I've been reading into this stuff for a few months now with crowdsourcing and ect., it's an interesting thing to exploit. It also shows that math and modeling are approached the wrong way as a "science" rather than as a language.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
That's pretty awesome. Progress in medical science has been made, and it's good publicity for gaming, win-win!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Seth Dracovitch »
If I could "like" or "upvote" you right now, I would.
Quote from Boing »
Into the Maw of Hell is a name so awesome, it deserves its own song.
It would be about a world of brown spikes and red fire, where men fight and scream and become blurry masses. Then it would change to somber, we learn that this glorious place exists only in Raymond Swanland's head. To visit it, you must enter the maw of Hell itself.
Although it might be a good idea to use such a method in research that is good for everybody, there are also negative Aspects to this.
More and more companies are using the "hey community, design, a new logo/burger whatever for us" and are basically outsourcing research to the web community.
You don't have to participate in that and from what I have seen most of that "hey design our logo" stuff is paid if you win.
Like hey design our logo, if you win the contest and we use your logo you get 500 dollars.
Yes some of them are just straight rip offs where you help the company but receive nothing, fortunately only those that are huge fans of said company will even participate. If Carls Jr. tried to get me to design a burger for them I would laugh in their face unless it was a paid job.
Scientists have been stumped on finding an accurate model of a monomeric protease enzyme for decades.
Gamers took three weeks to figure it out.
WTH? The article is absolute malarkey and, clearly, you guys haven't any idea of fold.it, do you?
Why the haughty tone; "scientist have been stumped", whereas "gamers took three weeks". In any case, if one has any idea of computational/modelling programs, it's not all that surprising. It was a matter of time if anything at all.
Watch the 20 minute lecture by Jane McGonigal then say that.
fold.it's not a game; it was a distraction and a puzzle spruiked during a lecture (at least, that's what it'll be to me). It's decent for killing hours during reading week ... (oh, wait).
Also, I don't see how Jane McGonigal is at all relevant.
But if we are looking at the "desing our XY" and recieve 1000$, its still a ripoff, because you get 1000$s and thats it.
Lets say 1000 people worked each 2 hours to design the logo, thats a lot of work.
And now compare it to what a proffessional designer team would ask for designing a new Logo for , lets say a subsection of Nike or footlocker
Although it might be a good idea to use such a method in research that is good for everybody, there are also negative Aspects to this.
More and more companies are using the "hey community, design, a new logo/burger whatever for us" and are basically outsourcing research to the web community.
Boy, market research, focus groups, Wikipedia, etc. must cheese you off.
The community doesn't do research proper; rather, they do the grunt work. Also, moot point, man.
Jane talks about using games to solve the world's problems right?
They just used a game to help work towards solving AIDS. Yes we don't have a surefire cure for AIDS based off this information but we are a step closer then we were before.
She might not have referenced using gamers to help work to solve things like AIDS or Cancer in her speech but she does specifically reference using gamers to solve problems. As far as I know the world would be a better place if we had a 100% cure for AIDS.
Who gives a crap if it doesn't function identically to a game like Call of Duty its still a game.
Who gives a crap if it doesn't function identically to a game like Call of Duty its still a game.
I confess I don't actually know what CoD is other than something a tiny subset of classmates spend time playing.
Too many definitions of 'game', too blurry.
Quote from Monopoman »
They just used a game to help work towards solving AIDS. Yes we don't have a surefire cure for AIDS based off this information but we are a step closer then we were before.
Hm.
Sure-fire cure is ever sus.
She might not have referenced using gamers to help work to solve things like AIDS or Cancer in her speech but she does specifically reference using gamers to solve problems. As far as I know the world would be a better place if we had a 100% cure for AIDS.
Okay, this is bugging me; video games, not games.
While handy to generate data and solve structures, you could study microbes, the immune system, or pharmacology or chemistry or, heck, develop a better algorithm.
Article's meh. Now I'm wondering when drugs will be developed, (who/which big pharma will own the patent), how accessible the drugs will be, and when resistance will develop.
I love this.
Scientists have been stumped on finding an accurate model of a monomeric protease enzyme for decades.
Gamers took three weeks to figure it out.
Don't hate on scientists. They're a pretty small group, and by this, they essentially brute-forced a solution.
But, yeah. I hope they'll use this solution more often, at least while our computers suck at spatial reasoning.
Standard:
UControlW
RBig RedR
EDH:
UWGRafiq, the ManyUWG
GRWMayael the AnimaGRW
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
About time science has recognized gamers as a group that can solve real world problems given the proper tools.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html
The first step in the theories put down by Jane McGonigal has come true.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Draft it on Cubetutor!
Watch the 20 minute lecture by Jane McGonigal then say that.
Her ideas may be a bit bizarre but they have a realm of possibility about them.
The link is above!
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
LOL
You don't have to participate in that and from what I have seen most of that "hey design our logo" stuff is paid if you win.
Like hey design our logo, if you win the contest and we use your logo you get 500 dollars.
Yes some of them are just straight rip offs where you help the company but receive nothing, fortunately only those that are huge fans of said company will even participate. If Carls Jr. tried to get me to design a burger for them I would laugh in their face unless it was a paid job.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Why the haughty tone; "scientist have been stumped", whereas "gamers took three weeks". In any case, if one has any idea of computational/modelling programs, it's not all that surprising. It was a matter of time if anything at all.
fold.it's not a game; it was a distraction and a puzzle spruiked during a lecture (at least, that's what it'll be to me). It's decent for killing hours during reading week ... (oh, wait).
Also, I don't see how Jane McGonigal is at all relevant.
What the heck are you on about?
Boy, market research, focus groups, Wikipedia, etc. must cheese you off.
The community doesn't do research proper; rather, they do the grunt work. Also, moot point, man.
Yes, yes, and yes, despite how misinformed the thing is.
fold.it; bloody brilliant.
They just used a game to help work towards solving AIDS. Yes we don't have a surefire cure for AIDS based off this information but we are a step closer then we were before.
She might not have referenced using gamers to help work to solve things like AIDS or Cancer in her speech but she does specifically reference using gamers to solve problems. As far as I know the world would be a better place if we had a 100% cure for AIDS.
Who gives a crap if it doesn't function identically to a game like Call of Duty its still a game.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Too many definitions of 'game', too blurry.
Hm.
Sure-fire cure is ever sus.
Okay, this is bugging me; video games, not games.
While handy to generate data and solve structures, you could study microbes, the immune system, or pharmacology or chemistry or, heck, develop a better algorithm.
I just can't wait for the article at NSMB (link for anyone interested: <http://www.nature.com/nsmb/index.html>).
Edit: http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nsmb.2119.html
Article's meh. Now I'm wondering when drugs will be developed, (who/which big pharma will own the patent), how accessible the drugs will be, and when resistance will develop.
Yes if you want to be specific we are taking video games here but that is not relevant to the discussion.
I am through replying to your nonsensical posts man.
It's like complaining about someone referring to an apple as a fruit.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!