Book publishers edit, ship, manage the printing of, and distribute books. They also balance the riskiness of publishing each individual book across their portfolio of books. In the same way, movie studios are good at financing and distribution, but a big part of what they do is invest in multiple pictures, so that even if one movie bombs there are always others.
Something -- regardless of what it's called -- has to be able to hold a portfolio of games. To make informed investments, that entity is probably going to have to understand the industry. That knowledge is likely to be valuable and applicable high-level marketing and strategy decisions, and *rightly or wrongly* the investment will only be made if that knowledge can be applied, or if the investor has some power of the developers.
Workers in other very capital-intensive creative industries -- film and television, for example -- tend to be stratified into two economic classes. People in the upper classes eventually get money and are then able to call the shots. There's no reason why the same thing can't happen in gaming. But money will, for the most part, determine who has the power.
Some argue that interviews with active, free-ranging offenders have numerous advantages over those with incarcerated offenders (Jacobs & Wright, 2006). Purportedly, findings based on inmate interviews may be biased because the participants are âoeunsuccessful,â fearful of further legal sanctions, and likely to reconstruct their offenses in an overly rational manner. However, many of these claims against captive populations are overstated (Copes & Hochstetler, in press). In fact, a recent study examining target selection of burglars found a âoestriking similarityâ between studies using free-ranging and prison-based samples (Nee & Taylor 2000, p. 45). Little is gained by denying that the interview setting colors narratives or that conversations with social scientists are not different than what might be said elsewhere. Yet offenders appear to report similar patterns of behavior regardless of how they were originally contacted or where they were interviewed. Semistructured interviews were used to explore
If Green Dam software were required in China (and it's not yet clear that it will be), disabling it might be trivial but the act of disabling it would open the user to prosecution. A Chinese user could 'accidentally' click on a site they should not have seen but it's hard to see disabling Green Dam software as anything but deliberate. Having said that, I think Oberheide's work is commendable.
I think it's the other way around. People make largely symbolic choices -- driving a marginally more fuel efficient car that costs five times more to build, for example -- rather than making real sacrifices for the environment.
Go to a typical supermarket this morning and look at the choices people make. People buy produce flown in from Argentina, beef raised using unsustainable practices and products whose packaging is unnecessarily elaborate.
The number of people living in suburbs (accessible only by car and inefficient in so many other ways), the paucity of clotheslines in those suburbs and the size of cars in people's driveways all point to how little people are willing to sacrifice for the environment.
Then along comes Fisker, offering very expensive scapegoats for secular yuppies, on which their collective sins can be heaped and because of which they can spend the rest of the weekend grilling tuna steaks while feeling good. Fisker's customers are *using* the product as a means of feeling better about themselves and as a way of taking action on something they think they care about without really changing their lifestyles.
For its part, Fisker is going to push hybrid technology forward and (hopefully) accelerate the diffusion of more fuel efficient cars. They're not to blame here if only because they're working to satisfy a demand that comes from people choosing to buy a clean conscience in the same way that they buy Cheerios.
Living without a car -- that would be a sacrifice.
His criticism is valid. Despite researchers' methodological rigour, social network analysis can identify causation that just doesn't exist. One study, using the same design that had previously identified obesity as being contagious or caused by an individual's social network, found that height, headaches and acne were similarly contagious. Height could be a good predictor of friends' height but your height won't be changed by your friends' heights.
Granted, I haven't read the article and I'm not qualified to know whether the authors used the appropriate controls in the right ways, but it bears mentioning that even an ostensibly solid design can produce misleading results when trying to establish causation.
It's not just science -- intellectualism generally isn't valued (you betcha!). Society can benefit from an increase in general knowledge of science, but science bores individuals. I don't think the Internet is helping. When people took in their news in print or broadcast television or radio, they were exposed to all types of news -- the available technology compelled us to be generalists. We can now choose to focus on whatever we find interesting.
1982, depending on who you ask. The migration to TCP/IP on ARPANET occurred in 1982 and was completed by January 1, 1983. The Internet was designed primarily by Cerf beginning in the early seventies. See Inventing The Internet by Janet Abbate.
To those who want their flying cars: you can't measure progress by looking at science fiction and lamenting that it's not yet fact. The concepts of 'impact' and 'progress' aren't really the same. Technological progress -- whatever that means -- is usually measured by the productivity of some factor, like labour or raw materials. Impact suggests that an innovation has to diffuse and have a broad social and economic effect. Inasmuch as impact is socially constructed by our own wants, it's possible we're disappointed because we spend so much time talking about the future, and because rapid progress has become normal.
This should be taken with a bit of skepticism. There's a difference between positive cash flow (more cash coming in than going out), positive net income (what most people think of as 'profit') and positive EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or profit from operations). TFA doesn't mention which Tesla is reporting.
Most basic research is done in large firms and publicly-funded organizations. Schumpeter -- the economist who coined 'creative destruction' -- first pointed this out. R&D is risky; big firms have deep pockets and broad portfolios of technologies.
Many have suggested that games function as crucial gatekeepers to interest in technology, which translates into education and careers in mathematics and science-related fields. If Latinos or any other groups become disenchanted with games due to poor representation, subsequently they may have less interest in technology and its opportunities for class advancement.
I don't necessarily buy it, but none of what you or anyone else in this thread addresses the article's argument.
Look at the work of Burt, Granovetter or Podolny (head of Apple University) and tell me again that sociology isn't scientific.
That social network analysis has informed biology and physics and vice-versa speaks to how ridiculous it is to try to divide the hard sciences from the soft sciences.
Critique the article on its merits.
Slashdot Mirror
Book publishers edit, ship, manage the printing of, and distribute books. They also balance the riskiness of publishing each individual book across their portfolio of books. In the same way, movie studios are good at financing and distribution, but a big part of what they do is invest in multiple pictures, so that even if one movie bombs there are always others.
Something -- regardless of what it's called -- has to be able to hold a portfolio of games. To make informed investments, that entity is probably going to have to understand the industry. That knowledge is likely to be valuable and applicable high-level marketing and strategy decisions, and *rightly or wrongly* the investment will only be made if that knowledge can be applied, or if the investor has some power of the developers.
Workers in other very capital-intensive creative industries -- film and television, for example -- tend to be stratified into two economic classes. People in the upper classes eventually get money and are then able to call the shots. There's no reason why the same thing can't happen in gaming. But money will, for the most part, determine who has the power.
Some argue that interviews with active, free-ranging offenders have numerous advantages over those with incarcerated offenders (Jacobs & Wright, 2006). Purportedly, findings based on inmate interviews may be biased because the participants are âoeunsuccessful,â fearful of further legal sanctions, and likely to reconstruct their offenses in an overly rational manner. However, many of these claims against captive populations are overstated (Copes & Hochstetler, in press). In fact, a recent study examining target selection of burglars found a âoestriking similarityâ between studies using free-ranging and prison-based samples (Nee & Taylor 2000, p. 45). Little is gained by denying that the interview setting colors narratives or that conversations with social scientists are not different than what might be said elsewhere. Yet offenders appear to report similar patterns of behavior regardless of how they were originally contacted or where they were interviewed. Semistructured interviews were used to explore
If Green Dam software were required in China (and it's not yet clear that it will be), disabling it might be trivial but the act of disabling it would open the user to prosecution. A Chinese user could 'accidentally' click on a site they should not have seen but it's hard to see disabling Green Dam software as anything but deliberate. Having said that, I think Oberheide's work is commendable.
I think it's the other way around. People make largely symbolic choices -- driving a marginally more fuel efficient car that costs five times more to build, for example -- rather than making real sacrifices for the environment. Go to a typical supermarket this morning and look at the choices people make. People buy produce flown in from Argentina, beef raised using unsustainable practices and products whose packaging is unnecessarily elaborate. The number of people living in suburbs (accessible only by car and inefficient in so many other ways), the paucity of clotheslines in those suburbs and the size of cars in people's driveways all point to how little people are willing to sacrifice for the environment. Then along comes Fisker, offering very expensive scapegoats for secular yuppies, on which their collective sins can be heaped and because of which they can spend the rest of the weekend grilling tuna steaks while feeling good. Fisker's customers are *using* the product as a means of feeling better about themselves and as a way of taking action on something they think they care about without really changing their lifestyles. For its part, Fisker is going to push hybrid technology forward and (hopefully) accelerate the diffusion of more fuel efficient cars. They're not to blame here if only because they're working to satisfy a demand that comes from people choosing to buy a clean conscience in the same way that they buy Cheerios. Living without a car -- that would be a sacrifice.
I doubt that they would have gotten the same reaction if they had offered a $1.50 discount to customers agreeing to receive electronic bills.
His criticism is valid. Despite researchers' methodological rigour, social network analysis can identify causation that just doesn't exist. One study, using the same design that had previously identified obesity as being contagious or caused by an individual's social network, found that height, headaches and acne were similarly contagious. Height could be a good predictor of friends' height but your height won't be changed by your friends' heights. Granted, I haven't read the article and I'm not qualified to know whether the authors used the appropriate controls in the right ways, but it bears mentioning that even an ostensibly solid design can produce misleading results when trying to establish causation.
It's not just science -- intellectualism generally isn't valued (you betcha!). Society can benefit from an increase in general knowledge of science, but science bores individuals. I don't think the Internet is helping. When people took in their news in print or broadcast television or radio, they were exposed to all types of news -- the available technology compelled us to be generalists. We can now choose to focus on whatever we find interesting.
1982, depending on who you ask. The migration to TCP/IP on ARPANET occurred in 1982 and was completed by January 1, 1983. The Internet was designed primarily by Cerf beginning in the early seventies. See Inventing The Internet by Janet Abbate.
To those who want their flying cars: you can't measure progress by looking at science fiction and lamenting that it's not yet fact. The concepts of 'impact' and 'progress' aren't really the same. Technological progress -- whatever that means -- is usually measured by the productivity of some factor, like labour or raw materials. Impact suggests that an innovation has to diffuse and have a broad social and economic effect. Inasmuch as impact is socially constructed by our own wants, it's possible we're disappointed because we spend so much time talking about the future, and because rapid progress has become normal.
This should be taken with a bit of skepticism. There's a difference between positive cash flow (more cash coming in than going out), positive net income (what most people think of as 'profit') and positive EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or profit from operations). TFA doesn't mention which Tesla is reporting.
Most basic research is done in large firms and publicly-funded organizations. Schumpeter -- the economist who coined 'creative destruction' -- first pointed this out. R&D is risky; big firms have deep pockets and broad portfolios of technologies.
Many have suggested that games function as crucial gatekeepers to interest in technology, which translates into education and careers in mathematics and science-related fields. If Latinos or any other groups become disenchanted with games due to poor representation, subsequently they may have less interest in technology and its opportunities for class advancement.
I don't necessarily buy it, but none of what you or anyone else in this thread addresses the article's argument.
Look at the work of Burt, Granovetter or Podolny (head of Apple University) and tell me again that sociology isn't scientific. That social network analysis has informed biology and physics and vice-versa speaks to how ridiculous it is to try to divide the hard sciences from the soft sciences. Critique the article on its merits.