That's a pretty hasty generalization. As someone who works for a product at ADSK that has frequent collaboration meetings with our biggest competitors, I can point to at least one significant example of innovation via connectedness. Our philosophy is that our customer is going to pick the tools that work best for their specific workflow; since as a larger company we can't support every niche market, the best thing we can do is help people connect the dots between our software and their other vendors.
Niche markets are fine and good since they are not encroaching on the biggest mainstream user markets.
"the best thing we can do is help people connect the dots between our software and their other vendors."
Yes. And the worst thing Autodesk has done is try to inflict costs to this "connecting the dots" - namely, denying realDWG support for those they consider a strategic threat. Since there is Teigha this is not financially an unsurpassable problem but it's a pain in the ass for anyone who can't use realDWG.
Autodesk is in a position to wield leverage through DWG, they have the financial incentives to do so (and have done so) and for a company this is quite understandable.
Construction industry software is so ready for disruption.
A hint for any ambitious software engineers with a penchant for linear algebra - grab a few beers with some buddies who are trained construction engineers, ask to observe their work for a day with any software they are using, and observe how simple the principles underlying most CAD software is and how obnoxiously expensive and low quality most of such software is. Grab the construction engineer buddy, a computer graphics engineer and an applied mathematician. Start from a. performance b. quality c. shareability. Rule the market.
BIM software like Revit is pretty clever and would be difficult to build from scratch. AutoCAD is horrible but a lot of the horribleness is difficult to get rid of while providing the same functionality. So, I'm not sure I agree with your take.
They bought Revit and have somehow managed to regress it. Before owning Revit, and therefore only owning a small percentage of the nascent BIM tool marketplace, they drove the creation of IFC classes to ensure interoperability between BIM platforms. Now they practically own BIM, support for this has gone.
Auto desk are a vile company. A serial monopolist that make any of the othe offenders look tame. I'd love to see them go out of business. That said, I hope those that have lost their jobs find new ones soon.
I was commenting on "most CAD software", not just Autodesk products. Autodesk is not a sexy company (monopoly or otherwise) but I really wonder whether DWG/AutoCAD's key market, architectural drafting (as opposed to architectural drawing) is ever going to be a rewarding activity for anyone.
I've got years of diverse experience in the field of architecture and software, and Revit seems like a very clever toy but not a substitute for endless labour over details. Good architects draw every brick (or equivalent), and/or they also work in close experimental collaboration with the people fabricating the building elements. I'm thinking in the first case of Caruso St. John http://www.carusostjohn.com/ drawing every brick
and in the second of a practice like Grimshaw http://grimshaw-architects.com/ using lost-wax casting (investment casting) to make components. The trade or craft knowledge involved means there are effective constraints which cannot even be expressed in Revit (individual bricks are not really an option in Revit, and you definitely wouldn't want to design a metal casting using Revit... It's an Autocad job, or better, a job for something more expressive like Maya or Mudbox (or whatever it's called) or whatever tool suits your aesthetic. You can't get to Rodin from Autocad.)
More than likely, insurance will continue to be mandatory and paid by the vehicle owner ... but seeing it drop to $10/mo would be pretty sweet! Of course, you would then be prohibited from driving the vehicle. Self-driving only if you want to see the savings.
The purpose of software isn't to be correct or even predictable. It's to satisfy the needs of the user. The user in this case, isn't you. It's corporate clients who make decisions for tens of thousands of employees. They have various needs, however esoteric and strange. I promise you that all of the behavior you cited was implemented at the request of a client.
Ideally Microsoft should craft custom versions for specific clients, but that is its own nightmare. They tried that with Windows and it didn't go too well.
Ear infections aren't always bacterial. They can be fungal. Antibiotics will do zero if it's fungal. Do NOT go to a general practitioner with an ear infection. They will prescribe antibiotics and tell you to get lost. Bad idea. Go to an ENT (ear-nose-throat doctor) instead. They have the right equipment on hand and the experience necessary to properly identify what you have and how to treat it. They will take away the pain in minutes by relieving pressure using specialized equipment. Huge mistake to go to a regular doctor.
Pediatric doc here. True, many are not bacterial but fungal ear infections are quite rare. The majority of otitis media is viral, which is not surprising given the concurrent URI that most kids (and adults) have when they get a painful ear. This is also the reason I try to have parents wait out ear infections in their kids ... I'd rather not use antibiotics, especially when they have a viral infection that wouldn't respond anyway. I'm not sure what tools you're referring to in the ENT office. If the ear infection is external (i.e. Swimmer's Ear) any GP office should be able to culture and treat it. If it's a middle ear infection (and that's usually what we're talking about), an ENT still has to deal with the fact that the tympanic membrane blocks access to the middle ear. Only in very extreme cases would an ENT consider violating the TM to sample the middle ear.
> I'm not sure what tools you're referring to in the ENT office.
I don't know the exact terminology, but it's essentially a vacuum with a thick needle point. They use it to suck out and clean the debris from inside the ear. All the pus and other liquid in there. You regain your hearing and the pain subsides. They can then put the medicine in after.
I've only had fungal infections, so I can't speak to viral or bacterial. For fungal, they essentially treat it with vinegar and steroids. The vinegar kills the fungus and the steroid is for inflammation. I had to pay $100 bucks at the pharmacy for the otic solution for what is essentially vinegar. Not a doctor, just what I was told.
> This is the end result of an education system that has not prepared people for the modern world
> if we engineer a solution that produces water of a purity greater than water from a reservoir
This statement hinges on our ability to accurately measure the purity. This is far from settled and I can understand the hesitation.
Personally, I would take a look at the methods of purification. If they're using tons of chemicals, and most purification processes do, then I would pass.
I would prefer they use osmosis and then dump the contents out where they can filter down to natural aquifers, allowing natural filtration to take place. Then you pump it back up using the infrastructure we already have in place and put it through the regular process.
The UK has some of the best drinking water in the world, my local water company does hundreds of thousands of tests each year of which <.3% where over there own limits which are mode stringent than required standards, you can do these things to a given standard if you want to.
You can have the best testing in the world and the test will still only detect substances that it was designed to detect. By definition, it can't detect anything we don't know about or are looking for.
The natural filtration process has been around since forever and we know it works well. There is no reason not to use it.
> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon?
There's at least one.
Mom and pop can easily compete with Wal-Mart and Amazon if there was a level playing field. You just don't understand how twisted the playing field is because you have zero experience with retail and logistics.
The big boys get tax subsidies when they move in, they get concessions from local governments, they get favorable treatment at the border with customs, etc. and that's just on the surface. They get huge discounts from UPS for infrastructure build-outs, but then UPS again gets subsidized through the roof in the same ways Amazon is directly. So on and so forth.
Mom and pop can get the same prices out of China, it has nothing to do with scale. After you're ordering a container worth of stuff, you're not going to reduce the price of whatever you're selling by buying more. That's why Amazon doesn't manufacture much and relies on the Mom and Pop to do that sort of thing, while still kicking Wal-Mart's ass.
As far as Mom and Pop vs Amazon ... Amazon wouldn't allow them to sell on their platform if they weren't a threat. But they do and they are. There's a reason eBay is a multi-billion dollar company and has been for a while.
Look up what regressive means and what marginal utility means; nothing I'm saying has anything to do with how taxes are redistributed. Flat taxes are inherently unfair, they ignore the marginal utility of money; they are regressive.