I can certainly say that being able to condense, rather than bloat, material is a vital skill. When writing papers outside of academia what mattered was managing to sell whatever research you've just done -- the aim is to get the project moved out of research and into production, the other option being you watching all your hard work get mothballed. Often, after putting in months on a project, you have a lot you would like to say. Paring that down to something that really emphasises they key points and gets that across efficiently is important. You often have to leave out weeks worth of work that, while good, is just going to distract, and that's painful. Knowing how to do that well is a very valuable skill, and it makes the difference between being the guy who sees his work turn into something, and the guy who sees all his projects get shelved.
Being able to condense written material is vital. When you want to sell your research, you need to only include information in support of your key points. How well you do this differentiates you from your competition.
When was the last time you saw a cat torturing another cat for fun, or to scare the other cats into submission? When was the last time you saw a cat go to war? For that matter, when was the last time you saw a cat kill another?
Obviously, you've never observed non-domesticated (or barely domesticated) cats -- like barnyard cats.
Cats torture prey for fun all the time, it's "play" to hone their skills. Cats "go to war" -- a male cat that kills the alpha male of a pride[1] will systematically hunt down and kill the non-mature young of the previous alpha male.
So it's hard to end up in a situation where they'd need to start a war for resources
Not so. Hunting territory is finite, and cats will fight over it. Typically the loser will move on to uncontested territory. I have no idea what would happen should there be no uncontested territory (like the current situation with humans), but I expect that starvation and violent death would await many cats.
[1] Groups of barnyard cats have behavior that is incredibly similar to that of lion prides.
So I have to wonder how much worse it could possibly be if the cats could vote on issues like the stupid war in Iraq. My take is that it couldn't be any worse than letting humans do it.
I fully agree. Of course, the majority of humans in the USA didn't get to vote on the Iraq war. And those that did had false information. I don't think you could expect even a cat to make a correct decision when that decision is based on faulty assumptions.
(Of course, the expense of putting a rail system through a city not designed to accomidate it is non-trivial...)
Just wanted to add that in addition to the expense, the NIMBYs come out in force when there is any consideration of rail lines being put in. Boise, Idaho will face a congestion nightmare in the coming decade because the NIMBYs prevented a light rail system from being put in.
I hope someday we can muster the political will to build a rail infrastructure the way we have built a highway infrastructure
Not bloody likely, with the car and oil companies having a field day in Congress. I don't understand why Congress expects Amtrak to be self-sufficient, but heavily subsidizes the fuel and automotive industries. Ditto for state and regional rail, like NJTransit. I think the real answer will be astronomical fuel costs -- then people will DEMAND mass transit.
a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/sup pes.htm">According to this paper about US$10MM/mi for his plan, US$17.9MM for regular-sized maglev trains with bi-directional guideway. That's at 0.2 atm, similar to jetliner flight pressure.
I thought we already believed that all solid planets had plate activity like Earth, that formed the mountains and valleys. Aren't caves a natural extension of that thought process?
Not necessarily. Most caves on earth are not caused by pyroclastic flow, but rather by (acidic) flowing water dissolving calcite in limestone.
Within the US would you be allowed to charge someone from, say, NY a different price than someone from NJ? (apart from tax & shipping?)
This is allowed, just not tolerated by most consumers. They'll raise a stink about it, but there is nothing legal to prevent differential pricing by location.
The EU is trying to normalize standard-of-living and currency value across all member nations, and pricing regulations are one of the methods they use.
It's not about preventing discrimination per se, but about normalizing prices across the EU.
We should have a limited federal government and leave more power with the states. That's what the Constitution says.
And we will have to live with all the expensive inefficiencies.
The Constitution is not Gospel, though apparently it has become so revered that people are afraid to change it. Fear of invoking a "Constitutional Crisis" makes politicians do all kinds of weird things. It's a bunch of scaremongering.
The big problem is that the Constitution is over two centuries old and was not written to cope with the necessary scope of federal government (due to the changing scope of business, largely from communication and transportation technologies) in the 21st century. It needs to be rewritten.
Aynone who relies on a strict interpretation of the Constitution fails to react to changing times; but the problem is not unconstitutional activity, but the failure of the Constitution to change with the times as it was meant to do, and the failure of government to own up to the fact that they are changing the Constitution via interpretation, when they should be changing it via amendment.
I would like to add, instead of getting 100MPG, the same effect can be achieved if people would just live closer to work. In the USA, the average commute is something like 30 minutes. If we cut that down to 5 minutes, that is similar to going from 20MPG to 100MPG. It drives me nuts how many people commute 30-60 minutes to work!
That's a great idea, but I work in a large city where I can't afford to live near work unless I am in a bad neighborhood with crappy schools. I take mass transit -- but I have plenty of neighbors who drive into Manhattan daily. What you're suggesting would drive up real estate prices close to city centers even further, makeing the affordability problem even worse.
Look at business centers all across the US. Having everyone live within 15 minutes is laughable -- you'd have to have everyone living in high-rise apartments in almost every business district.
I travel quite a bit, and must drive 20 miles+ to the nearest stores.
Something tells me you live in a less populated area where a short commute is economically feasible. Good for you -- but unfortunately, a large porion of the US populaton doesn't have that luxury.
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Right there.
As for the light bulbs, they are one of the three items mentioned in the OP; the other two were the NEA and the DEA.
Only if you think all great art is produced by committee.
I don't. It depends on how you handle creative staff. A lot of cooks in their own kitchens fosters creativity. The thing is, he keeps talking about stability, and that means (to me) reduced risk, which means less focus on creativity and more focus on established breadwinners, as you point out.
What I think he *might* have been saying is that they will cut back on their production of shovelware in order to concentrate more on what they see as their high end franchises
I agree -- but they have to be careful not to accidentally throw out the baby with the bathwater, to keep using the pithy metaphors:). That shovelware not only hones developers' skills, but allows them to try out new things, which helps with creativity in established franchises they can;t be too risky with.
A Swinburne University of Technology study of 120 children aged 11 to 15 revealed children prone to worrying, neurotic behaviour and predisposed to aggression were likely to be more aggressive after playing violent video games.
OK, so only a small minority of children are negatively affected by a 20-minute session of playing Q2. Does that negative effect wear off if they play for 2 hours? Any endocrine effects need to be examined over a longer timeline.
Isn't it possible we accurately label games so that parents of kids who fall into the risk category can make appropriate decisions more easily when buying a game? Would that hurt anyone?
Moving forward, the goal, says Zelnick, is to ensure Take-Two becomes the most efficient and most creative of all game companies in the market.
Efficient == layoffs.
Creative == BS to ameliorate the 'efficiency' move.
In TFA, Zelnick mentions 2K Sports as being a prime way for Take-Two to diversify their income stream (from the GTA franchise). I see high-efficiency (in terms of annual releases relatively cheap to produce) low-risk sports games in my crystal ball.
Personally, I think "most efficient" and "most creative" are mutually exclusive. We'll see assets thrown into low-risk ventures (efficiency) with occasional purchase of or deals with smaller studios (creativity). Throw in all the comments about stability, and to me that says low-risk as well.
IANAGIBA (Games Industry Business Analyst), but I play one on slashdot.
Many may object to the exclusion criteria used by the Red Cross and other organizations
I was excluded from giving blood because I have an elevated level of a liver enzyme in the blood that is symptomatic of Hepatitis. I don't have hepatitis; the elevated enzyme level is genetic, and is passed to the males in my family. Still, with full documentation of this, as well as multiple negative Hep tests, I was not allowed to give blood until several years ago.
The notice I received stated that due to a severe, long-term shortage of blood reserves, they were relaxing the donor standards, and I would be allowed to donate. I now do so regularly.
My point? We need the blood. If the banks are forced to loosen donor standards, it's a bad sign.
Thank you for posting those links, hopefully a lot of non-donors will become donors.
Perhaps you just felt the need to agree with me as an excuse for jumping on said bandwagon?
Troll.
The bandwagon comment was just to qualify my earlier point -- that yes, there are some people who are following a trend. My point, (which you would have understood if you'd bothered reading for comprehension), is that there are valid reasons for disliking the US or US policies, and that the majority of people who you consider 'haters' are not following a trend, but have some of those valid reasons.
It's surprising what you can grow with even a teensy plot of land (such as a patio or rooftop). Container gardening and raised beds can work wonders. Even window boxes are great for herbs.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post -- I thought you were saying that the supermarkets planned to introduce flavorless produce so they could charge more for premium produce.
Anecdotally:
I grew up on a small farm in NJ -- and believe me, by 1988, we couldn't sell tomatoes to the supermarkets at all -- because we grew beefsteaks, which have a shelf-life of only a few days and bruise easily when handled. This is as opposed to the crappy globe tomatoes bred to last for weeks on the shelf, which are also resistant to bruising. So, we switched to producing the globe tomatoes, which we could sell to distributors, who sold to the supermarkets. Eventually that too became unprofitable, since we didn't have the economies of scale as some of the southern growers, though our produce was much better (sheep manure is an *incredible* fertilizer). End result? Out of farming; one less small producer who might have grown heirloom tomatoes today due to their resurgence. This is especially true because most heirloom varieties depend on the grower being local to the market, since they don't travel well when ripe, and don't taste good when not ripe.
The elimination of locally-grown produce has been repeated ad nauseum in farms since the industrial revolution; homogenization of crops and produce varietals for economies of scale resulting in less choice for consumers -- though it has its benefits, such as lower retail cost and greater non-seasonal availability.
Market forces are neither the consumers' nor the producers' fault. They just are. Could things have happened differently? Sure, but we're stuck with the way things are now, for better or worse. I'm just glad I have enough land to grow my own.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY
It's a national problem, but it should be handled at the local and state levels.
Obviously, you've never observed non-domesticated (or barely domesticated) cats -- like barnyard cats.
Cats torture prey for fun all the time, it's "play" to hone their skills.
Cats "go to war" -- a male cat that kills the alpha male of a pride[1] will systematically hunt down and kill the non-mature young of the previous alpha male.
Not so. Hunting territory is finite, and cats will fight over it. Typically the loser will move on to uncontested territory. I have no idea what would happen should there be no uncontested territory (like the current situation with humans), but I expect that starvation and violent death would await many cats.
[1] Groups of barnyard cats have behavior that is incredibly similar to that of lion prides.
I fully agree. Of course, the majority of humans in the USA didn't get to vote on the Iraq war. And those that did had false information. I don't think you could expect even a cat to make a correct decision when that decision is based on faulty assumptions.
Where's that coming from?
You're completely agreeing with my post... Why the tirade against the straw man?
Just wanted to add that in addition to the expense, the NIMBYs come out in force when there is any consideration of rail lines being put in. Boise, Idaho will face a congestion nightmare in the coming decade because the NIMBYs prevented a light rail system from being put in.
Not bloody likely, with the car and oil companies having a field day in Congress. I don't understand why Congress expects Amtrak to be self-sufficient, but heavily subsidizes the fuel and automotive industries. Ditto for state and regional rail, like NJTransit. I think the real answer will be astronomical fuel costs -- then people will DEMAND mass transit.
Running at 0.2 atm (like an airliner, but at ground level) is not out of the question, is quite feasible actually.
The first sign says "Do not feed the trolls, lest they multiply."
The second sign says "Do not feed those who feed the trolls, comment moderation works."
The third sign consists of seven angels with seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, but Revelations 15 has nothing to do with this.
a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/sup pes.htm">According to this paper about US$10MM/mi for his plan, US$17.9MM for regular-sized maglev trains with bi-directional guideway. That's at 0.2 atm, similar to jetliner flight pressure.
The EU is trying to normalize standard-of-living and currency value across all member nations, and pricing regulations are one of the methods they use.
It's not about preventing discrimination per se, but about normalizing prices across the EU.
The Constitution is not Gospel, though apparently it has become so revered that people are afraid to change it. Fear of invoking a "Constitutional Crisis" makes politicians do all kinds of weird things. It's a bunch of scaremongering.
The big problem is that the Constitution is over two centuries old and was not written to cope with the necessary scope of federal government (due to the changing scope of business, largely from communication and transportation technologies) in the 21st century. It needs to be rewritten.
Aynone who relies on a strict interpretation of the Constitution fails to react to changing times; but the problem is not unconstitutional activity, but the failure of the Constitution to change with the times as it was meant to do, and the failure of government to own up to the fact that they are changing the Constitution via interpretation, when they should be changing it via amendment.
Look at business centers all across the US. Having everyone live within 15 minutes is laughable -- you'd have to have everyone living in high-rise apartments in almost every business district.
Something tells me you live in a less populated area where a short commute is economically feasible. Good for you -- but unfortunately, a large porion of the US populaton doesn't have that luxury.
You must be blind, or willfully ignorant. Congress authorized the DEA by law.
That's a crock. Talk to someone who was alive in Germany during WWII. You belittle how bad things really were then.
Right there.
As for the light bulbs, they are one of the three items mentioned in the OP; the other two were the NEA and the DEA.
The article was taken from a National Academies press release. Here's the full report, parts of which (maybe the whole thing? I didn't check) can be previewed as a pdf if you don't want to purchase the book.
Oh, and here's a brief (4-page summary) of the report.
Woulda been nice to have the source info in the summary...
Also note that the DEA is an executive branch agency, and is fully permitted under the constitution under the executive branch's enumerated powers.
As for the NEA, I'm not sure about Constitutional authority.
I agree -- but they have to be careful not to accidentally throw out the baby with the bathwater, to keep using the pithy metaphors
OK, so only a small minority of children are negatively affected by a 20-minute session of playing Q2. Does that negative effect wear off if they play for 2 hours? Any endocrine effects need to be examined over a longer timeline.
Isn't it possible we accurately label games so that parents of kids who fall into the risk category can make appropriate decisions more easily when buying a game? Would that hurt anyone?
Oops... flames commence in 3... 2... 1...
Efficient == layoffs.
Creative == BS to ameliorate the 'efficiency' move.
In TFA, Zelnick mentions 2K Sports as being a prime way for Take-Two to diversify their income stream (from the GTA franchise). I see high-efficiency (in terms of annual releases relatively cheap to produce) low-risk sports games in my crystal ball.
Personally, I think "most efficient" and "most creative" are mutually exclusive. We'll see assets thrown into low-risk ventures (efficiency) with occasional purchase of or deals with smaller studios (creativity). Throw in all the comments about stability, and to me that says low-risk as well.
IANAGIBA (Games Industry Business Analyst), but I play one on slashdot.
The notice I received stated that due to a severe, long-term shortage of blood reserves, they were relaxing the donor standards, and I would be allowed to donate. I now do so regularly.
My point? We need the blood. If the banks are forced to loosen donor standards, it's a bad sign.
Thank you for posting those links, hopefully a lot of non-donors will become donors.
Any thought on starting a Slashdot blood drive?
The bandwagon comment was just to qualify my earlier point -- that yes, there are some people who are following a trend. My point, (which you would have understood if you'd bothered reading for comprehension), is that there are valid reasons for disliking the US or US policies, and that the majority of people who you consider 'haters' are not following a trend, but have some of those valid reasons.
It's surprising what you can grow with even a teensy plot of land (such as a patio or rooftop). Container gardening and raised beds can work wonders. Even window boxes are great for herbs.
Karl Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses. I say the bourgeoisie found better opiates in televised dramas and sporting events.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post -- I thought you were saying that the supermarkets planned to introduce flavorless produce so they could charge more for premium produce.
Anecdotally:
I grew up on a small farm in NJ -- and believe me, by 1988, we couldn't sell tomatoes to the supermarkets at all -- because we grew beefsteaks, which have a shelf-life of only a few days and bruise easily when handled. This is as opposed to the crappy globe tomatoes bred to last for weeks on the shelf, which are also resistant to bruising. So, we switched to producing the globe tomatoes, which we could sell to distributors, who sold to the supermarkets. Eventually that too became unprofitable, since we didn't have the economies of scale as some of the southern growers, though our produce was much better (sheep manure is an *incredible* fertilizer). End result? Out of farming; one less small producer who might have grown heirloom tomatoes today due to their resurgence. This is especially true because most heirloom varieties depend on the grower being local to the market, since they don't travel well when ripe, and don't taste good when not ripe.
The elimination of locally-grown produce has been repeated ad nauseum in farms since the industrial revolution; homogenization of crops and produce varietals for economies of scale resulting in less choice for consumers -- though it has its benefits, such as lower retail cost and greater non-seasonal availability.
Market forces are neither the consumers' nor the producers' fault. They just are. Could things have happened differently? Sure, but we're stuck with the way things are now, for better or worse. I'm just glad I have enough land to grow my own.