The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
Did you realise that this din't work even a little bit moments after you posted it or did you know already and thought you might as well go ahead with it because it was Friday evening and nobody much would notice?
An economist wondered would if there was any stats/math that governed generally the spread of ideas.
For example, are there more good ideas from a large city of people than from a smaller population?
Yes, but how those ideas spread is interesting.
Ideas generally spread at a rate where it takes 10 years for them to take hold. 10 years from the initial idea to general acceptance.
Then, suddenly, YouTube. YouTube went from 0 to general acceptance in only 2 years? Why?
The book has a lot of really interesting stories and data.
Has anyone else read it? It's quite fascinating and really interesting about the spread of "good" ideas.
But it was also because of the way they made it very easy to share videos and promote them further.
Yes, because the world really needed 50,000,000 instructional videos on "how to take a phone out of the box you bought it in", "how to use a jug to pour a glass of water", and "how to scratch your nose".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Naturally, I'd hoped the report to contain rampant exaggeration.
But I agree - the topics covered and volume of youtube videos on the most innane of topics is mind-boggling. I often wonder if the way I view these with disbelief and a lack of understanding is anything like the state experienced by those that view what we can do with computers as mystical.
Whatever. It means I walk away curious and wondering, rather than disgusted and downhearted.
Ideas generally spread at a rate where it takes 10 years for them to take hold.
Huh? Since when? The first nylon stockings were made in 1939 and were essentials by the summer of 1941. People were clamouring for 'moving pictures' almost as soon as the technology was created. The professional Frisbee was born in 1964 and the International Frisbee Association and Ultimate Frisbee in 1967. The Football Association Laws of the game were drafted in 1863 and were the standard for International competition by 1866. I could go on, literally for days, with more examples.
The Internet's influence on the speed of idea transmission is indisputable but vastly overrated. It may have increased the speed with which we hear stuff from days to seconds but the human propensity for faddishness is little changed in reality.
The book is talking about the time from the initial idea of the original thinker to it taking off in the general population. Think a bit more broadly. Not the time a few people first heard of it. When a technology is initially created it is often known about for many years before all the things come together to move it in a big way.
Ahem. I didn't say Frisbee. I said Professional Frisbee. The good idea was to turn the flying disc from an unstable plaything into an an aerodynamically sound, stable and more easily controlled piece of sports equipment.
That's a good point.
The author admits that this is more about studying the environment that creates good ideas and that good ideas are based upon ideas that we can look at in retrospect which produced something that a "large" number of people accepted as good ideas. But, of course, the majority always know a good idea when they smell one. Great ideas are often rejected and terrible ideas are often accepted.
It even can be more interesting, where the good ideas go to...
I was once part of a team developing a mechanical part for a shower, that would stop water flow when water is too hot...It was a big deal, as it is very cheap to assembly, need no external source, easy to use and hold for years...
We even got 2 minutes on the news!
So...the big company promised promises an bought the idea...The big company still selling the same, expensive, electronic device it used to...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
Hmmm, that doesn't really follow the (admittedly unwritten) rules of crossword clues.
An anagram requires some kind of indicator that it is an anagram, known as an anagrind (short for anagram indicator). So a phrase like "scrambled eggs" could indicate some jumble of the letters E-G-G-S or "intense confusion" could indicate an anagram of "intense" for example.
Without the anagrind, solvers will be looking for a synonym of raptured rather than an anagram.
A clue should generally come in two distinct parts - definition and wordplay. They can be either way around but should both lead to the same answer. Solvers will always try to relate to one end of the clue or the other as the definition so here I was looking for a phrase meaning raptured, commonly, or possibly a colloquialism for nothing (i.e. "nothing commonly").
"Backing" is, as you suggest, redundant, as is "aviator" - there is no need to differentiate between alternative meanings of definition words.
I may, admittedly, be trying to push particularly British crossword rules here but I simply wouldn't have got this in a million years simply because it doesn't follow the rules.
Apologies if I got this wrong, I'm certainly no expert on CCC's but I thought an anagram required all the original letters from the word but in a different order as you describe. I was attempting to use letter substitution here with the 'loses' and 'gains' - the remaining letters from the original word are still in the original order?
I'll try something less complicated / wrong on Monday's CCC .
Certainly no need for an apology! It kept me wondering all day and that's never a bad thing.
In programming terms it reminded me a bit of the old C compiler warning of "too many levels of indirection" - the wordplay should really lead directly to the solution rather than an abstraction of it - but, hey ... looking forward to Monday's clue!
Er .. um ... where to start? The principal problem here is that your wordplay only leads to a definition not to the answer. So we're required to solve a clue to get a clue. So whether your anagram indicator is there or not is slightly irrelevant. As said above, the basics of a cryptic clue (with a few exceptions) is definition plus wordplay. The definition should be directly synonymous with the answer. The wordplay should lead to a literal representation of the answer. So in this clue, if your wordplay leads to RAPTOR then RAPTOR must be the answer. You can't ask the solver to take a further leap from RAPTOR to BIRD OF PREY because you've given no grounds on which such a leap can reasonably be made no matter how close the association. It's a bit like giving someone the sum ...
2 +2 =
and only marking it correct if they give the answer as the square root of 16!
And besides, HERE[^] is one that's a bit more intimidating... (and HERE[^])
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous - The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944 - I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. Me, all the time
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 26-Oct-16 17:47