Producers have gotten the notion in their head that they don't just expect profit, that it's an inalienable right.
The video game industry has always been about maximizing profits. Nintendo games weren't that cheap back in the day and people would waste money on crap all the time.
I don't think he implies that every pirate copy represents a loss sale. It is just as unreasonable to assume that none of the 22,000 who pirated the book would have bought it. There is likely a percentage of the pirates who would have bought the book if there was no free copy available.
If only 10% of the people who have downloaded the book for free would have bought it, then the author would have almost doubled their sales.
If only these companies would have collected the data that you bought a couch and stopped looking, then you would get more relevant targeted advertising.
The point of game theory isn't to make precise exact predictions about social phenomenon. They are just trying to show how the relationship of many factors could cause a platform to be targeted by viruses.
Rarely does the math of game theory make precise predictions in the real world. They give you a general guideline, but there are too many variables to account for everything.
How often do these data breaches actually result in fraud?
Every few months, there seems to be another story about how a hacker has stolen millions of credit card numbers, but you hear few stories about victims of these attacks. You think there should be a large class action lawsuit or something in the news.
It just seems like most of the time, security consultants are exaggerating these stories to sell their products.
You are more likely to match someone who has the same ethnicity as you and some groups are underrepresented on the bone marrow registry. Those who are mixed race have the hardest time finding a match.
I received a stem cell transplant and even though I had 3 siblings, none of them matched. Luckily there were many matches on the national registry for me, but there are still many people who have a hard time finding a match. They either can't get the treatment they need or rely on a partial match with much more complications.
Storing cord blood is a good idea if the kid is a mixed race since it is most harder to find a stem cell match.
The use of cord blood still only good enough to be used when a kid is below 80 lbs for stem cell transplants and even that isn't ideal. For treating cancer, an autologous transplant has a higher chance of relapse compared getting it donated from someone else.
Abuse of monopoly power would be to lower the cap or start limiting third party websites, which Comcast isn't doing.
How is what Comcast doing any different than the cable TV that you paid for? The content is exactly the same just the means of distribution is a little different to make it more convenient to watch.
Comcast is giving the customer more value for their money and people are complaining about net neutrality. Would it be better if Comcast counted it's own content against the cap?
Comcast is a cable company that provides television service which people pay extra for anyways, so it isn't free. The only difference is that you are distributing the content to PCs and tablets instead of a television set.
I don't see how anyone would argue that it should count against your bandwidth cap when you already pay for the TV service.
There are many ways you can get around the concerns.
You don't have to put the markers for diseases in a criminal database for starters.
Even if you record that information, you can keep it confidential so that employers and insurance companies can't access it.
You can also make laws that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone based on their DNA test. It wouldn't be much different than a law preventing an insurance company from offering different rates to different races.
And if you have an identical twin, tell the court that you have an identical twin. There is still something called due process. If the only evidence they have against you is a random DNA sample that matched in a database, there isn't much of a case.
All these secure password strategies just encourage people to write down their passwords and save them into the browser. Even pass phrases are hard to remember if you have to change them every three months on multiple accounts.
Secure passwords can still be compromised by social engineering, a key logger or messing with the much needed password reset tool. Stop thinking about the problem one dimensionally.
Investors aren't completely stupid. Venture capital is based on the idea that your 1 success can make up for your 10 failed investments.
The problem with Google is that they haven't found a way to turn their side projects into profits. Investors will like unfocused research if they believe that it can lead to future benefits, but if Google doesn't have anything to show for it after years and years, they will begin to question Google's practices.
There is nothing wrong with spending lots of research but it seems like Google likes to have lots of half-assed projects and but fails to find a way to take it to the next level.
Google should be able to treat its pet projects more like a venture capitalist would. Start up companies are held accountable by the investors even if they will remain unprofitable for years. When things get difficult, they have no choice put to persevere and do whatever it takes to fight for their idea and find a way to make it into a profitable business.
With the current Google model, when things get difficult, it seems easier for engineers to work on something more interesting.
Why would they have to do the experiment in a sterile lab environment?
You can minimize the chances of a bad trip by conducting the test in a more comfortable environment and have a counselor guide the patient through the experience. It will probably be much more positive and effective treatment than giving a guy a lot of acid and locking him in the room for 12 hours.
You don't have to look at it as earning money. People pay extra money all the time to give themselves a better leisure experience. If paying money gives you an better experience then it is worth the price.
I just think it is like golf. Some people will want to buy the most expensive golf clubs and personal trainers because they believe it makes them better. Others are content saving money using their old equipment and grinding it out at the driving range. It is still a game based mostly on skill, so no one really judges you based on what approach you take.
Revenue is an accurate indicator of success in the video game business.
Most of the costs of a video game is during development which is a fixed costs. Once a company makes enough money to cover its fixed costs, most of the additional revenue goes into profits. It doesn't costs that much more to distribute additional copies of a game especially if you are doing it online.
Time is money. Maybe someone with a busy life doesn't want to spend 10 hours getting a $5 dollar item for free when they make $60 an hour in the real world.
Good enough does not mean that you have to match the anatomical limits of human perception. That is asking for perfection.
Unless the increase of graphics performance will lead to new radical ways of gaming, then the current GPU performance is good enough.
It is not like it was 10 years when 3D graphics opened the door to new types of gameplay, like the creation of Grand Theft Auto III. Now 3D gaming has matured and there isn't any more frontiers to discover other than just better graphics, which are just marginal improvements.
I am thinking innovation will come from input devices like touch screens, Kinects or another technology that no one has thought of yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Producers have gotten the notion in their head that they don't just expect profit, that it's an inalienable right.
The video game industry has always been about maximizing profits. Nintendo games weren't that cheap back in the day and people would waste money on crap all the time.
Amazon is committed to developing for future devices so they can sell more books in the future.
The only way Amazon decides to stop developing it's Kindle reader if they decide to get out of the book business.
I don't think he implies that every pirate copy represents a loss sale. It is just as unreasonable to assume that none of the 22,000 who pirated the book would have bought it. There is likely a percentage of the pirates who would have bought the book if there was no free copy available.
If only 10% of the people who have downloaded the book for free would have bought it, then the author would have almost doubled their sales.
Amazon knows what they are doing.
When you are looking at earbuds, what you see in "customers who bought this item also bought" is more earbuds.
If only these companies would have collected the data that you bought a couch and stopped looking, then you would get more relevant targeted advertising.
The point of game theory isn't to make precise exact predictions about social phenomenon. They are just trying to show how the relationship of many factors could cause a platform to be targeted by viruses.
Rarely does the math of game theory make precise predictions in the real world. They give you a general guideline, but there are too many variables to account for everything.
How often do these data breaches actually result in fraud?
Every few months, there seems to be another story about how a hacker has stolen millions of credit card numbers, but you hear few stories about victims of these attacks. You think there should be a large class action lawsuit or something in the news.
It just seems like most of the time, security consultants are exaggerating these stories to sell their products.
It is not easy for everyone to find a match.
You are more likely to match someone who has the same ethnicity as you and some groups are underrepresented on the bone marrow registry. Those who are mixed race have the hardest time finding a match.
I received a stem cell transplant and even though I had 3 siblings, none of them matched. Luckily there were many matches on the national registry for me, but there are still many people who have a hard time finding a match. They either can't get the treatment they need or rely on a partial match with much more complications.
Storing cord blood is a good idea if the kid is a mixed race since it is most harder to find a stem cell match.
The use of cord blood still only good enough to be used when a kid is below 80 lbs for stem cell transplants and even that isn't ideal. For treating cancer, an autologous transplant has a higher chance of relapse compared getting it donated from someone else.
Abuse of monopoly power would be to lower the cap or start limiting third party websites, which Comcast isn't doing.
How is what Comcast doing any different than the cable TV that you paid for? The content is exactly the same just the means of distribution is a little different to make it more convenient to watch.
Comcast is giving the customer more value for their money and people are complaining about net neutrality. Would it be better if Comcast counted it's own content against the cap?
Comcast is a cable company that provides television service which people pay extra for anyways, so it isn't free. The only difference is that you are distributing the content to PCs and tablets instead of a television set.
I don't see how anyone would argue that it should count against your bandwidth cap when you already pay for the TV service.
There are many ways you can get around the concerns.
You don't have to put the markers for diseases in a criminal database for starters.
Even if you record that information, you can keep it confidential so that employers and insurance companies can't access it.
You can also make laws that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone based on their DNA test. It wouldn't be much different than a law preventing an insurance company from offering different rates to different races.
And if you have an identical twin, tell the court that you have an identical twin. There is still something called due process. If the only evidence they have against you is a random DNA sample that matched in a database, there isn't much of a case.
Bankers already have to register their fingerprints with the US government so DNA testing is not that farfetched.
Can't you make the lock out temporarily?
The goal should be to make brute force attacks too inefficient to be effective, not to annoy your users.
All these secure password strategies just encourage people to write down their passwords and save them into the browser. Even pass phrases are hard to remember if you have to change them every three months on multiple accounts.
Secure passwords can still be compromised by social engineering, a key logger or messing with the much needed password reset tool. Stop thinking about the problem one dimensionally.
Investors aren't completely stupid. Venture capital is based on the idea that your 1 success can make up for your 10 failed investments.
The problem with Google is that they haven't found a way to turn their side projects into profits. Investors will like unfocused research if they believe that it can lead to future benefits, but if Google doesn't have anything to show for it after years and years, they will begin to question Google's practices.
There is nothing wrong with spending lots of research but it seems like Google likes to have lots of half-assed projects and but fails to find a way to take it to the next level.
Google should be able to treat its pet projects more like a venture capitalist would. Start up companies are held accountable by the investors even if they will remain unprofitable for years. When things get difficult, they have no choice put to persevere and do whatever it takes to fight for their idea and find a way to make it into a profitable business.
With the current Google model, when things get difficult, it seems easier for engineers to work on something more interesting .
But the expectations from taking a placebo of LSD are much different than the expectations from placebo of a mystery alcoholism cure.
Why would they have to do the experiment in a sterile lab environment?
You can minimize the chances of a bad trip by conducting the test in a more comfortable environment and have a counselor guide the patient through the experience. It will probably be much more positive and effective treatment than giving a guy a lot of acid and locking him in the room for 12 hours.
The chance of going to war with Iran is a 9.5 based on a scale from 9 to 10.
There isn't a huge difference between a pretty good and the best solution in the real world.
You don't have to look at it as earning money. People pay extra money all the time to give themselves a better leisure experience. If paying money gives you an better experience then it is worth the price.
I just think it is like golf. Some people will want to buy the most expensive golf clubs and personal trainers because they believe it makes them better. Others are content saving money using their old equipment and grinding it out at the driving range. It is still a game based mostly on skill, so no one really judges you based on what approach you take.
Revenue is an accurate indicator of success in the video game business.
Most of the costs of a video game is during development which is a fixed costs. Once a company makes enough money to cover its fixed costs, most of the additional revenue goes into profits. It doesn't costs that much more to distribute additional copies of a game especially if you are doing it online.
Paying doesn't mean you are lazy.
Time is money. Maybe someone with a busy life doesn't want to spend 10 hours getting a $5 dollar item for free when they make $60 an hour in the real world.
Good enough does not mean that you have to match the anatomical limits of human perception. That is asking for perfection.
Unless the increase of graphics performance will lead to new radical ways of gaming, then the current GPU performance is good enough.
It is not like it was 10 years when 3D graphics opened the door to new types of gameplay, like the creation of Grand Theft Auto III. Now 3D gaming has matured and there isn't any more frontiers to discover other than just better graphics, which are just marginal improvements.
I am thinking innovation will come from input devices like touch screens, Kinects or another technology that no one has thought of yet.