Video games have been about making money since the beginning. Arcade games used to last approximately 26 seconds a play, and you put in a quarter every game
And as a direct result of this, home video consoles like the Fairchild and Atari were born, as parents figured out it would be cheaper to pay $180 and buy one of those for the kid for Christmas instead of feeding him $10 bills every weekend...
The difference, according TFA, being that these games intentionally provide variable stimulus (the most powerful type of stimulus according to behavioral psychologists) and diminishing returns in order to maximize profits. A regular game which you paid up front is designed to entertain you. Whether or not you actually finish the game depends on the perceived difficulty of the game, the appeal of the game view (world, story, graphics, physics system, etc) presented to you and your own desire and willingness to keep playing. Whether you actually finish the game or not makes no difference to the creator, he has been paid up front.
What these guys are doing is intentionally manipulating your emotions by constantly dangling candy in front of you, but just out of reach. Every time they see you starting to lose interest, they might move the candy a little closer, every time they see you are really interested they move it a little further. Therefore you are being intentionally manipulated not to achieve satisfaction with the game but rather to achieve you sending them a credit card authorization. Satisfaction will come later, we promise.
Re:I haven't read the article, but hear me out her
on
Who Killed Videogames?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You don't have to buy their games. Fortunately the games market - at least for PC's and smart phones - is fairly easy to get into. Yeah ok if you want to talk retail distribution then it's harder if you're not doing it online - getting your game into brick and mortar stores around the world is next to impossible unless you sign with a major publisher. But even the major publishers are moving to online distribution, so the independent has no excuse. The market is coming to expect to be able to download games and apps now. And many, many independent games have achieved surprising success.
Therefore there will always be some game genres that don't follow the mainstream trend - if everyone is monetizing, at some point they are not going to be getting new customers because everyone will be busy playing the non-monetized games. Apart from the occasional idiot who never learns, you can only take people for a ride so often. Eventually people are going to get a feel for these cash-sucking parasites, just like people get a feel for telemarketers or infomercials and instantly switch off, and this "industry" will extinguish itself. I think good games are never going to die because human creativity is never going to die.
No, but it means that when you try to tell me how many trucks and how much fuel I will need to move said sand and how much it will cost, you will be completely wrong.
By the end of the 15th century, between 40 million and 80 million people are thought to have been living in the Americas.
Only an error of 40 million people - or 100%.
This new growth could have soaked up between 2 billion and 17 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air.
Whoa. Only off by 850% there. I'm guessing it _could_ even be around 30 billion tons. Or maybe 200,000 tons. Nice to be working under such tight constraints. Sorry but I can't approve your grant request, we have real science to do.
Touché. The New World and imperialism in general saw a huge boom in ship-building and construction. At one point there was a very real shortage of hard wood in Europe, and the Brits were pissed because they were resorting to using American Oak for their ships, a material they considered to be inferior.
Speaking as the owner of over half a million reforested trees, it seems to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. GP is correct, new growth will capture CO2 at a higher rate than old growth. While trees add rings every year, the actual living portion of the tree remains fairly fairly constant once it reaches maturity. You can't look at the thickness of the trunk and assume that it's all living tissue because it's not. And only the living tissue requires CO2 to be converted to sugars for metabolism.
Yeah, the sun provides enough energy to change the world's temperature by well over 10 degrees every 24 hours during the day/night cycle, is suspected of being able to trigger large earthquakes through alterations in the geomagnetic field, yet is absolutely incapable of being the cause behind long term trends in the weather for some people.
Burning it will most definitely release carbon into the environment that wasn't free before.
Why, where did the tree get the carbon from in the first place? Magic? You are merely returning to the atmosphere what was previously in the atmosphere. Granted you are releasing it suddenly instead of over a period of 20 or 80 years (or however old the tree was), but you care not "creating" CO2.
Yeah: "By the end of the 15th century, between 40 million and 80 million people". Real numbers there. Call me when you have the error down to say, 5%. Otherwise it's bullshit, just like your bullshit and GP's bullshit.
Columbus and the European colonization of the Americas triggered the "mini ice age", then why did it stop? It's not like the forests have grown back. Bullshit-meter pegged at maximum.
It is. GPS was originally created so that nuclear missile carrying submarines could know very quickly where they were launching their missiles from, in order to be able to compute the right trajectory. Of course its use has been expanded way beyond that to aircraft which use combined GPS/inertial navigation systems and of course now even munitions - JDAMs are "fire and forget" GPS-guided weapons that offer advantages over laser/tv guided bombs because they don't need a laser to be pointed at the target and don't care if there are clouds between the airplane and the target. And then there's the little device in your car.
I remember my dad teaching me how to use it on our sailboat. Was pretty neat for the 1970's. Plus you got to see if your dead reckoning was any good or not.
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably trying to predict football results.
I'm waiting for "balanced budget" day.
You are seriously comparing a video game to drugs?
Video games have been about making money since the beginning. Arcade games used to last approximately 26 seconds a play, and you put in a quarter every game
And as a direct result of this, home video consoles like the Fairchild and Atari were born, as parents figured out it would be cheaper to pay $180 and buy one of those for the kid for Christmas instead of feeding him $10 bills every weekend...
The difference, according TFA, being that these games intentionally provide variable stimulus (the most powerful type of stimulus according to behavioral psychologists) and diminishing returns in order to maximize profits. A regular game which you paid up front is designed to entertain you. Whether or not you actually finish the game depends on the perceived difficulty of the game, the appeal of the game view (world, story, graphics, physics system, etc) presented to you and your own desire and willingness to keep playing. Whether you actually finish the game or not makes no difference to the creator, he has been paid up front.
What these guys are doing is intentionally manipulating your emotions by constantly dangling candy in front of you, but just out of reach. Every time they see you starting to lose interest, they might move the candy a little closer, every time they see you are really interested they move it a little further. Therefore you are being intentionally manipulated not to achieve satisfaction with the game but rather to achieve you sending them a credit card authorization. Satisfaction will come later, we promise.
You don't have to buy their games. Fortunately the games market - at least for PC's and smart phones - is fairly easy to get into. Yeah ok if you want to talk retail distribution then it's harder if you're not doing it online - getting your game into brick and mortar stores around the world is next to impossible unless you sign with a major publisher. But even the major publishers are moving to online distribution, so the independent has no excuse. The market is coming to expect to be able to download games and apps now. And many, many independent games have achieved surprising success.
Therefore there will always be some game genres that don't follow the mainstream trend - if everyone is monetizing, at some point they are not going to be getting new customers because everyone will be busy playing the non-monetized games. Apart from the occasional idiot who never learns, you can only take people for a ride so often. Eventually people are going to get a feel for these cash-sucking parasites, just like people get a feel for telemarketers or infomercials and instantly switch off, and this "industry" will extinguish itself. I think good games are never going to die because human creativity is never going to die.
Oppression is whatever you want it to be, or whatever you say it is. Welcome to politics.
World Solar Challenge About To Start
I thought great, even more flares...
I hope you can tell toilet paper rolls apart from 10 feet.
No, but it means that when you try to tell me how many trucks and how much fuel I will need to move said sand and how much it will cost, you will be completely wrong.
So they came to America and immediately established national parks eh?
Except, this has all happened before... where are the trilobites?
By the end of the 15th century, between 40 million and 80 million people are thought to have been living in the Americas.
Only an error of 40 million people - or 100%.
This new growth could have soaked up between 2 billion and 17 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air.
Whoa. Only off by 850% there. I'm guessing it _could_ even be around 30 billion tons. Or maybe 200,000 tons. Nice to be working under such tight constraints. Sorry but I can't approve your grant request, we have real science to do.
Touché. The New World and imperialism in general saw a huge boom in ship-building and construction. At one point there was a very real shortage of hard wood in Europe, and the Brits were pissed because they were resorting to using American Oak for their ships, a material they considered to be inferior.
Native Americans destroy less forest
Yeah, because the Europeans didn't deforest at all.
but it seems to me
Speaking as the owner of over half a million reforested trees, it seems to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. GP is correct, new growth will capture CO2 at a higher rate than old growth. While trees add rings every year, the actual living portion of the tree remains fairly fairly constant once it reaches maturity. You can't look at the thickness of the trunk and assume that it's all living tissue because it's not. And only the living tissue requires CO2 to be converted to sugars for metabolism.
Yeah, the sun provides enough energy to change the world's temperature by well over 10 degrees every 24 hours during the day/night cycle, is suspected of being able to trigger large earthquakes through alterations in the geomagnetic field, yet is absolutely incapable of being the cause behind long term trends in the weather for some people.
Burning it will most definitely release carbon into the environment that wasn't free before.
Why, where did the tree get the carbon from in the first place? Magic? You are merely returning to the atmosphere what was previously in the atmosphere. Granted you are releasing it suddenly instead of over a period of 20 or 80 years (or however old the tree was), but you care not "creating" CO2.
Yeah: "By the end of the 15th century, between 40 million and 80 million people". Real numbers there. Call me when you have the error down to say, 5%. Otherwise it's bullshit, just like your bullshit and GP's bullshit.
Columbus and the European colonization of the Americas triggered the "mini ice age", then why did it stop? It's not like the forests have grown back. Bullshit-meter pegged at maximum.
Publicity stunt - Appletards just lap that shit up.
Coming up to the surface to get a GPS fix defeats that job.
Yeah because no one is going to see those 12 ICBM's launching....
Getting a GPS fix through an antenna while still 150 feet underwater is an acceptable risk, considering it's done just before launch.
It is. GPS was originally created so that nuclear missile carrying submarines could know very quickly where they were launching their missiles from, in order to be able to compute the right trajectory. Of course its use has been expanded way beyond that to aircraft which use combined GPS/inertial navigation systems and of course now even munitions - JDAMs are "fire and forget" GPS-guided weapons that offer advantages over laser/tv guided bombs because they don't need a laser to be pointed at the target and don't care if there are clouds between the airplane and the target. And then there's the little device in your car.
I remember my dad teaching me how to use it on our sailboat. Was pretty neat for the 1970's. Plus you got to see if your dead reckoning was any good or not.
Will it jam GLONASS?