Spoken like someone who has never actually done scientific research. Here's what happens: 1) You learn about a subject by listening to people who have done research in the past. At that point, the science you're learning about is pretty well hashed out and non-controversial. 2) You gain some knowledge, and start to poke around the edges of the commonly accepted knowledge in your field. 3) You have some open questions where your professor or PI either told you "that isn't settled", or you're hearing two different answers from people in the same field. 4) You start to expand your research into what has been done. Instead of just 2-3 people in your local department or research facility, you're now faced with going through thousands of opinions, statements and experiments. 5) You are triaging what you're reading. How do you do it? By looking first at papers published by people who have been right in the past. Then, you look at papers in journals that have published good papers in the past. And finally, if you're still getting no hits, then you start hitting the some more obscure researchers and publishers. 7) Finally, you run your own experiments, test your own model, and publish. Hopefully in a place that is well-regarded.
That's the reality of science. What you're proposing is nothing but a pie-in-the-sky approach to science that utterly disregards the fact that time is a very previous commodity in science, and not everyone has the time to spend it going through every crackpot paper there is.
Yes, people get burned by this approach. That's also reality. There is absolutely no fool-proof method. Bernie Madoff is actually a perfect example. The people who had time to do their research didn't get burned. But because they couldn't publish their results, the ones who didn't have time, the resources or the inclination to do the research got burned. So EVERYONE had to redo the basic research into Madoff's, which meant that some people would get burned, because they couldn't.
It is also what you get when you provide incentives to your sales reps that ONLY look at how much money they brought in.Was there a bonus for denying shady deals? Was there an allowance to do due diligence on shady-looking companies? Or was it "your base salary is $5 an hour. Your commission is 50%. Don't slack."?
If it was the latter, don't be surprised by your sales reps turning a blind eye to shady set ups. And by the way, execs are not immune to this. If you reward them for turning a blind eye, they will.
And it is cool every single time. Seriously, if nothing else, it shows that reaching space is something that anyone can do. Instead of complaining that it's being done to death, why not improve on it? I fully plan on being part of the me-too crowd of space-photography. Once that's done, maybe I can do something to improve on it. Who knows? Someone will probably beat me to the "cooler" part. But that's what makes it fun.
I remember you... hi, bonch. If Slashdot is so bad, why are you still here? At this point, you're either being paid to post, or suffer from a case of OCD severe enough to warrant medication.
Then your pattern recognition sucks. It's entirely possible to recognize who made a post after reading a few lines without actually looking at the name. In this case, it's made a bit more difficult because the person keeps signing up for a new accounts, but because the posting style is so unique, it's actually only a minimal hurdle.
Oh hai, DCTech. Nice to see you again. I'll just ignore your patent flamebaiting, and focus on the real issue here: Google is desperate to turn G+ into something as common and ingrained into our culture as Google Search. As a matter of fact, it is so desperate that it completely screws the pooch on the question of anonymity.
Dear Google, I like you. Your search is better than anything I've found so far, your GMail set the standard for free webmail, and your maps did as well. Your G+ effort though is a complete clusterfuck. You have a nice idea with circles, but that's an easily copied feature. Your key differentiator will be how you treat the data that people enter into your social network (and let's not kid ourselves, it is yours, not ours). And that's where you're screwing up. Most people do not want G+ to be an identity service. Some people do, but that's because they're getting money out of their G+ presence - either through marketing returns, or publicity, or tracking of customer interactions. But the rest of us? We LIKE being able to put Hung W. Low into our name, or Pumpernickel, or Rapunzel, or anything else that tickles our fancy. And until we get the impression that we won't be punished for having some weird-ass name (Sylverster's kid is absolutely screwed here), we will stay away from G+ in droves.
Look, in some distant future, it might be possible that G+ turns into an actual identity service. But you aren't there yet. As a matter of fact, the desperate attempts by your executives that are so heavily incentivized to make G+ succeed are actually counter-productive. You're like a hunter who builds a fancy bear-trap, but fills it with gold, because that's what he wants the bear to turn into later. The bear wants meat, or bread, or nuts, or carrion, or whatever suits its fancy of the moment. The smart hunter fulfills that want first, then worries about turning the bear into gold.
Google, stop worrying about what G+ will be down the road. Worry about providing a service to your users first that your users want - then you can turn the screws on. We might even be happy about the subsequent turning of the screws. In the meantime, you're on course to become search-engine provider being squeezed on all sides by companies building walled gardens that people willingly flock to.
Yep. Here's the difference: a different Search is a click away. A different OS is.... about a full day's worth of work away. Visiting one site does not impact my ability to visit a different site. Using one OS does impact my ability to use another OS. See the difference?
At this point, you're just lying about the compromising their search. To be clear: at no point did anyone show that the SEARCH RESULTS were bad. They were complaining about the fact that Google was showing results for its Google products in an area NEXT to the SEARCH RESULTS. Which is an idiotic complaint about a UI decision.
Wow, another user name? Don't you get tired of this?
MS makes an OS that fully controls what a user can do. Facebook and Google operate sites with their own money, that allow me access to them. Google is nice about how to transfer data out of their servers, Facebook less so.
If you don't understand how all those companies differ from each other, you are either being paid to not understand, or suffer from a pathological hatred of all things Google.
Cognratulations, you demonstrated that Google - gasp - has access to publicly available information on Twitter and Facebook. The only thing you've done is rearranged where the results appear. What exactly was the point of this exercise? To prove that Google does not have a filter for social networks? Congratulations. The easy solution is to have that filter appear where all the other filters are: in the right left sidebar, among images, news, etc.
I'm wondering what kind of crap reason Facebook will come up with next if Google actually goes that route. Because Facebook's problem isn't that Google doesn't index the results properly, but that Google has a nice platform from which to advertise its own products. Kinda like how Facebook has a nice platform from where to advertise Facebook products.
Oh hai, DCTech. New account for a new story you posted, right? Well, here's a quick summary of why Facebook and MySpace are full of crap, and Twitter is irrelevant:
* There's the standard complaint that links on top of the search results are an unfair promotion of Google's own data. Well, no shit sherlock. It's their own site, and they can show their own links whereever the hell they want. It's marked as not part of the search results, so I don't see how this could possibly be read as cooking the results. Unless, of course, you're Facebook and are trying to poison the debate. * The focusontheuser.org page is also misleading in what it calls "on top of the search results". In the video, they clicked on the G+ link that specifically says "Here are the G+ results for your search", not on the general search results. Then they complain they get taken to the G+ page. I'm confused on how that was a surprise.
Essentially, what this is is a general bitch session by Facebook that Google shows Google products in the areas that are dedicated to Google products. Really? That's a problem? If Facebook is unhappy about how Google displays Facebook results, I have a suggestion for them: create your own search engine. Make it exactly as platform agnostic as it was shown on the focusontheuser.org site. Then go talk about Google doesn't offer the best possible search engine. In the meantime, this comes across as nothing but a giant astroturfing campaign by Facebook to force Google to show Facebook and Twitter results in an area that Google has set aside for its own products.
That said, there are some interesting ideas in there on how Google can improve its search: * default opt-out for showing my G+ info. I know when to look for it, thanks. * In the left sidebar, include a social network section. Filter specifically on known social networks. Have it even be customizable to only show results from a user-defined list of social networks.
But that's it. There's absolutely no need to have FB and Twitter results show up in the right side-bar, which is explicitly dedicated to Google product results. Not unless you want to essentially force Google to advertise Facebook and Twitter results for free.
And if you think that the banking crisis wouldn't have happened if Dodd had never run for a single public position, you are even more wrong than the gp. .
Dodd certainly had his hands in the mess, but you're just blinded by team colors if you think that he's the only problem.
Yeah - his focus on Google is completely irrational. Microsoft is pushing just as hard to put everything it has in the cloud, it's just that it has a lot of catching up to do. But the issues that Google faces with its cloud products are universal to all cloud products.
Cloud services aren't the problem. Free cloud services where you are hoping that someone else picks up the tab for paying for development, maintenance and infrastructure are the problem. Granted, desktop apps are a better long-term investment than cloud services if you're wondering about the viability of the company that you are investing in. But if there's an actual business model in place (i.e., one that involves payment and not just "eyeballs"), cloud services offer quite a few advantages over desktop apps. It's up to you to decide whether you'll trade not having to maintain the software and being able to access it from anywhere with the knowledge that the software will stick around for as long as you have the installation file (DRM throwing another wrinkle in here as well).
Short reply from someone who lived both in Germany and the US: yes, the US is so hung up on evil commies that it would rather have local government-supported monopolies of corporations than have some sort of national standard on how to deal with setting up a national network.
Occam's razor is not a proof, but a heuristic for what to investigate. In this case, people will continue their investigation by looking at possible mutations, and not look for something brand new. They might, but chances are that they'll run into a dead-end. And unless you have already tenure, a dead-end can be very costly.
Your scenarios 3 and 4 require that someone put a new game into the used game market. As a result, you cannot look at them independently of 1. Furthermore, your scenario 4 is wrong - or at least, not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Anyone who buys used games because of budget constraints is only going to look to new games if there is no used game market. As a result, there is no or little negative impact on new game sales, because these people are shopping at a point on the demand curve below the price point at which new games are being put on the market.
The key part here is that the devil is in the detail - i.e., the numbers, because it is the net effect that is important. Why? Because publishers are using this argument to kill the entire second hand market and changing games from something you own to something you rent. I find that personally repugnant.
Ideas are expressed through compositions, sentences, performances, paintings, accompanying music, patents, etc. Which you know, but wish everyone else would ignore.
Not to mention that you missed all the lawsuits around business processes, story ideas ("this book also talks about boy wizards in a school of wizards! No fair!"), etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like someone who has never actually done scientific research. Here's what happens:
1) You learn about a subject by listening to people who have done research in the past. At that point, the science you're learning about is pretty well hashed out and non-controversial.
2) You gain some knowledge, and start to poke around the edges of the commonly accepted knowledge in your field.
3) You have some open questions where your professor or PI either told you "that isn't settled", or you're hearing two different answers from people in the same field.
4) You start to expand your research into what has been done. Instead of just 2-3 people in your local department or research facility, you're now faced with going through thousands of opinions, statements and experiments.
5) You are triaging what you're reading. How do you do it? By looking first at papers published by people who have been right in the past. Then, you look at papers in journals that have published good papers in the past. And finally, if you're still getting no hits, then you start hitting the some more obscure researchers and publishers.
7) Finally, you run your own experiments, test your own model, and publish. Hopefully in a place that is well-regarded.
That's the reality of science. What you're proposing is nothing but a pie-in-the-sky approach to science that utterly disregards the fact that time is a very previous commodity in science, and not everyone has the time to spend it going through every crackpot paper there is.
Yes, people get burned by this approach. That's also reality. There is absolutely no fool-proof method. Bernie Madoff is actually a perfect example. The people who had time to do their research didn't get burned. But because they couldn't publish their results, the ones who didn't have time, the resources or the inclination to do the research got burned. So EVERYONE had to redo the basic research into Madoff's, which meant that some people would get burned, because they couldn't.
It is also what you get when you provide incentives to your sales reps that ONLY look at how much money they brought in.Was there a bonus for denying shady deals? Was there an allowance to do due diligence on shady-looking companies? Or was it "your base salary is $5 an hour. Your commission is 50%. Don't slack."?
If it was the latter, don't be surprised by your sales reps turning a blind eye to shady set ups. And by the way, execs are not immune to this. If you reward them for turning a blind eye, they will.
And it is cool every single time. Seriously, if nothing else, it shows that reaching space is something that anyone can do. Instead of complaining that it's being done to death, why not improve on it? I fully plan on being part of the me-too crowd of space-photography. Once that's done, maybe I can do something to improve on it. Who knows? Someone will probably beat me to the "cooler" part. But that's what makes it fun.
its years-long exodus to Reddit, Hacker News
I remember you... hi, bonch. If Slashdot is so bad, why are you still here? At this point, you're either being paid to post, or suffer from a case of OCD severe enough to warrant medication.
I think we have one seriously OCD Google-hater on our hands.
Then your pattern recognition sucks. It's entirely possible to recognize who made a post after reading a few lines without actually looking at the name. In this case, it's made a bit more difficult because the person keeps signing up for a new accounts, but because the posting style is so unique, it's actually only a minimal hurdle.
Oh hai, DCTech. Nice to see you again. I'll just ignore your patent flamebaiting, and focus on the real issue here: Google is desperate to turn G+ into something as common and ingrained into our culture as Google Search. As a matter of fact, it is so desperate that it completely screws the pooch on the question of anonymity.
Dear Google, I like you. Your search is better than anything I've found so far, your GMail set the standard for free webmail, and your maps did as well. Your G+ effort though is a complete clusterfuck. You have a nice idea with circles, but that's an easily copied feature. Your key differentiator will be how you treat the data that people enter into your social network (and let's not kid ourselves, it is yours, not ours). And that's where you're screwing up. Most people do not want G+ to be an identity service. Some people do, but that's because they're getting money out of their G+ presence - either through marketing returns, or publicity, or tracking of customer interactions. But the rest of us? We LIKE being able to put Hung W. Low into our name, or Pumpernickel, or Rapunzel, or anything else that tickles our fancy. And until we get the impression that we won't be punished for having some weird-ass name (Sylverster's kid is absolutely screwed here), we will stay away from G+ in droves.
Look, in some distant future, it might be possible that G+ turns into an actual identity service. But you aren't there yet. As a matter of fact, the desperate attempts by your executives that are so heavily incentivized to make G+ succeed are actually counter-productive. You're like a hunter who builds a fancy bear-trap, but fills it with gold, because that's what he wants the bear to turn into later. The bear wants meat, or bread, or nuts, or carrion, or whatever suits its fancy of the moment. The smart hunter fulfills that want first, then worries about turning the bear into gold.
Google, stop worrying about what G+ will be down the road. Worry about providing a service to your users first that your users want - then you can turn the screws on. We might even be happy about the subsequent turning of the screws. In the meantime, you're on course to become search-engine provider being squeezed on all sides by companies building walled gardens that people willingly flock to.
Considering you can't even properly format your sentences, I doubt you are in a position to judge anything.
Like the Greenland glaciers.
Yep. Here's the difference: a different Search is a click away. A different OS is.... about a full day's worth of work away. Visiting one site does not impact my ability to visit a different site. Using one OS does impact my ability to use another OS. See the difference?
At this point, you're just lying about the compromising their search. To be clear: at no point did anyone show that the SEARCH RESULTS were bad. They were complaining about the fact that Google was showing results for its Google products in an area NEXT to the SEARCH RESULTS. Which is an idiotic complaint about a UI decision.
Wow, another user name? Don't you get tired of this?
MS makes an OS that fully controls what a user can do. Facebook and Google operate sites with their own money, that allow me access to them. Google is nice about how to transfer data out of their servers, Facebook less so.
If you don't understand how all those companies differ from each other, you are either being paid to not understand, or suffer from a pathological hatred of all things Google.
Cognratulations, you demonstrated that Google - gasp - has access to publicly available information on Twitter and Facebook. The only thing you've done is rearranged where the results appear. What exactly was the point of this exercise? To prove that Google does not have a filter for social networks? Congratulations. The easy solution is to have that filter appear where all the other filters are: in the right left sidebar, among images, news, etc.
I'm wondering what kind of crap reason Facebook will come up with next if Google actually goes that route. Because Facebook's problem isn't that Google doesn't index the results properly, but that Google has a nice platform from which to advertise its own products. Kinda like how Facebook has a nice platform from where to advertise Facebook products.
Oh hai, DCTech. New account for a new story you posted, right? Well, here's a quick summary of why Facebook and MySpace are full of crap, and Twitter is irrelevant:
* There's the standard complaint that links on top of the search results are an unfair promotion of Google's own data. Well, no shit sherlock. It's their own site, and they can show their own links whereever the hell they want. It's marked as not part of the search results, so I don't see how this could possibly be read as cooking the results. Unless, of course, you're Facebook and are trying to poison the debate.
* The focusontheuser.org page is also misleading in what it calls "on top of the search results". In the video, they clicked on the G+ link that specifically says "Here are the G+ results for your search", not on the general search results. Then they complain they get taken to the G+ page. I'm confused on how that was a surprise.
Essentially, what this is is a general bitch session by Facebook that Google shows Google products in the areas that are dedicated to Google products. Really? That's a problem? If Facebook is unhappy about how Google displays Facebook results, I have a suggestion for them: create your own search engine. Make it exactly as platform agnostic as it was shown on the focusontheuser.org site. Then go talk about Google doesn't offer the best possible search engine. In the meantime, this comes across as nothing but a giant astroturfing campaign by Facebook to force Google to show Facebook and Twitter results in an area that Google has set aside for its own products.
That said, there are some interesting ideas in there on how Google can improve its search:
* default opt-out for showing my G+ info. I know when to look for it, thanks.
* In the left sidebar, include a social network section. Filter specifically on known social networks. Have it even be customizable to only show results from a user-defined list of social networks.
But that's it. There's absolutely no need to have FB and Twitter results show up in the right side-bar, which is explicitly dedicated to Google product results. Not unless you want to essentially force Google to advertise Facebook and Twitter results for free.
And if you think that the banking crisis wouldn't have happened if Dodd had never run for a single public position, you are even more wrong than the gp. .
Dodd certainly had his hands in the mess, but you're just blinded by team colors if you think that he's the only problem.
Yeah - his focus on Google is completely irrational. Microsoft is pushing just as hard to put everything it has in the cloud, it's just that it has a lot of catching up to do. But the issues that Google faces with its cloud products are universal to all cloud products.
Oh hi, DCTech. Still doing your sockpuppetry, I see.
Cloud services aren't the problem. Free cloud services where you are hoping that someone else picks up the tab for paying for development, maintenance and infrastructure are the problem. Granted, desktop apps are a better long-term investment than cloud services if you're wondering about the viability of the company that you are investing in. But if there's an actual business model in place (i.e., one that involves payment and not just "eyeballs"), cloud services offer quite a few advantages over desktop apps. It's up to you to decide whether you'll trade not having to maintain the software and being able to access it from anywhere with the knowledge that the software will stick around for as long as you have the installation file (DRM throwing another wrinkle in here as well).
Short reply from someone who lived both in Germany and the US: yes, the US is so hung up on evil commies that it would rather have local government-supported monopolies of corporations than have some sort of national standard on how to deal with setting up a national network.
Sockpuppetry is apparently not working out too well for you.
Unless you're Morgan Stanley, and are able to set up a fund for very rich people to trade in equities that are tied to private FB stock.
Occam's razor is not a proof, but a heuristic for what to investigate. In this case, people will continue their investigation by looking at possible mutations, and not look for something brand new. They might, but chances are that they'll run into a dead-end. And unless you have already tenure, a dead-end can be very costly.
On the upside, you are so busy posting about the moderation system that you aren't posting your usual anti-google drivel. I call that a win.
Your scenarios 3 and 4 require that someone put a new game into the used game market. As a result, you cannot look at them independently of 1. Furthermore, your scenario 4 is wrong - or at least, not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Anyone who buys used games because of budget constraints is only going to look to new games if there is no used game market. As a result, there is no or little negative impact on new game sales, because these people are shopping at a point on the demand curve below the price point at which new games are being put on the market.
The key part here is that the devil is in the detail - i.e., the numbers, because it is the net effect that is important. Why? Because publishers are using this argument to kill the entire second hand market and changing games from something you own to something you rent. I find that personally repugnant.
Ideas are expressed through compositions, sentences, performances, paintings, accompanying music, patents, etc. Which you know, but wish everyone else would ignore.
Not to mention that you missed all the lawsuits around business processes, story ideas ("this book also talks about boy wizards in a school of wizards! No fair!"), etc.