Exactly. The trouble also is that you, as the entrepreneur/inventor/owner of what's being sold, can experience some cognitive dissonance when confronted with "too goo to be true" offers. In other words, since you love your creation, a scam artist knows they can appeal to you with what seems like offers that are too good to be true, since you are trying to justify doing business with them. That's why it is so important to get an outside perspective, hopefully from an expert.
You're right, there are a lot of scammers out there, and that gives the real guys a bad name.
I used to work for a legit firm. Here's a few tips (totally anecdotal) in case you're interested.
1. See how fast they move
If they're trying to close the deal after one or two calls, beware. Proper firms will vet the idea, invention through several channels, as well as having lots of internal discussion before closing a deal. Even if the firm is just a few people, lots of consideration goes into each opportunity. Unlike scammers, who are wham bam thank you entrepreneurial maam.
2. What other companies are in their portfolio
Just like the parent mentioned, investigate their portfolio. Don't look for a lot of companies. Rather, look for companies that seem to have a legitimate product or service they are marketing to a known (not necessarily established) marketplace. Note: some of these companies won't have websites or huge public faces yet, that's not bad necessarily, it could just mean they are young.
3. Get a second, expert opinion
Search your network and find someone you know who's dealt with an investment banker or VC before. Tell them in vague details what you've experienced, and see if they identify any red flags.
Angels and VCs are a great way to bring an idea into reality. Don't be afraid, be careful.
Hate to say it, but I just got served!
Good article. I thought it was bad to keep it plugged in and good to let it run. Turns out it's the opposite!
Anyone know if the same applies for laptops?
That's assuming there's a wifi network you can connect to. Pointless to have it on if you won't be connecting to a network.
I'm in SF, and I upgraded from an iPhone 3G to a HTC Thunderbolt with 4G. The Thunderbolt, even brand new, has to be charged twice a day at least, and I keep things like Bluetooth and wifi off most of the time. If I don't plug in my phone at night, it will be dead by morning.
Coming from someone who carefully manages when I plug my electronics in so as to extend their usable battery life, it sucks to have to feel like my phone always needs to be plugged in.
Is the 4g tech itself power hungry? Mine seems to have battery trouble even when I'm stationery and the 4g signal is strong.
Right. Just seems a little odd that the distribution was made possible by prize money that was awarded for being a textbook with that license available for distribution. Chicken and egg problem.
Not really. There are several publication rights that can be had on a written work. You often see one publisher release the hardcover, another the paperback, another the audiobook, etc.
Now, to be sure, one publisher usually gets a share of those other formats, but that's on a case by case basis. There's no reason why a written work couldn't have more than one publisher over time.
Indeed, I am reading through the Real Analysis one to see.
A math buddy of mine has wanted to write a textbook for years as a big Middle Finger to the establishment. I like the model here. The Real Analysis book, at least, is free for teachers and self-teaching students. Available for a small fee for the classroom. See publisher http://trillia.com/.
Props to you, Trillia!
I see what you're saying, but I don't know if I agree. The other systems of the body (lymbic, digestive, etc.) are fairly well understood, yet we don't possess the processing power to deliberately (keyword) run them. I believe scientific analysis of many many brains may one do yield just a good understanding of the brain.
This could even more true if you believe in the Singularity, which I personally don't, but it certainly warrants mention.
Good point. But I don't think we know enough to say, even if the results of this do match past data, that applying this method to something more unfamiliar will yield similar quality. I guess it may bring up some interesting questions that could then be put to scientific scrutiny.
As a former cognitive science student, I'm always amazed at how quickly the complexity of the brain limits our ability to understand it. While it's not the same as the Genome project, it's awesome when projects like this show up that prompt us to get a better understanding of the brain.
My question: can uneducated users really use the game to make valid discoveries? What prevents errors?
Also, it's a bummer that this is based on the eye, which has already had a ton of deep-dive research done.
If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.