Not only was thhe prisoners dilemma around a long time before John Nash, that situation is not a prisoners dillema, just a zero-sum game, since the parties are in inherent competition anyway.
Dude, they pay someone to write (and usually rewrite and rewrite) the script several times anyway. You think peter jackson just shot based on the books?
Yesterday, Nextel finalized a deal to add a pretty big chunk of spectrum to their business (in exchange for some sort of administration requirements for police and other channels which currently fit in that band.
Are there any of you who could comment on whether this will reduce the value of such a chunk of the spectrum?
You know, it's purely anecdotal evidence, but I don't know ANYONE I'd consider 'metrosexual' that watches much tv. They just don't sit around watching the idiot tube like the average american does. What shows do you see as drawing this sort of audience? I mean, if you're talking will and grace, that's 100% chick. If you're talking the OC, that's 90210 teen drama all over again. I just don't see it (though maybe it's 'cause I just don't watch anymore myself). I'm really curious, though.
I don't think he was saying that demographics weren't changing as well. He didn't say "what person...?" He said "what kid...?"
Also, you, me him -- we're NERDS, y'know? Pong and adventure weren't enough to draw the average person away from TV, even if they dres US away from TV (well, I'm a bit younger, so let's say FF1 and Dragon Warrior for me). GTA, on the other hand, IS good enough to draw the average person away from TV. Trust me, I and my friends have plenty of little brothers, and they and their friends watch The OC and a little bit of Real World, but not much else, anymore; they play way more games. Very different from the family sitcom gatherings when we were younger.
Why not go back to the individual programmers? If you say the developers should be treated like authors are in the book world, the effect will be that developers' names will get bought up, programmers will get fired, and crap will be paraded around just to capitalize on the name.
If you're going to go to the actual content, use nintendo or square's 'dream team' concepts -- they *always* used to tout the people who worked on the game, and each had their own individual feel.
That was very different, in my opinion. That was a point at which the undisputably best game company around released a completely ground-breaking game on THE next-generation system and simultaneously announced that they would no longer be deving for nintendo. This? Sure, they've got an installed base of 40 million households in the US alone, but that doesn't mean everyone only wants to watch the dvd on those systems (which everyone who owns one knows have shitty quality!).
I'm not saying it's impossible -- square has made some pretty dumb moves in the past. Only that this is not a market-moving release, and that consumers would hate it, not move with it.
I'm an undergraduate (senior) on a student team (four undergrads, twelve graduates) that manages a chunk of the Babson College endowment. I agree that there frequently aren't enough people with finance knowledge on Slashdot -- whenever a company does something, people cry about or hype up its stock without a good understanding of the financial impact.
I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. SFA is poised perfectly to capitalize of game delivery, and it's the perfect way to distinguish themselves. Cable providers are consistently looking for more ways to increase revenues, and this is absolutely perfect. I'm a buy-side analyst covering the industry (the guy sitting next to me right now actually covers the company), and I can tell you that the valuation is very low right now (though I haven't checked market reaction to this announcement yet). We've tagged a price target of about $39, based on discounted cash flow analysis and P/E multiples.
Dude, nobody said all of those were being released. The leak was supposedly from the design company, meaning they're probably all prospective designs, but not all of them will make it to market.
Dude, fans have been demanding the DVD for years. As much as I can't stand the guy and he's a merchandising jackass, this is the ONE piece of sw product people have pushed him for and which he wasn't releasing quick enough.
Actually, you're the copyright holder, so you can distribute the work without penalty to you or anyone you distribute it to. You could try to get someone else to distribute it to them illegally, but it'd probably be highly suspect.
Backwards compatibility ADDS to the value provided by an upgrade. Without backwards compatibility, the features recieved in exchange for an upgrade must be more compelling than if I'm able to make an easy document switch. Your logic is flawed.
I have to say that I think Google has their own success, and altavista's comparative failure, to demonstrate that their current formula is more successful. I don't really buy the argument that they'd necessarily fall into the same trap just because they have public shareholders.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was a joke. Most of the bands you listed are rotten sellouts or were never that good in the first place, but I'll give you Cash, Dylan, and Waits. And maybe Lou Reed and Bowie, too.
"There is lots of great "underground" music out there, and always will be - but it takes a certain amount of effort to dig through it to find what you like."
I know! It's so much easier with the RIAA, because you already know it's all going to be absolute crap!
Slashdot Mirror
Not only was thhe prisoners dilemma around a long time before John Nash, that situation is not a prisoners dillema, just a zero-sum game, since the parties are in inherent competition anyway.
Whatever happened to Oregon Trail?? That was the hot game back when I was a kid (on the Apple II).
Dude, they pay someone to write (and usually rewrite and rewrite) the script several times anyway. You think peter jackson just shot based on the books?
eh, I just RTFA and I guess it's kind of old news. never mind, then, I guess.
Yesterday, Nextel finalized a deal to add a pretty big chunk of spectrum to their business (in exchange for some sort of administration requirements for police and other channels which currently fit in that band.
Are there any of you who could comment on whether this will reduce the value of such a chunk of the spectrum?
You know, it's purely anecdotal evidence, but I don't know ANYONE I'd consider 'metrosexual' that watches much tv. They just don't sit around watching the idiot tube like the average american does. What shows do you see as drawing this sort of audience? I mean, if you're talking will and grace, that's 100% chick. If you're talking the OC, that's 90210 teen drama all over again. I just don't see it (though maybe it's 'cause I just don't watch anymore myself). I'm really curious, though.
I don't think he was saying that demographics weren't changing as well. He didn't say "what person...?" He said "what kid...?"
Also, you, me him -- we're NERDS, y'know? Pong and adventure weren't enough to draw the average person away from TV, even if they dres US away from TV (well, I'm a bit younger, so let's say FF1 and Dragon Warrior for me). GTA, on the other hand, IS good enough to draw the average person away from TV. Trust me, I and my friends have plenty of little brothers, and they and their friends watch The OC and a little bit of Real World, but not much else, anymore; they play way more games. Very different from the family sitcom gatherings when we were younger.
Why not go back to the individual programmers? If you say the developers should be treated like authors are in the book world, the effect will be that developers' names will get bought up, programmers will get fired, and crap will be paraded around just to capitalize on the name.
If you're going to go to the actual content, use nintendo or square's 'dream team' concepts -- they *always* used to tout the people who worked on the game, and each had their own individual feel.
That was very different, in my opinion. That was a point at which the undisputably best game company around released a completely ground-breaking game on THE next-generation system and simultaneously announced that they would no longer be deving for nintendo. This? Sure, they've got an installed base of 40 million households in the US alone, but that doesn't mean everyone only wants to watch the dvd on those systems (which everyone who owns one knows have shitty quality!).
I'm not saying it's impossible -- square has made some pretty dumb moves in the past. Only that this is not a market-moving release, and that consumers would hate it, not move with it.
I'm an undergraduate (senior) on a student team (four undergrads, twelve graduates) that manages a chunk of the Babson College endowment. I agree that there frequently aren't enough people with finance knowledge on Slashdot -- whenever a company does something, people cry about or hype up its stock without a good understanding of the financial impact.
Yourself?
I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. SFA is poised perfectly to capitalize of game delivery, and it's the perfect way to distinguish themselves. Cable providers are consistently looking for more ways to increase revenues, and this is absolutely perfect. I'm a buy-side analyst covering the industry (the guy sitting next to me right now actually covers the company), and I can tell you that the valuation is very low right now (though I haven't checked market reaction to this announcement yet). We've tagged a price target of about $39, based on discounted cash flow analysis and P/E multiples.
Though I love the game, the translation makes me want to hit people.
Dude, nobody said all of those were being released. The leak was supposedly from the design company, meaning they're probably all prospective designs, but not all of them will make it to market.
Dude, fans have been demanding the DVD for years. As much as I can't stand the guy and he's a merchandising jackass, this is the ONE piece of sw product people have pushed him for and which he wasn't releasing quick enough.
Dude, you should have listened to their last english conference call. They couldn't meet shit.
Actually, you're the copyright holder, so you can distribute the work without penalty to you or anyone you distribute it to. You could try to get someone else to distribute it to them illegally, but it'd probably be highly suspect.
Backwards compatibility ADDS to the value provided by an upgrade. Without backwards compatibility, the features recieved in exchange for an upgrade must be more compelling than if I'm able to make an easy document switch. Your logic is flawed.
Please stop being incorrect. ;)
I have to say that I think Google has their own success, and altavista's comparative failure, to demonstrate that their current formula is more successful. I don't really buy the argument that they'd necessarily fall into the same trap just because they have public shareholders.
Me? I'm a corporate whore. But that doesn't mean I'd want to listen to music by someone like me.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was a joke. Most of the bands you listed are rotten sellouts or were never that good in the first place, but I'll give you Cash, Dylan, and Waits. And maybe Lou Reed and Bowie, too.
"There is lots of great "underground" music out there, and always will be - but it takes a certain amount of effort to dig through it to find what you like."
I know! It's so much easier with the RIAA, because you already know it's all going to be absolute crap!
I don't know- I haven't seen her handing out any of her royal candy lately.
Mmmmm... English Toffee...
So microsoft would be paying themselves, then? You'll bankrupt them really fast doing that...
Actually, I said "except in the one case," referring to the correct pluralization of ox as oxen. Your comment is completely off-base.