we do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard
-
now there was a genius, mad as a box of frogs, but still a genius
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
mad as a box of frogs
Interesting, I never thought frogs had the intelligence to go insane or to get angry. They do have enough to sense danger and try to get away from it. (One will NOT sit quietly in a pot of water while you heat it up, instead it gets some urgency in its attempts to leave the pot.) Wow, I'd forgotten how cruel I could be in the name of science when I was a kid. By the way, when they get out of the box, do they retain their insanity?
-
whilst I agree that you should put modern morals on historic events you should also not accept propergander as being truth, sending thugs round to beat you up and destroy your business just because you use film equipment not approved by you, was wrong then and still is. He used bully boy tactics in court and when that didnt work he used them in the real world, these were imoral then and imoral now.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
whilst I agree that you should put modern morals on historic events you should also not accept propergander as being truth, sending thugs round to beat you up and destroy your business just because you use film equipment not approved by you, was wrong then and still is. He used bully boy tactics in court and when that didnt work he used them in the real world, these were imoral then and imoral now.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I mean companies that we are in the business of, not a lot of investment bankers hang out on CP :) And to me, a risk is something that can cost you everything, otherwise they are closer to "experiments".
Ron Beyer wrote:
I mean companies that we are in the business of, not a lot of investment bankers hang out on CP
I can't speak for all CPers but I do get paid most of the companies I have worked for for quite some time, didn't have products when I joined them and were not making a profit. So the latter and the former together means that someone has been taking a "risk".
-
Ron Beyer wrote:
I mean companies that we are in the business of, not a lot of investment bankers hang out on CP
I can't speak for all CPers but I do get paid most of the companies I have worked for for quite some time, didn't have products when I joined them and were not making a profit. So the latter and the former together means that someone has been taking a "risk".
I must be in the wrong business, I don't know how a company can operate in the red without any products and continue for more than the amount of time it takes the banks to file enough paperwork to shut it down. I worked for a company that was operating in the red, there were months (in a row) we didn't get paid. One day the VP came in and told me not to leave any personal property at work that night, the next day the company assets were going to be seized. Luckily another company came in and bought the company for the outstanding debt the next day and a few months later we all got paid. The company you are speaking of was either just starting out, reorganizing, or it had something that allowed it to continue operating or put enough in the coffers to coast for a while. Payroll can't be taken out of an empty bank account.
-
J Julian wrote:
And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line.
Sure there are, but they don't make themselves known because they're usually startups where folks work out of their garage (or their college dorm room) and they're hard to find unless you know the right people. For example, I happen to be working with a few people that are doing some really interesting things, potentially completely revolutionary -- here's one example,[^], sorry, it's "invite only." Another thing is, a lot of great ideas don't need to start with a technology solution -- the technology comes later. I'm talking about social structure changes, like local economies, un-monetized transactions, information organization / management, and so forth. For example, look at what these folks[^] are doing -- technology obviously helps but isn't the core impetus. And in my opinion, that's where the most interesting and revolutionary ideas are. Anyways, I think you're view is inaccurate. Marc
An interesting site Marc, but there's nothing in there, technically, that's revolutionary: that kind of simulated 3d linking to represent semantic relations/correlations has been around, conceptually, a very long time, and, in terms of a full-fledged incarnation, available to mere mortals with home computers, since 1997 when Plumb Design brought out the "Visual Thesaurus" which is still going strong as ThinkMap. Marc Tinkler, the creator, and ThinkMap, won the World Technology Award for Education in 2010: [^]. In the early 1990's, I and a colleague from Adobe visited a developer in Berkely who was prototyping a virtually identical object-graph program for representing complex hierarchies with degrees of semantic relatedness on a PC: it was dog-slow, but he was actually using 3d graphics. However, MetaMaps may indeed be using the concepts in "revolutionary" ways, socially, or otherwise, for all I know. It will be interesting to see what they (and you) come up with. I wish them, and you, best of luck !
“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.” Lewis Carroll
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
I feel sure there are more companies like you are searching for than ever before. The thing is, companies like that are invariably young, small companies - companies that are just starting out with the dreams and aspirations that you seek. They don't all succeed at all, but those that do often eventually turn into those companies that you dislike, that only want to make more money. The answer is to go and be that company that you seek. Do it yourself, you clearly have the desire. Bill P.
-
now there was a genius, mad as a box of frogs, but still a genius
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
mad as a box of frogs
Heh? Just because he invented a cheap and safe(r) way to transport electricity than Edison's extremely expensive & dangerous method? I.e. AC current instead of Editon's DC requiring the "commutator" (basically what we now refer to as an inverter)? Or because he used fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent (much more efficient & longer lasting)? Or perhaps because he thought up ways to produce all the different wavelengths of light - making things like medical x-rays possible? Or because he invented radio, wireless message transmission, etc. even before Marconi thought of sending a message without using wires? Or because he used radio to control a boat's electric motor and actuators for the steering (note the only thing he didn't invent in that sentence was the boat - even starting a whole new concept: robotics)? Or because he even had the audacity to invent a means to produce coherent light - Lasers? Or was it perhaps that he envisioned cheap limitless energy from the very bonds of matter - fission / fusion anyone? So not that "mad" after-all ... just so far ahead of the rest of his peers that they assumed he styled himself some sort of wizard in comparison to them. But this is truly the shape of things: Edison was BLAND in comparison to Tesla. Tesla was reaching for the moon, Edison hardly ventured out his door.
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
Yes, I'm with you on this. In the software industry there's nothing "new" for decades now. Always same-old-same-old dressed up in new clothes (at best). There's another issue here ... most of what we do now was "invented" prior to the 70s, new things are hard to even think about. I'd give my left armpit to be the next John McCarthy! (Note not anything mundane like Gates/jobs) But I realise it's extremely difficult to think of a new WAY to instruct a computer to do what you want, much more difficult than inventing your own brand of syntax/semantics to do exactly the same thing as Fortran did ... only "different". Partly the reason I like the job I have now ... Construction Architecture ... at least here the chance of doing some new design no-one's ever done before is greater than 0 (if you can find the right client).
-
I must be in the wrong business, I don't know how a company can operate in the red without any products and continue for more than the amount of time it takes the banks to file enough paperwork to shut it down. I worked for a company that was operating in the red, there were months (in a row) we didn't get paid. One day the VP came in and told me not to leave any personal property at work that night, the next day the company assets were going to be seized. Luckily another company came in and bought the company for the outstanding debt the next day and a few months later we all got paid. The company you are speaking of was either just starting out, reorganizing, or it had something that allowed it to continue operating or put enough in the coffers to coast for a while. Payroll can't be taken out of an empty bank account.
Ron Beyer wrote:
for more than the amount of time it takes the banks to file enough paperwork to shut it down.
Venture capital.
Ron Beyer wrote:
The company you are speaking of was either just starting out, reorganizing, or it had something that allowed it to continue
The companies, plural, that I was discussing had people who were taking a risk by providing capital that allowed the companies to continue. In one case at least 7 years. In several cases it was specific venture capitalists. But in other cases it was other companies who main business had nothing to do with investing in other companies but who wished to provide capital to other companies because, presumably, they were willing to risk based on future return. It is "risk" that was being discussed.
-
An interesting site Marc, but there's nothing in there, technically, that's revolutionary: that kind of simulated 3d linking to represent semantic relations/correlations has been around, conceptually, a very long time, and, in terms of a full-fledged incarnation, available to mere mortals with home computers, since 1997 when Plumb Design brought out the "Visual Thesaurus" which is still going strong as ThinkMap. Marc Tinkler, the creator, and ThinkMap, won the World Technology Award for Education in 2010: [^]. In the early 1990's, I and a colleague from Adobe visited a developer in Berkely who was prototyping a virtually identical object-graph program for representing complex hierarchies with degrees of semantic relatedness on a PC: it was dog-slow, but he was actually using 3d graphics. However, MetaMaps may indeed be using the concepts in "revolutionary" ways, socially, or otherwise, for all I know. It will be interesting to see what they (and you) come up with. I wish them, and you, best of luck !
“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.” Lewis Carroll
BillWoodruff wrote:
Marc Tinkler, the creator, and ThinkMap,
Wow, I hadn't come across that before. Too bad the SDK is $5,000! But your points are well taken. I find it interesting (puzzling, actually) that these technologies haven't taken off more. Reading some of the research stuff that's been going on (the Metamaps guys have connections to a lot of stuff, and there's research projects being funded apparently by Ford and even EU governments) it's weird to me that people are seeing this stuff as "new", when, as you said, it's been around for 20 years. Marc
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
mad as a box of frogs
Heh? Just because he invented a cheap and safe(r) way to transport electricity than Edison's extremely expensive & dangerous method? I.e. AC current instead of Editon's DC requiring the "commutator" (basically what we now refer to as an inverter)? Or because he used fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent (much more efficient & longer lasting)? Or perhaps because he thought up ways to produce all the different wavelengths of light - making things like medical x-rays possible? Or because he invented radio, wireless message transmission, etc. even before Marconi thought of sending a message without using wires? Or because he used radio to control a boat's electric motor and actuators for the steering (note the only thing he didn't invent in that sentence was the boat - even starting a whole new concept: robotics)? Or because he even had the audacity to invent a means to produce coherent light - Lasers? Or was it perhaps that he envisioned cheap limitless energy from the very bonds of matter - fission / fusion anyone? So not that "mad" after-all ... just so far ahead of the rest of his peers that they assumed he styled himself some sort of wizard in comparison to them. But this is truly the shape of things: Edison was BLAND in comparison to Tesla. Tesla was reaching for the moon, Edison hardly ventured out his door.
no mad as in his best friend was a talking piegeon who shot light beams from its eyes! he was everything you said plus more a whole lot more, but he was also a few cents short of a dollar
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.