For small organizations, this could work. For large enterprises (4+ layers of management; 2-5+ yr product development cycle, etc.) no.
Emergent behavior of the organization leads to stable "Dilbert points" where the right thing (even mandatory, career-wise) actions for individuals are demonstrably the wrong things for the company in the long run. In this environment, no CEO would ever last part the first year.
So -- they're suggesting running a game in a CAVE virtual environment? Not exactly new. Multiscreen flight sims [xplane] are examples of one form of prior art (ok -- not quite CAVEs, but I don't know of a game in a CAVE environment. To argue that doing so is somehow non-obvious would be ridiculous.
But I guess that's what lawyers are paid to do.
If you think you're a good enough leader to recreate and improve on the fun environment you have now in the new job, then take it. As director you'll be in the rare position of being able to set the expectations on your groups culture.
On the other hand - if you aren't 100% sure you can pull that off -- I'd stay where you are. Nothing beats having fun at work. Except maybe the joy of creation when you build your own team, the way you want it, and it works. The one downside as leader, though --- in making things fun for everyone else, you'll find that you are doing a lot more 'unfun' stuff yourself. Leadership as service...
Last time I checked, one had to take freshman calculus to get in to med school -- at which point the good Dr. should have been exposed to things like the trapezoid rule.
But what's really scary is that the journal is (I believe) peer-reviewed -- so the reviewers missed it too.
Actually, some of the folks I know who worked early NASA efforts (Mercury-Apollo) did exactly this [weighing graph paper] as a means of integrating functions.
Indeed, the graph paper they used was spec'd to have uniform density to within a specified tolerance - so that variations in thickness, etc. didn't affect the integral.
Look at how long it too for someone to completely 'solve' the game of checkers (using a computer)
Depends on your definition of 'solved' -- Samuelson's 'solution' was a brute force attack that relied heavily on position evaluation functions provided by human experts.
[slightly off topic, I know, but...]
Good discussion can be found in Dave Fogel's book, Blondie 24
The book discusses Samuelson's work in the background discussion, but its main subject is development of a checkers playing program from 'first principles' - only givens were the physics of the game (legal moves) and one heuristic: more pieces is better. Everything else was learned. The program was eventually playing at an expert level against human players on the web.
My point, relevant to the post above: While simple games like checkers are considered 'solved' algorithmically by many in the AI community, those 'solutions' often actually rely heavily on the kind of human reasoning / intuition / learning -- combined with brute force evaluation of future move possibilities.
[end off topic]
re -- "Shoot back?" comment above -- the answer for PRISim was "yes, it did shoot back and yes, it could shoot first." Used to teach LEOs proper use of cover -- but the rounds are 'toned down' a bit -- just left a bruise. "credible threat of pain" really puts your head in the game !
However - slightly off topic since this was not sold with the live fire system. The purpose was to provide the trainer with a means of forcing the user to make their mistakes in the sim, not the field. Mistakes w/ live ammo "would be bad"
Worked for a company (Advanced Interactive Systems) in the late '90s that had a system to track real bullets from real guns, with the bullets passing through a self-healing screen. System could track anything from a single shot from a.45 to every round out of an AR-15 at full auto, etc. Was the basis for FPS and other apps for indoor shooting ranges and an option for the PRISim system for police & military training.
From their website, it looks like this 'lives on' in some of their current products.
Actually - the authors already thought of this - and warn against it.
From the last paragraph in the article...
Even if a way is devised to
attach a high-fidelity quality measure to a citation, there
is no substitute for scientific judgment to assess publications.
We need to avoid falling into the trap of relying on
automatically generated citation statistics for accessing
the performance of individual researchers, departments,
and scientific disciplines, and especially of allowing the
evaluation task to be entrusted to administrators and
bureaucrats
Seems to me that there's a significant methodological problem with this study -- "driving" by using a mouse isn't the skill that most folks have done a lot. Seems that they've realy shown that answering questions or listening to a conversation can interfere with exercising a NEW skill -(mouse-driving navigation).
What's this say about real driving? -TBD.
Might be interesting to see if skill with FPS or other mouse-nav intensive games correlates with impact from distractions.
Additionally because proposed initial cables (the only ones likely to be broken) have very low mass (roughly 1 kg per kilometer) and are flat, the bottom portion would likely settle to Earth with less force than a sheet of paper due to air resistance on the way down.
The emphasized statement reflects assumptions that: 1) no one would intentionally damage the elevator - sabotage section of wiki simply says "unquantifiable, might affect location," etc. ; and 2) assuming that only the initial versions are likely to be broken seems a bit naive -- the same argument would seem to imply that only the initial models of an airplane are likely to crash? In all seriousness, it's worth asking whether or not a formal failure analysis of the consequences of a cable break on a space elevator would tilt the risk/benefit eqn to the "wrong" side...
FWIW -- I'd also need to see the math to support the "will burn up" argument -- the lower portion of the elevator will be travelling at much less than orbital velocity (elevator is special case of a g-g stabilized tether); Also (unrelated) most proposals seeem to ignore the effects of so-called "zonal harmonics," Jnm in the earth's mass (hence gravity) distribution. Simply put, there are only two points in geosynch orbit that are actually "geosynch" in the long run - IIRC (been ~18 yrs since I last looked at this), one is ~over Sri Lanka, the other is on the equator and more-or-less due south of Baja California. These harmonics are the reason that "geosynch" satellites need to burn fuel for station keeping -- but that's getting too far off topic.
(tie it to a zepplin) is a variation of an idea that's been kicked around for a while as a gravity-gradient stabilized tether. Issues: Weather & Dynamics
Most space elevator concepts assume you're tied to the earth to get the tension necessary to keep the thing from whipping around all over the place.
In the same vein -- Always wondered how you'd pass an environmental "impact" review for one of these things. What happens when your 20,000 nmi long cable to geosynch breaks -- or is intentionally damaged by the "bad guys" -- halfway up and 10,000 nmi of cable falls down to earth-- a cable 10,000 nmi would stretch from the coast of Ecuador to somewhere on the island of Borneo.... even bigger mess if it falls over land...
The Sci-Fi channel series is based on the movie (1994) of the same name -- described here in Iternet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111282/
Slashdot Mirror
For small organizations, this could work. For large enterprises (4+ layers of management; 2-5+ yr product development cycle, etc.) no.
Emergent behavior of the organization leads to stable "Dilbert points" where the right thing (even mandatory, career-wise) actions for individuals are demonstrably the wrong things for the company in the long run. In this environment, no CEO would ever last part the first year.
So -- they're suggesting running a game in a CAVE virtual environment? Not exactly new. Multiscreen flight sims [xplane] are examples of one form of prior art (ok -- not quite CAVEs, but I don't know of a game in a CAVE environment. To argue that doing so is somehow non-obvious would be ridiculous. But I guess that's what lawyers are paid to do.
If you think you're a good enough leader to recreate and improve on the fun environment you have now in the new job, then take it. As director you'll be in the rare position of being able to set the expectations on your groups culture. On the other hand - if you aren't 100% sure you can pull that off -- I'd stay where you are. Nothing beats having fun at work. Except maybe the joy of creation when you build your own team, the way you want it, and it works. The one downside as leader, though --- in making things fun for everyone else, you'll find that you are doing a lot more 'unfun' stuff yourself. Leadership as service...
For failing to recognize that "can do something" doesn't necessarily mean "should do something"
Last time I checked, one had to take freshman calculus to get in to med school -- at which point the good Dr. should have been exposed to things like the trapezoid rule. But what's really scary is that the journal is (I believe) peer-reviewed -- so the reviewers missed it too.
Actually, some of the folks I know who worked early NASA efforts (Mercury-Apollo) did exactly this [weighing graph paper] as a means of integrating functions. Indeed, the graph paper they used was spec'd to have uniform density to within a specified tolerance - so that variations in thickness, etc. didn't affect the integral.
Depends on your definition of 'solved' -- Samuelson's 'solution' was a brute force attack that relied heavily on position evaluation functions provided by human experts. [slightly off topic, I know, but...] Good discussion can be found in Dave Fogel's book, Blondie 24 The book discusses Samuelson's work in the background discussion, but its main subject is development of a checkers playing program from 'first principles' - only givens were the physics of the game (legal moves) and one heuristic: more pieces is better. Everything else was learned. The program was eventually playing at an expert level against human players on the web. My point, relevant to the post above: While simple games like checkers are considered 'solved' algorithmically by many in the AI community, those 'solutions' often actually rely heavily on the kind of human reasoning / intuition / learning -- combined with brute force evaluation of future move possibilities. [end off topic]
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers
Guess they were unpopular even before Brooks Bro's suits were invented
Well -- not more than once, anyway.
re -- "Shoot back?" comment above -- the answer for PRISim was "yes, it did shoot back and yes, it could shoot first." Used to teach LEOs proper use of cover -- but the rounds are 'toned down' a bit -- just left a bruise. "credible threat of pain" really puts your head in the game !
However - slightly off topic since this was not sold with the live fire system. The purpose was to provide the trainer with a means of forcing the user to make their mistakes in the sim, not the field. Mistakes w/ live ammo "would be bad"
[disclaimer - worked for them]
Worked for a company (Advanced Interactive Systems) in the late '90s that had a system to track real bullets from real guns, with the bullets passing through a self-healing screen. System could track anything from a single shot from a .45 to every round out of an AR-15 at full auto, etc. Was the basis for FPS and other apps for indoor shooting ranges and an option for the PRISim system for police & military training.
From their website, it looks like this 'lives on' in some of their current products.
Seems to me that there's a significant methodological problem with this study -- "driving" by using a mouse isn't the skill that most folks have done a lot. Seems that they've realy shown that answering questions or listening to a conversation can interfere with exercising a NEW skill -(mouse-driving navigation). What's this say about real driving? -TBD. Might be interesting to see if skill with FPS or other mouse-nav intensive games correlates with impact from distractions.
The emphasized statement reflects assumptions that: 1) no one would intentionally damage the elevator - sabotage section of wiki simply says "unquantifiable, might affect location," etc. ; and 2) assuming that only the initial versions are likely to be broken seems a bit naive -- the same argument would seem to imply that only the initial models of an airplane are likely to crash? In all seriousness, it's worth asking whether or not a formal failure analysis of the consequences of a cable break on a space elevator would tilt the risk/benefit eqn to the "wrong" side...
FWIW -- I'd also need to see the math to support the "will burn up" argument -- the lower portion of the elevator will be travelling at much less than orbital velocity (elevator is special case of a g-g stabilized tether); Also (unrelated) most proposals seeem to ignore the effects of so-called "zonal harmonics," Jnm in the earth's mass (hence gravity) distribution. Simply put, there are only two points in geosynch orbit that are actually "geosynch" in the long run - IIRC (been ~18 yrs since I last looked at this), one is ~over Sri Lanka, the other is on the equator and more-or-less due south of Baja California. These harmonics are the reason that "geosynch" satellites need to burn fuel for station keeping -- but that's getting too far off topic.
(tie it to a zepplin) is a variation of an idea that's been kicked around for a while as a gravity-gradient stabilized tether. Issues: Weather & Dynamics Most space elevator concepts assume you're tied to the earth to get the tension necessary to keep the thing from whipping around all over the place.
In the same vein -- Always wondered how you'd pass an environmental "impact" review for one of these things. What happens when your 20,000 nmi long cable to geosynch breaks -- or is intentionally damaged by the "bad guys" -- halfway up and 10,000 nmi of cable falls down to earth-- a cable 10,000 nmi would stretch from the coast of Ecuador to somewhere on the island of Borneo.... even bigger mess if it falls over land...
The Sci-Fi channel series is based on the movie (1994) of the same name -- described here in Iternet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111282/