Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Privatization of Science      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 m8t
Joined: 8/10/2012
Msg: 45
The Privatization of SciencePage 3 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I trust that in our own humanity we will continue to disappoint the earth in most of our current preservation efforts.
Science speaks for itself; water levels and temperatures are rising, as our forests are shrinking. Is this a natural ecological cycle? If there are other life forms out in the cosmos, and we were meant not to be confined on earth, what kind of example are we setting as a race?

Im sure you have methods, examples and suggestions~
Greed is still the root cause of all war, and enviromental destruction.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 46
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 8/20/2012 6:01:16 PM

Humans want to be part of a family, even greedo's if we give the greedo's insight into how others see them and no choice but to smarten up or be alone, they just might change their ways.

Tough love, C


Thanks for knowing the hidden agenda of what I mean by 'all humans are selfish and greedy.' Acknowledge it. Moderate it and Trust people to know the difference between being selfish to benefit and selfish to harm. We don't have many words to describe the levels but we know what it looks like when its bad. Part of social interaction in groups maintains this without actually defining the rules. However, most of us don't know our neighbors. It isn't greed for greeds sake that things are appearing worse. It's greed because we don't have the social moderator anymore. Small communities still do but definitely not in the large financial centers.

So, how to allow for big city selfishness and moderate it without effectively legislating away freedom.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 47
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 8/20/2012 6:44:59 PM

how to allow for big city selfishness and moderate it without effectively legislating away freedom.

Break large population centres into small virtual communities, where everyone in the community knows everyone else. Link the virtual communities together in such a way that someone who belongs to several virtual communities will have his reputation in any of them affected (positively or negatively) by his behaviour in any other.

Part of the problem right now is compartmentalization of communities. People of the neighbourhood really don't know anything about someone's workplace behaviour and people in his bowling league could probably care less about what sort of family or businessman a guy might be as long as he can bowl. Reputations should cross over the boundaries imposed by such compartments.

That's my take for a possible means of implementing "small town" benefits in a densely populated city.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 48
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 8/20/2012 8:28:49 PM
That's my take for a possible means of implementing "small town" benefits in a densely populated city

Almost okay suggestions. So what do you do... evict people and start over ;)

Everyone is going to hate me for this but will say it for example purposes.... Religion.

Okay...now that your heads have all exploded and hopefully able to pick your self off the floor from either laughing or whatever convulsive shock occurred at the mention of the R word.

This has always been a component of religion. A relativistic common morality code applied at the personal level for the public benefit and supported by communities without actually being written down. Unity, community and trust. They even get together on weekends and talk about moral codes of the day and reflect on where there position is inference to high and sometimes what would feel like nearly impossible ideals of 'just being good.'

I am not going to argue anything about if those things were achieved or lies due to the corrupt blah blah blah your obnoxious noisy leftists equalizing noise of blah blah blah.....

This type of influence does have a normative affect on the social insights and moral intelligence of a group.

Now that isn't going to occur in cities especially high end business areas run by leftists ideals such as wall st. :)

So... where/what is the substitute for this function? Regardless of views of religion or of positions on what the moral outcome is or is not the functional purpose ... has a purpose.

Crap... this is research... WTH... how did religion just get brought up to help create a society that responsibly manages scientific research :) Honestly... if it wasn't for the posts where acceptance of scientific facts is like mixing sodium and water I might think it was a reasonable suggestion. I don't know if the posts on a dating forum are a fair representation of american religious or its just the born again versions that are predisposed to cult like behavior that post. If it is... then leftism is much further progressed then I thought. I need to start my own research. Anyone have a pencil?
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 49
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 8/21/2012 2:10:20 AM
There are religious people who live by the code of; do unto others, love thy neighbor, share the bounty, etc. They are good people, just a little naive in giving the credit of these fine ways to a power outside themselves. A power that is not real and that was started by the greedos to win them over or scare them over so that they will give their hard work and what they can or cannot afford to the lazy greedos under a fear based, "I have the answers, not you" lie.
I understand how they could be fooled, it's old and it's common and it gives them a sense of not being alone in good times and bad.
The thing is they don't need to look outside themselves, they already have it and by looking outside themselves they give away real life action to make the changes they want AND they perpetuate the lie.

Our fairness compass is already built in us, (unless we were born without empathy from being damaged in utero ), it's in us to keep us and our species alive. Just like we have a gag reflex for spoiled foods, it protects our system from being overloaded. We have to go back to listening to our bodies, to respect what our bodies are saying, we have to have a healthy mind, to have a healthy mind, we have to be able to sleep with ourselves.

The greedos put many things in our way as too spoil us out of thinking in healthy ways for all, it's no wonder that so many can't see anymore and that so many feel lost, they are, and a lot of it isn't their fault, they've been contaminated. How can anyone expect unhealthy people to make healthy choices? Especially when society makes it out to be too tough, or too strange or too silly.

When more people give up their fear of being ostracized for taking their life into their own hands, on their own term and see that it is good, the example to others will send the snowball rolling and more will get caught up in it because it's...better, more fun, it feels good and it is not as lonely as they were warned.

The trouble right now is, most want one foot in the greedy side and one foot in the good side. It doesn't work that way! They have to go all in to be good, or dig both heels in to be bad. Their fears keep them trying to balance both sides and ultimately nothing will satisfy them.

I chose good over greed because I had a grandmother who told me it was alright to listen to my body and it felt good. BTW, she happened to be a religious person who took a chance giving me this advice (in her mind).
Guilt and shame killed her and she left this world saying..."I should have".

I am going to share and love and trust myself and I am going to trust that there are others who do the same. I believe it will all turn out good, I just hope that it'll be sooner rather than later.

The greedos way has caused suffering. The good way...everyone benefits.

So back to topic...No to privatizing health and science info. We all need it and money can't give us what a healthy community can, no matter where you live.

Profits don't have to be financial and really, money isn't worth the paper it's written on. Not everything has to be at a cost. Maybe the world is finally seeing that or will, soon.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 50
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 8/21/2012 8:33:59 AM

So back to topic...No to privatizing health and science info. We all need it and money can't give us what a healthy community can, no matter where you live.

Profits don't have to be financial and really, money isn't worth the paper it's written on. Not everything has to be at a cost. Maybe the world is finally seeing that or will, soon.


You are almost at the same point just slightly different degrees. When you say privatizing healh and science info do you mean it is okay to have research private and even profit based as long as the end result is not withheld for profiteering and society benefits from the discoveries. If so... that is a great ethical promotion that could be highly energizing to people to hear. It doesn't change a whole lot of real world laws because this is kind of the ideal. What it does is shift focus from 'greedy' companies to valuing achievement again.

Profits don't have to mean greed either. It is all just shifts in perspective and picking a position rather than being relativistic. If you pick a position you can tell where on the scale things actually land. This is the so called, 'intuitive' or built in 'fairness compass' that you described. It is simply understanding your position on the scale and judging how far away from your position what you are questioning lies. It really helps to have your own position grounded in a realistic view of reality and human nature as well. That means accepting greed and selfishness as a necessary component of being human and that it is core to survival. And that it is a scale and that means that one side of the scale is healthy and the other side isn't.

We just do not have a whole lot of words to describe these positions. It isn't part of our language and is often very difficult to judge where on the scale things are... especially if you are unclear of your own position.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 51
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 8/26/2012 11:46:42 PM
aries ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with what you wrote except this...
That means accepting greed and selfishness as a necessary component of being human and that it is core to survival.


I'll accept the selfishness in the way you meant but the greed part is NOT necessary.
 Ford_Galaxie
Joined: 6/3/2012
Msg: 52
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 12:01:20 AM
Excellent topic. I spent a generation on nuclear powered submarines, and today I work for a US private industry aerospace company. Have we received money from the US government? Absolutely. Was it a bailout? No. Not once did we ask the United States government for a stimulus, grant or have we ever borrowed money under any small business loan- the only time we got money from the governement was by providing the government a service that they could not compete with under their own bureaucracy desk jockey ridden system. We are a private company, and although my opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the company I work for- I would continue to desire that we stay a private company. The spirit stays alive that way, by people who work with their hands to make things and not that of "human resources" or financial deskjockeys. Most importantly, by keeping it a private company, the greed known as "quarterly reports" isn't a factor- we don't have to worry about making each quarter look $.01 better than the last. What's mostly important is that some of us do believe in contributing to "the common good"- the sharing of knowledge thereby advancing and contributing to the knowledge of mankind. We understood that we get back knowledge greater than what we share with others, not what we lock down or supress by doing so. Prior to this, I worked for the largest IT corporation in the world. They bought up huge amounts of great intellectual property and through stupid decisions by management that had absolutely no clue about technology- or the big picture of what the company was about and most importantly- what it meant to the customers- destroyed it. What Christianity did to eradicate the knowledge of the Romans paled in comparison.

I strongly support privatization of the sciences with a caviat- as an excellent example can be found in the smartphone wars. Apple is very protective about IOS and upholds it as intellectual property. IOS delivers a high quality user friendly platform however encourages an open developer application- and their is a motive for open developing as the apllication developers can actually make some money out of it- I believe people should get paid for their work. On the other hand, you have a (sic) open source rival to IOS that offers little incentive to developers to create similar quality applications that rival what can be obtained on IOS, because no one wants to pay for them. Furthermore because everything that is to good to be true always is, the enterprising developer will find another source to make money. Spamware - an integrated part of every Andriod phone. Privatization of the science requires that their is a commercial market for the science at hand, and that it can be profitable. What you get depends on the customer - the customer may desire crap and that will dictate what you provide, and secondly- whoever is elected to the board of directors. Once it goes public, the idea of great scientific vision is completely out of the question.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 53
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 9:19:58 AM
^^^????
Someone that just may agree with me???? OpenSource is becoming one of the biggest drains on technocial innovation that has ever occurred?????

It started off as providing competition... Over time being free it kills all competition and stagnates innovation in whichever areat it is growing in.

Apache web server... the best webserver on the planet. Is on version 2.4.3 after 17 years. All competitors fail to drive innovation and any real innovation is absorbed through modules and is used for free by the largest technical corporations on the planet with virtually no contribution back to the community nor the economy.

The http protocol isn't perfect. All innovations to improve it are done on private platforms that cost money and are drowned out or not available for others to use. Only really two competitors exist. One is from MS they also give it for free but requires running their OS which is not free. The other is .... A mixed market of randomness.

Any company that has an idea how to improve the HTTP server or even utilize the HTTP protocol in a way that would compete with Apache must review the market before commitment to fund a project. The only conclusion that could be arrived at is that Apache owns the market and are so far ahead in competition that it would take a significant pool of money to create something competitive and then the likelihood that a module will be released by the Apache community to emulate the valuable features from this new innovation and releasing it for free. This is not a wise investment.

right now there is a severe lack of innovation on the core technologies occurring. There is a wave of usage of existing technology that makes it appear that we are rapidly innovating... but it is a mask. All of the innovation is just on how to use what exists in a new way. What is not innovating and is stagnating is the underlying infrastructure. It's going to be a very very challenging future. You can't complete against free and free doesn't feed the kids.

There is little difference between the Apache model and a monopoly. Both have the same end result which is to stagnate innovation and block all competition. The price being free masks this. It also masks the part that it being free it also provides multi-billion dollar corporation with a way to utilize this technology and provide zero economic return through jobs, new companies, innovation, and most importantly competition.

For example... one of the last reports I heard was that Google had over 100,000 computers running their website. The primary component that delivers their product is gws which is a modified version of Apache that they customized to meet their own needs and not only did they not pay for any usage they used the core technology as a base for their own which they hold proprietorially to themselves. It takes Google to compete against them and Google has no desire to do so.

The Database MYSQL was following this same path. However, Oracle was smart enough to buy them. MYSQL is dropping in popularity due to the slow innovation and release and expensive support provided by Oracle.

Linux has succeed in doing this in the server market now. Like apache, the Linux kernal is on 2.x. Any innovations are quickly integrated in modules and the core doesn't really change. Apple was the first to take the foundation and make it proprietary and advance it to a a point that grandma could use. Apple is one of the most closed companies that exist. Apple discourages individuals from using their hardware as they see fit. It is now a violation of support agreement to replace your own hard-drive in modern Apple laptops.

This isn't supposed to be how innovation works.
 Sciencetreker
Joined: 2/13/2012
Msg: 54
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:24:39 PM
Privitization of science?

95% of science is not done in academia or the government. I've been in the sciences for over 35 years and was only ever on short government contracts for a couple of years...even then I was still 'private'.

Science is universal. Debating the minutia of U.S. domestic happenings is irrelevent to what science is all about and will continue to be all about. Development of natural resources, pharmaceutical research, digital technology, material engineering, etc. will all continue take place 'wherever', be it China, Germany, Brazil, the USA, Russia, etc, and the bulk iof it will continue to have little to do with 'government'.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 55
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 8:27:33 PM
^^^ Maybe you misread the OP. It was questioning keeping science private for profit. It wasn't questioning if it should become private.

Science is not universal. 95% of all statistics are made up. anecdotal accounts do not equate to evidence.

You were in what :)
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 8:36:19 PM

I strongly support privatization of the sciences with a caviat- as an excellent example can be found in the smartphone wars. Apple is very protective about IOS and upholds it as intellectual property. IOS delivers a high quality user friendly platform however encourages an open developer application- and their is a motive for open developing as the apllication developers can actually make some money out of it- I believe people should get paid for their work. On the other hand, you have a (sic) open source rival to IOS that offers little incentive to developers to create similar quality applications that rival what can be obtained on IOS, because no one wants to pay for them. Furthermore because everything that is to good to be true always is, the enterprising developer will find another source to make money. Spamware - an integrated part of every Andriod phone. Privatization of the science requires that their is a commercial market for the science at hand, and that it can be profitable. What you get depends on the customer - the customer may desire crap and that will dictate what you provide, and secondly- whoever is elected to the board of directors. Once it goes public, the idea of great scientific vision is completely out of the question.

I think you may be misunderstanding the open source nature of Android. Frankly, I don't see how that has anything to do with app developers making money from their apps (I've bought plenty of apps on the Play Store). IMO, the biggest drawback for Android developers is fragmentation, since not all apps work across all Android devices (and some apps are tailor-made for a specific device). In terms of innovation, the opposite can be the case, since Android developers can develop any sort of app they want while iOS has strict limitations (e.g., P2P apps are out of the question). Apple can also pull your app for any reason (one developer got his app pulled because it was "too simple"). Apple uses a "trickle" approach to innovation, releasing a handful of features at a time while Google always seems to be experimenting (Google is famous for introducing new features on the fly - tomorrow your gmail might look different).

My company uses a lot of open source software, although we customize it as needed. This year we've gotten heavily into ExtJS, to replace both JSPs and Struts. I think as far as technology goes, open source is really where it's at. To a considerable extent, developers like us are continuously experimenting with new technology. Of course like any enterprise, making money is a key incentive, but I feel that it can sometimes backfire. As a lifelong gamer, I've noticed certain trends in the latest PC games that are... troubling, at least to me. It seems a lot of games emphasize style over substance, appealing to kids who like flashy graphics. Game publishers like EA have also bought many storied franchises, but the pressure to release games for the holiday season (driven by monetary interests) often result in rushed/subpar games (the "release now, patch later" approach). I've found that many of the best game programmers weren't people who were inspired primarily by money. Instead, the prestige that comes from creating a groundbreaking game (engine) seems to be the primary motivator.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 57
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 8:57:57 PM

My company uses a lot of open source software, although we customize it as needed. This year we've gotten heavily into ExtJS, to replace both JSPs and Struts. I think as far as technology goes, open source is really where it's at.


How would you know when 'where its at' turns negative? I used the most obvious example of the absolute success of open source, Apache, to show that it has monopolized its technology sector and virtually wiped out relevant competition.

EA just went up for sale.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-for-sale-6391937

Free is a lie. Nothing is free. Open Source is not free. It is only free to use. Apache's history and17 years of development have made it rock solid. It runs very well on a free operating system. The strongest database to support it was free but has now been purchased by a proprietary company and support is very expensive.


I've found that many of the best game programmers weren't people who were inspired primarily by money. Instead, the prestige that comes from creating a groundbreaking game (engine) seems to be the primary motivator.
That is really subjective at best. The 'best games' are those that engage a large audience and develop a following. Typically that comes with financial benefits. To follow up with a successful game requires matching and exceeding the original experience. It is quite natural for that follow up to cost even more. What is breaking the back of traditional gaming is short attention span cheap games... there is another game type that is growing and that is free to play mobile games. They have higher production values and you can play them for free but a reward system is created to get you to spend more.

Notoriety only works at the beginning of a new industry. Once it has been established that a market exists... then comes the profit motive. This is a good thing. This expands the economy, creates jobs, spurs innovation. What we will gain from the current trends is essentially nothing more than better phones. "Smarter", more powerful, and more efficient phones. Sony has been severely wounded. Nintendo is turning out to have been a fad, Xbox has challenges when the next generation of cell phones will have just as much memory, multicore CPU's/GPU's and an HDMI port. There is little room left for growth. Nothing lasts forever. Technology is close to having it's version of the housing market crash.

hahaha, you don't want to ask me about the future for developers.

Open source needs to be blocked from corporate exploitation. Science needs to remain private.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 58
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 9:55:22 PM

Open source needs to be blocked from corporate exploitation.

To some extent I agree with you. While the free software movement is empowering for the individual, who can now get first class software for free, I think that the creators of open source software should charge royalties for its commercial use by for-profit corporations. This provides incentive by rewarding the developers while at the same time allowing them to do the public a great service by making it freely available for use/modification by non-profits, charities, individuals, etc.


Science needs to remain private.

I think you'll have to be a bit more specific what you mean by "private." IMO science should be in the public domain. How much would we know about relativity if say Einstein had been working for a private corporation that laid claim to that intellectual property?

Technological spinoffs from science are already private. With the apparent corporate control of intellectual property legislation, we are already running into problems with patenting (now up to 20 years and extendable, patenting life and existing organisms, patents being bought, sold & held (sat on) like securities, etc.)

I'm betting many scientists are already working for corporations under nondisclosure agreements that might effectively prevent scientific milestones from reaching the public. How long do you think it will be before corporations claim copyright on a scientist employee's work and withhold that work from the public?

Science is supposed to transcend things like political borders and private concerns. Scientific knowledge & research should flow freely through the scientific community. Historically it has always been so. IMO it should stay that way.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 59
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/1/2012 10:59:57 PM

Science is supposed to transcend things like political borders and private concerns. Scientific knowledge & research should flow freely through the scientific community. Historically it has always been so. IMO it should stay that way.


What I mean by science remaining public is kind of what I meant... What I had suggested before were that some patents and exclusivity of use have time lines shortened especially in matters of health and food.

As far as "Science" transcending political borders and private concerns... bs :) That is just fanciful projection of meaning. Science is an art that is capable of being exploited, used, and abused by politics, governments, and private concerns. It is not above reproach and is sometimes indiscriminately bad in its application and development. Science in it's pure from is nothing but a set of processes and rules. It has no conscience.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/2/2012 2:03:18 AM

Science is an art that is capable of being exploited, used, and abused by politics, governments, and private concerns.

I said science SHOULD transcend politics & private concerns, not that it did; If it did, I never would have started this thread. :)


It is not above reproach and is sometimes indiscriminately bad in its application and development. Science in it's pure from is nothing but a set of processes and rules. It has no conscience.

Science is only as good or as bad as the people doing it. Hopefully, in that sense, it has both a conscience and a sense of moral responsibility that governments and other corporations seem to lack.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 61
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/2/2012 5:31:10 AM
How would you know when 'where its at' turns negative? I used the most obvious example of the absolute success of open source, Apache, to show that it has monopolized its technology sector and virtually wiped out relevant competition.

Apache is certainly the most popular web server, but it does not monopolize the field or stifle innovation. My current company uses IBM's HTTP server (part of Websphere), as well as my previous company. I've also had experience with using IIS for Microsoft (ASP, ASPX pages).

That is really subjective at best. The 'best games' are those that engage a large audience and develop a following. Typically that comes with financial benefits. To follow up with a successful game requires matching and exceeding the original experience. It is quite natural for that follow up to cost even more. What is breaking the back of traditional gaming is short attention span cheap games... there is another game type that is growing and that is free to play mobile games. They have higher production values and you can play them for free but a reward system is created to get you to spend more.

Perhaps you are not a gamer? There are certain games that are now almost universally recognized as significant milestones, whether in design or technology. I used to be an assiduous follower of Id Software, who created such landmark games like Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and Quake, almost single-handedly defining the FPS genre (remarkably, the lead programmer released the source code for his games after about a year, allowing other developers free access to his creations, which may have contributed to subsequent FPS games). Other companies like Valve and Crytek followed suit, producing games like Half-Life which was renouned for it's gameplay and Crysis for it's graphics technology, respectively. The RTS genre was defined by games like Command and Conquer and Warcraft (and of course Starcraft). Blizzard, the makers of Warcraft were famous for their "release when ready" policy, which showed in the quality of their products (Westwood studios was bought out by EA though, and their subsequent games haven't been as good). These are just a few examples of course. Although being profitable is important, to lead developers it's hardly the prime motivation (if there is a single piece of advice I have for aspiring computer science students, it is to do it because you like doing it, not because you think that's where the money is at).
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 62
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/2/2012 9:51:50 AM

Apache is certainly the most popular web server, but it does not monopolize the field or stifle innovation.


You kind of prove my point. IBM WebSphere is only used in niche markets now. It use to be very popular but its cost has made it super unattractive. Apache is the giant and .Net aspx is the only reason for IIS competition and its usage is very very much in the corporate world but not on the internet and it is going away quickly. PHP developers are becoming ubiquitous while asp.net is getting slim.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2012/03/05/march-2012-web-server-survey.html

IBM doesn't even show up on the list of web servers. As for IIS and .Net it is not strongly liked
http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/25/ceo-friday-why-we-dont-hire-net-programmers/

programming with .NET is like cooking in a McDonalds kitchen. It is full of amazing tools that automate absolutely everything. Just press the right button and follow the beeping lights, and you can churn out flawless 1.6 oz burgers faster than anybody else on the planet.

However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t. There’s no button for it.
It is so bad that it is virtually down to calling .Net developers stupid. This is common.


Perhaps you are not a gamer?

Hahahahahaha Okay right....
Your comments about gaming are from yes... a person who games. Mine is from the gaming industry... which exists by the way. So, yes, you are from the consumer point of view and may have never actually thought of it from another angle... or you have but just not realized it is more then just fun. It is a business like any other and has very specific challenges that make it an actual industry with ups and downs...

One cool accidental discovery about the gaming industry is that it can also be a kind of science of human behavior
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tommywilhelm/economists-are-taking-over-the-game-industry


As a result, macroeconomists have never been more in demand. In the past few months, Bungie and Fiveonenine Games have both posted job listings for in-house "economy designers." Just last week, Valve brought on a Greek economics professor named Yanis Varoufakis to serve as their economist-in-residence, after Varoufakis emerged as one of the popular commentators on the Eurozone crisis. In a blog post describing why Varoufakis was hired, Valve co-founder Gabe Newell said he kept looking at payment problems in Steam and thinking, "this is Germany and Greece."
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 63
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/2/2012 10:48:37 AM

Hahahahahaha Okay right....
Your comments about gaming are from yes... a person who games. Mine is from the gaming industry... which exists by the way. So, yes, you are from the consumer point of view and may have never actually thought of it from another angle... or you have but just not realized it is more then just fun. It is a business like any other and has very specific challenges that make it an actual industry with ups and downs...

Once again, I stated that making a profit is important (John Carmack apparently drives a Ferrari to work), but I think you've missed the point, which is what's driving innovation. I am not doubting the fact that profit can drive innovation, but I'm arguing that it's not the only source, and can sometimes cut the other way. Remember that the pursuit of profit can often times destroy companies as much as drive innovation (just look at those elaborate and massively profitable financial instruments that eventually threatened to bring down the financial industry). Our current economic situation is the result of hedge funds seeking short-term profit using innovation.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/2/2012 11:41:18 AM

I'm arguing that it's not the only source


Who ever argued that it is the only source? This is why socialisim and craptastic central planning can never work because it is virtually impossible to demand innovation. It occurs because of passion and passion doesn't exist without motivators and driving a ferrarri happens to be nothing but a perk for those special few people that love what they do and succeed at it. They would do it without the ferrari but they would rarely do it if told they are required to. It is all about one thing that makes our private system work and the one thing that can not be emulated by any other system. Self determination.

Let those with the drive succeed and you will progress
 Travalanche89
Joined: 1/25/2010
Msg: 65
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/5/2012 11:16:32 AM
It's not like we could do anything, the government controls us and I doubt anyone is going to be able to overthrow them unless you somehow convince the majority of the population (sheep) that our government is corrupt.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 66
view profile
History
The Privatization of Science
Posted: 9/5/2012 1:00:53 PM

It's not like we could do anything, the government controls us and I doubt anyone is going to be able to overthrow them unless you somehow convince the majority of the population (sheep) that our government is corrupt.


Is that what you believe or is that what you know?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Privatization of Science