Get personal with your employees and think of crazy, personalized incentives to keep them going. Do work with them, and ask them for input and feedback as you give the same to them. Solicit suggestions for and hold discussions about process improvements. Don't forget the tiny things that need your attention as much as the big things--keeping on top of those helps you be prepared when the big things come along. Teach your employees how to do something new rather than just do it yourself--it'll strengthen your team and reduce the burden on you.
Bullshit. Anyone can make a baseball videogame. It's rights to the use of MLB trademarks, logos, and other intellectual properties that have been auctioned here.
Oh come on--there can be multiple factors impacting the fate of stuntmen and painters. Look--if you look at the history of this discussion I have been saying all along that it's purely academic because I agree that piracy is not a legitimate concern. That's not even the point we were originally arguing. But how can you insist that only one factor is necessarily affecting their employment? Christ that's a dumb argument.
Well, you can look at who the production companies are. Universal, Disney, Warner; they all have other projects they can engage in, and if not they may choose to pay a higher dividend. The argument might be pushed as far as saying that the resources they have devoted to the fight against piracy would otherwise have gone to making movies and employing people.
Again, this debate is pretty academic because I completely agree that piracy is not hurting movie sales in either a significant or demonstrable way. But everyone should know that if they're in a business where stealing is a legitimate and/or uncombatable threat, then investment will certainly dwindle and flow to other, likely profitable places.
Again, you're incorrect. For example, when Disney bought Miramax, it did so, putting its money behind Harvey Weinstein et al., with certain profit expectations. Had those expectations been lower (for example, due to en estimated strong negative impact of piracy), Disney may have built a new theme park, or expanded its international investment in merchandising, or even paid a dividend so that investors could take their money to a more profitable venue than the entertainment industry. Miramax, without Disney's power behind it, would have had to stick to one or two movies a year rather than many.
Just one example of how investment would dwindle and jobs would be lost if it were percieved by investors that piracy was a serious threat to profitability.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear--future investors who think that revenues will be eaten up by piracy may take their investments elsewhere, reducing the FUTURE flow of jobs to cast and crew. Again, the entire thing is obvious bullshit, but the OP's post ignored the logic undermined only by flawed assumptions, not by flawed progression.
Uhhh, okay, that's pretty poor logic. The actual logic goes like this: Can I get a return out of this movie? How much of a return can I get? I require X%, so I'll suffer costs equal to 85% of total revenues.
OR
Oh, I can't get a return... Well, I guess I'm not going to be investing and therefore not employing stuntmen or painters. Sorry, guys.
Now, do I personally believe that movies need to be made on the scale that they are these days? Fuck no. But it is true that fewer stuntmen will be employed if the percieved return of investing in a movie is reduced. I don't give a shit for the stuntmen's plea, but if you are one of those who do, then don't do things which would reduce the percieved return on investment.
You're exactly right. All these people talking about security don't get it. There was no user base for passport, so sites aren't going to bother with it, and if sites don't require it people are never going to sign up. It's one more thing to remember when you have to use your credit card for other sites anyway. It's not that people cared a lot about security--they just didn't care at all about that sort of thing. MS may have underdedicated resources to marketing it, or tried to charge too much for it, making adoption seem completely unadvantageous.
Okay, you're probably not serious and I'm probably being way TOO serious, but let's correct the fallacy here: spending an hour on the internet does not completely alleviate the desire to spend time with friends and family, so if you go work on the net for an hour, you'll maybe spend a chunk of another hour when you would have been working solitarily or sleeping instead doing the things mentioned in the study.
I also question the premise that watching TV is socializing. It's a passive activity and most people have the bare minimum of conversation or interaction while watching. When I was in high school, my mother would always demand that I get off my computer and spend time with the family, expressly considering TV to be "family time." Bullshit. I was interacting with people on boards and through e-mail and the rare blog back in the day, and my interactivity (not to mention intellectual exercise) stopped utterly when I had to go sit on the couch.
I think you misinterpret the private sector's involvement in the project. To me it looks like (based off info in the state page linked in the main post) it will a state asset financed by largely by private sector involvement. Specifically: bonds both directly linked to toll and other revenue streams and non-backed; tolls operated by private companies, rest areas and other commercial areas operated by private companies (probably with rent payments linked to more bonds), etc. Obviously, the state will also contract out construction and planning to the private sector, as is usual.
Two great apartments, an excellent road bike for $55, and a part-time gig writing, all on Craiglist: Boston and for very minimal effort. You have to sort through some crap, but it's well worth it.
Well, to be technically correct about it, the guy doesn't face one count of whatever it is they're charging him with. If he did, it would certainly be less. Similarly, if he faced thousands and thousands of counts of 2nd degree murder, he'd probably have a much larger maximum penalty than 15 years.
Re:"no one has..survived a landing without a chute
on
Closer to Human Flight
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I remember reading about all those people in my Second-Edition Dungeon Master's Guide! Wow, what a nerd I am!
Care to name a society where this is not the case? Or is it just theoretical? Are you an anarchist (or in some other way against rule of law)? No presumptions or offense intended, just curious.
First off, I'm not the slightest bit anonymous. Information about me is advertised readily in my various online profiles. Second, stop posting as an AC and I will give you a very detailed breakdown demonstrating why your sources and analysis are flawed.
People can check out my supplemental arguments to the idiotic article posted the other day here: http://www.jackphelps.net/archives/2004/12/ worst_a rticle_e.shtml
or here: Games are bigger than movies
Matthew Yi doesn't say what he's comparing the $10b figure to. My guess is that it's the oft-quoted ~$9.6b domestic box offices revenue figure. Both figures are domestic, but he is leaving out the important $21b home video market and the aftermarket licensing market (pay-per-view, public performance, etc.). I don't know the exact size of the latter, but according to ABN Amro in 2000 it was roughly 28% of the total dollars (probably about $8b domestic then, but my guess is that it's dropped off some). Hollywood produces a lot of porn, too. You want to throw that $8b in there, Yi?
How do you play your games and movies?
The $10b figure includes hardware. Consoles. Do I need to say that again? The $21b domestic video market requires dedicated players, too, and Yi ignored those in his analysis. Probably the most relevent statistic Yi could have used for the domestic games market, then, is the ~$7.15b 2003 North American games software sales stat from Push Research.
What the hell is Hollywood?
Okay, I understand that the guy is talking about movies, but he never even says that. He says "Hollywood" again and again. Even if he were using the abovementioned $9.6b gross domestic box office reciepts figure, he's wrong to call it "hollywood," because that figure includes a number of movies (albeit small) not produced at all by Hollywood, and does not include Hollywood's exported box office reciepts. That's akin to some sick hybrid between GDP and GNP where you count only good produced in the US and by US companies, and it tells you nothing and reeks of stupid journalist.
The month of November
Yi cites November as a killer month he considers demonstrative of the growth in games, and my personal opinion is that this is equally rotten analysis. November included the release of Halo 2, Metroid Prime 2, Halflife 2, a peripheral sales boom from the October 26th GTA: San Andreas release, and probably the 200,000 Nintendo DS units sold in the first week of release. What that means is that there has never been a month in gaming equivalent to that month, and there probably won't be in all of 2005 unless you count console releases, which again are hardly a relevent comparison.
Because with non-print publications there is some non-zero chance that they will see a pair of breasts or get to blow something up, even if just briefly.
You are insane. Taiwan is not China, and Taiwanese programmers would probably not be sending code to beijing. Your sources are flawed and you are a troll.
The further reason cars are a bad example is because all the asian car companies operated under heavy gov't subsidy (specifically, usually a high tariff on imports) until they reached enough of a critical mass to be self-supporting, at which point they began competing in the global market without barriers.
I know! This reporter is an unbelievable idiot. It's crazy. Completely ignores the international market, home video market, aftermarket licensing market, etc. Then there's the fact that comparisons between the opening weekend/day sales of movies and games is irrelevent, because only so many people can possibly fit in the nation's theatres to see a given movie, plus there's the perception by some (not those on/. I'm sure) that it's not worth the trouble of seeing a movie on opening weekend because of the crowds, it's not worth going to the theatres period because of the rental market, etc. These are things the videogame industry doesn't have to contend with.
Slashdot Mirror
Get personal with your employees and think of crazy, personalized incentives to keep them going. Do work with them, and ask them for input and feedback as you give the same to them. Solicit suggestions for and hold discussions about process improvements. Don't forget the tiny things that need your attention as much as the big things--keeping on top of those helps you be prepared when the big things come along. Teach your employees how to do something new rather than just do it yourself--it'll strengthen your team and reduce the burden on you.
Good luck!
It's all downhill after the perfection that was 'Ice Hockey' for the NES. Fat, skinny, or medium players. Who needs pro names and attributes?
Bullshit. Anyone can make a baseball videogame. It's rights to the use of MLB trademarks, logos, and other intellectual properties that have been auctioned here.
Here's how to do it: first, drop a LOT of acid
Christ, the least you could do is blow the poor bastard's head off for us all...
Oh come on--there can be multiple factors impacting the fate of stuntmen and painters. Look--if you look at the history of this discussion I have been saying all along that it's purely academic because I agree that piracy is not a legitimate concern. That's not even the point we were originally arguing. But how can you insist that only one factor is necessarily affecting their employment? Christ that's a dumb argument.
Well, you can look at who the production companies are. Universal, Disney, Warner; they all have other projects they can engage in, and if not they may choose to pay a higher dividend. The argument might be pushed as far as saying that the resources they have devoted to the fight against piracy would otherwise have gone to making movies and employing people.
Again, this debate is pretty academic because I completely agree that piracy is not hurting movie sales in either a significant or demonstrable way. But everyone should know that if they're in a business where stealing is a legitimate and/or uncombatable threat, then investment will certainly dwindle and flow to other, likely profitable places.
Again, you're incorrect. For example, when Disney bought Miramax, it did so, putting its money behind Harvey Weinstein et al., with certain profit expectations. Had those expectations been lower (for example, due to en estimated strong negative impact of piracy), Disney may have built a new theme park, or expanded its international investment in merchandising, or even paid a dividend so that investors could take their money to a more profitable venue than the entertainment industry. Miramax, without Disney's power behind it, would have had to stick to one or two movies a year rather than many.
Just one example of how investment would dwindle and jobs would be lost if it were percieved by investors that piracy was a serious threat to profitability.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear--future investors who think that revenues will be eaten up by piracy may take their investments elsewhere, reducing the FUTURE flow of jobs to cast and crew. Again, the entire thing is obvious bullshit, but the OP's post ignored the logic undermined only by flawed assumptions, not by flawed progression.
Uhhh, okay, that's pretty poor logic. The actual logic goes like this: Can I get a return out of this movie? How much of a return can I get? I require X%, so I'll suffer costs equal to 85% of total revenues.
OR
Oh, I can't get a return... Well, I guess I'm not going to be investing and therefore not employing stuntmen or painters. Sorry, guys.
Now, do I personally believe that movies need to be made on the scale that they are these days? Fuck no. But it is true that fewer stuntmen will be employed if the percieved return of investing in a movie is reduced. I don't give a shit for the stuntmen's plea, but if you are one of those who do, then don't do things which would reduce the percieved return on investment.
You're exactly right. All these people talking about security don't get it. There was no user base for passport, so sites aren't going to bother with it, and if sites don't require it people are never going to sign up. It's one more thing to remember when you have to use your credit card for other sites anyway. It's not that people cared a lot about security--they just didn't care at all about that sort of thing. MS may have underdedicated resources to marketing it, or tried to charge too much for it, making adoption seem completely unadvantageous.
Okay, you're probably not serious and I'm probably being way TOO serious, but let's correct the fallacy here: spending an hour on the internet does not completely alleviate the desire to spend time with friends and family, so if you go work on the net for an hour, you'll maybe spend a chunk of another hour when you would have been working solitarily or sleeping instead doing the things mentioned in the study.
I also question the premise that watching TV is socializing. It's a passive activity and most people have the bare minimum of conversation or interaction while watching. When I was in high school, my mother would always demand that I get off my computer and spend time with the family, expressly considering TV to be "family time." Bullshit. I was interacting with people on boards and through e-mail and the rare blog back in the day, and my interactivity (not to mention intellectual exercise) stopped utterly when I had to go sit on the couch.
I think you misinterpret the private sector's involvement in the project. To me it looks like (based off info in the state page linked in the main post) it will a state asset financed by largely by private sector involvement. Specifically: bonds both directly linked to toll and other revenue streams and non-backed; tolls operated by private companies, rest areas and other commercial areas operated by private companies (probably with rent payments linked to more bonds), etc. Obviously, the state will also contract out construction and planning to the private sector, as is usual.
Two great apartments, an excellent road bike for $55, and a part-time gig writing, all on Craiglist: Boston and for very minimal effort. You have to sort through some crap, but it's well worth it.
Well, to be technically correct about it, the guy doesn't face one count of whatever it is they're charging him with. If he did, it would certainly be less. Similarly, if he faced thousands and thousands of counts of 2nd degree murder, he'd probably have a much larger maximum penalty than 15 years.
I remember reading about all those people in my Second-Edition Dungeon Master's Guide! Wow, what a nerd I am!
Physical Property = Time + Effort + Materials + Equipment/Facilities Usage + Loss from Not Executing Better Alternative Uses of Resources
Intellectual Property = Time + Effort + Equipment/Facilities Usage + Loss from Not Executing Better Alternative Uses of Resources
Care to name a society where this is not the case? Or is it just theoretical? Are you an anarchist (or in some other way against rule of law)? No presumptions or offense intended, just curious.
First off, I'm not the slightest bit anonymous. Information about me is advertised readily in my various online profiles. Second, stop posting as an AC and I will give you a very detailed breakdown demonstrating why your sources and analysis are flawed.
People can check out my supplemental arguments to the idiotic article posted the other day here:/ worst_a rticle_e.shtml
http://www.jackphelps.net/archives/2004/12
or here:
Games are bigger than movies
Matthew Yi doesn't say what he's comparing the $10b figure to. My guess is that it's the oft-quoted ~$9.6b domestic box offices revenue figure. Both figures are domestic, but he is leaving out the important $21b home video market and the aftermarket licensing market (pay-per-view, public performance, etc.). I don't know the exact size of the latter, but according to ABN Amro in 2000 it was roughly 28% of the total dollars (probably about $8b domestic then, but my guess is that it's dropped off some). Hollywood produces a lot of porn, too. You want to throw that $8b in there, Yi?
How do you play your games and movies?
The $10b figure includes hardware. Consoles. Do I need to say that again? The $21b domestic video market requires dedicated players, too, and Yi ignored those in his analysis. Probably the most relevent statistic Yi could have used for the domestic games market, then, is the ~$7.15b 2003 North American games software sales stat from Push Research.
What the hell is Hollywood?
Okay, I understand that the guy is talking about movies, but he never even says that. He says "Hollywood" again and again. Even if he were using the abovementioned $9.6b gross domestic box office reciepts figure, he's wrong to call it "hollywood," because that figure includes a number of movies (albeit small) not produced at all by Hollywood, and does not include Hollywood's exported box office reciepts. That's akin to some sick hybrid between GDP and GNP where you count only good produced in the US and by US companies, and it tells you nothing and reeks of stupid journalist.
The month of November
Yi cites November as a killer month he considers demonstrative of the growth in games, and my personal opinion is that this is equally rotten analysis. November included the release of Halo 2, Metroid Prime 2, Halflife 2, a peripheral sales boom from the October 26th GTA: San Andreas release, and probably the 200,000 Nintendo DS units sold in the first week of release. What that means is that there has never been a month in gaming equivalent to that month, and there probably won't be in all of 2005 unless you count console releases, which again are hardly a relevent comparison.
Because with non-print publications there is some non-zero chance that they will see a pair of breasts or get to blow something up, even if just briefly.
You are insane. Taiwan is not China, and Taiwanese programmers would probably not be sending code to beijing. Your sources are flawed and you are a troll.
The further reason cars are a bad example is because all the asian car companies operated under heavy gov't subsidy (specifically, usually a high tariff on imports) until they reached enough of a critical mass to be self-supporting, at which point they began competing in the global market without barriers.
:)
Just some knowledge
I know! This reporter is an unbelievable idiot. It's crazy. Completely ignores the international market, home video market, aftermarket licensing market, etc. Then there's the fact that comparisons between the opening weekend/day sales of movies and games is irrelevent, because only so many people can possibly fit in the nation's theatres to see a given movie, plus there's the perception by some (not those on /. I'm sure) that it's not worth the trouble of seeing a movie on opening weekend because of the crowds, it's not worth going to the theatres period because of the rental market, etc. These are things the videogame industry doesn't have to contend with.
Overall, a terrible article.