 |
| |
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
On the other tech-question thread on this page, Stormhound said that we can have up to 30 areas of research open at one time.
First question: if I double the number of resources being put into one particular field of research, will this approximately halve the amount of time between breakthroughs? An alternative is that it might do more than halve the amount of time between breakthroughs (quarter it, for example), based on the reasoning that increasing the number of perspectives (scientists) on a problem will help with brainstorming and catching errors. Another alternative is that it might do less than halve the amount of time between breakthroughs (possibly it wouldn't decrease the time at all, or even increase the time), based on the reasoning that too many scientists will only step on one another's toes (or hooves or tentacles or whatever).
I realize that the amount of time it takes to research is tech is fairly random; my question refers to the average benefit of adding researchers.
Second question: will one research team be able to exert a research benefit on a team working on related research? For example, if one team is working on "Bio-Engineering" and another team is working on "Bio-Informatics," then one team might inadvertently make headway in the wrong field of research ("Well, this program you've written doesn't seem to do us much good, but I'll bet those Bio-Informatics folks could find a use for it"), or the teams could share resources ("The Bio-Informatics team will be done with the specimen next week, then the Bio-Engineering team can have their turn at it").
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ingeniator
|
|
Australia
Jan 2002
time: 15:17
|
|
How quickly will we be able to change things over? I mean, in the real world, you can't just suddenly decide to start doind research on nuclear weapons. There's a delay while you recruit more people, reallocate funds, and stuff like that. I remember reading somewhere there's a difference between "Why haven't those dolts done what I asked yet?" and "Are they still doing that?"
That isn't to say there couldn't be a crash program set up, eg the Manhattan project for the A-bomb in WWII. But otherwise, changing the priorities should be gradual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dinkeldog
|
|
Stormhound,
Given your point 1) above, does that make it so that your best choice is always to wholly research one area then move on to the next? If you can have 100 RPs to invest, say, and 2 techs that each will cost 300 RPs to get them, then you're better off putting all the points into one for three turns, and then all the points into the other for three turns. That way you get the benefit of one tech, at least, before the six turns it would take you if you split your efforts.
Granted the interest on RPs put in will change that a little bit, but is the interest rate high enough to make that significant?
Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
There should be some advantages to researching multiple technologies.
First, to use a loose analogy, impregnating nine women doesn't make a baby in one month as opposed to one women being pregnant for nine months.
Research in divergant areas can be mutually supportive or enabling.
Information can be lost. It has a physical location, either in a person, paper or device.
Simply knowing that something is possible can speed or redirect efforts. So if you know someone else has done something, half of your battle is won.
There must be some economic need for a technology, electric batteries and steam engins were discovered more than a thousand years ago, but there were social and economic constraints that never allowed them to develop into wide use.
A 'high tech' item does not necessarily cost more than a low tech item to produce, the difference is really the knowledge incorporated into the item. In economics, one of the major flaws if to rely on 'inputs' to determine the value and success of outputs. An M16 actully costs less to produce in terms of material, energy and labor than the brownbess, but if the world operated the way computer games are designed it would take an entire factory one year to make a brownbess and two years to make one M16.
Not every branch is from the same tree. Not all developments are inerdependent, especially social, phylisophical and political changes. There should be more than one tree in the forest.
Stephen R. Donaldson propsed a whole different approch to technologica development in his 'Gap Cycle' series (a wonderful SF series based loosly on the Neublung) where the Amnion based their whole technology on biology. In some ways similer to the 'Well World' intellegent micro parasites who were conquoring the universe.
One thing I might suggest, in a practical vein, is that research be tied to a specific laboratory. Multiple labs working on a project might get you multiple paths to that end point but will also duplicate some work and experience friction. Again, getting more pregnant shouldn't get you a result faster.
Money and resources are not the only consideration, the freedoms and incentives of a democratic market economy with a strong legal tradition based upon the value of the individual made the US a tremendous innovator and implementor of technology. The result of the communitarian systems was stagnation, evenywhen they had or stole technology it failed to propagate into their systems effectively. (when I visited Russia in 1995, store clerks almost universally used abbacus's, even when their calculators had batteries).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paulmagusnet
The result of the communitarian systems was stagnation, evenywhen they had or stole technology it failed to propagate into their systems effectively. (when I visited Russia in 1995, store clerks almost universally used abbacus's, even when their calculators had batteries). |
As well as the space scientists who launched man in space earlier the you are.
Are you never thought that it was only a training? How many Americans can multiply 12 on 15 without use of calculator?
P.S. Btw, what kind of stolen technologies are you talking about?
I do not deny that you make some serious inventions. But it is absolutely clear for me that most of the inventions proclaimed to be American’s inventions, are invented by emigrants not actually by Americans. Few examples how Russians emigrants advanced your science: Helicopters- invented by Russians- Sickorsky, TV set invented by Russians (I don remember name of this engineer), Stealth technology (F117, B2 etc) invented by Russians- Ufimtsev. All they were people who emigrated in USA by various reasons, in various times. Their works are proclaimed to be an American advances. Is it what you mean when said that:
quote:
Money and resources are not the only consideration, the freedoms and incentives of a democratic market economy with a strong legal tradition based upon the value of the individual made the US a tremendous innovator and implementor of technology. |
Why not include the same feature in MOO3. You create the better conditions for scientists, they start to migrate from whole universe to your empire. They make breakthroughs in science, you declare their inventions as your own advances and yourself is a tremendous innovator and implementer of technology.
Last edited by Serb on 17-02-2002 at 19:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
As well as the space scientists who launched man in space earlier the you are.
|
That actually was a political decision, the US actually had better technology (we captured the better german scientists), and the fact that the Soviets captured the propulsion german scientists at the end of the war.
quote:
Are you never thought that it was only a training? How many Americans can multiply 12 on 15 without use of calculator?
|
Actually no, the abbcus works find although it does require some skill to operate. There is a wonderful short SF story on this subject about a sociaty rediscovering the ability to manually use math. My point is technnology propagation, not people skills.
quote:
P.S. Btw, what kind of stolen technologies are you talking about?
|
The list is endless, everything from the H&A bombs to vacume cleaners. But unless the leadership was engaged in a specific program, propagation of that technology never happened. The KGB had to continually steal things just for Soviet sociaty to stay two or more generations behind the west. Sometime, they simply had no ability to reverse engineer what they bought or stole. Mostly it was simply no incentive to distribute or reluctance to adapt a change that would upset the exsisting interests.
quote:
I do not deny that you make some serious inventions. But it is absolutely clear for me that most of the inventions proclaimed to be American’s inventions, are invented by emigrants not actually by Americans. Few examples how Russians emigrants advanced your science: Helicopters- invented by Russians- Sickorsky, TV set invented by Russians (I don remember name of this engineer), Stealth technology (F117, B2 etc) invented by Russians- Ufimtsev. All they were people who emigrated in USA by various reasons, in various times. Their works are proclaimed to be an American advances. Is it what you mean when said that:
|
You make my point better that I could, the fact is that these brilliant people could only bring their dreams to fruition in a sociaty that allowed and encouraged them to do so. Don't forget Anne Rand. Many of our institutions are also donated from abroad (Smithsonian, Statue of Liberty, etc). Sociaty prospers when the individual is valued by, and protected from sociaty.
quote:
Why not include the same feature in MOO3. You create the better conditions for scientists, they start to migrate from whole universe to your empire. They make breakthroughs in science, you declare their inventions as your own advances and yourself is a tremendous innovator and implementer of technology. |
Thomas Edison did exactly that. What can I say, it works. If Tesla stayed in Serbia, Serbia would still not be a leader in electronics. Only when he moved to the US did anything come of his ideas.
I worked in IP and have studied technology transfer. I do know of what I speak. If your still not sure, stand in Dresdin and look around, then go to Bonn and look around, the contrast should be most enlightening.
If you look at Nature and Market economies, they have similar features and behaviors. Nature makes a thousand different butterflys and the best for a situation survive and evolve. Only Man can choose to act irrationally. Communitarian systems (of all ilk) are basically irrational systems and at best achive only mediocraty, at worst they become deadly and self destructive. The twentith century (the century of Hegal) should be proof of that outcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
Of course in science fiction we can explore the idea of creatures whose organization and biology may optimize along different paths than what has occured on the earth. What pushes their evolution and how does their technology advance? Are there other configurations beyond group and individual?
One thing, 2+2 equal 4 everywhere. Thus, there should be some universal principal that promotes advancement most effectively. Inevitable variations from that effeciency may result in growth along unusual lines.
Theoretically, bacteria could produce tools and artifacts, why don't they?
Lets envision a totally environmentally harmonious biological, that has achieved a utopian existance (resources >= needs). What incentive then exists to progress? I don't know, I do know that change requires energy, and if there is no need to change why spend the energy? Of course there is accidental change that occures through mistake of replication. There is change through shared genitic material: bacteria A observes that bacteria B survived the hospital's cleaning protocol and says,'brother, can you spare a gene'?
Give you an earthly example. One of my friends in the NBC monitoring teams here was talking to a Russian scientist telling him about the latest medical diagnosic device that you would swallow and it would transmit the status of your internal body. His reaction was, oh, thats old stuff, we had that for years, we called it the 'Kremlin Pill'. My friend was astonished ask why it wasn't in use everywhere. Because, the scientist said, the Kremlin only needed six.
Propose a species of critter that has a shared mind. All its individual critters are part of one whole (a perfect Hegalian critter). What are its incentives and problems? How would it organize? Could it really pay attention to all of its parts and direct multiple projects? How much can its consiousness comprehend, how many different inputs could it deal with. If a colony is isolated, does it become independent? Does it really need intelligence or can it get by on being massively productive and achieve advances through biological adaption and evolution. How does it replicate? What if all of its component critters suddenly copulated, could it survive the resultant orgasm? How would it communicat with its members over distances. I mean, if your brain is in London and your foot is in Saigon, how do you wiggle your toes? The bee hive and ant colony are the closest we have to such a community and they use chemicals to communicate which is slow and uncertain. I don't think that will work over stellar distances and through enclosed ship environments. Some earth critters (birds, specifically) have ferro magnitic sensors that detect magnetic flux, so maby our alien hyper critter can produce and receive radio signals from its internal bio-radio complete with orgaically grown quartz crystal tuner/filter. This gives it a practical telepathy with world wide and near space communcative ability.
In the Chithulu series, the god Yog Sothoth, a putrid pool of fleshy goo, regularly produced new and unusual critters from its droppings.
John Varley's Wizard/Deamon/Titian series proposed a space going species in which the individual critters were the shape and functionality of a Babylon 5.
Another possibility, from literature, lets use the Dreel from the Well World, those nasty intelligent bacteria. They were essentually parasites who simply needed hosts. Well, once your in a nice warm host, what kind of innovation do you really need to do? I can't really answer that on the fly, someone needs to spend some time to work out how that would really function. And how do we avoid the bias of our experiences?
For example, CS Lewis proposed creatures that would be perfect and ethical because they had editic memories. ie, they would only have to have physical sex once and could satisfy their future lust through relived memories. This is the acts equals morality theory. He had a severly biased view and therefore could not see the obvious ramifications of such a state of being. Like, eternal addiction, boredom, eternal agony (re-live that burned food over and over again just as vivid now as ten years ago), data overload (you really want the entire 1968 New York phone book permanently locked in your synapes?) resulting in mental 'cpu' bogdown.
I don't propose that I know the answers to these questions, just that when you delve into the SF Genre you open so many doors without really having the apprehension of what to do with the results. And I guess my other point here is how do we get an alien species to act like an alien species in the game so you have the experience of dealing with something 'different'.
Lets say insect life (equivalent) evolves on some planet and you have a species of intelligent Black Widow spiders. Could you apply contempory values to these critters? Would you prosecute a mother just be cause she ate her husband after sex? (In Georga (US state of) she would be if she enjoyed it, in Sana Cruz she would be hailed as the new Femminist champion and ideal.) Seriously though, how do you value an individual when biology dictates that you eat him?
A race of space faring spiders may produce a silk that has some useful commercial value that no one else can duplicate. This advantage also could be a hinderance in developing other areas and methods because it is too easy just to do what they do best.
What is really driving computer development right now: games. Games are hungry for processor and bus speed and are real memory hogs. Sony spent millions on an ASIC for its playstation and LSI Logic became a fortune 500 company developing that kind of thing for them and others. The best military and space chips are fully five or more generations behind. Try and imagine the Soviet Union or National Socialist Germany developing a game industry to push their cybernetic advances. Hmmm, would space spiders be interested in computer games? How would you sell more that one copy of CIV XXXV to a species that has only one consiousness? Why does it want to develop a computer when it already has vast solid state holographic memory resources and massive parrellel processing? Maby it's lonely and wants something to talk to.
Interesting story here, Stalin squashed Soviet cybernetis because he felt it was anti-socialistic and demeaning to the ideal man. Watson Sr., the chairman of IBM squashed entry of IBM into the field because he saw only a need for five machines, and the typewriter and mechanical adding machine business was doing well enough. So what happened? Top exec's at IBM quit and formed NCR, at which point IBM ousted Watson Sr for Watson Jr and the competition began. Top cyberneticists in the SU just gaveup and grew potatos at their dachas. When the Soviets needed chips for their military they had to buy 10,000 talking Barbie dolls. (This is a long Soviet tradition, when Nazi planes and tanks were killed, they salvaged the electronics to put in Soviet planes and tanks.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I do not deny that you make some serious inventions. But it is absolutely clear for me that most of the inventions proclaimed to be American's inventions, are invented by emigrants not actually by Americans and that emigrants advanced your science.
Why not include the same feature in MOO3. You create the better conditions for scientists, they start to migrate from whole universe to your empire. They make breakthroughs in science, you declare their inventions as your own advances and yourself is a tremendous innovator and implementer of technology.
|
Well, technically all Americans are emigrants or decendents of emigrants, even the 'natives'. But we are truely the inventors, if not de-jure, then de-facto. Marconi, Tesla and Pavlov all were working on radio contemperaniously. But the Americans made that, and television work, and created the modern broadcast systems. The Romans didn't invent roads, they built more, better, standardized and systemized the franchise. This helped propagate Roman culture immensly. France pioneered the modern postal system and diplomatic methods, which is why French is still a fixture of world postal systems and diplomacy. Even today, 'High Culture' is associated with France and the French language. Howevef, we cornered the market on 'low culture'. Try and find someone on the planet who does't know who ELVIS is, then try to find someone outside of Russia who has read 'War & Peace' (Having seen the Woody Allen movie doesn't count). The world doesn't come to France to see the Louve, they go to Euro Disney.
Basically, anyone with a brain, initiative and functional feet left the old world as fast as they could becaue local sociaties offered few, if any, opportunities for advancement or expression. In some cases it was distinctly hazardous to stay home. Why be a serf when you can be a surfer.
Again, a good idea for the game, and you are quite right, those innovations are considered American and took place here in America because they could not occur elsewhere. One problem with implementation in Moo3 that would not occure in a game like CIV is species. Immigration to the US works because the nation is defined by an ideal and a set of values, not religion, race, nationality or even language. But it also works because we are all human. Can idealology or legal system be a unifing identity amongst divergent biologies? Immagin a species with a group mind, which part do you put in jail for an infraction? This raises some ugly philosophical problems.
One other consideration, success breeds complacency and if your not careful, failure. All empires, once they achieve great wealth, abandon the means by which they achieved that wealth and prepare the way for some external event to push them into collapse. As the US flushes its legal system into the toilet and abandons the 'Age of Reason' philosophies that made it successful, it too mayl succumb to the raveges of internal conflict and disorder. There appears to be no provision for 'age of empire' as an effect on Moo3 political model. (ref: Cycle of empires theory by historian John Glubb).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:17
|
|
Sorry Zealot you are right.
Last edited by Serb on 18-02-2002 at 22:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:17
|
|
Sorry once again.
How dare I talk about politic in sacred place.
Last edited by Serb on 18-02-2002 at 22:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
Well, we might be going a little off the line, but not far. Technology and politics are related by their effects on the other. Political developments in the US had a profound effect on technology developement, it is worth exploring why. Russia for example produced many brilliant people, but could not benefit from their talents. Neither could those people benefit from the Russian, then Soviet, systems.
But does this necessarily apply to a non-human species? One would assume some similarities if only because 2+2=4 everywhere in the known universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:17
|
|
Yeah that’s what I’ve mean. My teacher of mathematics once proved to me that 2+2=5.
Physics laws in other worlds might be very different from ours.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
A friend of mine once showed me a smiliar proof, that 1 = 2.
Given: a == b.
1. a = b -> Given
2. ab = bb -> Multiply each side by 'b'
3. ab-aa = bb-aa -> Subtract 'aa' from each side
4. a(b-a) = (b-a)(b+a) -> Factor
5. a = b+a -> Cancel like factors
6. a = 2a -> b+a == a+a, since a == b
7. 1 = 2 -> evaluate for (a = 1)
|
If you enter into a proof with the assumption that a = b then you cannot perform step 3 and subtract aa from each side as this gives the mathematical relationship 0 = 0, which is meaningless.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-01-2002 01:38
|