Gaming of a poorly deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.
FTFY. The way California went from regulation to de-regulation was pretty stupid.
First they had price caps, removing any incentive to conserve energy. (Different situation than internet here where there is a fairly linear cost to produce the product.)
Second, they released the caps on wholesale prices first, but not retail prices. So you had end users with no incentive to conserve being fed by producers who had no incentive to lower prices because the end users were gobbling up as much as they could get at capped prices. The middlemen distributors, were, well, trapped in the middle.
When things came to a head? Brownouts.
Sure, Enron manipulated the system and were a bunch of assholes. California's regulations created the system for them to manipulate.
The car is climbing over the plate before it drops (or out of a slight dip after it does). This requires a little extra gas and therefore it's coming out of the customer's pocket.
I mean if this is "free" energy, why not pave the streets with them?
Either way, I think sales show that Nintendo certainly picked up on a good percentage of people who wished advancement in a different field, other than pure horsepower.
And console utilization and third party sales show they disappointed them.
We've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades.
Exactly. And it has worked. I don't see the President bailing out Dreamworks.
Now, a show of hands: how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch? How many of you saw Superbad? Which one did you like better?
And which of those films earned more? Answer: Valkyrie, at $200M to Superbad's $170M. This isn't to diminish the success of Superbad or mediocrity of Cruise, but to simply point out studios will go where the money is, and high-budget Cruise films are a consistent money earner, whereas $20M Superbads are very hit and miss.
Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us?
Because they have done so consistently in the past.
Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?
I think they would rather spend less and charge less than the alternative. Much less risk that way.
100 million to produce a video game... They really believe all their customers are morons.
No. They believe that the game will earn around a billion dollars.
A major commercial and critical success, Grand Theft Auto IV broke industry records with sales of around 3.6 million units on its first day of release and grossing more than $500 million in revenue in the first week, from an estimated 6 million units sold worldwide.[22][23] As of 11 March 2009, the game has sold over 13 million copies.[24] Grand Theft Auto IV received overwhelmingly positive reviews, becoming one of the highest-rated games of all-time on aggregated review websites such as MobyGames and TopTenReviews.[25][26]
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.
And this is what I want, though the "predictable storyline" thing is of course entirely up to the designer.
But tell me, how exactly did we "break out of the storyline" on Pac Man, Super Mario Brothers and Contra?
The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.
Wow! I game 4-5 nights a week and simply can't keep up since the middle of last year. Dead Space, Call of Duty, Resistance 2, Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, Fallout 3, MLB09, NBA 2K9, GTA IV. I just got to Uncharted last year and am really looking forward to the sequel.
Now maybe you don't like shooting or monsters or sports but there's stuff like LittleBigPlanet and flOw and all the PSN network stuff that isn't so hardcore.
I have disagreed with those programs for years. To date, nobody has called me "racist" or assumed my opposition to giving people a bonus for having kids stemmed from a dislike of immigrants.
On the contrary, it was perfectly reasonable (and likely) to assume that it was a typical format-war-fanboyism comment.
And my assessment of the original post was somehow less reasonable to assume it was a fanboy comment?
Really, you are painting yourself into a corner here. The post I replied to was far more vitriolic than mine, and your response to me was also far more vitriolic.
I can't think of a single way for a government to punish having kids that wouldn't be borderline totalitarian. Forget "racist" - "tyrannical" springs to mind. Better to let cultural assimilation do what it has always done, and assume they'll be at the average birthrate in a generation or so.
What you're missing is that we currently pay people to have children. In our modern society, removing a benefit is considered punishment.
Since immigrants tend to have more children... well, you can do the math.
We've been putting off nuclear energy for thirty years now. The chickens continue to come home to roost as our costs rise and our options dwindle. As my new President is fond of saying, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The problem is that if you use fiscal measures to "encourage" having fewer children you are, by definition "punishing" those who have more. At the very least you are questioning the wisdom of having so many children.
Immigrants typically have more children. Since questioning anything that is typical of immigrants is racist, much less actually punishing, this topic is verboten.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I figured that out after I read more of the comments. Makes sense now.
Gaming of a poorly deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.
FTFY. The way California went from regulation to de-regulation was pretty stupid.
First they had price caps, removing any incentive to conserve energy. (Different situation than internet here where there is a fairly linear cost to produce the product.)
Second, they released the caps on wholesale prices first, but not retail prices. So you had end users with no incentive to conserve being fed by producers who had no incentive to lower prices because the end users were gobbling up as much as they could get at capped prices. The middlemen distributors, were, well, trapped in the middle.
When things came to a head? Brownouts.
Sure, Enron manipulated the system and were a bunch of assholes. California's regulations created the system for them to manipulate.
The car is climbing over the plate before it drops (or out of a slight dip after it does). This requires a little extra gas and therefore it's coming out of the customer's pocket.
I mean if this is "free" energy, why not pave the streets with them?
So I guess this is what happens when you cross the streams...
Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome...
I was climbing the mountain and then it became three thousand feet higher!
Having fun: The methodical way.
It's not polite to point out the differently-humored.
"Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?"
"No honey, it's the fat that makes your ass look fat."
You want to warp time? Spend a weekend at my in-laws.
Guaranteed it takes a month.
Either way, I think sales show that Nintendo certainly picked up on a good percentage of people who wished advancement in a different field, other than pure horsepower.
And console utilization and third party sales show they disappointed them.
We've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades.
Exactly. And it has worked. I don't see the President bailing out Dreamworks.
Now, a show of hands: how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch? How many of you saw Superbad? Which one did you like better?
And which of those films earned more? Answer: Valkyrie, at $200M to Superbad's $170M. This isn't to diminish the success of Superbad or mediocrity of Cruise, but to simply point out studios will go where the money is, and high-budget Cruise films are a consistent money earner, whereas $20M Superbads are very hit and miss.
Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us?
Because they have done so consistently in the past.
Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?
I think they would rather spend less and charge less than the alternative. Much less risk that way.
100 million to produce a video game... They really believe all their customers are morons.
No. They believe that the game will earn around a billion dollars.
A major commercial and critical success, Grand Theft Auto IV broke industry records with sales of around 3.6 million units on its first day of release and grossing more than $500 million in revenue in the first week, from an estimated 6 million units sold worldwide.[22][23] As of 11 March 2009, the game has sold over 13 million copies.[24] Grand Theft Auto IV received overwhelmingly positive reviews, becoming one of the highest-rated games of all-time on aggregated review websites such as MobyGames and TopTenReviews.[25][26]
If you measure games being bought, then the Wii isn't popular either.
Wii games are regularly in the top five and top ten lists.
The problem for third parties such as Ubisoft is that those games are always from Nintendo themselves.
When third parties think about sales, they look to PC/PS3/360.
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.
And this is what I want, though the "predictable storyline" thing is of course entirely up to the designer.
But tell me, how exactly did we "break out of the storyline" on Pac Man, Super Mario Brothers and Contra?
No, glitches don't count.
The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.
Wow! I game 4-5 nights a week and simply can't keep up since the middle of last year. Dead Space, Call of Duty, Resistance 2, Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, Fallout 3, MLB09, NBA 2K9, GTA IV. I just got to Uncharted last year and am really looking forward to the sequel.
Now maybe you don't like shooting or monsters or sports but there's stuff like LittleBigPlanet and flOw and all the PSN network stuff that isn't so hardcore.
Microsoft is still selling Xbox systems as a loss, but do you know why the keep doing it? Two reasons: mind share and software sales.
Three reasons actually: mind share, software sales, and they can't produce reliable hardware.
I have disagreed with those programs for years. To date, nobody has called me "racist" or assumed my opposition to giving people a bonus for having kids stemmed from a dislike of immigrants.
I'm guessing you don't live in California.
Blu-Ray == fail. Anybody who buys Blu-Ray media will go the way of the schmucks who blew thousands of dollars on Laserdiscs.
... isn't fanboy-ish. But a refuting link and this:
So.... how's that HD-DVD player working out for you?
... is an over the top fanboy response.
You're right, you're not a fanboy. You're just plain nuts.
Enjoy your life. I'm full up on crazy.
If thirty years isn't so long then let's do nothing for another three decades and see where we are...
All my friends are in their 30s with small children so everyone must be in their 30s with small children.
Any information to the contrary, such as professionally compiled demographics, is therefore obviously incorrect.
On the contrary, it was perfectly reasonable (and likely) to assume that it was a typical format-war-fanboyism comment.
And my assessment of the original post was somehow less reasonable to assume it was a fanboy comment?
Really, you are painting yourself into a corner here. The post I replied to was far more vitriolic than mine, and your response to me was also far more vitriolic.
I can't think of a single way for a government to punish having kids that wouldn't be borderline totalitarian. Forget "racist" - "tyrannical" springs to mind. Better to let cultural assimilation do what it has always done, and assume they'll be at the average birthrate in a generation or so.
What you're missing is that we currently pay people to have children. In our modern society, removing a benefit is considered punishment.
Since immigrants tend to have more children... well, you can do the math.
We've been putting off nuclear energy for thirty years now. The chickens continue to come home to roost as our costs rise and our options dwindle. As my new President is fond of saying, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The problem is that if you use fiscal measures to "encourage" having fewer children you are, by definition "punishing" those who have more. At the very least you are questioning the wisdom of having so many children.
Immigrants typically have more children. Since questioning anything that is typical of immigrants is racist, much less actually punishing, this topic is verboten.
Fanboys assume that any form of criticism is an attack driven by the same stupid partisan, blinkered mentality that they have...
It was a joke. The irony in the above sentence is astounding.
why has it outsold the PS3 and Xbox360 combined several times over?
The Wii has just recently surpassed one time.