Browsing the site, it looks like they're doing just what I talked about. Teaching how to be a manager, how to finance something, how to get people to be creative. They're not teaching how to come up with ideas, how to identify undervalued resources, i.e. the stuff that constitutes genuine entrepreneurship.
I know, it sounds like a nitpick, but I don't like when people act like, hey, once you teach this course, you'll be a successful entrepreneur, because entrepreneurship comes precisely from not following standard thinking. Maybe I didn't say that right...
intrepid two-year college level training in how to become a successful Project Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurship is something that, almost by definition, can't be taught, because it involves identifying how to use resources no one had before thought to identify. If you can systematize the method, it's not longer entrepreneurship, but a rote process.
If, on the other hand, they're just using the term "entrepreneur" to mean manager, and they're just going to teach you what you need to know to run a business, they're misusing it.
How many airlines are in the black for a full year? 1?
So, from the fact that most airlines currently have huge legacy costs (like carmakers, and steelmakers), you conclude that as a GENERAL rule, unsubsidized travel is literally impossible to be profitable? And you've done all kinds of calculations (which, of course, have taken into account all changes businesses would make as a result of the different environment) that prove this? Give me a break.
When he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map", what he *really* meant was that Israel's military aggressiveness should be wiped off the map. And when he said Jews are evil, what he *really* means what that militaristic Zionism is evil. And when he said each and every Jew in the entire world should be rounded up and taken to concentration camps to be killed, what he *really* meant was that he wants to kill the spirit of hatred that resides in the hearts of Israel's policymakters!
If Iran sells the oil to *someone*, it makes no real difference who. It just means that whoever would have sold to China, would sell to whomever Iran is now not selling to. This extra constraint on the distribution network just adds a small price per barrel. That's just as empty a threat as the UN's.
That's a good point, but a slightly different issue. You're referring to professors writing books which students are required to buy. But I'm referring to the general point of a professor getting *any* copyright on any book he wrote while working for the university. For example, what if he's writing a book, *not* to extort students, but as an introduction to a niche topic for people in industry? Or for researchers in the area? (They would have free access to the general ideas elsewhere, but not to his particular presentation of them.)
Well, kind of. If you ask an economist (for whatever reason), he would tell you that the purpose of a lock is not to "keep people out" but to make the thief's best option, in his opinion, to be robbing something else.
The granting of patents to federally-funded research was enabled by the Bayh-Dole Act. Yes, we "already paid for it". But the reason it was passed was (in part!!!) because well, the idea that a scientist could make some great discovery, and not see much material benefit beyond the salary he was paid for it, tends to get their undies in a wad. It can skew their incentives so that they don't put the time and effort into the work that would be later justfied by public demand for the fruits. "Ah, I'll come back to this tommorow."
Before I get a bunch of simplistic objections, I DID NOT JUST CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS ARE LAZY DO-NOTHINGS WHO CARE ONLY ABOUT MARTERIAL BENEFIT. I DID NOT JUST CLAIM FEDERAL RESEARCH WOULD PRODUCE NOTHING IF IT COULD NOT GET PATENTS. I DID NOT CLAIM THE NUMEROUS OTHER STRAWMEN YOU'RE GOING TO SHOVE MY POST INTO. I'm just saying, that if all federal research were to be unpatentable, there would be a non-trivial penalty to the research progress, as scientists might suboptimally allocate less additional units of effort. How big this is, I have no idea, but it is not a costless shift, and the fact that we "already paid for it" is no excuse. I'm willing to bet many of you, by the way, would object to a professor not being able to get a copyright on books he wrote while working at a public university.
If you still believe in public-domaining federally funded research, great, but do it with knowledge of the costs.
...since most of these shoddy patents get through because the patent examiner doesn't realize the applicant has just fancied up something obvious, another major improvement would be to require patent summaries to be easily readable. How to enforce? How about this: allow patents to be invalidated on the grounds of obfusctating terminology. To test this, a defendant could be allow to offer an alternative phrasing, and if the judge|jury finds that a) the alternative phrasing describes the same invention (i.e., the plaintiff can't think of something that would fall under one but not the other), and b) the alternative phrasing is "significantly easier" to understand, the patent is invalidated. That would have the added benefit of a kick of harsh reality to those who deceive themselves about their own inventiveness. "No dude, you just put a scroll wheel on the side. You didn't provide an 'integrated mind-user-machine interface', whatever that is."
Shouldn't you be more interested in finding out why an apartment renter would decouple his rent payments from electricity and thereby dull his incentive to efficiently use energy (possibly taking on huge overhead), rather than futilely try to shame him into caring about the environment?
It is very understandable they ahve restrictive policies about who they sell their SDK to. That is part of keeping control over the quality of games being released.
From the fact that they will let you *use* the SDK, it does not follow that they must allow you to sell licensed games for their system. They can allow people to experiment and share their games with friends, while at the same time maintaining creative control.
Nintendo is not waiting for a bunch of hobbyists to goof around and have them "maybe" produce a hit, they need quality games.
Making quality games is not mutually exclusive with allowing more minds to "goof around" with such a new system.
I guess you don't want to understand this and stay in your imaginary world where hobbyists can make a console work....
Please don't try to blur what I was saying to be too broad. I accept that sigificant investment must be made to market the console and give it initial momentum. I'm not like people who genuinely wonder why the GP2X isn't selling. But *once* they have kicked it off, the massive experimentation can lead to something no developer would have though to make significant investment in.
Ask yourself, why isn't there a hobbyists supported console around?...
Er, there are, it's just that no one of them has significant mass appeal anymore.
You have planned to launch a system with a fundamentally different interface from what people are used to. How to optimally exploit this for fun games is not obvious, because it's very out-of-the-box. The more minds you can have working on this, the better. This is even more important than on rival consoles because of the immensely-greater possibilities. If you really want to discover the most innovative uses of the Wiimote, you're going to need to let hobbyists buy the (fortunately affordable) SDK. Even if their version is bad, if they hit on a good use no one though of, that can become an instant console-seller. Why keep your restrictive policies about the size of developers you'll sell to?
I would assume whoever wants the massive computation is willing to pay a notable amount to anyone who allows their PS3 to be hooked up to it for a signficant time per month. Perhaps Sony could remind people of the money they "get back" after the high price?
If you're making a subtle joke about the quixoticity of installing a whole dedicated backup battery generator, just so your toilet can use electricity, good one.
If you're serious, well, that's going to far. All I want is for there to be some decoupling from the electrical aspect. For example, in the storm, I could still open my garage because it has a backup cord with which I can manually lift it open. Likewise, for the toilet, the plumbing could be run as now, with just the unnecessary electrical parts separate. But I just get the funny feeling that some moron is going to design it so that you literally *can't flush* merely because you lost power.
Back in May where I live, there was a severe storm that knocked out power for, depending on where you live, 12-72 hours. Being without power in the black of night with rain pounding on my windows and having to navigate with a flashlight made me realize how thankful I am that the toilet DOES NOT depend on electricity.
Please folks, make sure the technology makes you better off than before.
LilJen1992 says: __OMG LIEK TEHER IS SUM RILLY CREPY CHAP TAH WANTS ME TO... UGHGHGHGH!!!!11 Constable Nigel says: __4 ril? LilJen1992 says: __Yeh he is so grss!!!1 Constable Nigel says: __kk jess gimme his s/n
Slashdot Mirror
Browsing the site, it looks like they're doing just what I talked about. Teaching how to be a manager, how to finance something, how to get people to be creative. They're not teaching how to come up with ideas, how to identify undervalued resources, i.e. the stuff that constitutes genuine entrepreneurship.
I know, it sounds like a nitpick, but I don't like when people act like, hey, once you teach this course, you'll be a successful entrepreneur, because entrepreneurship comes precisely from not following standard thinking. Maybe I didn't say that right...
intrepid two-year college level training in how to become a successful Project Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurship is something that, almost by definition, can't be taught, because it involves identifying how to use resources no one had before thought to identify. If you can systematize the method, it's not longer entrepreneurship, but a rote process.
If, on the other hand, they're just using the term "entrepreneur" to mean manager, and they're just going to teach you what you need to know to run a business, they're misusing it.
Yeah, I'm an AC who went from terrible to excellent karma in under a month.
I'm just flagging the cranks here, that's all.
Metals with this spectral reading also had:
-face-centered cubic structure
-high melting point[CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT SUPER SAVER SHIPPING ON LASERS!]
Ah, great, now we got an A/C to run the numbers. That just BOOSTS my confidence in the conclusion!
How many airlines are in the black for a full year? 1?
So, from the fact that most airlines currently have huge legacy costs (like carmakers, and steelmakers), you conclude that as a GENERAL rule, unsubsidized travel is literally impossible to be profitable? And you've done all kinds of calculations (which, of course, have taken into account all changes businesses would make as a result of the different environment) that prove this? Give me a break.
Damn, you got me again.
Unsubsidized travel doesn't make money.
Yep, folks. We got a crank. Move on, and save at least five minutes of your life.
Cool. So they got that end covered. Now all they have to do is get revenues to cover costs!
No, no, no!
When he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map", what he *really* meant was that Israel's military aggressiveness should be wiped off the map. And when he said Jews are evil, what he *really* means what that militaristic Zionism is evil. And when he said each and every Jew in the entire world should be rounded up and taken to concentration camps to be killed, what he *really* meant was that he wants to kill the spirit of hatred that resides in the hearts of Israel's policymakters!
Don't read him out of context!
If Iran sells the oil to *someone*, it makes no real difference who. It just means that whoever would have sold to China, would sell to whomever Iran is now not selling to. This extra constraint on the distribution network just adds a small price per barrel. That's just as empty a threat as the UN's.
"Okay, now it's your turn to call. I need my vegetable patch plowed."
Dude, that's just not cool. What did their being gay have to do with the story?
Or she could say she was trying to install Ubuntu, and GRUB locked her out of her OS's so she had to reformat.
That's a good point, but a slightly different issue. You're referring to professors writing books which students are required to buy. But I'm referring to the general point of a professor getting *any* copyright on any book he wrote while working for the university. For example, what if he's writing a book, *not* to extort students, but as an introduction to a niche topic for people in industry? Or for researchers in the area? (They would have free access to the general ideas elsewhere, but not to his particular presentation of them.)
Well, kind of. If you ask an economist (for whatever reason), he would tell you that the purpose of a lock is not to "keep people out" but to make the thief's best option, in his opinion, to be robbing something else.
The granting of patents to federally-funded research was enabled by the Bayh-Dole Act. Yes, we "already paid for it". But the reason it was passed was (in part!!!) because well, the idea that a scientist could make some great discovery, and not see much material benefit beyond the salary he was paid for it, tends to get their undies in a wad. It can skew their incentives so that they don't put the time and effort into the work that would be later justfied by public demand for the fruits. "Ah, I'll come back to this tommorow."
Before I get a bunch of simplistic objections, I DID NOT JUST CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS ARE LAZY DO-NOTHINGS WHO CARE ONLY ABOUT MARTERIAL BENEFIT. I DID NOT JUST CLAIM FEDERAL RESEARCH WOULD PRODUCE NOTHING IF IT COULD NOT GET PATENTS. I DID NOT CLAIM THE NUMEROUS OTHER STRAWMEN YOU'RE GOING TO SHOVE MY POST INTO. I'm just saying, that if all federal research were to be unpatentable, there would be a non-trivial penalty to the research progress, as scientists might suboptimally allocate less additional units of effort. How big this is, I have no idea, but it is not a costless shift, and the fact that we "already paid for it" is no excuse. I'm willing to bet many of you, by the way, would object to a professor not being able to get a copyright on books he wrote while working at a public university.
If you still believe in public-domaining federally funded research, great, but do it with knowledge of the costs.
...since most of these shoddy patents get through because the patent examiner doesn't realize the applicant has just fancied up something obvious, another major improvement would be to require patent summaries to be easily readable. How to enforce? How about this: allow patents to be invalidated on the grounds of obfusctating terminology. To test this, a defendant could be allow to offer an alternative phrasing, and if the judge|jury finds that a) the alternative phrasing describes the same invention (i.e., the plaintiff can't think of something that would fall under one but not the other), and b) the alternative phrasing is "significantly easier" to understand, the patent is invalidated. That would have the added benefit of a kick of harsh reality to those who deceive themselves about their own inventiveness. "No dude, you just put a scroll wheel on the side. You didn't provide an 'integrated mind-user-machine interface', whatever that is."
Shouldn't you be more interested in finding out why an apartment renter would decouple his rent payments from electricity and thereby dull his incentive to efficiently use energy (possibly taking on huge overhead), rather than futilely try to shame him into caring about the environment?
I'm just asking.
It is very understandable they ahve restrictive policies about who they sell their SDK to. That is part of keeping control over the quality of games being released.
From the fact that they will let you *use* the SDK, it does not follow that they must allow you to sell licensed games for their system. They can allow people to experiment and share their games with friends, while at the same time maintaining creative control.
Nintendo is not waiting for a bunch of hobbyists to goof around and have them "maybe" produce a hit, they need quality games.
Making quality games is not mutually exclusive with allowing more minds to "goof around" with such a new system.
I guess you don't want to understand this and stay in your imaginary world where hobbyists can make a console work....
Please don't try to blur what I was saying to be too broad. I accept that sigificant investment must be made to market the console and give it initial momentum. I'm not like people who genuinely wonder why the GP2X isn't selling. But *once* they have kicked it off, the massive experimentation can lead to something no developer would have though to make significant investment in.
Ask yourself, why isn't there a hobbyists supported console around?...
Er, there are, it's just that no one of them has significant mass appeal anymore.
You have planned to launch a system with a fundamentally different interface from what people are used to. How to optimally exploit this for fun games is not obvious, because it's very out-of-the-box. The more minds you can have working on this, the better. This is even more important than on rival consoles because of the immensely-greater possibilities. If you really want to discover the most innovative uses of the Wiimote, you're going to need to let hobbyists buy the (fortunately affordable) SDK. Even if their version is bad, if they hit on a good use no one though of, that can become an instant console-seller. Why keep your restrictive policies about the size of developers you'll sell to?
I would assume whoever wants the massive computation is willing to pay a notable amount to anyone who allows their PS3 to be hooked up to it for a signficant time per month. Perhaps Sony could remind people of the money they "get back" after the high price?
If you're making a subtle joke about the quixoticity of installing a whole dedicated backup battery generator, just so your toilet can use electricity, good one.
If you're serious, well, that's going to far. All I want is for there to be some decoupling from the electrical aspect. For example, in the storm, I could still open my garage because it has a backup cord with which I can manually lift it open. Likewise, for the toilet, the plumbing could be run as now, with just the unnecessary electrical parts separate. But I just get the funny feeling that some moron is going to design it so that you literally *can't flush* merely because you lost power.
Back in May where I live, there was a severe storm that knocked out power for, depending on where you live, 12-72 hours. Being without power in the black of night with rain pounding on my windows and having to navigate with a flashlight made me realize how thankful I am that the toilet DOES NOT depend on electricity.
Please folks, make sure the technology makes you better off than before.
/me wonders why a 24 year old can't take care of herself
/me wonders why 2006 minus 1992 is 24 rather than 14
LilJen1992 says: ... UGHGHGHGH!!!!11
__OMG LIEK TEHER IS SUM RILLY CREPY CHAP TAH WANTS ME TO
Constable Nigel says:
__4 ril?
LilJen1992 says:
__Yeh he is so grss!!!1
Constable Nigel says:
__kk jess gimme his s/n
Then they're back to where they were in the first place.
No, it means they were about as successful as the Xbox 360.