First person, yo hablo; I completely agree with you.
Second person familiar, tu hablas; I completely agree with you.
First person plural, nosotros hablamos; I completely agree with you.
Second person plural familiar, vosotros hablais; I completely agree with you. Pronouns are unnecessary in every one of those cases and make no real difference whatsoever.
3rd person singular (both feminine and masculine) and second person singular formal share a conjugation. 3rd person plural (both feminine and masculine) and second person singular formal share a conjugation. English does not differentiate between formal and familiar forms of "you"; so we can't use English as a comparison point. So, habla could refer to he, she, or you. Hablan could refer to they (masculine), they (feminine), or you. If the context of the writing didn't make clear what you were referring to, you would need to specify a pronoun because the reference would be unclear; however, I still think it's grammatically correct not to have a pronoun.
Call me ignorant because I only made it through high school Spanish, but I think that both of you are partially right. The verb conjugation leaves clues about the subject, but the subject is definitely not mentioned. So, truly esta hablando would be "is/are talking." The subject for esta hablando could be el (he), ella (she), or usted (formal version of you). So, the subject is implied, just as it would be in "is talking." However, this is grammatically correct in Spanish; the subject is only necessary to call out from a content perspective. Thoughts?
Good post, but I partially disagree on the financiers section. I think there were a few financiers who bought CDOs "with one eye closed" and a vast majority who didn't understand the situation. It took an intervention at Goldman at the C-level to stop the practice; the risk managers in most other companies couldn't get that kind of attention. So, I think you've got to mix a healthy amount of stupidity and/or ignorance in with the greed bouillabaisse.
Good post. I primarily bought my console because it just works, but cost definitely factors into my equation too.
I also am coming off a PC build that was unstable with 3d support enabled. After replacing the graphics card and the power supply, I traced the problem to the motherboard. At that point, I threw up my hands, bought a console, and cursed MSI for the money I wasted on a new power supply and graphics card only to see the mobo screw me up.
So, I can handle a RROD where I just ship the unit back to the manufacturer (or whatever the PS3 equivalent is since I chose that console) - that's a much simpler fix than debugging the many points of failure in a PC.
TFS points out that the RIAA has large, high-end law firms representing them, which is way more expensive to defend against than a District Attorney filing small criminal charges. Heck, I hired a high-end traffic lawyer (well, as high-end as traffic lawyers get), who charged somewhere in the $100-150 range for a single ticket. It would be thousands of bucks to hire a top flight law firm to represent you on an RIAA case because of the sophistication of the RIAA lawyers and the fact that they're willing to file suits as a loss leader to scare people into buying music.
That said, intellectual property law has its place, and I don't have any viable solutions to fix the problems (illegal piracy, law not keeping pace with technology, nasty RIAA lawyers, artists not getting royalties because of piracy, artists not getting money from album sales because record companies take it all, artists wanting to control their own creations, and the record companies failing to recoup their marketing expenses as piracy eats into their profits, and on and on).
I haven't seen anything this obtuse or messed up since the ASP web-sites I coded during college.
Your statement that the 360 is outselling the PS3 is wrong. For almost the 2008 calendar year, the PS3 has outsold or tied the 360. That said, cumulative sales of the 360 are way ahead of the PS3.
Another interesting aspect of all of this is that current middleware products don't port as well to the PS3 (in general) as to the 360/PC. A friend of mine at Id claims that their upcoming middleware will close that gap - I'd love to see simultaneous releases on all 3 platforms.
I agree that the Playstation Network will probably have a greater number of original games because indie devs will have more wiggle-room on that format.
There are a couple of other games to throw in:
If you get a backwards compatible PS3, you could find a PS2 version of the MTV Music Generator. It allows you to create mixes and is a pretty interesting, albeit consumer-grade, music tool.
GTA4 (on every platform) is open-ended enough that there is some measure of creativity in that you decide what you want to do and what you want to get out of the game. It's an iterative improvement over GTA3, but a very big iterative improvement.
I disagree. This thread is almost entirely opinion; so I'll qualify my statement as that of an opinionated fan but here goes: As you said, Bioshock did have a ton of back story. However, it also had a ton of movement of the plot within the game, often skillfully so (beware spoilers ahead). For example, the "befriending" of Atlas, the revenge of the crazy artist (I wish I remembered more of the names), the redemption of the scientist who helped set off the entire mess, and your choice to change your physiology in the game.
The designers could not have possibly told this entire story arc and the downfall of the civilization in an FPS because the game would've taken a decade to develop, cost 100s of millions to make, and been always hopelessly behind on technology (*cough* Daikatana *cough*). So, the company chose an appropriate scope of the tale and told it well.
Also, the twist in the game, while scripted and largely passive rather than active participation, was a pivotal event that was supported by backstory, rather than just backstory. The player is learning his "motivations," killing one of the two leaders in the world, and becoming an enemy of the other leader. I'd say that qualifes as a plot advancement even if they have steeped it in backstory to add weight to the proceedings.
All in all, I agree that they had extensive use of backstory, but that provided context for and elevated the main story-line, which was appropriately scoped for a single FPS. Again, this topic is almost entirely opinion, but I wanted to represent a counter-opinion to the parent poster.
Final note: the story-line was fairly linear for a game that's advertised as having consequences to your in-game choices, but I'm willing to overlook that for the top-notch storyline and the well executed graphics.
I am quite close to the athletic field, and I can assure you that people get more pissed about laws that restrict their freedoms, than about people who circumvent them and get away with it.
Spoken like a cheater.
I'm quite close to the athletic field as well and find that there are some dumb rules out there, but athletes and supporting nations that exhibit good sportsmanship follow those rules because without rules, games are chaos. And anytime I've played sports against cheaters, I've been much angrier at their transgressions than I have at the rules of the sport I'm competing in (even the dumb rules).
So, flat out, your personal opinion on this matter does not extend to me, and I'm willing to venture that most people agree with my perspective, not yours.
Ben Johnson deserved to have his gold medal taken away in the 100m dash. Floyd Landis deserved to have his Tour de France victory nullified. The Chinese gymnastics program (and those responsible for the falsified passports) deserve negative repercussions decided by an unbiased, independent judicial body.
gfxguy's response to your post was the only thing insightful in this exchange.
If no card had existed like this, I would not have purchased the unit, nor the Zelda game that I bought the first week. I'm only willing to spend enough to buy a game or two per year, which would've pushed me to the psp or cell phone games, except for the ease of the R4.
I'll still buy the game or two per year that I was planning on, and Nintendo profited on the sale of the device. So, in my case, the R4 gave Nintendo profit they wouldn't have had otherwise. However, probably only a small percentage of R4 users match my scenario (only purchased DS because of the available crack). Nintendo may or may not want me as a customer, but I'd think that some profitable revenue is better than none...
That's a good point. However, oil/energy prices are a bit of a crapshoot because there's as much talk of oil prices being in bubble status as there are discussions of oil going up substantially.
I did not throw in system maintenance costs, which probably exist but I can't make an educated guess as to what they'd be. So, there's another strike against the system.
Also, due to time value of money, the increase in house value in 30 years would have to be quite large in order to equal the up-front payment.
Net of all of this discussion: it still isn't a good decision based solely on financial terms unless the amount it adds to house value in the near-term is large (especially considering the high variability of some of the key cost savings). Also, the original poster's methodology for calculating payback seems inaccurate - it sounds like the poster failed to account for time value of money as well as opportunity cost ("savings from reduced bills equals the cost of the system" is a very bad way to financially model cost savings). That said, your point about energy costs is very valid, and if I wasn't lazy, it would make a nice addition to the net present value calculation.
My aunt has a new green-built home, and she pays around 50/month in electricity in an area that typically has 250/month electricity bills. I'm willing to bet that the amount the builder put into the house to get those savings was less than the 36K needed for solar. So, there are a number of ways to get similar improvements by cutting back rather than generating your own power.
I just did some math on this using a 7% investment opportunity cost (after inflation), and for my situation, it would not pay for itself after 30 years (even assuming that it adds $20,000 to the value of the house when sold in 30 years). The NPV of the project is negative. The social value is potentially positive though.
CIOs do not make nearly as much money as CEOs. In the firm I work for (and this is typical), the CEO makes 7 figures, the CIO makes a few hundred thousand. Granted, they are both doing well for themselves, but the CEO could be buying private villas and yachts, while the CIO is more on the nice timeshare level.
Also, CIOs might make 90k-150k at startups, but they will make significantly more than that at large companies - over a million at the better paying s&p500-level companies.
Another downside to the CIO position: CIOs are the bitch of the C-level positions in many corporations. They often report to the CFOs or COOs rather than the CEO directly. This makes them one extra prestige-level and pay grade from the top. I disagree with this as it lowers the strategic importance of IT; I'd prefer the CIO at my company be at the same level as the CFO/COO. At many of the tech firms, the CIO is more important but not always.
None of the C-level execs have great job security. They all turn into scapegoats if issues arrive at a corporation, but the CEO receives the best "golden parachute" payout when he gets the boot, followed by the COOs and CFOs. So, if you want to work long hours with little to no job security, you might as well shoot for any of the other C-level jobs.
Lastly, my experience with senior executives is that they're smart but no smarter than the more intelligent in-the-trenches employees. This is more a compliment to the in-the-trenches folks than a negative statement about executives. There are a lot of very smart people working at lower levels throughout companies. This makes it twice as hard for the decisions of executives to come across as intelligent - the smart low-level employee could make much better decisions about his/her own area of expertise than a senior exec due to his/her detailed knowledge. However, since a senior exec operates at a much higher level, they must do the best they can and also gather as much input as possible from the smart, low-level people. C-level execs very often fail at this point due to too much ego, too little time to do things right, too little knowledge of leadership, etc. The biggest differences I see in senior execs as compared to the standard rank and file employees: 1. More ambitious in the business sense. 2. More social intelligence (this one is only sometimes true). 3. More political intelligence. 4. Luck.
35% growth in video conferencing annually? Maybe, but the technology still has leaps and bounds to go. After attending a recent all-day meeting via video conferencing, I realized that: 1. You still can't make out expressions that well. 2. The software that is supposed to auto-focus the camera on people doesn't work very well at all, focusing on quiet side bar conversations all too often. 3. People were staring at their computers and blackberrys the entire time because very few people were actually in the same room.
Maybe we'll have 35% growth given the high price of travel these days, but the technology needs some help.
The other nice thing about re-usable bags is that they're much stronger than plastic or paper bags. I can fit all of my heavy groceries in far fewer bags, making it easier to transport the groceries.
..and all they did was play a single video game. How can they possibly draw any meaningful conclusions from that? And to support with anecdotal evidence, after trying to play the Sims because my girlfriend's little sister liked it, my brain functioning dropped to zero and I went into a coma for several hours.
Very good point with the DS. I've only used a DS once and thought the interface was pretty interesting (pointing with the stylus on Zelda reminded of clicking in Diablo).
I think you're right that mouse peripherals were offered with the PS (or maybe PS2, can't remember), but I really mean that the mouse has not been adopted widescale as a control medium for consoles. So, a one-off game using the mouse on the console is cool, but when the vast majority of users don't have the input technology and it isn't available for most games, it doesn't ring true to me as having made a good leap from PC to console.
I also haven't used the Wii; so, it could be a perfectly able mouse-substitute, but I can't speak to it (although I look forward to trying one out soon).
Regardless, I'm an avid enough gamer I'd probably slap myself in the face if the UI of a good game called for it.
Consoles have fantastic appeal to the masses and for good reason - you buy a game console that you know won't be obsolete (i.e. they are still making current games for it) for 5 years or so. The cost is around the same as a brand new, high-end graphics card, which is just one component of the PC rig. The PC rig will also be obsolete sooner because the PC game-makers push tech and innovation faster (although you can get decent lifespan out of a PC rig if you are willing to not always have the bleeding edge). Lastly, the consoles, in my experience are less buggy. Coding to the various configurations of PCs is much more difficult to get bug free than a single environment.
That said, I currently am a PC gamer because I had a computer around that was good enough that the purchase of an additional $200 graphics card got me a strong PC gaming experience. Plus, my good friend, the mouse, hasn't made the jump to consoles yet.
The underlying fiber's there, and companies are pumping bazillions into fiber optic "last mile" solutions already. I second the belief that this article is FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
First person, yo hablo; I completely agree with you. Second person familiar, tu hablas; I completely agree with you. First person plural, nosotros hablamos; I completely agree with you. Second person plural familiar, vosotros hablais; I completely agree with you.
Pronouns are unnecessary in every one of those cases and make no real difference whatsoever.
3rd person singular (both feminine and masculine) and second person singular formal share a conjugation. 3rd person plural (both feminine and masculine) and second person singular formal share a conjugation. English does not differentiate between formal and familiar forms of "you"; so we can't use English as a comparison point. So, habla could refer to he, she, or you. Hablan could refer to they (masculine), they (feminine), or you. If the context of the writing didn't make clear what you were referring to, you would need to specify a pronoun because the reference would be unclear; however, I still think it's grammatically correct not to have a pronoun.
That's my two cents.
Call me ignorant because I only made it through high school Spanish, but I think that both of you are partially right. The verb conjugation leaves clues about the subject, but the subject is definitely not mentioned. So, truly esta hablando would be "is/are talking." The subject for esta hablando could be el (he), ella (she), or usted (formal version of you). So, the subject is implied, just as it would be in "is talking." However, this is grammatically correct in Spanish; the subject is only necessary to call out from a content perspective. Thoughts?
Good post, but I partially disagree on the financiers section. I think there were a few financiers who bought CDOs "with one eye closed" and a vast majority who didn't understand the situation. It took an intervention at Goldman at the C-level to stop the practice; the risk managers in most other companies couldn't get that kind of attention. So, I think you've got to mix a healthy amount of stupidity and/or ignorance in with the greed bouillabaisse.
Good post. I primarily bought my console because it just works, but cost definitely factors into my equation too.
I also am coming off a PC build that was unstable with 3d support enabled. After replacing the graphics card and the power supply, I traced the problem to the motherboard. At that point, I threw up my hands, bought a console, and cursed MSI for the money I wasted on a new power supply and graphics card only to see the mobo screw me up.
So, I can handle a RROD where I just ship the unit back to the manufacturer (or whatever the PS3 equivalent is since I chose that console) - that's a much simpler fix than debugging the many points of failure in a PC.
What does marriage have to do with getting laid?
TFS points out that the RIAA has large, high-end law firms representing them, which is way more expensive to defend against than a District Attorney filing small criminal charges. Heck, I hired a high-end traffic lawyer (well, as high-end as traffic lawyers get), who charged somewhere in the $100-150 range for a single ticket. It would be thousands of bucks to hire a top flight law firm to represent you on an RIAA case because of the sophistication of the RIAA lawyers and the fact that they're willing to file suits as a loss leader to scare people into buying music.
That said, intellectual property law has its place, and I don't have any viable solutions to fix the problems (illegal piracy, law not keeping pace with technology, nasty RIAA lawyers, artists not getting royalties because of piracy, artists not getting money from album sales because record companies take it all, artists wanting to control their own creations, and the record companies failing to recoup their marketing expenses as piracy eats into their profits, and on and on).
I haven't seen anything this obtuse or messed up since the ASP web-sites I coded during college.
Your statement that the 360 is outselling the PS3 is wrong. For almost the 2008 calendar year, the PS3 has outsold or tied the 360. That said, cumulative sales of the 360 are way ahead of the PS3.
Another interesting aspect of all of this is that current middleware products don't port as well to the PS3 (in general) as to the 360/PC. A friend of mine at Id claims that their upcoming middleware will close that gap - I'd love to see simultaneous releases on all 3 platforms.
There are a couple of other games to throw in:
In Soviet Russia...
...small planes are parachutes!
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/about/safety/caps.aspx
And there have even been some deployments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Aircraft_Parachute_System#CAPS_deployments
I disagree. This thread is almost entirely opinion; so I'll qualify my statement as that of an opinionated fan but here goes:
As you said, Bioshock did have a ton of back story. However, it also had a ton of movement of the plot within the game, often skillfully so (beware spoilers ahead). For example, the "befriending" of Atlas, the revenge of the crazy artist (I wish I remembered more of the names), the redemption of the scientist who helped set off the entire mess, and your choice to change your physiology in the game.
The designers could not have possibly told this entire story arc and the downfall of the civilization in an FPS because the game would've taken a decade to develop, cost 100s of millions to make, and been always hopelessly behind on technology (*cough* Daikatana *cough*). So, the company chose an appropriate scope of the tale and told it well.
Also, the twist in the game, while scripted and largely passive rather than active participation, was a pivotal event that was supported by backstory, rather than just backstory. The player is learning his "motivations," killing one of the two leaders in the world, and becoming an enemy of the other leader. I'd say that qualifes as a plot advancement even if they have steeped it in backstory to add weight to the proceedings.
All in all, I agree that they had extensive use of backstory, but that provided context for and elevated the main story-line, which was appropriately scoped for a single FPS. Again, this topic is almost entirely opinion, but I wanted to represent a counter-opinion to the parent poster.
Final note: the story-line was fairly linear for a game that's advertised as having consequences to your in-game choices, but I'm willing to overlook that for the top-notch storyline and the well executed graphics.
They both have fantastic graphics, but the PS3 has a WAY better blu-ray player.
Ahhh, who am I kidding? It's like trying to decide which of your children you love more.
I am quite close to the athletic field, and I can assure you that people get more pissed about laws that restrict their freedoms, than about people who circumvent them and get away with it.
Spoken like a cheater.
I'm quite close to the athletic field as well and find that there are some dumb rules out there, but athletes and supporting nations that exhibit good sportsmanship follow those rules because without rules, games are chaos. And anytime I've played sports against cheaters, I've been much angrier at their transgressions than I have at the rules of the sport I'm competing in (even the dumb rules).
So, flat out, your personal opinion on this matter does not extend to me, and I'm willing to venture that most people agree with my perspective, not yours.
Ben Johnson deserved to have his gold medal taken away in the 100m dash. Floyd Landis deserved to have his Tour de France victory nullified. The Chinese gymnastics program (and those responsible for the falsified passports) deserve negative repercussions decided by an unbiased, independent judicial body.
gfxguy's response to your post was the only thing insightful in this exchange.
If no card had existed like this, I would not have purchased the unit, nor the Zelda game that I bought the first week. I'm only willing to spend enough to buy a game or two per year, which would've pushed me to the psp or cell phone games, except for the ease of the R4.
I'll still buy the game or two per year that I was planning on, and Nintendo profited on the sale of the device. So, in my case, the R4 gave Nintendo profit they wouldn't have had otherwise. However, probably only a small percentage of R4 users match my scenario (only purchased DS because of the available crack). Nintendo may or may not want me as a customer, but I'd think that some profitable revenue is better than none...
That's a good point. However, oil/energy prices are a bit of a crapshoot because there's as much talk of oil prices being in bubble status as there are discussions of oil going up substantially.
I did not throw in system maintenance costs, which probably exist but I can't make an educated guess as to what they'd be. So, there's another strike against the system.
Also, due to time value of money, the increase in house value in 30 years would have to be quite large in order to equal the up-front payment.
Net of all of this discussion: it still isn't a good decision based solely on financial terms unless the amount it adds to house value in the near-term is large (especially considering the high variability of some of the key cost savings). Also, the original poster's methodology for calculating payback seems inaccurate - it sounds like the poster failed to account for time value of money as well as opportunity cost ("savings from reduced bills equals the cost of the system" is a very bad way to financially model cost savings). That said, your point about energy costs is very valid, and if I wasn't lazy, it would make a nice addition to the net present value calculation.
My aunt has a new green-built home, and she pays around 50/month in electricity in an area that typically has 250/month electricity bills. I'm willing to bet that the amount the builder put into the house to get those savings was less than the 36K needed for solar. So, there are a number of ways to get similar improvements by cutting back rather than generating your own power.
I just did some math on this using a 7% investment opportunity cost (after inflation), and for my situation, it would not pay for itself after 30 years (even assuming that it adds $20,000 to the value of the house when sold in 30 years). The NPV of the project is negative. The social value is potentially positive though.
Hold on, I forgot to put in the crystals!
CIOs do not make nearly as much money as CEOs. In the firm I work for (and this is typical), the CEO makes 7 figures, the CIO makes a few hundred thousand. Granted, they are both doing well for themselves, but the CEO could be buying private villas and yachts, while the CIO is more on the nice timeshare level.
Also, CIOs might make 90k-150k at startups, but they will make significantly more than that at large companies - over a million at the better paying s&p500-level companies.
Another downside to the CIO position: CIOs are the bitch of the C-level positions in many corporations. They often report to the CFOs or COOs rather than the CEO directly. This makes them one extra prestige-level and pay grade from the top. I disagree with this as it lowers the strategic importance of IT; I'd prefer the CIO at my company be at the same level as the CFO/COO. At many of the tech firms, the CIO is more important but not always.
None of the C-level execs have great job security. They all turn into scapegoats if issues arrive at a corporation, but the CEO receives the best "golden parachute" payout when he gets the boot, followed by the COOs and CFOs. So, if you want to work long hours with little to no job security, you might as well shoot for any of the other C-level jobs.
Lastly, my experience with senior executives is that they're smart but no smarter than the more intelligent in-the-trenches employees. This is more a compliment to the in-the-trenches folks than a negative statement about executives. There are a lot of very smart people working at lower levels throughout companies. This makes it twice as hard for the decisions of executives to come across as intelligent - the smart low-level employee could make much better decisions about his/her own area of expertise than a senior exec due to his/her detailed knowledge. However, since a senior exec operates at a much higher level, they must do the best they can and also gather as much input as possible from the smart, low-level people. C-level execs very often fail at this point due to too much ego, too little time to do things right, too little knowledge of leadership, etc. The biggest differences I see in senior execs as compared to the standard rank and file employees: 1. More ambitious in the business sense. 2. More social intelligence (this one is only sometimes true). 3. More political intelligence. 4. Luck.
35% growth in video conferencing annually? Maybe, but the technology still has leaps and bounds to go. After attending a recent all-day meeting via video conferencing, I realized that:
1. You still can't make out expressions that well.
2. The software that is supposed to auto-focus the camera on people doesn't work very well at all, focusing on quiet side bar conversations all too often.
3. People were staring at their computers and blackberrys the entire time because very few people were actually in the same room.
Maybe we'll have 35% growth given the high price of travel these days, but the technology needs some help.
It's quantum right? So there's really just a probability of it being broken or fixed at any given point in time...
The other nice thing about re-usable bags is that they're much stronger than plastic or paper bags. I can fit all of my heavy groceries in far fewer bags, making it easier to transport the groceries.
..and all they did was play a single video game. How can they possibly draw any meaningful conclusions from that? And to support with anecdotal evidence, after trying to play the Sims because my girlfriend's little sister liked it, my brain functioning dropped to zero and I went into a coma for several hours.Very good point with the DS. I've only used a DS once and thought the interface was pretty interesting (pointing with the stylus on Zelda reminded of clicking in Diablo).
I think you're right that mouse peripherals were offered with the PS (or maybe PS2, can't remember), but I really mean that the mouse has not been adopted widescale as a control medium for consoles. So, a one-off game using the mouse on the console is cool, but when the vast majority of users don't have the input technology and it isn't available for most games, it doesn't ring true to me as having made a good leap from PC to console.
I also haven't used the Wii; so, it could be a perfectly able mouse-substitute, but I can't speak to it (although I look forward to trying one out soon).
Regardless, I'm an avid enough gamer I'd probably slap myself in the face if the UI of a good game called for it.
Consoles have fantastic appeal to the masses and for good reason - you buy a game console that you know won't be obsolete (i.e. they are still making current games for it) for 5 years or so. The cost is around the same as a brand new, high-end graphics card, which is just one component of the PC rig. The PC rig will also be obsolete sooner because the PC game-makers push tech and innovation faster (although you can get decent lifespan out of a PC rig if you are willing to not always have the bleeding edge). Lastly, the consoles, in my experience are less buggy. Coding to the various configurations of PCs is much more difficult to get bug free than a single environment.
That said, I currently am a PC gamer because I had a computer around that was good enough that the purchase of an additional $200 graphics card got me a strong PC gaming experience. Plus, my good friend, the mouse, hasn't made the jump to consoles yet.
The underlying fiber's there, and companies are pumping bazillions into fiber optic "last mile" solutions already. I second the belief that this article is FUD.