Research was conducted in two phases, a quantitative overview of gaming households among the U.S. online population, and a follow-up qualitative deep dive among the key segments in the gaming market.
That doesn't describe methodology. That describes anything from sending out mailers to people who sent back registrations to EA then polled people at E3 to god-knows-what. I have posted additional "studies" that show different data and that took 3 seconds to find on google.
Yet you insist that studies which actually asked the buyers are wrong
Did not say, much less insist that. You are inferring that is what has happened by the same article that is referencing data without sourcing.
but the perception of some retail employee who didn't is better?
I did say that they are a verifiable source (especially since you can probably find one who does ask). This "study" isn't to be found making it not verifiable. How do you know that the study doesnt consist of asking 1 or 2 retail clerks what they think?
P.S. I'm not sure what your definition of "better" is.
Title was too short to include "(study is false on it's lack of face)". I'm still looking for the ACTUAL findings, instead of this glorified summary that may be completely made up for (insert alternate purpose).
Actually that "firsthand knowledge" is skewed again.
I don't think you understand what firsthand knowledge means. There is no skew in firsthand knowledge since the buyer knows who it's for. Since every method of polling is inaccurate via the Bias Sample fallacy (which it is) why is it any more or less wrong? Where is the study?
My numbers are as real as theirs except ANYONE can get corraboration through any convenient outlet. As per my comment. Where's the actual study? Seeing the study should reveal the inherent bias/misinterpretation that leads to these _ridiculous_ claims.
For the products there are numbers, the percentage of online sales is under 80% in all cases (that they aren't only available online). The vast majority of games are not available online only. The number of games bought FOR children is nearly impossible to determine except by firsthand knowledge. Retailers see higher numbers and have consistent experience. As per my comment.
What defines a gamer? (maybe it's supposed to be computer gamer?)
The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.
Where's the data from? How would you poll gamers who are the extreme antisocial type? Why is this posted as news when it's obviously wrong? (based on the article claims)
// How many people are PC gamers? board gamers? console gamers? ccg gamers? what is this study even about?
- IDE Integration/Tools - Traceability/Unified access control
A distributed vcs can do *everything* a centralized one like svn does, but does it better, does more. Wholly inaccurate. Being able to do more does not mean it can do it better. There are many different needs for a VCS and GIT does not serve them all. Independence isn't a PROBLEM for most development groups. Some organizations aren't at all conducive to this style of "freedom" which isn't helpful to commercial or government organizations (works great for OS I guess) which sacrifice all kinds of efficiency for the ability to backtrace actions.
You get the expected problems with "automatic" merges from untraceable sources.
Fortunately, these issues should be fixable if the right people care enough.
Unless DVCS were to store every keystroke related to project files, there's a small difference between wanting to push to a local or central repo (outside of network issues and creating the brach on the central repo). You're functionally notifying different machines. All in all there's not a compelling reason to move to a DVCS unless you need it and I see very few cases where that's true. Even Linus mentions he acts as the kernel central repo although he espouses the fact that it doesn't need to be.
It's human nature to seek and understand organizations as hierarchichal and there's not much chance of anyone changing that for a long time. I'll stick with what other developers implicitly understand.
For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.
Wikipedia has many inherent flaws including restricted verifiability. It's not feasible to track everyone's relationships/actions and therefore articles are always flawed and often to the point of consistent inaccuracy (since the most persistent documents are sometimes factually inaccurate). Wikipedia's a place where you not only can buy a (Wiki) fact, but it's one of the only ways to change a fact (an entry in an appendix in Joe's book can change a wiki entry). It's a shame there's no way to submit affadavits yet (which would be sane).
English semantics often suck. I'm not sure that there is a term for how science is done now. Nothing is purely "scientific method" anymore as characterizations are inherently subjective. Uncertainty and unknowns are more and more prevalent and less and less tested (or testable) for whatever reason.
I'm not seeing the point of your comment. Re-read the article or even the summary. Buckypaper is being treated as a product that's being marketed by a scientific study funded by a military contractor. There is no line between science and market.
If you think modern science isn't highly politicized based on intended audience, you aren't keeping up with civilization (since the greeks at the least).
Yes. Considering the consequences _is_ part of modern science. How is the scientific method relevant to the consideration of promoting a scientific discovery (as safe or useful) in context? Just promoting the benefits without giving any caveats is simply irresponsible and wrong.
Whatever that means. You're not even talking about the same thing.
What's worse you advocate (the equivalent of) Joe Schmo trying to prove that a wooden heart valve can be made to be as durable as a porcine by conducting his own experiments on dogs or that it's adviseable for him to try to show that cyanide can make a perfectly acceptable fuel source by building test engines and driving around the neighborhood? Just wow.
One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution. You might want to get out of the mud.
Success is not defined by possibilities but by acceptable consequences. I see no consequences (like what happens when you aspirate bits of charred buckypaper) and therefore I say those developing are irresponsible. Lots of that going around.
What it boils down to is: your company has invested heavily in tools [A] and [B]. I see it as a language is more than it's features. Business is heavily invested in process. The processes that aggregate into a positive cashflow tend to flourish regardless of the fear of competition and usually in spite of it! New languages are expensive in almost every area and you can expect developers to know something about the business. Those that don't probably wish they could use the "new" languages because they dont understand the problems with adoption. Those that endanger their business (because of a lack of understanding), are deserving of termination. Maybe I just think the "I use cuting edge technologies and work around the problems because I'm good" mentality is more often irresponsible than rewarding (I'd love to see some indication that Groovy is decent). This does not lead to always using the same technology, but few of the languages mentioned are really worth using.
Our current tools are [A] and [B] for aspects (C), (D), (E), (F)...and anything else we need. Everyone in the company knows [A] and [B] to different degrees. Primarily in relation to 3rd party libraries, methodologies (optimization, maintenance) and architectures (planning and abstractions).
[A] is slow in some respects for (D) and REALLY good at (F). [B] is ok in (D) and good at (E), (F) and a number of others.
There are plenty of people in the workforce who know A,B or both to varying degrees.
Introduce Language [1]
[1] is really good at (F), (G), but there isn't a lot of data at what it's NOT good at.
Now why would we use that? In certain cases it's better than what we have but there's no support/market/libraries/practices for [1] so we skip it.
Boo is 0.8.2 - If you wish your boss would let you use this, you're fired. F# - Not related to [A] or [B] unless [A] or [B] is ASP or C#, I could understand a more generic Functional Lang like Hask,OCaml,Erlang but F#? (educate me here) Groovy - JVM Java scripting for when Java is too hard for you? Wow. You're fired. Scala - yes. Finally, Advanced Java.* Clojure - Functional syntax on the JVM. Why would I use this and for what when there's no support? Lua - A very succint and efficient scripting language. Looking for performance in a scripting language is usually counter-intuitive and there's very few places it is advisably used, but it is handy when you're looking for performance for aspect (@). Chances your developer wants to use it inappropriately = 99%
Notice 3 of these are JVM languages, as if (rightfully?) dissatisfied with Java. Personally I can only see a reason for 2 of these languages to exist at all. For all of time there will be people interested in creating their own languages for various reasons (including simple compulsions) and few of them will really be justified beyond the joy of just working on something "new".
* No, I don't know Scala. I know some Lua from WoW. I may be biased based on my 20 odd years of experience.
How long did it take for the world to believe that the moon was a hunk of desolate rock as opposed to a god or made out of cheese? World perception is important and there's a lot of people who understand the IPv4 is running out. Not needed or advised to try and slow down adoption by yelling "wait wait wait we can still cheat to tread water longer" when the ocean is getting bigger by the day.*
//*on the spot metaphor
Experienced Conventioneers can skip it
on
Blizzcon 2008 Wrap-Up
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I went to the previous BlizzCon and was sorely disappointed. This year the costumes were less hardcore (from the photos) leaving me with absolutely no regrets at missing this one. Blizzard used to throw some seriously good LAN Parties at UCI but their conventions are about the people and if you aren't there to meet up with others from your WoW Social Scene (ugh) there's not more than 8 hours of waiting in lines and 1 hour of interesting lecture and 1 hour of wandering around to be found. Most of that you can do WITHOUT the convention. Verdict: waste of time. YMMV based on how bad your "basement seeking behaviour" is.
Without our daily scrum meeting our flexible schedules and priorities would never be dealt with in a useful time frame. It seems silly, but teammembers really notice the lost productivity and direction when we can't coordinate with EVERYONE at some point during the day without IM'ing each other saying "what are YOU working on?" when the sprint plan just doesnt cover priority and there is interdependence.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't describe methodology. That describes anything from sending out mailers to people who sent back registrations to EA then polled people at E3 to god-knows-what. I have posted additional "studies" that show different data and that took 3 seconds to find on google.
I'm still trying to figure out why something on /. is supposed to have more merit than a random user with no agenda.
Did not say, much less insist that. You are inferring that is what has happened by the same article that is referencing data without sourcing.
I did say that they are a verifiable source (especially since you can probably find one who does ask). This "study" isn't to be found making it not verifiable. How do you know that the study doesnt consist of asking 1 or 2 retail clerks what they think?
P.S. I'm not sure what your definition of "better" is.
Title was too short to include "(study is false on it's lack of face)". I'm still looking for the ACTUAL findings, instead of this glorified summary that may be completely made up for (insert alternate purpose).
I don't think you understand what firsthand knowledge means. There is no skew in firsthand knowledge since the buyer knows who it's for. Since every method of polling is inaccurate via the Bias Sample fallacy (which it is) why is it any more or less wrong? Where is the study?
Here's some other "studies" that also have no data on how they came about their age demographic numbers:
http://www.e-strategyblog.com/2005/10/demographics_of.html (35% under 18)
http://www.igame2.com/community/demographics/ (40% under 18)
My numbers are as real as theirs except ANYONE can get corraboration through any convenient outlet. As per my comment. Where's the actual study? Seeing the study should reveal the inherent bias/misinterpretation that leads to these _ridiculous_ claims.
For the products there are numbers, the percentage of online sales is under 80% in all cases (that they aren't only available online). The vast majority of games are not available online only. The number of games bought FOR children is nearly impossible to determine except by firsthand knowledge. Retailers see higher numbers and have consistent experience. As per my comment.
What defines a gamer? (maybe it's supposed to be computer gamer?)
The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.
Where's the data from?
How would you poll gamers who are the extreme antisocial type?
Why is this posted as news when it's obviously wrong? (based on the article claims)
GIT problems -
- IDE Integration/Tools
- Traceability/Unified access control
A distributed vcs can do *everything* a centralized one like svn does, but does it better, does more.
Wholly inaccurate. Being able to do more does not mean it can do it better. There are many different needs for a VCS and GIT does not serve them all. Independence isn't a PROBLEM for most development groups. Some organizations aren't at all conducive to this style of "freedom" which isn't helpful to commercial or government organizations (works great for OS I guess) which sacrifice all kinds of efficiency for the ability to backtrace actions.
You get the expected problems with "automatic" merges from untraceable sources.
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Tracking_Down_Merge_Errors_With_git
Fortunately, these issues should be fixable if the right people care enough.
Unless DVCS were to store every keystroke related to project files, there's a small difference between wanting to push to a local or central repo (outside of network issues and creating the brach on the central repo). You're functionally notifying different machines. All in all there's not a compelling reason to move to a DVCS unless you need it and I see very few cases where that's true. Even Linus mentions he acts as the kernel central repo although he espouses the fact that it doesn't need to be.
It's human nature to seek and understand organizations as hierarchichal and there's not much chance of anyone changing that for a long time. I'll stick with what other developers implicitly understand.
Wikipedia deals with facts, figures, and personal statements.
It specifically does not. None of those are acceptable references.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.
Wikipedia has many inherent flaws including restricted verifiability. It's not feasible to track everyone's relationships/actions and therefore articles are always flawed and often to the point of consistent inaccuracy (since the most persistent documents are sometimes factually inaccurate). Wikipedia's a place where you not only can buy a (Wiki) fact, but it's one of the only ways to change a fact (an entry in an appendix in Joe's book can change a wiki entry). It's a shame there's no way to submit affadavits yet (which would be sane).
It's always 10ish somewhere. It's 4:24p here but I'm sure it's 10:04 somewhere else.
English semantics often suck. I'm not sure that there is a term for how science is done now. Nothing is purely "scientific method" anymore as characterizations are inherently subjective. Uncertainty and unknowns are more and more prevalent and less and less tested (or testable) for whatever reason.
I'm not seeing the point of your comment. Re-read the article or even the summary. Buckypaper is being treated as a product that's being marketed by a scientific study funded by a military contractor. There is no line between science and market.
If you think modern science isn't highly politicized based on intended audience, you aren't keeping up with civilization (since the greeks at the least).
Yes. Considering the consequences _is_ part of modern science. How is the scientific method relevant to the consideration of promoting a scientific discovery (as safe or useful) in context? Just promoting the benefits without giving any caveats is simply irresponsible and wrong.
Whatever that means. You're not even talking about the same thing.
What's worse you advocate (the equivalent of) Joe Schmo trying to prove that a wooden heart valve can be made to be as durable as a porcine by conducting his own experiments on dogs or that it's adviseable for him to try to show that cyanide can make a perfectly acceptable fuel source by building test engines and driving around the neighborhood? Just wow.
One of he tenants of modern science is considering consequences instead of embracing every seeming discovery as immediately applicable as a solution. You might want to get out of the mud.
Success is not defined by possibilities but by acceptable consequences. I see no consequences (like what happens when you aspirate bits of charred buckypaper) and therefore I say those developing are irresponsible. Lots of that going around.
What it boils down to is: your company has invested heavily in tools [A] and [B].
I see it as a language is more than it's features. Business is heavily invested in process. The processes that aggregate into a positive cashflow tend to flourish regardless of the fear of competition and usually in spite of it! New languages are expensive in almost every area and you can expect developers to know something about the business. Those that don't probably wish they could use the "new" languages because they dont understand the problems with adoption. Those that endanger their business (because of a lack of understanding), are deserving of termination. Maybe I just think the "I use cuting edge technologies and work around the problems because I'm good" mentality is more often irresponsible than rewarding (I'd love to see some indication that Groovy is decent). This does not lead to always using the same technology, but few of the languages mentioned are really worth using.
I'm not sure why you would think that. Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge?
Our current tools are [A] and [B] for aspects (C), (D), (E), (F)...and anything else we need.
Everyone in the company knows [A] and [B] to different degrees. Primarily in relation to 3rd party libraries, methodologies (optimization, maintenance) and architectures (planning and abstractions).
[A] is slow in some respects for (D) and REALLY good at (F).
[B] is ok in (D) and good at (E), (F) and a number of others.
There are plenty of people in the workforce who know A,B or both to varying degrees.
Introduce Language [1]
[1] is really good at (F), (G), but there isn't a lot of data at what it's NOT good at.
Now why would we use that? In certain cases it's better than what we have but there's no support/market/libraries/practices for [1] so we skip it.
Boo is 0.8.2 - If you wish your boss would let you use this, you're fired.
F# - Not related to [A] or [B] unless [A] or [B] is ASP or C#, I could understand a more generic Functional Lang like Hask,OCaml,Erlang but F#? (educate me here)
Groovy - JVM Java scripting for when Java is too hard for you? Wow. You're fired.
Scala - yes. Finally, Advanced Java.*
Clojure - Functional syntax on the JVM. Why would I use this and for what when there's no support?
Lua - A very succint and efficient scripting language. Looking for performance in a scripting language is usually counter-intuitive and there's very few places it is advisably used, but it is handy when you're looking for performance for aspect (@). Chances your developer wants to use it inappropriately = 99%
Notice 3 of these are JVM languages, as if (rightfully?) dissatisfied with Java. Personally I can only see a reason for 2 of these languages to exist at all. For all of time there will be people interested in creating their own languages for various reasons (including simple compulsions) and few of them will really be justified beyond the joy of just working on something "new".
* No, I don't know Scala. I know some Lua from WoW. I may be biased based on my 20 odd years of experience.
And why is THAT a good idea?
How long did it take for the world to believe that the moon was a hunk of desolate rock as opposed to a god or made out of cheese? World perception is important and there's a lot of people who understand the IPv4 is running out. Not needed or advised to try and slow down adoption by yelling "wait wait wait we can still cheat to tread water longer" when the ocean is getting bigger by the day.*
I went to the previous BlizzCon and was sorely disappointed. This year the costumes were less hardcore (from the photos) leaving me with absolutely no regrets at missing this one. Blizzard used to throw some seriously good LAN Parties at UCI but their conventions are about the people and if you aren't there to meet up with others from your WoW Social Scene (ugh) there's not more than 8 hours of waiting in lines and 1 hour of interesting lecture and 1 hour of wandering around to be found. Most of that you can do WITHOUT the convention. Verdict: waste of time. YMMV based on how bad your "basement seeking behaviour" is.
Without our daily scrum meeting our flexible schedules and priorities would never be dealt with in a useful time frame. It seems silly, but teammembers really notice the lost productivity and direction when we can't coordinate with EVERYONE at some point during the day without IM'ing each other saying "what are YOU working on?" when the sprint plan just doesnt cover priority and there is interdependence.