The REAL question that Slashdot ought to be concerned with is, Does the number of people having problems with Firefox 1.0 appear to be statistically significant?
That's exactly what the story is asking. But instead of answering it - all I see are people flaming this poor guy. Tell me where does he ever ask for "tech support"?
A n00b with skill should be able to kill the most jacked out person in the game.
What about people that have no skill? If they played an FPS or RTS they would lose continually and repeatedly. Obviously there is a market for this type of game (MMORPG). As much as you or I may dislike it, perhaps there are people that enjoy playing a game that does not require skill. Popping bubble wrap can be fun - and that doesn't require much skill.
This is wrong.
Who's to say what's right and wrong? If people enjoy it enough to pay money for it, then the developers must be doing something right.
MMORPG is a bad example anyway. If you don't have much time to play games and you choose to play an MMORPG, then it is your own choice. It's like not being able to eat spicy food, but going into a restaurant and ordering the spiciest thing on the menu.
Putting time and effort into something doesnt necessarily give it value. If I happen to find a lump of gold in my garden tomorrow morning - that requires no effort, but is surely more valuable than me investing hours into some game to buy some "weapons".
But that's not to say these items arent without economic value. Don't forget what economics is all about: supply and demand. If the demand is there, how could it NOT have value?
I think everyone realises pretty quickly when they use "literally" incorrectly.
The problem with "irony" is that it is so much more difficult to pick...hence the article. Sometimes it really is hard to tell whether something is ironic.
Why is it that so many people fail to grasp even the most fundamental basics of supply and demand?
In a competitive market, prices will always be pushed towards an equilibrium price.
Think about it. If you charge too much, you won't sell enough copies to make up for the increased profit per item sold. On the otherhand, if you charge too little the extra copies you sell won't make up for the lower profit margin.
It's all to do with price elasticity. How much does a change in price affect the change in demand? By how much will it decrease if i increase prices? By how much will it increase if I decrease prices?
Obviously in this case, prices are very elastic because of people's expectations. Everyone "expects" to pay a certain price for their games.
There is always an optimal price that maximises profits and any company that fails to realise this is in trouble. It might not make such a big difference for a small games developer, but large corporations would never ignore this.
Before anyone points out loss of profit from discounted prices, if more people acutally BUY these things at a discount instead of grabbing them off Kazza, these companies would make the same money that they do today.
That is ridiculous.
Do you have any idea how much time and effort these multi-million dollar companies spend on pricing their products? You think they just randomly pluck a number from the air?
They choose a price to maximise profits. They're not stupid...just immoral.
As soon as computers can pass the Turing Test, it'll be considered laughable that anyone ever thought it required *intelligence* to chat with a human. In a sense, this has already happened. Quite a few people were convinced by Eliza - but you can tell from just looking at the code that it's not intelligent.
Yes, obviously that is why it did not pass the test. It is not even close to intelligent.
We are not talking about momentarily fooling some of the people some of the time.
Passing the Turing test will never be considered "laughable". It is truly an ingenious qualification for intelligence.
If you truly had an intelligent computer it would be able to pass this test. It is a test...not a definition.
That is why people don't like the idea of this award. The goal of AI is not to create some lame chat-bot. But this is the best indicator for when we do achieve true AI.
Chess playing computers were never a sign of artifical intelligence. No limited game could ever be a true test.
AI is a scary concept and, personally, i am glad that it is still a long way away. The day computers become intelligent is the day they take over the world and enslave us all.
Slashdot Mirror
The REAL question that Slashdot ought to be concerned with is, Does the number of people having problems with Firefox 1.0 appear to be statistically significant?
That's exactly what the story is asking. But instead of answering it - all I see are people flaming this poor guy. Tell me where does he ever ask for "tech support"?
A n00b with skill should be able to kill the most jacked out person in the game.
What about people that have no skill? If they played an FPS or RTS they would lose continually and repeatedly. Obviously there is a market for this type of game (MMORPG). As much as you or I may dislike it, perhaps there are people that enjoy playing a game that does not require skill. Popping bubble wrap can be fun - and that doesn't require much skill.
This is wrong.
Who's to say what's right and wrong? If people enjoy it enough to pay money for it, then the developers must be doing something right.
MMORPG is a bad example anyway. If you don't have much time to play games and you choose to play an MMORPG, then it is your own choice. It's like not being able to eat spicy food, but going into a restaurant and ordering the spiciest thing on the menu.
Putting time and effort into something doesnt necessarily give it value. If I happen to find a lump of gold in my garden tomorrow morning - that requires no effort, but is surely more valuable than me investing hours into some game to buy some "weapons".
But that's not to say these items arent without economic value. Don't forget what economics is all about: supply and demand. If the demand is there, how could it NOT have value?
I think everyone realises pretty quickly when they use "literally" incorrectly.
The problem with "irony" is that it is so much more difficult to pick...hence the article. Sometimes it really is hard to tell whether something is ironic.
It's a sad world we live in.
So £5 maximises profits? You don't think they`d do better at £8?
I have no idea what your point is.
I admit I've never heard of this label, but if that's what they have chosen to charge then they must have some reason for doing so.
What makes you think they'd do better at £8? Am I missing something? You make it sound like it should be obvious.
Why is it that so many people fail to grasp even the most fundamental basics of supply and demand?
In a competitive market, prices will always be pushed towards an equilibrium price.
Think about it. If you charge too much, you won't sell enough copies to make up for the increased profit per item sold. On the otherhand, if you charge too little the extra copies you sell won't make up for the lower profit margin.
It's all to do with price elasticity. How much does a change in price affect the change in demand? By how much will it decrease if i increase prices? By how much will it increase if I decrease prices?
Obviously in this case, prices are very elastic because of people's expectations. Everyone "expects" to pay a certain price for their games.
There is always an optimal price that maximises profits and any company that fails to realise this is in trouble. It might not make such a big difference for a small games developer, but large corporations would never ignore this.
Before anyone points out loss of profit from discounted prices, if more people acutally BUY these things at a discount instead of grabbing them off Kazza, these companies would make the same money that they do today.
That is ridiculous.
Do you have any idea how much time and effort these multi-million dollar companies spend on pricing their products? You think they just randomly pluck a number from the air?
They choose a price to maximise profits. They're not stupid...just immoral.
Does it matter?
What if he did register all his software? Would you turn around and go "Hey that's ok then, say whatever you want"?
It's all irrelevant considering how ridiculous his comments were.
it sounds like most of you people are living in a dream world...
why would we want to build a space elevator in the first place? let alone making it "priority 1"
with that amount of money you could possibly solve world hunger...
even the idea itself sounds primitive...like the tower of babel in the bible
this wont get you to other planets and galaxies anyway..why not work on real space craft or even teleportation while you're at it?
just because something is "feasible" doesnt mean u should do it...
if you need a computer to tell you that a song is good...
well...i can tell you right now the song isnt going to be a hit
As soon as computers can pass the Turing Test, it'll be considered laughable that anyone ever thought it required *intelligence* to chat with a human. In a sense, this has already happened. Quite a few people were convinced by Eliza - but you can tell from just looking at the code that it's not intelligent.
Yes, obviously that is why it did not pass the test. It is not even close to intelligent.
We are not talking about momentarily fooling some of the people some of the time.
Passing the Turing test will never be considered "laughable". It is truly an ingenious qualification for intelligence.
If you truly had an intelligent computer it would be able to pass this test. It is a test...not a definition.
That is why people don't like the idea of this award. The goal of AI is not to create some lame chat-bot. But this is the best indicator for when we do achieve true AI.
Chess playing computers were never a sign of artifical intelligence. No limited game could ever be a true test.
AI is a scary concept and, personally, i am glad that it is still a long way away. The day computers become intelligent is the day they take over the world and enslave us all.
Havent any of you seen the matrix??