It's quite possible that his company doesn't give 'real, written requirements' before working on a problem. Lord knows I've done enough work to know that many requests will come verbally and you're expected to figure out the rest, or ask the right questions. And you WILL get it wrong and have to revise.
Even when the requirements are written down, they're going to change or need revision. Someone handed me a design the other day and I've already reworked whole sections of it to make it actually useful to the end user. (Working with the people who requested it, of course.)
So it's possible his test is an accurate simulation of the company's environment, and if they do poorly on it, then it really does mean something.
At one time, innovation and invention were hard to come by, and needed to be encouraged greatly. They weren't viewed as profitable and useful enough otherwise.
Today, innovation and invention is far cheaper, faster, and more profitable. The low end of the range can have massive changes in weeks. The high end still take years, money, and knowledge.
It's still worth protecting the high end. But 'protecting' the low end just stifles innovation. The system was supposed to correct for this by refusing 'obvious' patents. Now, either we need to redefine 'obvious', or there needs to be more unpatentable things. If you can bring something to market in a single month, there's no way that should be patentable. (1-Click, I'm looking at you!)
But if it takes a year, then it needs protection for the creator to recoup their money.
I don't know if it would work, but it would be an interesting twist to see patents expire when their cost has been recouped. So if you try to license patents out instead of creating the item, the best you could do would be to break even. (This would not include operating costs in the mean time, only profit, so you could probably make a decent living by stretching it out, but you couldn't possibly grow your company with it.)
In this case, it wasn't even about that... All the data we needed was there... But kept from anyone outside their group... And then modified, and the original data deleted.
That's just not how science is done. There's no way for an independent group to verify the results.
So this new research, using different data, means a LOT more. It's actually been verified, and (I assume) others could also use the data to verify as well.
So I've switched my stance on AGW. It does appear to be a real thing, and could be a problem. Now my worry is that people will 'solve' the problem by creating a bigger one. CO2 isn't a pollutant, but a lot of the options for removing it have been. We could do far more damage than we fix.
You can't raise prices on such a popular service without people knowing.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that if they hadn't raised prices, customers like me that weren't using the service would have continued to pay. But this woke a lot of people up and caused them to cancel their accounts.
And splitting it into 2 services was even worse. Now people had to judge the value of what they're getting, and decide what to pay for and what not to. And many found it lacking on both sides and cancelled.
The chaos made me think about the service, and how little value I was getting from it. I would go months without using it, and then maybe watch a couple old Doctor Who eps.
The thing is, a few months ago, Amazon Prime (which I already had) put out the same Doctor Who eps on their service, also free.
So why was I paying for it? It was cheap and convenient...
So they raised the price AND took away options. Of course I cancelled. Had they stayed quiet, I'd probably still be shelling out $8/month for nothing.
I have yet to meet the piece of paper that gives immediate feedback, so it's not possible for pen and paper to teach as well as a computer... If the computer if programmed properly.
Ah, we didn't try that because we didn't need it. I wasn't 100% sure if it was possible or not. (Plus, I don't remember much about it.)
Anyhow, since they were so specific about each piece being separate, I'm thinking that things might be a lot more flexible this new way... Maybe not even writing code at all, but just creating it programatically. We'll see.
Another map editor, you mean. It's already GOT one. It's just hard to use and not built into the game.
This one looks like a dumbed down version of it that anyone should be able to use. (Honestly, the real one needed dumbing down, but this looks a bit much.)
In the past, you could compile C# source code at runtime and load it into memory and use it. (I know, I was doing it for a MUD that didn't pan out.) But it wasn't very dynamic. (We were using it to reload the code without restarting the MUD.)
I assume this news means that you can write code dynamically, without writing it to a text file first.
Yes, we should have been combating pollution all along. But until now, I was not convinced that CO2 -was- a pollutant. I've always been a supporter of cleaning up and (especially) preventing pollution.
"But for Richard Muller, this free circulation also marks a return to how science should be done."
I've long been sceptical of 'man made global warming' because of the science involved. It didn't help that people would say, "Only university-trained scientists can understand the data", either. (Obviously an idiotic claim. Anyone with a brain can learn, and Universities are not a requirement for learning.)
But this is the moment I've been waiting for. Someone finally did the science openly and put all their cards on the table. They aren't hiding anything, including their funding sources. They even used new data that wasn't tainted and made sure to watch for the things sceptics have been critical of.
So, as a long-time AGW sceptic, I'm saying: Thank you for finally proving it.
Now if we can only find ways to counter or offset it that don't hurt the environment even more than we already are, we'll be in good shape.
That depends on the competition. Almost all of them only ask for enough permission to run the event and publicize it. I don't think I've ever seen one crazy enough to claim ownership of what was built. It would be a ghost town.
Have you got something to back that up? Because that hasn't been my experience at all. All the retired people I know had a plan to earn enough money and retire to go have fun.
If I ever retire, it'll be because I'm sick, not because I've decided not to work any more. Even ignoring the economy, I like my job. In fact, I've liked almost every job I've ever had, no matter which industry. If it weren't for bad managers, I'd leave out the 'almost'.
Sure, I'd like to have more time at home, but I've found I'm happier when I've got an external purpose for a good portion of my time. I don't mind working on other people's dreams, so long as I'm being productive.
So if I live to be 150, I expect most of those years will be happy, productive ones.
However, I expect all too many people would simply see it as another 85 years that they HAVE to work at a job they hate.
This is the first I've ever heard about e-ink inducing migraines. In fact, everything I found on the net suggested it was great for migraine sufferers because it doesn't flicker, doesn't produce light, and you can change the font size whenever you want.
If you had said that a bundle of 5 ps3 games would definitely be available for whatever I wanted to pay, even $.01, that analogy might hold.
As it stands right now, they helped launch and explosion of Indie games, and the market is eating it up. But if they devalue them by setting an expectation of these bundles, it could set the whole thing back again.
(To be fair, Steam helped a lot, too, with their 5 for $5 bundles last Christmas... And repeating that event would be just as bad.)
Actually, the bundles have typically had games that I have either purchased, or was going to purchase. So for me, the games are pretty good.
I look at it like Steam's Christmas sale last year, though. If they keep having sales, why would anyone purchase at full price? Just wait for the inevitable sale.
Worse yet, some of the games aren't even launched yet... You'll lose all the money from the people who just have to have it at launch.
You don't educate him. You provide the tools and let him educate himself. Require some basic stuff, but anything beyond highschool level, he should be allowed to explore at his pace.
As for the social aspect... I don't buy it. I certainly didn't learn to be social in school, and he won't either. He will simply be bullied until he withdraws and avoids everyone. He won't learn to get along with them.
On the other hand, clubs and meetups would be very good for him. The people there don't have to put up with his bullshit and he'll probably get kicked out of at least 1 before he learns to deal with others, but those clubs will probably offer enough for him that he's willing to learn to behave to stay in them.
Careful with that SpaceChem game. It's a lot harder than you'd think at first, and you can lose many hours of your life per level on the later ones. I just barely pulled myself away from it, and I still feel the urge to start playing again, months later.
That's really risky proposition. The problem is that they might give you the raise to keep you... While they train your replacement. Then you've lost your current job and don't have another one lined up.
Wow, that is one of the most elitist things I've ever heard. Just because I'm not willing to bend over and take abuse, I'm suddenly not good enough to be a scientist.
That's what wrong with the scientific community today. More people need to have conviction and stand up for what's right, instead of doing whatever they need to 'for science'.
The minute you claim to have it, people will jump all over you. They'll call you at home to call you a quack. They'll email. They'll stuff your mailbox. They'll picket you.
Mind you, these won't be scientists doing that. It'll be random jerks from the internet. But it doesn't matter, because they'll make your life a living hell.
When would I publish my findings on cold fusion? Let's see...
Have an idea? Nope, people would make fun of it. Have a way to test it? Same again. Have tested it, and it seems to work? Same again. Have it working and reliable on a small scale? Same again. But also, it works! Why would I reveal my secret that nobody even believes is possible? Have a large-scale test planned? Same as previous. Have tested it large-scale? Same again. Have it running large-scale and producing ridiculous wads of cash? Same again.
At no point does it make sense to publish your findings on any of the taboo subjects like cold fusion, even if it's really working. Even if it works, you'll be drummed out of polite society and the best you can hope for is that someone else can also do it. You don't even WANT that! You want to keep it to yourself an rake in the money.
Normally, for a non-taboo scientific discovery, you'd publish your findings at the third step above and let others try to disprove you. But it all gets turned on its head when the taboo subjects are involved.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite possible that his company doesn't give 'real, written requirements' before working on a problem. Lord knows I've done enough work to know that many requests will come verbally and you're expected to figure out the rest, or ask the right questions. And you WILL get it wrong and have to revise.
Even when the requirements are written down, they're going to change or need revision. Someone handed me a design the other day and I've already reworked whole sections of it to make it actually useful to the end user. (Working with the people who requested it, of course.)
So it's possible his test is an accurate simulation of the company's environment, and if they do poorly on it, then it really does mean something.
At one time, innovation and invention were hard to come by, and needed to be encouraged greatly. They weren't viewed as profitable and useful enough otherwise.
Today, innovation and invention is far cheaper, faster, and more profitable. The low end of the range can have massive changes in weeks. The high end still take years, money, and knowledge.
It's still worth protecting the high end. But 'protecting' the low end just stifles innovation. The system was supposed to correct for this by refusing 'obvious' patents. Now, either we need to redefine 'obvious', or there needs to be more unpatentable things. If you can bring something to market in a single month, there's no way that should be patentable. (1-Click, I'm looking at you!)
But if it takes a year, then it needs protection for the creator to recoup their money.
I don't know if it would work, but it would be an interesting twist to see patents expire when their cost has been recouped. So if you try to license patents out instead of creating the item, the best you could do would be to break even. (This would not include operating costs in the mean time, only profit, so you could probably make a decent living by stretching it out, but you couldn't possibly grow your company with it.)
In this case, it wasn't even about that... All the data we needed was there... But kept from anyone outside their group... And then modified, and the original data deleted.
That's just not how science is done. There's no way for an independent group to verify the results.
So this new research, using different data, means a LOT more. It's actually been verified, and (I assume) others could also use the data to verify as well.
So I've switched my stance on AGW. It does appear to be a real thing, and could be a problem. Now my worry is that people will 'solve' the problem by creating a bigger one. CO2 isn't a pollutant, but a lot of the options for removing it have been. We could do far more damage than we fix.
You can't raise prices on such a popular service without people knowing.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that if they hadn't raised prices, customers like me that weren't using the service would have continued to pay. But this woke a lot of people up and caused them to cancel their accounts.
And splitting it into 2 services was even worse. Now people had to judge the value of what they're getting, and decide what to pay for and what not to. And many found it lacking on both sides and cancelled.
The chaos made me think about the service, and how little value I was getting from it. I would go months without using it, and then maybe watch a couple old Doctor Who eps.
The thing is, a few months ago, Amazon Prime (which I already had) put out the same Doctor Who eps on their service, also free.
So why was I paying for it? It was cheap and convenient...
So they raised the price AND took away options. Of course I cancelled. Had they stayed quiet, I'd probably still be shelling out $8/month for nothing.
I have yet to meet the piece of paper that gives immediate feedback, so it's not possible for pen and paper to teach as well as a computer... If the computer if programmed properly.
Ah, we didn't try that because we didn't need it. I wasn't 100% sure if it was possible or not. (Plus, I don't remember much about it.)
Anyhow, since they were so specific about each piece being separate, I'm thinking that things might be a lot more flexible this new way... Maybe not even writing code at all, but just creating it programatically. We'll see.
Another map editor, you mean. It's already GOT one. It's just hard to use and not built into the game.
This one looks like a dumbed down version of it that anyone should be able to use. (Honestly, the real one needed dumbing down, but this looks a bit much.)
In the past, you could compile C# source code at runtime and load it into memory and use it. (I know, I was doing it for a MUD that didn't pan out.) But it wasn't very dynamic. (We were using it to reload the code without restarting the MUD.)
I assume this news means that you can write code dynamically, without writing it to a text file first.
Yes, we should have been combating pollution all along. But until now, I was not convinced that CO2 -was- a pollutant. I've always been a supporter of cleaning up and (especially) preventing pollution.
"But for Richard Muller, this free circulation also marks a return to how science should be done."
I've long been sceptical of 'man made global warming' because of the science involved. It didn't help that people would say, "Only university-trained scientists can understand the data", either. (Obviously an idiotic claim. Anyone with a brain can learn, and Universities are not a requirement for learning.)
But this is the moment I've been waiting for. Someone finally did the science openly and put all their cards on the table. They aren't hiding anything, including their funding sources. They even used new data that wasn't tainted and made sure to watch for the things sceptics have been critical of.
So, as a long-time AGW sceptic, I'm saying: Thank you for finally proving it.
Now if we can only find ways to counter or offset it that don't hurt the environment even more than we already are, we'll be in good shape.
That depends on the competition. Almost all of them only ask for enough permission to run the event and publicize it. I don't think I've ever seen one crazy enough to claim ownership of what was built. It would be a ghost town.
That's correct. You generally end up with a very playable prototype, but it's not ready to sell yet.
But there's nothing stopping people from continuing to improve and polish the game after the competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogel
"In opposition to 2D pixels, hogels contain 3D information from various perspectives."
Have you got something to back that up? Because that hasn't been my experience at all. All the retired people I know had a plan to earn enough money and retire to go have fun.
If I ever retire, it'll be because I'm sick, not because I've decided not to work any more. Even ignoring the economy, I like my job. In fact, I've liked almost every job I've ever had, no matter which industry. If it weren't for bad managers, I'd leave out the 'almost'.
Sure, I'd like to have more time at home, but I've found I'm happier when I've got an external purpose for a good portion of my time. I don't mind working on other people's dreams, so long as I'm being productive.
So if I live to be 150, I expect most of those years will be happy, productive ones.
However, I expect all too many people would simply see it as another 85 years that they HAVE to work at a job they hate.
This is the first I've ever heard about e-ink inducing migraines. In fact, everything I found on the net suggested it was great for migraine sufferers because it doesn't flicker, doesn't produce light, and you can change the font size whenever you want.
If you had said that a bundle of 5 ps3 games would definitely be available for whatever I wanted to pay, even $.01, that analogy might hold.
As it stands right now, they helped launch and explosion of Indie games, and the market is eating it up. But if they devalue them by setting an expectation of these bundles, it could set the whole thing back again.
(To be fair, Steam helped a lot, too, with their 5 for $5 bundles last Christmas... And repeating that event would be just as bad.)
Actually, the bundles have typically had games that I have either purchased, or was going to purchase. So for me, the games are pretty good.
I look at it like Steam's Christmas sale last year, though. If they keep having sales, why would anyone purchase at full price? Just wait for the inevitable sale.
Worse yet, some of the games aren't even launched yet... You'll lose all the money from the people who just have to have it at launch.
You don't educate him. You provide the tools and let him educate himself. Require some basic stuff, but anything beyond highschool level, he should be allowed to explore at his pace.
As for the social aspect... I don't buy it. I certainly didn't learn to be social in school, and he won't either. He will simply be bullied until he withdraws and avoids everyone. He won't learn to get along with them.
On the other hand, clubs and meetups would be very good for him. The people there don't have to put up with his bullshit and he'll probably get kicked out of at least 1 before he learns to deal with others, but those clubs will probably offer enough for him that he's willing to learn to behave to stay in them.
Careful with that SpaceChem game. It's a lot harder than you'd think at first, and you can lose many hours of your life per level on the later ones. I just barely pulled myself away from it, and I still feel the urge to start playing again, months later.
That's really risky proposition. The problem is that they might give you the raise to keep you... While they train your replacement. Then you've lost your current job and don't have another one lined up.
Wow, that is one of the most elitist things I've ever heard. Just because I'm not willing to bend over and take abuse, I'm suddenly not good enough to be a scientist.
That's what wrong with the scientific community today. More people need to have conviction and stand up for what's right, instead of doing whatever they need to 'for science'.
The minute you claim to have it, people will jump all over you. They'll call you at home to call you a quack. They'll email. They'll stuff your mailbox. They'll picket you.
Mind you, these won't be scientists doing that. It'll be random jerks from the internet. But it doesn't matter, because they'll make your life a living hell.
Even if you're right.
Why would you put yourself through that?
When would I publish my findings on cold fusion? Let's see...
Have an idea? Nope, people would make fun of it.
Have a way to test it? Same again.
Have tested it, and it seems to work? Same again.
Have it working and reliable on a small scale? Same again. But also, it works! Why would I reveal my secret that nobody even believes is possible?
Have a large-scale test planned? Same as previous.
Have tested it large-scale? Same again.
Have it running large-scale and producing ridiculous wads of cash? Same again.
At no point does it make sense to publish your findings on any of the taboo subjects like cold fusion, even if it's really working. Even if it works, you'll be drummed out of polite society and the best you can hope for is that someone else can also do it. You don't even WANT that! You want to keep it to yourself an rake in the money.
Normally, for a non-taboo scientific discovery, you'd publish your findings at the third step above and let others try to disprove you. But it all gets turned on its head when the taboo subjects are involved.