Yet most end game progression in PvE also occurs on PvP servers. The first move many end game guilds made when PvE--->PvP transfers were allowed was to move to PvP servers. Beyond that, there was a huge call for RP-PvP servers, enough that Blizzard created that 4th server type. I'm not sure what this proves, if anything, but I do know from experience that realms with a strong end game progression tend to have more active, and more healthy, communities overall.
While the Straight Edge movement has calmed down considerably, for quite a while there were militant aspects of it that were extremely violent. Much of this occurred in Utah, where the movement was very popular among Mormon youth. It's not surprising that there would be a strong backlash in a community against a violent movement that very often looked and acted like a hardcore gang in its actions. Now, that's not to say that the decision was RIGHT, but it gives it a bit more perspective.
This is only true because much of the licensing for h.264 has been free up to this point. There was a post here a bit ago about Mozilla not putting support for h.264 in due to not only the impending application of licensing fees to encoders and decoders... but also the very real possibility of licensing fees on ANY CONTENT that is produced in h.264. In a situation like that, it doesn't matter that many sites run use h.264. Sites like youtube will almost certainly move away from it as fast as possible, since either they support a codec that most of their users will drop them because of (who's going to pay to upload videos to youtube? Usage would drop immediately, and they wouldn't even be getting any of the money.), or they get to pay the content licensing for all the videos that get published on the site... another proposition that leads to a huge monetary loss. When you consider that, h.264 immensely less attractive. We'll see how it turns out, obviously, but if MPEG-LA charges the types of licensing they've been talking about, then the codec will die very very quickly.
This sounds a lot like an extension of Alice (http://www.alice.org/). The idea is that you learn to program by writing stories/scripts (in the movie sense, not the IT sense) with the various objects of the language. It sounds like they would like to extend beyond that, but in terms of rudimentary learning, Alice is great, and its a much softer introduction to thinking algorithmically/learning to program than something like C or C++ or Java right off the bat.
However, you run into a clear problem with showing damages from that sharing. The sharer is not making a profit (which is what the anti-piracy laws were made for: large scale, for-profit piracy operations), and it's very difficult to quantify how much the damages from the uploading are, since many of them are not lost sales, and some even result in gained sales. Beyond that, I don't think you could blame anyone for when OTHER people continue to upload what you uploaded, so only the copies that were directly downloaded from YOU are what you should be culpable for. Taking that into account, the damages are almost certainly still way out of whack. And don't even get started on 'making available.'
The fact of the matter is that even with the most outlandish metrics, the award is still unjust, and should be overturned. The laws in question were never meant to be used the way they are, and should never have been applied to a case like this, but I don't think we have laws on the books that really cover the current situation. IANAL, of course.
I'm curious what you propose he should have done instead. If his account is to be believed (this is in the summary, no less) they had already called the midwife to come back for the house, and the mothers contractions started again, and she gave birth. There doesn't seem to have been enough time to get to a hospital, or for a medical professional, who had already been summoned, to arrive. And how would you suggest he look up information on midwifery in a crunch? If you look at the wikihow article, it is very well written, and very clear. It is also clearly a guide for emergency birthing, not a preplanned operation, and it says so. With very little time, and needing important information, it's certainly an artical that I would think about using if I was in the same situation.
It's not just a question of how many, though. Who gets removed is just as important. You could probably remove tens of thousands of smaller sites, and the reaction would be negligible. However, if you remove large, popular sites, I could see as few as 5 or 10 having a huge impact on who people go to for search. Hell, even just removing Wikipedia would probably shift a decent sized chunk of people.
I personally have no interest in Murdoch's news sites and I would pay to have an index that excluded all of his publications. They are either sensationalist trash or blatantly biased news sources.
Exactly! Everyone here has been wrong so far. Microsoft KNOWS the move will fail, but they've decided that, in order to up their credibility with the rest of us, they'll take on for the team and FINALLY kill Murdoch off! Hopefully it doesn't backfire...
I'm really pulling this out of nowhere (no sources or anything, just what seems to make sense to me), but I would think that during times of severe recession/depression, the R&D areas of the economy would be one of the most vulnerable sectors. The problem is they primarily fall into two categories: Tax-funded/grant-funded institutions (Universities, mainly) and R&D either dependent on or connected to a corporation. There may be a lot of independent R&D shops out there that don't fit this picture, I don't know, but thinking about it more, I think even if there were, they would still be facing some of the same problems.
The big problems here are different for the two different R&D types that I listed: First, for tax-funded (and grant-funded) institutions, the tax base constricts during a recession, leading to less tax funds. Also, in a contracting economy, non-tax based grants (from private trusts/foundations) would also seem to be more likely to shrink in size/number, since many of the endowments that fund these grants would be constricting. In both cases, this leads to less funding being available for R&D then was available before, possibly by a very large margin.
These same problems of constricted budgets would almost certainly also be felt in corporate connected R&D situations, as businesses bear down and consolidate. While R&D is obviously vital to many of these businesses, in a contracting economy that same R&D is almost certain to be put on the back burner (and rightly so) with regards to protecting core areas instead. With that in mind, and R&D that may be continued is more likely to be much more practically focused, with long term projects, or those with more nebulous real world benefits being forced to either drastically cut funding, or stop research altogether. In both these scenarios, R&D funding flowing into scientific research would most probably be drastically reduced.
This leads me, of course, to the point of this discourse: Due to the probable constriction of R&D funding overall, maintaining the status quo, in and of itself, could go a very long way towards KEEP jobs and shops in tact. It may not create jobs, per say, but by keeping the constriction in the sector to a minimum, it would almost certainly allow for the RETENTION of jobs that otherwise would have been lost.
Like I said at the start, I really have nothing to back this up, its mainly just my thoughts on the matter, but it makes sense to me! (That's what all madmen say though...)
Well - first at all they could simply say they will be working on it hm?
And secondly - to assume they are not working on it is just as viable as assuming they are working on it. Without any feedback anything can be assumed. This is why a C&D letter is so harmfull...
That makes no sense whatsoever. A C&D letter is harmful because there's no other feedback? What the hell does that even mean? And how do you come up with the first part of your point 2? As pointed out above, the income from the site DEPENDS on this, so it makes zero sense for them to be doing NOTHING beyond sending a C&D, and vice versa. Your contention that assuming either makes just as much sense is utter BS.
As to your first point, most business are very secrative about potentially damaging things. I don't understand why it's surprising when MS acts just like every other large corporation in protecting itself.
I'm curious how 'anonymous reader' knows that Microsoft is doing nothing to fix the problem. This has been bugging me for a long time. Its possible that a workable solution could take some time to get implemented, and in that time, doesn't it make sense to send a C&D letter in the interim? Hell, doesn't it make sense to send the letter anyways, so you don't have all these assholes trying to break your system?
A C&D letter doesn't mean that other actions haven't been taken. Just a thought.
What you should do is create a dedicated lane that is controlled entirely by computer, and you program your exit/entry point at that time, and let the signal and control computers handle traffic management. If an unauthorized vehicle enters the lane, sensors will immediately detect it, alert nearby drivers (and disengage), and send the police to go catch captain speedy pants and send him to a pants-down facility. Computers also do a much better job of fuel consumption and control... I mean, it'd basically be a packet-switched network, but with cars instead of pieces of data. It's a relatively benign IT problem.
Yeah, but remember, packet collisions are an ingrained part of network management. Makes the idea a BIT more scary:P
While it might not be revolutionary (the Kindle DID do it first:P), it is certainly something I would be interested in. I would never buy/use an iPhone (ridiculously overpriced, and the way Apple handles apps pisses me off), and I'm not a big one for ebooks (I like to have something with pages, that smells like paper and glue:) ). However, I do like having a portable gaming system for long drives/flights, or just waiting around. One of the biggest problems I've had with the Nintendo systems is that you either have to carry around a ton of cartridges in order to play, or you have to be happy with one/two, and if you finish them or grow bored, you're SoL. The ability to DL a new game on the fly would make the purchase of this system a no-brainer for me... even if I only used it once every few months, I feel like I would be getting worthwhile value out of it.
The average person may think that $40,000 is a lot... but it's nothing in terms of operating budgets for even medium sized companies.
From the Darpa site, looking at their unclassified budget for 2010 ( http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/2010PBDARPAMay2009.pdf ) (That's a PDF, by the way, and also has numbers for 2009 and 2008), you can see that the budget easily runs into the billions of dollars.
For a comparison, forty thousand dollars is 0.004 PERCENT of one billion dollars. To someone with a salary of seventy five thousand dollars a year, the equivalent percentage would be 3 dollars. That's barely pocket change, and it assumes a budget much lower than the actual operating budget of DARPA. Taking this into consideration, that's pretty cheap. Especially if they're planning to study anything by doing this (and if you think they wont get SOMETHING useful out of this, then you're even denser than I am), that's a relative bargain. Even if they DON'T get anything worthwhile out of this contest, the publicity alone is probably worth it when you consider possible recruits that they attract because of increased interest.
Your claim that they are 'wasting taxpayer money' is pure FUD, and, to be honest, even if it wasn't, $40k isn't even a drop in the bucket of the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that was collected in taxes in 2008.
Everyone is saying that this is humor based... but I don't know. TFA says "they turned off the internet." That implies that someone knowingly "turned it off." Think about what a huge portion of our economy is based on the internet. How many jobs, and how much commerce, depends on the internet existing? That's a lot of jobs, and there have been huge riots over much smaller job losses than that. Add to that the fact that "they" are responsible for it, and you have someone to riot AGAINST, and I think there would be some pretty massive upheaval... and I don't think it would be very pretty when things calmed down. It would also probably take a lot longer than you would think it would TO settle down.
True... but rarely is not never. And its not hard to weaken your immune system. Not getting much sleep? Not eating healthy? Got the flu, or maybe just a cold? High stress levels? Bam, weakened immune system. And I know that personally one of the things that I generally do after a long day with little to no sleep or food, when I'm feeling bad... is take a shower.
Too add to this, they claim Vista is just a flat out flop, when it has far more market share ALONE than all Macs combined. So why is it a total flop when its still managed to out-share Mac systems that are considered a success? How do you define success/flop anyways? Now, the adoption rate may not have been as high as Microsoft was aiming for, so for them it may have been a flop... but did they lose money on it? Was is a commercial flop? Or was it just a projections flop? Just what I've been thinking. Maybe I've been missing something, I guess... if anyone could tell me what it is maybe it would make more sense.
I believe it has more to do with finishing the series than with extra cash... There are already 11 books in the series. Jordan said there would be one more (but there are actually going to be 3 more, not surprising with the amount of plot that needs to be wrapped up). I don't know of anyone that's read the series and liked it that would rather they left it undone, especially considering that Jordan left complete notes for the final part of the series, meaning that while the prose might not be entirely his, the plot is. (Yeah, yeah, nothing new under the sun, you can all shove it.)
I knew someone was going to fire back with the sports games. I will admit that their sports games are the best out there... but that's for two reasons. 1. Lack of competition. There just aren't other developers out there that are making the effort to turn out a first rate sports game any more. Every now and again someone will pop up, turn something out for a year or two, and then they're done. 2. Their sports games are very static. What I mean is that each release (especially in the last few years, when all of their competition has REALLY dried up) is basically just a slight touch up graphically, with new names, and sometimes new tracks of courses or whatever. This can be good, cause it means that the player base has a firm foundation to return to with every game, where everything is the same and they don't get scared away by change. On the other hand, it also shows an unwillingness on EA's part to take risks and innovate. On a whole though, the sports games have acquired a high level of polish because they've been able to act like this.
My comment though was mainly focused only at games that EA develops in house, as opposed to just publishing. The Sims falls into this category: It's developed by Maxis, and published by EA. The 'artical' is crap, but I was assuming that they were talking about games developed in house. Maybe thats a big step to assume? Anyways, while it is EA's job to market these games... given the huge size of modern game's budgets for development, I stand by my comment that I think most of the marketing dollars are probably not aimed the right way, and most of them are probably going down the tube rather than effectively getting the word out about the game. That may just be my personal interaction with their advertising machine, though.
That would certainly be a very good reason that EA doesn't seem to be able to turn out decent games, or turns out games that have little to no polish on them. It also puts into perspective the "rising cost of game production." Probably they are over-marketing it, or marketing it the wrong way and to the wrong people. I've always thought that their TV adds for a lot of games were really wide of the mark, and probably a poor investment.
Around Denver, Colorado, diesel in pumping stations was a rare sight even 3-4 years ago. However, in that time, the stations around here have almost all added diesel pumps. I think this, in and of itself, shows the rate at which diesel is growing in popularoty.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet most end game progression in PvE also occurs on PvP servers. The first move many end game guilds made when PvE--->PvP transfers were allowed was to move to PvP servers. Beyond that, there was a huge call for RP-PvP servers, enough that Blizzard created that 4th server type. I'm not sure what this proves, if anything, but I do know from experience that realms with a strong end game progression tend to have more active, and more healthy, communities overall.
While the Straight Edge movement has calmed down considerably, for quite a while there were militant aspects of it that were extremely violent. Much of this occurred in Utah, where the movement was very popular among Mormon youth. It's not surprising that there would be a strong backlash in a community against a violent movement that very often looked and acted like a hardcore gang in its actions. Now, that's not to say that the decision was RIGHT, but it gives it a bit more perspective.
This is only true because much of the licensing for h.264 has been free up to this point. There was a post here a bit ago about Mozilla not putting support for h.264 in due to not only the impending application of licensing fees to encoders and decoders... but also the very real possibility of licensing fees on ANY CONTENT that is produced in h.264. In a situation like that, it doesn't matter that many sites run use h.264. Sites like youtube will almost certainly move away from it as fast as possible, since either they support a codec that most of their users will drop them because of (who's going to pay to upload videos to youtube? Usage would drop immediately, and they wouldn't even be getting any of the money.), or they get to pay the content licensing for all the videos that get published on the site... another proposition that leads to a huge monetary loss. When you consider that, h.264 immensely less attractive. We'll see how it turns out, obviously, but if MPEG-LA charges the types of licensing they've been talking about, then the codec will die very very quickly.
This sounds a lot like an extension of Alice (http://www.alice.org/). The idea is that you learn to program by writing stories/scripts (in the movie sense, not the IT sense) with the various objects of the language. It sounds like they would like to extend beyond that, but in terms of rudimentary learning, Alice is great, and its a much softer introduction to thinking algorithmically/learning to program than something like C or C++ or Java right off the bat.
Wait, why does Evil have to be NEGATIVE?!
However, you run into a clear problem with showing damages from that sharing. The sharer is not making a profit (which is what the anti-piracy laws were made for: large scale, for-profit piracy operations), and it's very difficult to quantify how much the damages from the uploading are, since many of them are not lost sales, and some even result in gained sales. Beyond that, I don't think you could blame anyone for when OTHER people continue to upload what you uploaded, so only the copies that were directly downloaded from YOU are what you should be culpable for. Taking that into account, the damages are almost certainly still way out of whack. And don't even get started on 'making available.'
The fact of the matter is that even with the most outlandish metrics, the award is still unjust, and should be overturned. The laws in question were never meant to be used the way they are, and should never have been applied to a case like this, but I don't think we have laws on the books that really cover the current situation. IANAL, of course.
I'm curious what you propose he should have done instead. If his account is to be believed (this is in the summary, no less) they had already called the midwife to come back for the house, and the mothers contractions started again, and she gave birth. There doesn't seem to have been enough time to get to a hospital, or for a medical professional, who had already been summoned, to arrive. And how would you suggest he look up information on midwifery in a crunch? If you look at the wikihow article, it is very well written, and very clear. It is also clearly a guide for emergency birthing, not a preplanned operation, and it says so. With very little time, and needing important information, it's certainly an artical that I would think about using if I was in the same situation.
Wait, so it only works if we assume the cow is a perfect sphere?
It's not just a question of how many, though. Who gets removed is just as important. You could probably remove tens of thousands of smaller sites, and the reaction would be negligible. However, if you remove large, popular sites, I could see as few as 5 or 10 having a huge impact on who people go to for search. Hell, even just removing Wikipedia would probably shift a decent sized chunk of people.
I personally have no interest in Murdoch's news sites and I would pay to have an index that excluded all of his publications. They are either sensationalist trash or blatantly biased news sources.
Exactly! Everyone here has been wrong so far. Microsoft KNOWS the move will fail, but they've decided that, in order to up their credibility with the rest of us, they'll take on for the team and FINALLY kill Murdoch off! Hopefully it doesn't backfire...
I'm really pulling this out of nowhere (no sources or anything, just what seems to make sense to me), but I would think that during times of severe recession/depression, the R&D areas of the economy would be one of the most vulnerable sectors. The problem is they primarily fall into two categories: Tax-funded/grant-funded institutions (Universities, mainly) and R&D either dependent on or connected to a corporation. There may be a lot of independent R&D shops out there that don't fit this picture, I don't know, but thinking about it more, I think even if there were, they would still be facing some of the same problems.
The big problems here are different for the two different R&D types that I listed: First, for tax-funded (and grant-funded) institutions, the tax base constricts during a recession, leading to less tax funds. Also, in a contracting economy, non-tax based grants (from private trusts/foundations) would also seem to be more likely to shrink in size/number, since many of the endowments that fund these grants would be constricting. In both cases, this leads to less funding being available for R&D then was available before, possibly by a very large margin.
These same problems of constricted budgets would almost certainly also be felt in corporate connected R&D situations, as businesses bear down and consolidate. While R&D is obviously vital to many of these businesses, in a contracting economy that same R&D is almost certain to be put on the back burner (and rightly so) with regards to protecting core areas instead. With that in mind, and R&D that may be continued is more likely to be much more practically focused, with long term projects, or those with more nebulous real world benefits being forced to either drastically cut funding, or stop research altogether. In both these scenarios, R&D funding flowing into scientific research would most probably be drastically reduced.
This leads me, of course, to the point of this discourse: Due to the probable constriction of R&D funding overall, maintaining the status quo, in and of itself, could go a very long way towards KEEP jobs and shops in tact. It may not create jobs, per say, but by keeping the constriction in the sector to a minimum, it would almost certainly allow for the RETENTION of jobs that otherwise would have been lost.
Like I said at the start, I really have nothing to back this up, its mainly just my thoughts on the matter, but it makes sense to me! (That's what all madmen say though...)
Well - first at all they could simply say they will be working on it hm?
And secondly - to assume they are not working on it is just as viable as assuming they are working on it. Without any feedback anything can be assumed. This is why a C&D letter is so harmfull...
That makes no sense whatsoever. A C&D letter is harmful because there's no other feedback? What the hell does that even mean? And how do you come up with the first part of your point 2? As pointed out above, the income from the site DEPENDS on this, so it makes zero sense for them to be doing NOTHING beyond sending a C&D, and vice versa. Your contention that assuming either makes just as much sense is utter BS.
As to your first point, most business are very secrative about potentially damaging things. I don't understand why it's surprising when MS acts just like every other large corporation in protecting itself.
I'm curious how 'anonymous reader' knows that Microsoft is doing nothing to fix the problem. This has been bugging me for a long time. Its possible that a workable solution could take some time to get implemented, and in that time, doesn't it make sense to send a C&D letter in the interim? Hell, doesn't it make sense to send the letter anyways, so you don't have all these assholes trying to break your system? A C&D letter doesn't mean that other actions haven't been taken. Just a thought.
What you should do is create a dedicated lane that is controlled entirely by computer, and you program your exit/entry point at that time, and let the signal and control computers handle traffic management. If an unauthorized vehicle enters the lane, sensors will immediately detect it, alert nearby drivers (and disengage), and send the police to go catch captain speedy pants and send him to a pants-down facility. Computers also do a much better job of fuel consumption and control... I mean, it'd basically be a packet-switched network, but with cars instead of pieces of data. It's a relatively benign IT problem.
Yeah, but remember, packet collisions are an ingrained part of network management. Makes the idea a BIT more scary :P
While it might not be revolutionary (the Kindle DID do it first :P), it is certainly something I would be interested in. I would never buy/use an iPhone (ridiculously overpriced, and the way Apple handles apps pisses me off), and I'm not a big one for ebooks (I like to have something with pages, that smells like paper and glue :) ). However, I do like having a portable gaming system for long drives/flights, or just waiting around. One of the biggest problems I've had with the Nintendo systems is that you either have to carry around a ton of cartridges in order to play, or you have to be happy with one/two, and if you finish them or grow bored, you're SoL. The ability to DL a new game on the fly would make the purchase of this system a no-brainer for me... even if I only used it once every few months, I feel like I would be getting worthwhile value out of it.
The average person may think that $40,000 is a lot... but it's nothing in terms of operating budgets for even medium sized companies. From the Darpa site, looking at their unclassified budget for 2010 ( http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/2010PBDARPAMay2009.pdf ) (That's a PDF, by the way, and also has numbers for 2009 and 2008), you can see that the budget easily runs into the billions of dollars. For a comparison, forty thousand dollars is 0.004 PERCENT of one billion dollars. To someone with a salary of seventy five thousand dollars a year, the equivalent percentage would be 3 dollars. That's barely pocket change, and it assumes a budget much lower than the actual operating budget of DARPA. Taking this into consideration, that's pretty cheap. Especially if they're planning to study anything by doing this (and if you think they wont get SOMETHING useful out of this, then you're even denser than I am), that's a relative bargain. Even if they DON'T get anything worthwhile out of this contest, the publicity alone is probably worth it when you consider possible recruits that they attract because of increased interest. Your claim that they are 'wasting taxpayer money' is pure FUD, and, to be honest, even if it wasn't, $40k isn't even a drop in the bucket of the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that was collected in taxes in 2008.
Everyone is saying that this is humor based... but I don't know. TFA says "they turned off the internet." That implies that someone knowingly "turned it off." Think about what a huge portion of our economy is based on the internet. How many jobs, and how much commerce, depends on the internet existing? That's a lot of jobs, and there have been huge riots over much smaller job losses than that. Add to that the fact that "they" are responsible for it, and you have someone to riot AGAINST, and I think there would be some pretty massive upheaval... and I don't think it would be very pretty when things calmed down. It would also probably take a lot longer than you would think it would TO settle down.
Aaron Diaz has a perfect comic strip for this: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
True... but rarely is not never. And its not hard to weaken your immune system. Not getting much sleep? Not eating healthy? Got the flu, or maybe just a cold? High stress levels? Bam, weakened immune system. And I know that personally one of the things that I generally do after a long day with little to no sleep or food, when I'm feeling bad... is take a shower.
Too add to this, they claim Vista is just a flat out flop, when it has far more market share ALONE than all Macs combined. So why is it a total flop when its still managed to out-share Mac systems that are considered a success? How do you define success/flop anyways? Now, the adoption rate may not have been as high as Microsoft was aiming for, so for them it may have been a flop... but did they lose money on it? Was is a commercial flop? Or was it just a projections flop? Just what I've been thinking. Maybe I've been missing something, I guess... if anyone could tell me what it is maybe it would make more sense.
Here's Sanderson's post on why he split the book into 3 parts: http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/56/Splitting-AMOL
I believe it has more to do with finishing the series than with extra cash... There are already 11 books in the series. Jordan said there would be one more (but there are actually going to be 3 more, not surprising with the amount of plot that needs to be wrapped up). I don't know of anyone that's read the series and liked it that would rather they left it undone, especially considering that Jordan left complete notes for the final part of the series, meaning that while the prose might not be entirely his, the plot is. (Yeah, yeah, nothing new under the sun, you can all shove it.)
I knew someone was going to fire back with the sports games. I will admit that their sports games are the best out there... but that's for two reasons. 1. Lack of competition. There just aren't other developers out there that are making the effort to turn out a first rate sports game any more. Every now and again someone will pop up, turn something out for a year or two, and then they're done. 2. Their sports games are very static. What I mean is that each release (especially in the last few years, when all of their competition has REALLY dried up) is basically just a slight touch up graphically, with new names, and sometimes new tracks of courses or whatever. This can be good, cause it means that the player base has a firm foundation to return to with every game, where everything is the same and they don't get scared away by change. On the other hand, it also shows an unwillingness on EA's part to take risks and innovate. On a whole though, the sports games have acquired a high level of polish because they've been able to act like this. My comment though was mainly focused only at games that EA develops in house, as opposed to just publishing. The Sims falls into this category: It's developed by Maxis, and published by EA. The 'artical' is crap, but I was assuming that they were talking about games developed in house. Maybe thats a big step to assume? Anyways, while it is EA's job to market these games... given the huge size of modern game's budgets for development, I stand by my comment that I think most of the marketing dollars are probably not aimed the right way, and most of them are probably going down the tube rather than effectively getting the word out about the game. That may just be my personal interaction with their advertising machine, though.
That would certainly be a very good reason that EA doesn't seem to be able to turn out decent games, or turns out games that have little to no polish on them. It also puts into perspective the "rising cost of game production." Probably they are over-marketing it, or marketing it the wrong way and to the wrong people. I've always thought that their TV adds for a lot of games were really wide of the mark, and probably a poor investment.
Around Denver, Colorado, diesel in pumping stations was a rare sight even 3-4 years ago. However, in that time, the stations around here have almost all added diesel pumps. I think this, in and of itself, shows the rate at which diesel is growing in popularoty.