The problem is that the sectors vanishing are the low-education sectors while the new sectors appearing require high levels of education. The workers that lose their jobs usually aren't qualified for the jobs that are being created at the time. That's why you see companies complaining about not being able to fill positions while unemployment hits new highs, there are too many people with low education and too few with high education.
So people need to become smarter on average so we can put more of them into universities. Problem is that just doesn't work this fast and the evolutionary pressure is pretty low. Genetic engineering is obviously not an option and eugenics shouldn't even be considered.
Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.
Wait, I thought we were talking about the money going to the low wage countries, not countries with wages even higher than the US (partially because of very high taxes)?
We're talking about today, not the previous century. Back then almost all game development was made by small companies and the bigger ones were just as innovative as the rest. Remember Electronic Arts's beginnings?
Agaeia says they want 199$ (or 299$, not sure) per chip if bought in numbers that would happen with a console. If a console were to include that you'd see an MSRP of 600$ minimum.
The ??AA wants to produce unprecedented numbers of pirates, at that level the Earth's temperature would drop below zero Kelvin. We can't have them succeed!
Most of those "great" games from back then don't hold up today, either. Not even compared to the "average" game. Space Invaders, for example or Asteroids. Pac-Man's easily exploited AI. If those were released today (obviously with updated graphics and assuming that the game hasn't existed before) noone would buy them and reviewers would complain about too simple gameplay, bad controls, repetitive level design, etc. These days we expect more from a game than we did back then, for example today a new level is more than just the previous level with some more enemies or a higher speed, copying and pasting rooms is inacceptable (even hough some reviewers glanced over that in Halo). Games have more varied content and require more means for interaction. Just running and shooting gets your game panned, we want puzzles, story, etc in a game.
Ten or fifteen years ago Capcom's P.N.03 (obviously with graphics that match the time and a highscore list instead of a save feature) wouldn't have been panned for 4 hour playtime, repeating rooms, lack of different themes or the delayed controls, it'd have blended in perfectly with the other games.
The military thing might becaused by our instincts not recognizing firearms as threats. So your instinct thinks you are attacking people that are no threat to you while a gamer has played games where his instinct had a chance to develop the understanding that guns are threats, even when the guy holding them is 200m away (a distance at which no other weapon poses a threat). So shooting people that are shooting at you doesn't trigger your survival instinct normally whereas you wouldn't hesistate in a swordfight because your insinct knows that a person flailing a long object in your direction is a threat every way you slice it (because most likely you've been hurt a few times by long objects flailed in your direction when you were a kid).
Slashdot Mirror
But he only sold one of them and that at cost. I wouldn't hire a salesman like that.
Except Intel is currently under investigation whether it is a monopoly and violating antitrust laws. This is evidence for that investigation.
We should try turning Bild into gasoline.
Microsoft doesn't copy local files to their server.
It doesn't replace people, it just carries their luggage.
That was Electronic Arts, not Atari.
The problem is that the sectors vanishing are the low-education sectors while the new sectors appearing require high levels of education. The workers that lose their jobs usually aren't qualified for the jobs that are being created at the time. That's why you see companies complaining about not being able to fill positions while unemployment hits new highs, there are too many people with low education and too few with high education.
So people need to become smarter on average so we can put more of them into universities. Problem is that just doesn't work this fast and the evolutionary pressure is pretty low. Genetic engineering is obviously not an option and eugenics shouldn't even be considered.
I suppose that's sarcasm?
The sad part is that some people really think like that.
Yes except we're talking about introducing restrictions to free trade, liberal economy is the exact opposite.
Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.
Wait, I thought we were talking about the money going to the low wage countries, not countries with wages even higher than the US (partially because of very high taxes)?
I don't think MS will like it if you tell them that your game cannot be controlled without a keyboard.
We're talking about today, not the previous century. Back then almost all game development was made by small companies and the bigger ones were just as innovative as the rest. Remember Electronic Arts's beginnings?
ONE dating sim? Have you seen the rate at which those japanese indies churn those out?
Agaeia says they want 199$ (or 299$, not sure) per chip if bought in numbers that would happen with a console. If a console were to include that you'd see an MSRP of 600$ minimum.
a life-sim, a genre that nobody (not even the activisions etc) is attempting to expand upon.
What's The Sims, then?
KKreiger by Kreiger demo group
The group is called das produkkt and kkrieger was in no way innovative. It was a tech demo but not a good or innovative game.
How are those indie?
What else would you call it? That's the scientific word.
Gamasutra regularly runs surveys on game industry salaries, the problem is I can't find the data.
"Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
How appropriate.
Moreover those blackbox thingies always survive the crash. Why don't we build our planes out of blackboxium instead?
I am sure UT2004 leaves me feeling more aggressive then Barney Math Fun Time
A bold statement. I think most adults would be more aggressive after prolonged exposure to Barney.
The ??AA wants to produce unprecedented numbers of pirates, at that level the Earth's temperature would drop below zero Kelvin. We can't have them succeed!
Most of those "great" games from back then don't hold up today, either. Not even compared to the "average" game. Space Invaders, for example or Asteroids. Pac-Man's easily exploited AI. If those were released today (obviously with updated graphics and assuming that the game hasn't existed before) noone would buy them and reviewers would complain about too simple gameplay, bad controls, repetitive level design, etc. These days we expect more from a game than we did back then, for example today a new level is more than just the previous level with some more enemies or a higher speed, copying and pasting rooms is inacceptable (even hough some reviewers glanced over that in Halo). Games have more varied content and require more means for interaction. Just running and shooting gets your game panned, we want puzzles, story, etc in a game.
Ten or fifteen years ago Capcom's P.N.03 (obviously with graphics that match the time and a highscore list instead of a save feature) wouldn't have been panned for 4 hour playtime, repeating rooms, lack of different themes or the delayed controls, it'd have blended in perfectly with the other games.
The military thing might becaused by our instincts not recognizing firearms as threats. So your instinct thinks you are attacking people that are no threat to you while a gamer has played games where his instinct had a chance to develop the understanding that guns are threats, even when the guy holding them is 200m away (a distance at which no other weapon poses a threat). So shooting people that are shooting at you doesn't trigger your survival instinct normally whereas you wouldn't hesistate in a swordfight because your insinct knows that a person flailing a long object in your direction is a threat every way you slice it (because most likely you've been hurt a few times by long objects flailed in your direction when you were a kid).