Aircraft era fracture

[HellToupee]

Do explain how budget tighting brings about creativity.

 

People bring creativity, tighting budgets only denies them resources to realize their ideas.

[Pyroflash]

Do explain how budget tighting brings about creativity.

 

People bring creativity, tighting budgets only denies them resources to realize their ideas.

 

What he is trying to mean is that success in a situation where resources are at a minimum REQUIRES a certain amount of creativity.

 

If you have creativity AND adequate resources, however, then the product can only get better as your production capability increases.

 

There is a really good reason why companies like Microsoft and Intel are pack leaders in their industries. They have resources and creativity, which is why a CONSIDERABLE percentage of their budget is spent on R&D activities. Without the chunk of change that lets them operate within their current efficient structure though, they would be hurting.. BAD.

[Wolf Rider]

Do explain how budget tighting brings about creativity.

 

People bring creativity, tighting budgets only denies them resources to realize their ideas.

 

To answer that, you would need to understand the "eureka moment" and how that comes about... if you have to ask to understand, you wouldn't understand.

 

 

 

Pyro... lets leave Foxconn (Wuhan) 2010 out of that

[Scrim]

So not only are you saying that the less funding the devs have, the better the product, you're also saying that "if you don't agree, you don't understand. I.e. you're saying "because magic, that's why". :megalol:

[Wolf Rider]

no Scrim... that's what you're saying :music_whistling:

[Exorcet]

no Scrim... that's what you're saying :music_whistling:

To be honest, Scrim's last post was dead on. I can't tell you how much I hate the absurd argument "If you need to ask you'll never know". Don't you wish education systems took that to heart?

[VincentLaw]

if you have to ask to understand, you wouldn't understand.

If I used that excuse at work, I would get fired. If you can't properly explain something, then you don't really understand either. You are using faith. This is why people say teaching is the best way to learn things. It forces you to evaluate how well you have learned.

 

I'm not a business guy, but I think budget constraints can cut both ways. It can force you to reevaluate what you are doing, and maybe do something more creative, but if there is a safe tried and true way out, it might reduce creativity.

[Wolf Rider]

If I used that excuse at work, I would get fired. If you can't properly explain something, then you don't really understand either. You are using faith. This is why people say teaching is the best way to learn things. It forces you to evaluate how well you have learned.

 

learning by rote, doesn't do that... experiencing research, investigation does

sorry, some things can only be explained by it being experienced (you can show someone a picture of a mountain and explain what a mountain is, but you can't explain, to an understanding, of what it is really like to be there... you can only describe it)

 

I'm not a business guy, but I think budget constraints can cut both ways. It can force you to reevaluate what you are doing, and maybe do something more creative, ~

 

yes, its creates ingenuity and its that which feeds a fertile condition for the moments...

Edited April 14, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[HellToupee]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

[Wolf Rider]

well, I just did... now do you understand?

[HellToupee]

You did? I'm not seeing any.

[Wolf Rider]

well there ya go... "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" :cry:

 

 

 

 

The point of all this?

It should be easy to see why fractures occur within a community, and for reasons of; a refusal to see the other's point of view for one, a lack of full understanding of the situation in which the fracture forms for another, and a refusal to compromise for a third... by way of any of them or all of them to a varying degree.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[VincentLaw]

sorry, some things can only be explained by it being experienced

Some things, sure. This is not one of them. It is a very simple concept. The problem is that you are only stating the concept:

 

"One of the best situations for true creativity is a very tight budget."

 

Now justify that. Provide a personal anecdote if you have one, otherwise cite some examples where companies with very tight budgets have done some pretty innovative things in their desperation. I am willing to bet you can find at least one good example of desperation driven creativity. I am also sure that there are good examples where creativity was crushed by tight budgets. Would this mean you are wrong? not completely, but it means your statement is not always right. You can turn that into something better just by rewording it a little:

 

"A tight budget can actually drive more creativity under the right circumstances."

 

Continuing to say that you can't teach people things is not helping anyone.

Edited April 14, 2014 by VincentLaw

[Wolf Rider]

Some things, sure. This is not one of them. It is a very simple concept. The problem is that you are only stating the concept:

 

yes, the concept of the "Eureka Moment" - read the applicable post again

 

 

 

 

Now justify that. Provide a personal anecdote if you have one, otherwise cite some examples where companies with very tight budgets have done some pretty innovative things in their desperation. I am willing to bet you can find at least one good example of desperation driven creativity.

 

I'll put that to you in this manner... successful WWII escapes from german Luft Stalags by Allies PoW's, though I wouldn't call that a "company" as you obviously mean a business/ commercial enterprise but it is an example of "desperation driven creativity". A tight budget isn't one of desperation, and in considering you explained earlier how a tight budget can work for the better.....

 

"A tight budget can actually drive more creativity under the right circumstances."

 

well, all you have done is reword the same concept

 

Continuing to say that you can't teach people things is not helping anyone.

 

Nope... never said that

Edited April 14, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[HellToupee]

yes, the concept of the "Eureka Moment" - read the applicable post again

 

Which has what to do with a budget?

 

If you want others to see your point of view you have to define it, the burden is on you to back up your claim not us.

[Wolf Rider]

@ HellToupee...

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2043195&postcount=88

 

If I understand correctly, The Wright Brothers weren't wealthy or Government funded... they just had a bicycle shop

Edited April 14, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[HellToupee]

They also were not terribly successful.

 

Fractures occur because some people just can not help being rude and condescending.

[Wolf Rider]

Yes, Helltoupee... that (the rudeness and condescention) is certainly part of what happens in the argy-bargy of the fracture (it also gets thrown out by those who can't sustain a genuine argument as a shutup and go away tactic, along with the cries of "troll") and are you really saying the Wright brothers weren't successful or are you saying the other wealthy government funded parties who were also seeking the grail of manned, powered, controlled flight weren't? 'cause it seems they got stuck into the Wrights" success with a vengeance

Edited April 15, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[HellToupee]

They were not, they were first to fly but had little success as a business, they simply could not keep up with the pace of development of their competitors.

 

There is no argument to sustain, as you have not brought one to the table, spouting "eureka moment" is no argument.

[Wolf Rider]

There is no argument to sustain, as you have not brought one to the table, spouting "eureka moment" is no argument.

 

 

It was never meant to be an argument (point of debate)... sorry you saw it that way

 

 

They were not, they were first to fly but had little success as a business, they simply could not keep up with the pace of development of their competitors.

 

Actually, they were a success as they did achieve powered manned controlled flight before the others and what you're saying (above), is about what came after that achievement and at that, not quite accurately so

Edited April 15, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[HellToupee]

It was never meant to be an argument (point of debate)... sorry you saw it that way

 

The way i see it is none of them have a point.

[Wolf Rider]

fair enough... you've made your point, not all quite accurate though :) but nonetheless, do you now have anything constructive to add to the thread topic? :music_whistling:

 

 

Perhaps someone could develop a DCS: Wright Flyer ?