Now, I'm not even in America so my knowledge of US workers is based solely on Slashdot and The Onion, but even I can see that perhaps nationally agreed minimum contracts negotitated by unions for various professions like games programmers, etc., would help. The problem is unions, like almost any other body, looks after itself first. Extra clauses get included in the contract negotiations, things like: * Artificial Requirements - a union programmer must have a degree from a 4 year university with a 2 year apprenticeship, to limit the available workforce to artificially increase wages. * Artificial job titles - Only a person with 15 years of experience can be a senior programmer, to keep older union guys employed * Artificial Work Requirements - Any released product (no matter if it is an expansion pack, port, or an entirely new game) must have at least - 1 Sr. Level editor, 1 Sr. Artist, 1 Artist, 1 Sr. Game Designers, 1 Sr. Engine Developer, 2 Sr. Programmers, etc. to ensure continued employment of the union workers. Unions work to the benifit of their members, sometimes at the expense of the industry itself.
After all, the "e-" in "e-Scrabble" ain't for nothing! And the "Scrabble" in "e-scrabble" ain't for nothing, it's there to fraudulently associate his product with the board game Hasbro owns. If he named it e-tiles, or e-words, Hasbro wouldn't care, Yahoo has Literati a Scrabble knock-off.
It offers an unfalsifiable account So does string theory, but that is considered science If it was true, I'd expect to see a fossil layer populated equally and evenly with the same animals I see today There are unexplained issues with the fossil record with regards to evolution. It's good creationists bring in evidence and point out the flaws in evolutionary theory, because it forces us to address those gaps and come out with a more robust theory. Science relys on skepticism. What is wrong with letting other voice their opposing views? Ultimately the individual will have to weigh the evidence and form an opinion. I believe creationism is a symptom, not the problem. The fact that so many people believe it shows there are some important gaps that need to be addressed in evolutionary theory. Creationism just inserts God into those gaps. By having those issues identified, we can modify evolutionary theory to fill in those gaps, such that there is no room for God. I believe in evolution, but also think we should not be dismissive of differing views. Let the creationists bring out there evidence and accept the scrutiny of scientific review. It sends a more powerful message to present evolution and creationism side by side, and show the small list of problems for evolution, and the large list of problems with creationism.
Creationism is belief, it is faith, and the fact that you can't discern between you faith and fact worries me. I understand fact and faith. Fact is boring, fact has very little meaning, it is our interpretations of fact that is interesting, and what ultimately is science. If I drop a rock, the only true FACT is that i dropped a rock and it hit the ground, my interpretation of that fact is a belief, that it fell because of warpage in space-time created by massive object I am standing on. Science is a philosophy of measuring confidence. Some things we can be very sure of like gravity, others we are not so sure of like dark energy. Because that confidence can never reach 100% there is a level of faith involved (varying based on the level of confidence). There are different types of creationism, some that is pointless fundamentalism, some that makes interesting arguements where evolutionary theory has gaps. Fundamental religious creationism which most people think about, doesn't work because it is inflexible. There are however, theories that fall in the realm of creationism that have changed and developed to take into account new discoveries. Personally, I feel evolution is a more elegant solution to describing the current data set. However, I do see value in creationism as a means of pointing out holes in evolution, holes that we would not have seen without a skeptical eye. Moreover, by having the creationists bringing their ideas into the realm of science, they allow it to suffer through scientific scrutiny. The veil of blind faith is lifted as they enter the domain of science, and people will be able to question and see the holes of their theories. And the church denied the heliocentric theory for as long as they could, even in the face of specific verifiable evidence; the Catholic church still forced Galileo to recant his statements on threat of execution We also know that heliocentric theory itself is incorrect, because the sun isn't at the center of the universe, just our solar system. Just because creationism is incorrect, doesn't necessarily mean that evolution is correct. Newton's laws were elegant, straight forward, logical and ultimately imperfect. My problem with this subject is not that I don't believe in evolution (because I do), it's that people attack anything contrary to it with rightous indignation and "how dare you" attitude. The key to science is to be skeptical, to ask questions, and for theories to be tested and retested. If creationists want to put forward their interpretation of the data set, so be it. They can give me all their theories and supporting evidence, and ultimately I can make up my own mind.
IMAX theaters in science museums shouldn't show creationism, as it's not science. How can you just toss creationism out as "not science," By doing so you are as closed minded as the fundamentalists. The nature of science is for presentation of the facts and interpreting them. Just because creationists have different theories and interpretations doesn't discount them completely. One of the good things about having an alternative theory is that it will bring out the gaps in the current theory, and force us to answer the open questions and create a more complete answer. Rather than looking at creationism as a waste, try to learn from it. What evidence do they have that can't be explained by the current evolutionary theory? What are the gaps in the current theory they try to explain? Then work on solving those problems and create a more robust theory of evolution. Religion feeds on doubt. Once a theory is mature enough and has sufficient evidence, even the church can't deny it.
Doesn't affect parents. From the Bill:
Sec. 12A-20. Affirmative defenses. In any prosecution
21 arising under this Article, it is an affirmative defense:
22 (1) that the defendant was a family member of the minor for
23 whom the game was purchased. "Family member" for the purpose of
24 this Section, includes a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt,
25 uncle, or first cousin; Of course the definition of "Violence" is way too vague... I guess Madden or any boxing game is "Mature" game because it allows serious physical harm to another human being 30 (e) "Violent" video games include depictions of or
31 simulations of human-on-human violence in which the player
32 kills, seriously injures, or otherwise causes serious physical
33 harm to another human, including but not limited to depictions
1 of death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming,
2 disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape.
Sure they probably have it right, but it is the 0.0001 percent chance that they are wrong that scares me Given history it's probably a.0001% chance they are completely Right with their models of black holes.
Could also put fibreglass sections inside the concrete, since concrete is quite bad in tension... the fibreglass portions could re-inforce the concrete sections where they may be subject to bending (tension and compression depending on what side you look at). Also an engineer: Such materials are being worked on, the problem is you can't just throw materials together and expect them to work. The concrete is alkaline, which can degrade the glass fibers, also CTE mismatch can lead to seperation of the phases leading to fatigue failures. I believe there are already some applications of such composites, though they are probably expensive.
All statistical studies are simply a compilation of lots of anecdotal evidence. By your logic, all statistical studies are fallacies. To a degree they are. All statistics can say is that there is X% confidence of Y for the given data set within a certain model. Statistics is a very powerful tool, and creates meaningful data if you fully understand exactly what is being analyzed and how. However, most of these surveys just make conclusions without giving insight into all the caveats of the study. Therein lies the fallacy of anecdotal evidence, the presentation of conclusions without also including the limitations of the data and assumptions made.
Ah, the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. If you've been to South East Asia, you would see there the number of gamers using pirated software in that region is close to 100%. Although they may not have faked data, I'm skeptical of the conclusions they've drawn until they release how they conducted the survey. Did they have disproportionate representation in regions or age demographics where piracy is known to be higher?
Not true, at level 60 you can pvp the crap out of people and at level 35 you're (on a pvp server) going to get ganked by the level 60s or (on a non-pvp server) going to get ganked by level 60s if you try to pvp or run into level 20s who won't toggle. If people played carebear games any differently you might have a point. People power level in EQ2 where PvP is not an issue. PvP may be a contibuter but the primary driver for power levelling and grinding is to reach 60 for the sake of being level 60
I've watched the OT and Ep I & II also to figure out why the old ones are good and new ones are bad. It wasn't nostalgia, since I've watched other things that as a kid I loved and as an adult I see suck (ie Voltron, Robotech). The things I noticed: Sense of granduer - Watching the OT the universe seemed so much bigger than the characters. In Star Wars just the opening scenes allude to many things that were not explained until the prequels, and some not at all. You get a sense that there is a whole universe of things going on and you are just following the adventures of a particular group of people. Episode I & II seem to be more pre-packaged. There is no sense you are following the characters on their adventures through the universe, it is presented more as if the universe revolves around the characters. Extra Characters: In the OT I felt as if there were so many more things going on, other key players. While the movies followed Luke, Han, & Leia, there was still a war being fought, when they returned to that thread things had changed. Battles had been won and lost, the Alliance had grown, in many ways you could feel the main characters in the movies weren't that important, the universe went on without them. In Episode I, the main characters did pretty much everything. You couldn't come up with stories for Naboo Pilot 13 like you could for Wedge, an "extra" character that shows up in all 3 movies. Episode II does allow stories to be written about the clone wars, but there are no specific characters that you tie into the movies. Location: The locations in the OT were unique and had a sense of character. Dagobah, Hoth, Tatooine, Cloud City, all had a sense of character about them and they complimented the story. There is a reason every game pretty much has a Hoth battle. Not because the scenery itself was anything special, but because the frozen wasteland so paralleled the story of the rebellion and the battle itself; lonely, hopeless, and on the brink of death. The locations in Ep I & II were wasted or lacked character. The urban slums of Corouscant were ignored, Naboo had no particular sense that it was "special", and Tatoone was just a rehash. /rant
He (his office) has to approve the story and make sure it doesn't conflict with someone else's work.
And they do about as good a job as the patent office. Lucas even conflicts within his own films, and doesn't care.
In a way, this is just revealing the game for what it is: a non-fun level grind. One might say that the optimal solution would be for Blizzard to publish a better game, that will be enjoyable for the journey itself, and not just the tantalizing destination. But it would take major leaps of artistry and technology to accomplish that, and the development cost would likely appear prohibitive. It would require a change to the psychology of players, which isn't going to happen. Pretty much the only difference in gameplay between level 35 and level 60 is the models of the monsters you fight. If the journey is the same as the destination, the only difference is in the mind of the player. Why will a +5 sword sell for 10x the amount of a +4 sword? Not because it is that much better in terms of game play, but because it is better in the mind of the players. If there is a goal many people will focus on reaching the goal, and look for any shortcuts they can along the way.
The problem is that most MMO designers are pretty clueless about basic economy (why do they insist on "repair" or whatever costs to get money out of the system instead of simple taxes?) but worse the few clever ones think that real world capatalism is the thing to emulate. Using "repair" or housing as money sinks can fit within the context of the alternate world. How would your "tax" be implemented, what if the player doesn't want to pay, and how would you be able to implement within the context of the game? All a tax would do is slow the rate for everybody, even with a progressive tax all the gold grinding companies would do is find the way to maximize gains. Instead of playing one character 16 hours a day, they might have their worker play 2 characters 8 hours a day to avoid higher taxes. Further, the economics of an MMO goes beyond just gold. Tax gold too much and you'll just have even more people grinding/camping for items to sell directly instead of gold. MMO's need to stop thinking they are single player games, they need to stop thinking that real world economics work in a fun enviroment. This gets to the heart of RPGs, should they be created as games, or as alternate worlds? It's a difficult balancing act, considering a "Role Playing Game" means different things to different people. For some they are entertained by exploring an alternate persona, for others the way the game plays is more fun. The problem is these aren't single player games. Some people don't want to be Ajax the Mighty Gnomeslayer, they'd rather be Ajax the Uber Alchemist. Creating professions that are not PvE means that some sort of economics need to be developed not just for adventurers but for non-adventurers, and they need to fit within the context of the game, and need to be "fun" for thousands of different people. The economic designs are evolving, and the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't is to make a game and see what happens when a couple hundred thousand people play. We're in only the 3rd generation of MMOs. REVOLUTION. Murderers and thiefs. Paternity suits and frivolous lawsuits. There are some people would would love to have those things, others would hate it (look at the clashes of opinion on things such as PvP or permadeath). You can't please everybody. But maybe a simple way of doing both is to decrease the reliance in combat on "super" weapons but instead make for a character depended weapon performance. Meaning that both a newbie and elite warrior use exactly the same weapon but the elite will just be better at it. No expensive gadgets needed then no need for gold to pay them. Focus on character development OVER gadget hoarding. What incentive would people have to enter a dangerous dungeon? If people can sit outside and kill a single pixie spawn over and over, why would they risk going into a dungeon? Why play after you reach maximum level? What do you do about the people who want to be artisans? Besides, all you do is shift the commodity these grinding companies make from gold/items to characters. It comes down to basic economics. If there is anything difficult to get that somebody wants, there is money to be made, and some entrepreneur will exploit it for all the money they can get.
Ok, that right there shows you have no recognition of what "reasonable" is. Somebody in a Hulk costume at a location where comic books are sold; it's a location where you would suspect brand promotion, hence it would be reasonable to infer there is a link between the person and the Marvel.
I don't understand how apple is harmed by, let's say, the reveiling of a sub 500.00 low powered apple? Leaked information can cause false expectations. There are many products that companies look at that have very little chance of actually coming to market. Unnofficial announcements create the expectation of the product. If Apple doesn't deliver, even if internally they knew it only had a 25% chance to come to market, they are penalized in public opinion and sometimes stock price Information that turns out to not be 100% true can harm initial product sales also. Look at the new iPod mini, they were reported to be coming with a color screen. The color screen seemed so impressive that it overshadowed most everything else. When Apple did announce many people's first reaction was, "oh no color screen." The disappointment of not having a color screen overshadowed the great advance of battery life and incremental hard drive improvement. Sales have been lost because people are holding out for the color screen.
One thing you're forgetting though, is that you have to live somewhere. The price of me owning my house is really the difference between my mortgage (after home interest deduction of course) and what it would cost me to rent a comparable place. Home ownership is a great investment because you have to pay this money anyway. I was talking about real estate as an investment. Yes owning your own home is usually a good investment. Buying property to either sell to developments, or developed property to rent/sell at higher price has risk. If I lose my home, then I'm no worse off than if I had never bought it; it would be as if I had rented for those years. If my stock investments go under, I lose all of the money I paid for the stocks. If your house has declined in value you are worse off than if you were renting. You have to pay the difference between the new house price and the original. Unless you've built in enough equity, that money has to come out of your pocket. The problem with real estate is that it typically requires debt, which makes it riskier in some ways than stocks. Overall real estate can be a good investment, just people shouldn't think it's a sure fire way to millions.
I'm not claiming to be officially representing Marvel in any way, and you'd have to be a pretty big idiot to think I was. It doesn't matter if you are claiming to represent them or not, if a reasonable person can be confused then you have violated Marvel's copyright/trademark. If you're drunk at a costume party no big deal, since reasonable people would understand you are not representing marvel. If you're in front of a comic book store alone cursing out kids, then a reasonable person could infer that you represent marvel and you would in fact be damaging the value of their property. Personally I don't think the case has merit, since the game has rules against flat out copying, and people recognize there are no "official" Marvel characters within the context of the game.
That is never going to change, so the value of a particular property in New York will likely not fluctuate all that wildly - it does have a certain intrinsic value based on physical properties of the location that will never be altered. Unless the oceans rise and put your land under water. Same thing could be said with owning stock in a big company, unless there is a huge swing away from technology, a company like IBM which is spread out in many areas is unlikely to crash completely. They had no idea why they were actually doing it; it was not based on anything. Dividends are not the only way you can recover money. You can look at a company business plan, they should have a way to create liquidity for their investors, it could be dividends, stock buy back, or the expectation that the company gets sold to a bigger one. Something similar could happen in real estate, but never on that scale because after all, when you buy real estate you are buying a tangible asset, not a piece of paper that is already priced based on the expected position of the company five, ten, even twenty years in the future. Actually it could be worse. Unless you are extremely rich all your real estate is essentially bought on margin. It is fairly easy for investors to buy stock without having to purchase on margin, to buy real estate you typically have to take out a mortgage. If you live in a house, or you have your business located on the property no big deal, however, if it is an investment it can become a money sink, since you have to pay maintance, taxes, etc. whereas real estate is always sold for what it's valued at today. So is stock, if the stock price is 30 today I buy at 30, the expectation is that the stock price will increase as the company becomes bigger. Same as a house (as an investment), you buy today at $300k with the expectation that development in the surrounding area will make the house price increase. The only intrinsic value of a house is you can live in it. I would agree that Real Estate has less risk, but it tends to have less payoff, as well as higher costs (you can own a stock for 50 years and not worry about it, you have to pay property taxes, and pay for upkeep on real estate)
That's what management would think. Reality is that the time lost on the projects would push almost everything six months. They could easily rush poor quality product out the door, they do it all the time 1) Absolutely kills their bottom line for the year with additional costs and no income They'll pay a little extra to get it out the door as a "good enough" product. Worst case their yearly products like Madden will just use last year's code with a new player database. Many of their other products they don't develop in house any way. Buh-bye Madden and hello 2K Sports! Umm no, the NFL exclusive license pretty much means they would control that market. It could also play out that if workers at EA unionize, then it could spread to other development houses. They could refuse to take on the project for solidarity. There are plenty of Canadian, French, German, and Japanese development houses out there who EA could use; good luck trying to set up an international union.
EA could survive a strike, they have all the licenses just send the projects to some external development houses, sure they'd get dinged by higher costs, but they'd definataly outlast the employees.
The disposable culture is a huge step backward for society, but because so many people can make money off of it, it's considered progress, at least in legal terms. Manufacturers have to deal with tech-support, inventory, tracking, etc. on returns. In the commodity electronics market margins are so small that companies actually lose money on returned items. How much money do you think a manufacturer makes on a $50 (retail) DVD player? Maybe $5-$10. That probably doesn't cover the 15 minute tech support call, the dock worker, the warehouse space, inventory tracking, and taxes on inventory. Not to mention the stuff you can't calculate like company reputation, and relationships with customers (best buy probably doesn't like getting their named sullied by your defective product) The disposable culture has many advantages, technology progresses so fast, it makes more sense to buy a $50 DVD player now and in 5 years when it breaks buy a $50 Hi-Def DVD player, rather than spend $100 now to have a DVD player that lasts 10 years
Makes you wonder if we'll have 120 and 200GB drives in our cell phones in 2015:worry: Why would a phone need a hard drive in the future? I would imagine you could have an advanced wi-fi type internet phone, that does VOIP, and allows you to access your home network to allow you to stream music and movies directly to your phone. It would also be able to take pictures/video and stream them directly to your computer at home.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'm not even in America so my knowledge of US workers is based solely on Slashdot and The Onion, but even I can see that perhaps nationally agreed minimum contracts negotitated by unions for various professions like games programmers, etc., would help.
The problem is unions, like almost any other body, looks after itself first. Extra clauses get included in the contract negotiations, things like:
* Artificial Requirements - a union programmer must have a degree from a 4 year university with a 2 year apprenticeship, to limit the available workforce to artificially increase wages.
* Artificial job titles - Only a person with 15 years of experience can be a senior programmer, to keep older union guys employed
* Artificial Work Requirements - Any released product (no matter if it is an expansion pack, port, or an entirely new game) must have at least - 1 Sr. Level editor, 1 Sr. Artist, 1 Artist, 1 Sr. Game Designers, 1 Sr. Engine Developer, 2 Sr. Programmers, etc. to ensure continued employment of the union workers.
Unions work to the benifit of their members, sometimes at the expense of the industry itself.
newspaper?
read what happened yesterday in a newspaper, or go on the internet and read what is happening now
After all, the "e-" in "e-Scrabble" ain't for nothing!
And the "Scrabble" in "e-scrabble" ain't for nothing, it's there to fraudulently associate his product with the board game Hasbro owns. If he named it e-tiles, or e-words, Hasbro wouldn't care, Yahoo has Literati a Scrabble knock-off.
It offers an unfalsifiable account
So does string theory, but that is considered science
If it was true, I'd expect to see a fossil layer populated equally and evenly with the same animals I see today
There are unexplained issues with the fossil record with regards to evolution. It's good creationists bring in evidence and point out the flaws in evolutionary theory, because it forces us to address those gaps and come out with a more robust theory. Science relys on skepticism. What is wrong with letting other voice their opposing views? Ultimately the individual will have to weigh the evidence and form an opinion.
I believe creationism is a symptom, not the problem. The fact that so many people believe it shows there are some important gaps that need to be addressed in evolutionary theory. Creationism just inserts God into those gaps. By having those issues identified, we can modify evolutionary theory to fill in those gaps, such that there is no room for God.
I believe in evolution, but also think we should not be dismissive of differing views. Let the creationists bring out there evidence and accept the scrutiny of scientific review. It sends a more powerful message to present evolution and creationism side by side, and show the small list of problems for evolution, and the large list of problems with creationism.
Creationism is belief, it is faith, and the fact that you can't discern between you faith and fact worries me.
I understand fact and faith. Fact is boring, fact has very little meaning, it is our interpretations of fact that is interesting, and what ultimately is science. If I drop a rock, the only true FACT is that i dropped a rock and it hit the ground, my interpretation of that fact is a belief, that it fell because of warpage in space-time created by massive object I am standing on.
Science is a philosophy of measuring confidence. Some things we can be very sure of like gravity, others we are not so sure of like dark energy. Because that confidence can never reach 100% there is a level of faith involved (varying based on the level of confidence).
There are different types of creationism, some that is pointless fundamentalism, some that makes interesting arguements where evolutionary theory has gaps. Fundamental religious creationism which most people think about, doesn't work because it is inflexible. There are however, theories that fall in the realm of creationism that have changed and developed to take into account new discoveries. Personally, I feel evolution is a more elegant solution to describing the current data set. However, I do see value in creationism as a means of pointing out holes in evolution, holes that we would not have seen without a skeptical eye.
Moreover, by having the creationists bringing their ideas into the realm of science, they allow it to suffer through scientific scrutiny. The veil of blind faith is lifted as they enter the domain of science, and people will be able to question and see the holes of their theories.
And the church denied the heliocentric theory for as long as they could, even in the face of specific verifiable evidence; the Catholic church still forced Galileo to recant his statements on threat of execution
We also know that heliocentric theory itself is incorrect, because the sun isn't at the center of the universe, just our solar system. Just because creationism is incorrect, doesn't necessarily mean that evolution is correct. Newton's laws were elegant, straight forward, logical and ultimately imperfect.
My problem with this subject is not that I don't believe in evolution (because I do), it's that people attack anything contrary to it with rightous indignation and "how dare you" attitude. The key to science is to be skeptical, to ask questions, and for theories to be tested and retested. If creationists want to put forward their interpretation of the data set, so be it. They can give me all their theories and supporting evidence, and ultimately I can make up my own mind.
IMAX theaters in science museums shouldn't show creationism, as it's not science.
How can you just toss creationism out as "not science," By doing so you are as closed minded as the fundamentalists. The nature of science is for presentation of the facts and interpreting them. Just because creationists have different theories and interpretations doesn't discount them completely.
One of the good things about having an alternative theory is that it will bring out the gaps in the current theory, and force us to answer the open questions and create a more complete answer.
Rather than looking at creationism as a waste, try to learn from it. What evidence do they have that can't be explained by the current evolutionary theory? What are the gaps in the current theory they try to explain? Then work on solving those problems and create a more robust theory of evolution. Religion feeds on doubt. Once a theory is mature enough and has sufficient evidence, even the church can't deny it.
Doesn't affect parents. From the Bill:
Sec. 12A-20. Affirmative defenses. In any prosecution
21 arising under this Article, it is an affirmative defense:
22 (1) that the defendant was a family member of the minor for
23 whom the game was purchased. "Family member" for the purpose of
24 this Section, includes a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt,
25 uncle, or first cousin;
Of course the definition of "Violence" is way too vague... I guess Madden or any boxing game is "Mature" game because it allows serious physical harm to another human being
30 (e) "Violent" video games include depictions of or
31 simulations of human-on-human violence in which the player
32 kills, seriously injures, or otherwise causes serious physical
33 harm to another human, including but not limited to depictions
1 of death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming,
2 disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape.
Sure they probably have it right, but it is the 0.0001 percent chance that they are wrong that scares me .0001% chance they are completely Right with their models of black holes.
Given history it's probably a
Could also put fibreglass sections inside the concrete, since concrete is quite bad in tension ... the fibreglass portions could re-inforce the concrete sections where they may be subject to bending (tension and compression depending on what side you look at).
Also an engineer:
Such materials are being worked on, the problem is you can't just throw materials together and expect them to work. The concrete is alkaline, which can degrade the glass fibers, also CTE mismatch can lead to seperation of the phases leading to fatigue failures. I believe there are already some applications of such composites, though they are probably expensive.
All statistical studies are simply a compilation of lots of anecdotal evidence. By your logic, all statistical studies are fallacies.
To a degree they are. All statistics can say is that there is X% confidence of Y for the given data set within a certain model. Statistics is a very powerful tool, and creates meaningful data if you fully understand exactly what is being analyzed and how. However, most of these surveys just make conclusions without giving insight into all the caveats of the study. Therein lies the fallacy of anecdotal evidence, the presentation of conclusions without also including the limitations of the data and assumptions made.
Ah, the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
If you've been to South East Asia, you would see there the number of gamers using pirated software in that region is close to 100%.
Although they may not have faked data, I'm skeptical of the conclusions they've drawn until they release how they conducted the survey. Did they have disproportionate representation in regions or age demographics where piracy is known to be higher?
Not true, at level 60 you can pvp the crap out of people and at level 35 you're (on a pvp server) going to get ganked by the level 60s or (on a non-pvp server) going to get ganked by level 60s if you try to pvp or run into level 20s who won't toggle.
If people played carebear games any differently you might have a point. People power level in EQ2 where PvP is not an issue. PvP may be a contibuter but the primary driver for power levelling and grinding is to reach 60 for the sake of being level 60
I've watched the OT and Ep I & II also to figure out why the old ones are good and new ones are bad. It wasn't nostalgia, since I've watched other things that as a kid I loved and as an adult I see suck (ie Voltron, Robotech).
The things I noticed:
Sense of granduer - Watching the OT the universe seemed so much bigger than the characters. In Star Wars just the opening scenes allude to many things that were not explained until the prequels, and some not at all. You get a sense that there is a whole universe of things going on and you are just following the adventures of a particular group of people.
Episode I & II seem to be more pre-packaged. There is no sense you are following the characters on their adventures through the universe, it is presented more as if the universe revolves around the characters.
Extra Characters: In the OT I felt as if there were so many more things going on, other key players. While the movies followed Luke, Han, & Leia, there was still a war being fought, when they returned to that thread things had changed. Battles had been won and lost, the Alliance had grown, in many ways you could feel the main characters in the movies weren't that important, the universe went on without them.
In Episode I, the main characters did pretty much everything. You couldn't come up with stories for Naboo Pilot 13 like you could for Wedge, an "extra" character that shows up in all 3 movies. Episode II does allow stories to be written about the clone wars, but there are no specific characters that you tie into the movies.
Location: The locations in the OT were unique and had a sense of character. Dagobah, Hoth, Tatooine, Cloud City, all had a sense of character about them and they complimented the story. There is a reason every game pretty much has a Hoth battle. Not because the scenery itself was anything special, but because the frozen wasteland so paralleled the story of the rebellion and the battle itself; lonely, hopeless, and on the brink of death.
The locations in Ep I & II were wasted or lacked character. The urban slums of Corouscant were ignored, Naboo had no particular sense that it was "special", and Tatoone was just a rehash.
/rant
He (his office) has to approve the story and make sure it doesn't conflict with someone else's work.
And they do about as good a job as the patent office. Lucas even conflicts within his own films, and doesn't care.
In a way, this is just revealing the game for what it is: a non-fun level grind. One might say that the optimal solution would be for Blizzard to publish a better game, that will be enjoyable for the journey itself, and not just the tantalizing destination. But it would take major leaps of artistry and technology to accomplish that, and the development cost would likely appear prohibitive.
It would require a change to the psychology of players, which isn't going to happen. Pretty much the only difference in gameplay between level 35 and level 60 is the models of the monsters you fight. If the journey is the same as the destination, the only difference is in the mind of the player.
Why will a +5 sword sell for 10x the amount of a +4 sword? Not because it is that much better in terms of game play, but because it is better in the mind of the players.
If there is a goal many people will focus on reaching the goal, and look for any shortcuts they can along the way.
The problem is that most MMO designers are pretty clueless about basic economy (why do they insist on "repair" or whatever costs to get money out of the system instead of simple taxes?) but worse the few clever ones think that real world capatalism is the thing to emulate.
Using "repair" or housing as money sinks can fit within the context of the alternate world. How would your "tax" be implemented, what if the player doesn't want to pay, and how would you be able to implement within the context of the game? All a tax would do is slow the rate for everybody, even with a progressive tax all the gold grinding companies would do is find the way to maximize gains. Instead of playing one character 16 hours a day, they might have their worker play 2 characters 8 hours a day to avoid higher taxes. Further, the economics of an MMO goes beyond just gold. Tax gold too much and you'll just have even more people grinding/camping for items to sell directly instead of gold.
MMO's need to stop thinking they are single player games, they need to stop thinking that real world economics work in a fun enviroment.
This gets to the heart of RPGs, should they be created as games, or as alternate worlds? It's a difficult balancing act, considering a "Role Playing Game" means different things to different people. For some they are entertained by exploring an alternate persona, for others the way the game plays is more fun.
The problem is these aren't single player games. Some people don't want to be Ajax the Mighty Gnomeslayer, they'd rather be Ajax the Uber Alchemist. Creating professions that are not PvE means that some sort of economics need to be developed not just for adventurers but for non-adventurers, and they need to fit within the context of the game, and need to be "fun" for thousands of different people.
The economic designs are evolving, and the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't is to make a game and see what happens when a couple hundred thousand people play. We're in only the 3rd generation of MMOs.
REVOLUTION. Murderers and thiefs. Paternity suits and frivolous lawsuits.
There are some people would would love to have those things, others would hate it (look at the clashes of opinion on things such as PvP or permadeath). You can't please everybody.
But maybe a simple way of doing both is to decrease the reliance in combat on "super" weapons but instead make for a character depended weapon performance. Meaning that both a newbie and elite warrior use exactly the same weapon but the elite will just be better at it. No expensive gadgets needed then no need for gold to pay them. Focus on character development OVER gadget hoarding.
What incentive would people have to enter a dangerous dungeon? If people can sit outside and kill a single pixie spawn over and over, why would they risk going into a dungeon? Why play after you reach maximum level? What do you do about the people who want to be artisans? Besides, all you do is shift the commodity these grinding companies make from gold/items to characters.
It comes down to basic economics. If there is anything difficult to get that somebody wants, there is money to be made, and some entrepreneur will exploit it for all the money they can get.
Ok, that right there shows you have no recognition of what "reasonable" is.
Somebody in a Hulk costume at a location where comic books are sold; it's a location where you would suspect brand promotion, hence it would be reasonable to infer there is a link between the person and the Marvel.
I don't understand how apple is harmed by, let's say, the reveiling of a sub 500.00 low powered apple?
Leaked information can cause false expectations. There are many products that companies look at that have very little chance of actually coming to market. Unnofficial announcements create the expectation of the product. If Apple doesn't deliver, even if internally they knew it only had a 25% chance to come to market, they are penalized in public opinion and sometimes stock price
Information that turns out to not be 100% true can harm initial product sales also. Look at the new iPod mini, they were reported to be coming with a color screen. The color screen seemed so impressive that it overshadowed most everything else. When Apple did announce many people's first reaction was, "oh no color screen." The disappointment of not having a color screen overshadowed the great advance of battery life and incremental hard drive improvement. Sales have been lost because people are holding out for the color screen.
One thing you're forgetting though, is that you have to live somewhere. The price of me owning my house is really the difference between my mortgage (after home interest deduction of course) and what it would cost me to rent a comparable place. Home ownership is a great investment because you have to pay this money anyway.
I was talking about real estate as an investment. Yes owning your own home is usually a good investment. Buying property to either sell to developments, or developed property to rent/sell at higher price has risk.
If I lose my home, then I'm no worse off than if I had never bought it; it would be as if I had rented for those years. If my stock investments go under, I lose all of the money I paid for the stocks.
If your house has declined in value you are worse off than if you were renting. You have to pay the difference between the new house price and the original. Unless you've built in enough equity, that money has to come out of your pocket.
The problem with real estate is that it typically requires debt, which makes it riskier in some ways than stocks. Overall real estate can be a good investment, just people shouldn't think it's a sure fire way to millions.
I'm not claiming to be officially representing Marvel in any way, and you'd have to be a pretty big idiot to think I was.
It doesn't matter if you are claiming to represent them or not, if a reasonable person can be confused then you have violated Marvel's copyright/trademark. If you're drunk at a costume party no big deal, since reasonable people would understand you are not representing marvel. If you're in front of a comic book store alone cursing out kids, then a reasonable person could infer that you represent marvel and you would in fact be damaging the value of their property.
Personally I don't think the case has merit, since the game has rules against flat out copying, and people recognize there are no "official" Marvel characters within the context of the game.
That is never going to change, so the value of a particular property in New York will likely not fluctuate all that wildly - it does have a certain intrinsic value based on physical properties of the location that will never be altered.
Unless the oceans rise and put your land under water. Same thing could be said with owning stock in a big company, unless there is a huge swing away from technology, a company like IBM which is spread out in many areas is unlikely to crash completely.
They had no idea why they were actually doing it; it was not based on anything.
Dividends are not the only way you can recover money. You can look at a company business plan, they should have a way to create liquidity for their investors, it could be dividends, stock buy back, or the expectation that the company gets sold to a bigger one.
Something similar could happen in real estate, but never on that scale because after all, when you buy real estate you are buying a tangible asset, not a piece of paper that is already priced based on the expected position of the company five, ten, even twenty years in the future.
Actually it could be worse. Unless you are extremely rich all your real estate is essentially bought on margin. It is fairly easy for investors to buy stock without having to purchase on margin, to buy real estate you typically have to take out a mortgage. If you live in a house, or you have your business located on the property no big deal, however, if it is an investment it can become a money sink, since you have to pay maintance, taxes, etc.
whereas real estate is always sold for what it's valued at today.
So is stock, if the stock price is 30 today I buy at 30, the expectation is that the stock price will increase as the company becomes bigger. Same as a house (as an investment), you buy today at $300k with the expectation that development in the surrounding area will make the house price increase. The only intrinsic value of a house is you can live in it.
I would agree that Real Estate has less risk, but it tends to have less payoff, as well as higher costs (you can own a stock for 50 years and not worry about it, you have to pay property taxes, and pay for upkeep on real estate)
That's what management would think. Reality is that the time lost on the projects would push almost everything six months.
They could easily rush poor quality product out the door, they do it all the time
1) Absolutely kills their bottom line for the year with additional costs and no income
They'll pay a little extra to get it out the door as a "good enough" product. Worst case their yearly products like Madden will just use last year's code with a new player database. Many of their other products they don't develop in house any way.
Buh-bye Madden and hello 2K Sports!
Umm no, the NFL exclusive license pretty much means they would control that market.
It could also play out that if workers at EA unionize, then it could spread to other development houses. They could refuse to take on the project for solidarity.
There are plenty of Canadian, French, German, and Japanese development houses out there who EA could use; good luck trying to set up an international union.
EA could survive a strike, they have all the licenses just send the projects to some external development houses, sure they'd get dinged by higher costs, but they'd definataly outlast the employees.
The disposable culture is a huge step backward for society, but because so many people can make money off of it, it's considered progress, at least in legal terms.
Manufacturers have to deal with tech-support, inventory, tracking, etc. on returns. In the commodity electronics market margins are so small that companies actually lose money on returned items. How much money do you think a manufacturer makes on a $50 (retail) DVD player? Maybe $5-$10. That probably doesn't cover the 15 minute tech support call, the dock worker, the warehouse space, inventory tracking, and taxes on inventory. Not to mention the stuff you can't calculate like company reputation, and relationships with customers (best buy probably doesn't like getting their named sullied by your defective product)
The disposable culture has many advantages, technology progresses so fast, it makes more sense to buy a $50 DVD player now and in 5 years when it breaks buy a $50 Hi-Def DVD player, rather than spend $100 now to have a DVD player that lasts 10 years
Makes you wonder if we'll have 120 and 200GB drives in our cell phones in 2015 :worry:
Why would a phone need a hard drive in the future? I would imagine you could have an advanced wi-fi type internet phone, that does VOIP, and allows you to access your home network to allow you to stream music and movies directly to your phone. It would also be able to take pictures/video and stream them directly to your computer at home.