfer
This reminds me of a party and a game of charades. To be perverse I decided to have my charade be "ionosphere" figuring I'd stump everybody and wouldn't be bugged anymore about playing.
Wouldn't you know it? Somebody guessed it in 15 seconds. Yeah, I hadn't counted on a radar systems engineer being at the party. :)
You watch a Shakespeare play over and over while knowing the end. Does it make it any worse? Nope. And, seriously, how many times have ya'll watched "Empire Strikes Back"? :)
As for comparisons between Scalzi and Heinlein, it never really occured to me, and I've read just about everything by both authors at least twice. It makes sense now that the review mentioned it, but I don't think it's significant enough to get worked up about.
There is no absolute certainty, and agnosticism means you're always aware of that and respect that. This does not mean that action and decision making is impossible, but you always must be aware that there is error inherent in every action and decision. The hope is that this leads to more humility and a desire to know more. Believing that you know the truth means there is no more seeking necessary. For an agnostic this cannot be the case. There is always a healthy dose of "I don't know."
You seem to have a problem with ad hominem attacks.
We have a model for atmospheric phenomena we call "tornado." It doesn't actually exist, in and of itself.
You can't do anything to prove the existence of models.
You know what else can have unexpected results?
Birth.
But you're wrong even then. There are all sorts of phenomena about which you currently can't make accurate assertions, but their existence is undeniable. Nobody really knows how a tornado forms, yet you wouldn't want to act like it didn't exist if you met one. :)
You can, in practical everyday situations, live that way just fine. And using the "most people" argument is weak. I'm a self proclaimed agnostic and, in practice, I'm an agnostic. YOu just get used to saying "I don't know" all of the time. :)
And we all know how that worked out...
I meant nothing of the sort.
You hear me, sir? NOTHING.
From TFA:
Gee, why would someone want business internet traffic rerouted through the US?
That's not the right way to look at it. If you can't find a way to measure it, then the only thing you can say is "I can't make any verifiable assertions about that." Asserting that it does not exist, by your own definition, is an unverifiable assertion.
Do not ascribe powers to science that it does not possess.
I've been using scimark for years to evaluate system performance with java.
Try it yourself.
Linux has outperformed windows (on average) for years, and OSX as well until recently. (java 1.4 performance on OSX was dismal)
Oh, really?
Yeah? Well I store data as the DNA of plants and animals. I AM the country.
Understanding the constitution is every American's job.
I'll see your three words, and raise you one:
Melamine
That's not necessary in java, either.
Really? I'm not so sure. Just ask Robert Paulson.
For crying out loud. Why do you even care? I just don't get folks getting their undies in a bundle over whether stories are properly categorized. I really don't.
I want to elect someone who is not stupid enough to throw away his chances, yes.