cybergoon.com

In some recent research I have been doing into such computer science topics as the Halting Problem, I have come across some interesting thoughts on Countability.  At first glance, there are some interesting and disconcerting ramifications of this.  Firstly, it seems that the set of all real numbers is countable, and there seem to be strong indications that all infinite sets are the same size. That is, the size of all infinite sets is Aleph-Naught.

First of all, let us consider Cantor’s Diagonal Argument.  It seems that this same argument can be made to show the positive integers are uncountable!

How can this be?  To start, let us consider the set of positive integers.  We will prepend an infinite number of zeros to each positive integer (expressed in binary):

1: ...00001
2: ...00010
3: ...00011
4: ...00100
5: ...00101
...

Let us now, in the manner of Cantor’s Diagonal Argument, construct a number D that is not in that infinite sequence. We do this by taking the first digit of the first number and inverting it to create the first digit of this new number. The second digit of the second number inverted will become the second digit of D. We get a number like this:

 D: ...11100

This new number D will be different from every number in the set!  Hence, the set is not countable!  Ok, where is the contradiction?  It seems to be that traditional mathematics lacks a means to deal effectively with infinities.  The construct of Ordinal Numbers seems to be one attempt at that, and we will return to that later.  To show that this set is indeed countable, even though we can construct a number that is ‘outside’ of it, we can create two lists, A and B:

List A (inverted 2nd element highlighted):
1: ...00001
2: ...00010
3: ...00011
4: ...00100
5: ...00101
...

List B:
1: ...11100
2: ...11111
3: ...11111
...

List A is our original list of postive integers from above.  List B contains a listing of all numbers that we find using the above method that are not in List A.  The first element in list B contains the inversion of the first diagonal in list A.  The second element in list B contains the inverted second diagonal of list A (second digit of first number, 3rd digit of 2nd number, etc).  So now, we have two lists A and B, both infinite.  Though for the positive integers, all values in list B are identical aside from the first element, since the number of digits grows in proportion to log(n) (we will see shortly that this is different for the proof applied to the real numbers).

Now, to count them, you simply alternate between lists, taking the nth element of each list: A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, … An, Bn, …

Furthermore, if you can think of another algorithm that can be used to construct numbers in neither list A nor B, you can create a list C which contains those numbers, and add that list to the counting process.  Even if there are infinitely many lists, you can still count them all using a sequence similar to that of counting the rational numbers: A1, A2, B1, C1, B2, A3, A4, B3, C2, D1, …

It should be clear that the same process can be applied to the set of real numbers with the same result.

Another way of illustrating the countability of real numbers can be illustrated as follows for the interval [0,1]:

1: 0.1
2: 0.2
...
9: 0.9
10: 0.01
11: 0.02
...
108: 0.99
109: 0.001
...

First, you count all the tenths, then the hundredths, then the thousandths, etc.  Now, every element in this list is finite, it is true, however, at infinity, it will include every real number in that interval.

Ok, maybe you aren’t convinced by that argument.  It’s ok, I have another one.  Pick a random number with infinite digits in the interval [0,1].  Create two lists, one which increments the digits from left to right, and the other which decrements those digits from left to right.  You will eventually hit all infinite digit sequences:

List A:
1: 0.889579198478....
2: 0.989579198478....
3: 0.099579198478....
4: 0.199579198478....
...

List B:
1: 0.789579198478....
2: 0.689579198478....
...
7: 0.189579198478....
8: 0.089579198478....
9: 0.979579198478....
...

Use the same mechanism to alternate between lists, and voila, the infinite digit sequences (and the infinite real numbers) become countable!

The question now is, where is the mistake?  Post a comment to weigh in.

I came across an interesting quote by Stephen Wolfram in A New Kind of Science:

“It is in many respects easier to work with programs than with equations.  For once one has a program, one can always find out what its behavior will be just by running it.  Yet with an equation one may need to do elaborate mathematical analysis in order to find out what behavior it can lead to.  It does not help that models based on equations are often stated in a purely implicit form, so that rather than giving an actual procedure for determining how a system will behave-as a program does-they just give constraints on what the behavior must be, and provide no particular guidance about finding out what, if any, behavior will in fact satisfy these constraints.

And even when models based on equations can be written in an explicit form, they still typically involve continuous variables which cannot for example be handled directly by a practical computer.  When their overall behavior is sufficiently simple, complete mathematical formulas to describe this behavior can sometimes be found.  But as soon as the behavior is more complex there is usually no choice but to use some form of approximation.  And despite many attempts over the past fifty or so years, it has almost never been possible to demonstrate that results obtained from such approximations even correctly reproduce what the orginal mathematical equations would imply.

Models based on simple programs, however, suffer from no such problems.  For essentially all of them involve only discrete elements which can be handled quite directly on a practical computer.  And this means that it becomes straightforward in principle-and often highly efficient in practice-to work out at least the basic consequences of such models.”  (p368)

Personally, not having as wide a range of applied mathematical experience, I am not in a good position to verify such a strong statement.  Intuitively it makes sense, and while I do not dispute the power of mathematics in problem solving tasks, I sometimes think that it is over-applied in cases.  I think the old saying applies here, “If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.”

A while back, there has been more discussion about whether or not video games are art.  I can see how there would be confusion, but Games (Video and other), are definitely art, by any definition.  Not only that, but I believe they are the ultimate form of art.

First, let us examine the central core of creativity present in a game that would lend itself to a comparison to art.  This is not directly related to a game’s visual or audio aspects.  Rather, it is the elegance of the interplay of the rules of the game itself and the feeling and experience that this set of rules conveys to the player.  This is the central core that allows a game to be art.  A poor game does not resonate emotionally with many people, usually because of the rules.  A good game has a nice gentle yet long learning curve and is well balanced.  It’s rules interact in ways that make sense to a player, yet, as the player becomes used to them, they reveal more layers of complexity to challenge that player.  A good set of rules resonates emotionally with a player in this way as he discovers more layers.

Imitation of nature - ultimately nature can be thought of as a set of rules.  Almost all the time, a game designer hopes to imitate some portion of nature.  This is as in any other art, if the artist fails to find a common ground with his audience (usually via some sort of connection to nature), then his art will fail to make an impression.

Definitions

Games explore the vast domain of rules and the interactions thereof.  Games do not always have a winner (farmville, simcity, the sims), nor do they have to conclude.  If you do not think games are art it is not because your definition of art is too narrow, but because your definition of games is too narrow.  As with any definition, there will always be exceptions, but a good working definition of “game” would be:  A set of rules that define the interactions between one or more individuals for the purpose of emotional engagement.

Britannica Online defines art as:

“the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others”

Dictionary.com includes the following definition of art:

“the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings”

These definitions seem almost to align perfectly with what a game is, as long as you accept that virtual objects fall under the usage of the term ‘objects’ in this definition.  The main point of contention is the usage of the word ‘aesthetic’.

Here is what dictionary.com says about the definition of aesthetic:

“1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.

2.having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.

Clearly games instill a lot of emotion in players, however, these emotions usually are intertwined with the competitive nature of the games.  Meaning that the primary feelings are often thrilling feelings of victory or depressing feelings of defeat. Usually, one does not think of a game as ‘beautiful’.  This is where I believe the core of the debate lies.  Are games beautiful?

Beautiful Rules

Since the core of a game is its rules, we must apply the analysis of the artfulness of games to the set of rules that govern that game, not the craftsmanship of its pieces or the special visual effects or audio soundtrack.  It is the rules that defines the essence of the game, and the rules alone that should be judged.

It is often difficult to appreciate the beautiful nature of a game because many times the rules are hidden from the casual player.  It is much easier to appreciate the beauty of a game’s rules where the rules are open and learning the rules is essential to playing the game.  This is the case for one class of games which includes board, card and other tabletop games.  Speaking as one who endeavors to expose myself to as many new, innovative game mechanics as possible, so that I may, one day, create my masterpiece, I experience a certain thrill when reading the rules of a new game.  That thrill comes to an emotional climax when I come across a certain interplay of rules (aka ‘a mechanic’) that instills a certain feeling of awe.  It is this same feeling that I get when beholding a great painting, or hearing an amazing symphony.  These sorts of mechanics are not often apparent when reading the rules.  Often times, these mechanics are only revealed during the course of the game.  When, in playing the game, the realization strikes me that a certain, subtle interaction of rules can be leveraged to completely alter the way the game is played, I am struck by the same amazing feeling of discovery that the designer must have felt when he designed the game.  It is not always clear to me, even when experiencing these rules why these interactions of rules cause such a strong emotional reaction, but they do.

It is often difficult (but never impossible) to appreciate the beauty of a game’s rules in video games, because the rules are run by the computer, and are all but invisible to the casual player.  Additionally, most video games have simplistic rules that are garbage in terms of beauty and artfulness.  It is, I believe, this hidden nature of the fundamental core of a video game, which generates this idea that video games are not, nor will ever be, art.

Just as an painting critic must be exposed to a wide variety of paintings to know which are masterpieces and which are not, so must a game critic be exposed to a wide variety of rules systems to know which ones are beautiful and which are rubbish.

As for sports, are sports art?  Well, sports are games with one main limitation.  They must be playable within the confines of the human body and the ‘real’ world.  These limitations are quite severe, perhaps comparable to giving a musician only two notes, and asking him to create a masterpiece.  One might argue that this limitation is severe enough that there can be no novel, beautiful sets of rules that can be created within them.  Others may regard it as a challenge, in much the same way that art can be engraved on a single grain of rice.

Masterpieces

The idea that games could be art may raise the question, “which games do you think are masterpieces?”.  On the tabletop, the classics, chess, go and backgammon could all be considered masterpieces because of the complex and often subtle interplay amongst the rules which lead to wonderful discoveries and insights for the player.  As for video games, multitask, a flash game, is a brilliantly simply game, yet tests the limit of your mind to perform a set of simple operations.  This game is brilliant because of the simplicity of it’s design, yet it takes you on a voyage of self-discovery as you attempt to bend your mind to accomplish the game’s objectives, and provides a wonderful feeling of self-discovery when you achieve a critical insight that enables you to reach ‘the next level’.

Among more mainstream games, the super mario galaxy line of games requires you to alter your perceptions of how objects move and behave in order to explore the world.  The player is taken on a tour of various sets of rules and explores how to interact with the world within those rules.  However, these games are not true masterpieces.  A true masterpiece should have an ‘obvious’ set of rules that the casual player may master.  Underneath, there should be another layer (or set of layers) of rules that, while initially hidden, can be discovered by a more dedicated player.  These hidden layers of rules are not even always designed into the game, but may emerge by accident, or by a well thought out set of core principles, the selection of which can generate increasingly complex and subtle ways of interaction.

A prime example of this is the game tribes.  The initial set of rules is, by itself very interesting, it is a first person shooter where you could play with light, medium or heavy armor, and a variety of weapons which worked well in particular situations to which they were suited.  For a while after it was released, most people played at a ‘basic’ level.  They walked or jumped in a vehicle to get to their target, typical of many first person shooters.  However, after a while, someone came upon the first game-changing insight, the idea that the game allowed you to ski across the terrain.  This idea complete transformed the game.  Instead of taking vehicles, it was discovered that one could move much more quickly across the open terrain by skiing up and down hills.  Whether this idea was intentional added to the game, or an accident, it is a brilliant rule which helped to create a masterpiece of a game.  The feeling of wonderfulness when I, as a player, first discovered this mechanic was matched only by the thrill I felt when I had begun to master it.

Ultimate Art

Even if I have convinced you that games “could be” art at this point, you will be far from convinced that games are the ultimate form of art.  Am I going too far in stating this?  I think not.  Games can only transcend other forms of art through the use of technology and computers, because the rules that govern other forms of art are too complex to articulate in a simple tabletop game.  They must be encoded in a machine which can perform the calculations quickly enough to provide immediate feedback.

So how is possible that games can transcend music, painting, literature?  It is because they encompass all those things.  In essence, they are a superset of all art.  Music, painting, literature and all forms of traditional art all contain their own sets of rules.  It is through the mastery of these rules that an artist makes a masterpiece.  These rules may only be known subconsciously by the artist himself, but they are known, both to the artist and to his audience.  Understanding the core ideas which generate these rules and encoding those core ideas into a game could enable masterpieces in traditional art forms beyond anything that anyone had imagined.  What do I mean by this?  Imagine a program that allows a player to experiment with new and interesting combinations of visual patterns and color by waving the mouse and pressing keys in certain orders.  I don’t mean a simple graphics manipulation program, but one that allows the user to create patterns, amplify them, feed them back on themselves and overlay and blend them with the forms of familiar objects.  The power of the algorithm is a wonderful tool that an artist can employ in creating great art.  However, an artist is limited not only by the tools that he has in turning his thoughts into reality, but by his very mind itself.

This sounds a bit crazy, but hear me out.  I maintain that our ability to consume and appreciate beautiful things is greater than our ability to create them.  For example, I maintain that there are paintings that exist in the realm of all possible paintings that no human mind, working on his own, could create.  Give that human mind the most advanced tools you can, and this set of possible paintings becomes smaller.  Allow that human to build on the art of thousands of years of prior artists, and that set of paintings becomes smaller yet.  Allow that human to interact with other humans in real time, with a computer responding to the commands of the humans, and processing their interactions between its own sophisticated rules, and this set becomes smaller still.

Put another way, one human may have a brilliant idea, if you get that idea into the hands of another human who can effectively build on that idea, then you create a feedback loop.  Putting this in a game, and you enable it to feed back at the speed of thought.  And once the feedback loop starts, who knows where it will stop?

References

1. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html
2. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/630806/art
3. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
4. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetic
5. http://armorgames.com/play/4369/multitask

Over the course of the economic meltdown, an idea has come to me, and though I have tried to not think too deeply about it, it has continued to come back to me again and again.  The idea is that there is something problematic about the very core of economics.  That the whole foundation of centrally controlled money is inherently flawed. Why? Because it is a limited resource.

There are many economic theories as to the purpose of money.  One is that it is a ‘medium of exchange’.  However, in order to acquire money, you must get it from someone who has it, or someone who issues it.  If you and your trading partners do not have it, you cannot easily exchange your goods with each other.

Consider the following situation.  A reasonably self-sufficient town is hit by economic hard times beyond their control.  Those seeking loans have a difficult, if not impossible time getting those loans.  Those with savings may have found the value of their savings substantially decreased.  Everyone is spending less.  The money supply shrinks.  The farmer finds that the toolmaker has no money to buy his fruit, and farmer has no money to buy the toolmaker’s parts.  Their goods retain their value, but since there is no medium of exchange, they must either resort to barter or don’t do the deal. It is easy to resort to barter if a deal can be made between the two parties, but if Joe wants nothing that Alice has, they cannot effectively barter.  What they CAN do is issue IOUs.  Alice can issue an IOU “backed by her honor” to Joe.

Herein lies the problem with IOUs, in order to be worth something, they need to be honored.  This is a problem that the internet can help solve.  A system on the internet can, publicly, track and maintain the state of everyone’s IOUs.  Not sure if you should accept an IOU from Jim?  Look him up and see how many IOUs he has issued, how many people have given him IOUs, and if he has refused any IOUs, along with timelines for his IOU activity and his IOU balance.

What is to stop someone from just issuing IOUs and not doing any work?  Well, that can be complex, but it starts with the knowledge that when someone dies, their IOUs are worth nothing.  Working backward from this, if Alice thinks she will not be paid back by Jim based on his IOU issue rate, age, IOU income rate, outstanding IOUs and personal history, then she might not want to accept one of his IOUs.

Balance Computation

The system would ‘work through the IOU’ graph to remove all unnecessary IOUs from the system.  For example, If Tom owed Jim and Jim owed Alice and Alice owed Tom one IOU, then those amounts would be cancelled out and removed from the system.

References:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
• google search on ‘barter’
• google search for ‘electronic IOU’

After having finally bought a HDTV, my next task was to figure out what would be my first Blu-Ray source.  This question turned out to be more difficult than selecting the TV.  I was initially leaning toward getting a PS3, since it did have some of the things I wanted in addition to blu-ray playback (web browsing with flash for one).  However, it didn’t really support much more in terms of streaming video and other functionality aside from games, of course.

I then decided to see how much a PC would cost to build that could play blu-ray.  After some research, I figured I could put one together for about the same price as a PS3, around $400. I already had a 400GB hard drive, and a copy of windows vista, so that trimmed a bit off the price, but it’s still a good deal considering that it can do so much more than a PS3.

Orginal Estimates:

• Motherboard ($76)
• CPU ($71)
• 4GB ram ($45)
• case+350W PS ($30)
• blu ray player ($135)
• wireless keyboard + mouse ($30)

Total: $387

I ordered the motherboard, CPU, blu-ray player and RAM from amazon, and got the case from central computer.  As I waited for the items to arrive, I did some additional research on various options for a wireless keyboard and mouse.  It seemed the vast majority of them weren’t really designed for home theater use.  The one I did find (and was referenced in Ars Technica’s HTPC guide), was Gyration’s Wireless remote + keyboard combo.  The price was a bit more at around  $100, but after looking around, I decided I had to try it, so I quickly ordered it on amazon.

Surprisingly, what I thought was the gyration keyboard and remote was the first to arrive.  Upon opening it, I discovered that it was only a remote and no keyboard.  After calling PC Universe (the amazon store that sold it), I discovered that there was a product serial mixup and they didn’t carry that item.  The $100 price tag was for the remote only.  The keyboard + remote costs around $130.  So I figured what the heck and exchanged it for the correct item.  Little did I know that this was only the first in a line of problems that would plague this experience.

The rest of my components then arrived from amazon.  I had already purchased the ATX case from Central Computer, a local supplier.  As I begun to assemble, I realized that the motherboard was a micro-ATX motherboard, not an ATX motherboard!  Checking amazon, the board was clearly listed as an ATX board, but after checking some other internet sites, I saw that it was indeed a micro-ATX board, and that amazon had the wrong information on their product page.

After sighing heavily, I went to the local supplier to exchange my ATX case for a micro-ATX case.  The cheapest one they had was $85.  I knew I was not gonna get anything like the $30 deal I got on the ATX case, so I decided to get it.  I also saw a good deal in frys on a 1TB HDD, and I’ve always been one to buy a hard drive when it was on sale, so I got that too.

After that, the rest of the build proceeded smoothly, installation of Vista went fine.  HDMI port with sound through the motherboard worked fine with the sony TV.  The Gyration Keyboard and mouse worked like a charm.  The precision on the air mouse is not as high as a regular mouse, but it’s still pretty good.

Finally, to test, we checked out the movie 300 at the local blockbuster, only to find that it was a horrible movie to use to evaluate the quality of Blu-Ray playback, because it was shot in a deliberately grainy style.  A couple of days later, Cars arrived from netflix, and upon starting the movie, I immediately noticed a significant stutter, especially in the wide panning scenes.  It quickly became intolerable.  Tweaking the BIOS settings helped a little, but it was still very noticeable.  Using Cyberlink’s BD system analyzer revealed that the onboard video (nvidia 7100) was too slow for blu-ray playback, even though the motherboard manual clearly states that the board is capable of full 1080p blu-ray playback.  After another sigh, I did some research on video cards, and ran out and got a Diamond ATI HD 4350 with a HDMI port.  Cars looked great, no stutter, nice smooth pans, the works.  I spent a bit more than I had originally planned, but it was worth it, because now I have a video card that can also play WoW and many other games!

Final List:

• Gyration Media Center Remote + Keyboard (Amazon $128)
• 4 GB Memory (Amazon $45)
• Intel 2.5GHz E5200 (Amazon $71)
• Lite-On External Blu-Ray Player (Amazon $135)
• Gigabyte Motherboard(Amazon $76)
• 1TB Seagate HDD (Frys $97)
• Diamond ATI HD 4350 512MB (Frys $80)
• Antec NSK3480 (Central Computer $85)
• Windows Vista Home Premium (Amazon $100) - added if you don’t already own

Final Cost: $817

Lessons Learned:

• Be vary careful about motherboards’ onboard video.  They may say they support blu-ray playback, when in reality, the quality may be poor.
• Go with a separate video card unless you can find exactly the motherboard that you want.
• Many video cards don’t have HDMI ports because they don’t have onboard audio.  Many video cards have DVI to HDMI adapters that don’t support audio, so make sure you either have a connection for audio (eg a separate receiver), or you get a card or adapter that allows you to send both video and audio to a HDMI port.
• Don’t trust amazon’s catalog.  There were two errors in shopping for computer components at amazon: (1) wrong motherboard and (2) wrong wireless keyboard/remote.  For mainstream products, I’m sure amazon is fine, but for computer components, I’d be more inclined to buy them locally or at a different supplier.

Links:

• Ars Technica HTPC Guide
• Cyberlink’s Blu-Ray Disk Advisor

We have lately been working on a set of Twilight Imperium mod rules.  Some of us think that the ’stock’ twilight imperium is not that fun, and it takes too long.  Consequently, our mission is:

• To make twilight imperium more interesting to play
• To make the game shorter

As such, we pondered different game mechanics from other games (both other board games and computer games).  Since there is a bit of the ‘puerto rico’ flavor in TI anyway, we took that a step further.  There is also a debate amongst us about whether combat should be central to the game.  Should it be possible to take a ‘non-military’ path to victory?  I say yes, because it creates more strategic options for the player.

Throughout this process, we’ve been researching, simulating and playtesting different mechanics.  I’ve come across another interesting site that analyzes board game mechanics: http://www.scienceofboardgames.com/

-Tom

What follows are some more thoughts on an article I wrote a little while ago.

Ever notice how some companies start losing employees after their stock price tops off? This was definitely more true in the dot com days, less so now. However, the point remains the same. If an employee has a really good idea (which may or may not be in the company’s area of expertise), what would the employee gain by giving his idea to the company? He would lose the monetary compensation that he would have otherwise gained, and a good amount of recognition, which would probably go to the ‘head’ of the company instead.

It seems that the employee would more likely set out on his own to create his own company, in this way, he would have more freedom (to succeed or fail), and more incentive to work hard since it is his name and financial future that is on the line.

However, there are many things that need to be ‘re-invented’ when someone leaves to form a new company. Why not structure a company in such a way as to have all (or most) of the positive aspects, and none (or little) of the negative ones? As described before, a company could offer its employees several compensation packages: (1) time-based, (2) project based, or (3) cashflow based.

An additional feature could be that the employee could elect to not collect his company ‘profits’ as cash compensation, but rather retain them within the company for usage toward future company projects (thereby avoiding getting taxed prematurely, as would also happen if the employee set out on his own).

Is management overhead a problem? If rentacoder.com (and other sites) work, then why can’t they work for this type of application? If anything, it would help to more formally and thoroughly investigate the ‘cost-benefit’ for a particular project before going too deep in the implementation.

(reposted from old blog.  First posted May 21, 2008)

The days have come when you can design something and get it manufactured without any factories…

the story comes from wired:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_instapreneur

Some sites referenced in the article:

http://www.zazzle.com/
http://www.ponoko.com/
http://styleshake.com
http://www.spreadshirt.com

and of course, the original…

http://www.cafepress.com/

(resposted from old blog.  First posted March 26, 2008)

After reading Paul Graham’s article, “You Weren’t Meant to Have a Boss”, I decided to write about an idea I’ve had for a while. The basic idea has been illustrated in some form on some sites like rentacoder.com. The basic idea is to structure a company in such a way that all members have a choice in how they want to be compensated for their work (monetary compensation of course).

Background (What’s wrong with the typical corporate structure)

In my experience, two main things motivate people to work hard:

1. Money
2. Doing stuff you like

When someone has one or the other, then they will tend to work moderately hard. But when they have both, then will work extra hard! In the typical corporate structure, decisions are generally handed down from the upper management, especially financial decisions. An employee’s idea that can potentially save the company millions of dollars will generally not net the employee a corresponding increase in salary, even if it does manage to make it to upper management and get implemented. As a result, a typical corporate structure is sub-optimal in satisfying both points listed above.

Solution

A company should offer several forms of compensation to motivate its employees:

1. Salary (pay per hour of work)
2. Project-based compensation
3. Cashflow-based compensation

An employee would start off with a salary. This would allow the employee to gain a feel for how the company works and take the time to review projects and opportunities on which he may be interested in working. After a while, he may choose to take a pay cut in exchange for more free time (eg work 20 hours a week instead of 40, taking a corresponding reduction in pay). In his newly freed time, he may work on a project (the work handed out in this part of the system could be managed by a rentacoder.com like system), and get paid upon advancement of the project.

He may also embark upon a new project (or an addition to an existing project) which will generate additional cashflow for the company. This involves the highest risk, of course, and there is no guarantee of success. In this case, the employee is launching his own ‘mini-company’ within the company. He may be the only owner or there maybe multiple owners, with resultant income divided according to a pre-arranged agreement.

In this way, the company is more like an aggregation of smaller companies, rather than one large company, however, many of the benefits of being within a company will be available to its employees (access to company resources, etc)

Given this flexibility, employees have an incentive to work hard (they make more money), and they can choose the projects they want. They may even embark on a completely new project not within the company’s core business (though it would be much harder because of the lack of expertise in this new area). The employee would not have to fear (as much) about someone stealing the idea, because the employees in the company would be subject to a certain code of conduct, and thus they could more freely share ideas with each other.

(reposted from old blog, first posted March 20, 2008)