The problem is that the vessels (and various CT) are grown ex utero and not on the capillary scale. They are no easier to transplant than donated or synthetic vessels... the only difference is the risk of rejection being close to zero.
Also, not eating junk won't help you if you're on dialysis... you're still getting poked with a needle at least weekly, which is the cause of the degradation.
"the vast majority of people are not repeat visitors to the same hotel..."
No, but the vast number of frequent travelers are. Business travelers, jetsetters, etc... Not only that but for people who rarely travel to the same destination a lot still tend to stay at a particular chain. Incentive programs have made a big difference with this.
Even those of us who only stay at hotels 5x a year tend to stay in the same ones, if we go to the same city every year. Find one you like, stick to it.
You're paying to not have to be bothered with calling the front desk. The idea is that everything is at your fingertips, without you having to take action.
Believe me, if you're in NY, and not by choice, it's VERY nice having a few hours where you don't have to interact with anyone at any level.
Plus, this won't affect the room rates much, since it makes service more efficient -- reducing personnel costs.
There's nothing the tech in this room offers that isn't already done by humans at fine hotels (repeat customer at $HOTEL_CHAIN? They'll remember your preferences*). The only difference is, it's automated... automation is making headway in the service industry, since people have become more accustomed to it.
*As an example, by wife and I stay at Embassy Suites a lot... when the reservation is in her name, the thermostat is always at 75F when we check in. She did not ask for this -- I assume they noticed a pattern, and added it to her profile. In contrast, when the reservation is in my name, it's at 68F.
Ever send employees to travel on business, had them stay at a luxury hotel? Bringing in your own soda/booze is very declasse, and bad, bad form to be seen doing it at a good hotel.
Believe me, those minibars need replenishing very often.
Sure, but the best of the schlock is still schlock. Those standards that a movie has to make to get wide release? Profitability. A lot of the time, that means low-risk endeavors like sequels or adaptations. Studios fear throwing $80mil or more into a movie that doesn't have wide appeal. Same thing is happening with video games... the companies that can afford the best production quality aren't going to toss millions in dev cash into a high-risk title, until they've pockets deep enough to do so (like Take2 is close to doing, for instance). Then, they'll only do it until they get burned once or twice.
This is only going to get worse as the big movie houses start producing their own games, instead of selling IP rights to traditional game devs.
Well, lost potential revenues are one thing, LOSSES are another. And actually, it looks like the federal government redefined "loss" in re: fraud cases, here's the proposal (1998), see Appendix A: http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Lossdefn.pdf (pdf)
The fact of the matter is, though, that the MPAA can use LOSS when discussing these 'ghost' revenues, unless they are on their financial statements and disclosures.
They can claim they "LOST" sales. They can claim they "LOST" revenues. They can even claim that they "LOST $XXX,XXX,XXX in revenues according totheir calculations. They cannot claim they realized a financial LOSS though, unless they did.
The problem is not how they use loss -- the problem is that many people don't understand the difference between financial loss and whatever mumbo-jumbo the **AA are spewing.
Although, semantically, it would be nice if those of us in the know fdid not refer to their phantom revenues as "LOSS" though, since it is a matter of public perception.
"The author of the report, Marc de Gentile-Williams, said, "At 30 years of age, the games industry still suffers from an endemic lack of professional management compared to less mature industries such as the mobile telephony and the internet industries. "
Translation: Hire me! I'll make sure you have a few of those 80!
Only 80 [major release] games will be profitable. Dev costs of 3-6 mil, marketing costs up the wazoo, licensing costs eating up more of the pie... the game industry is turning into the movie industry.
TFA says that there is a lack of good management in the games industry, causing tons of bankruptcies etc. I say, great! I'd rather not have a static set of three game companies creating all the content. Besides, part of the reason that so many gaming companies drop off the face of the earth is that there is actual competition in the games industry... it's put up or shut up.
Whereas, in the movie industry, the consumer will put up with any schlock as long as it is one step better than the current competition (which changes frequently, due to short theater runs).
"I wonder how long yakForFree will remain *free*? I suppose their free plan is a give away for getting people to sign up for the enhanced services. But I can envision a time in the near future when the free will giveway to *cheap*."
If they grab enough marketshare, they can sell advertising to splash during usage. I can't see any other way of them making money off this without charging for it. Also, by stating that it's a videophone, they can limit people complaining about ad display on their monitors, like people did when it was attempted with VOIP... though I'm sure it will be in their EULA.
Possibly a tiered fee system, pay more for no ads.
Good point, but in my experience, most high school lit classes are all about knowing the plot and the characters. So, if someone can scrape by without ever actually opening the original work... well... crap.
My point was that the English language in use may actually be shrinking, not growing. As many words drop from the vernacular as are added to it, to the point that a lot of literature written in modern English, particularly prior to the first half of the 20th century, cannot be appreciated by a typical person.
If it stimulates interest, great... but at what cost? I'd rather not see a gimmicky text message, why wouldn't they text an actual quote? The whole reason for the abbreviations in text messaging is to save time when writing... I don't think it's necessary here.
"'We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology.'
Umm, is not 'their own independent analysis' rather oxymoronic?"
Well, it's redundant, but it doesn't even apply here... if they use Security Innovation's methodology, it's no longer an independent analysis.
"Language (specifically English for this context) is not a static language: it's always growing"
Well, I would agree that English, as a written language, is growing in terms of vocabulary... but I'd also say that English, as a spoken language, is not.
Sure, it changes, but I don't think it grows more than the growth of the English-speaking population can account for.
Words selected for nuanced meanings aren't used so much in verbal communication, since inflection and tone can easily add that nuance... the difficulty of this is that people lose the nuanced meanings of the written word. For example, 'utilize' != 'use' -- but the difference is lost on many people.
If you mean to say that Cliff's Notes did reduce literature, but that this will do no worse harm, then I agree. Literature, like other expressive art, is about form as much as function. Unfortunately, people who use the Cliff's Notes to pass a high school lit class are missing at least half the value of the work.
This has very real effects, one easily comes to mind -- why do you think we get subjected to all these crappy movies? Or rather, why do you think so many people are willing to spend so much money on them?
"In other words, people only need to convey a small amount of information to communicate effectively, and they can do so while holding fundamentally different ideas about how their language describes the world."
Hundreds of slashdotters disagree.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure this applies to effective communication beyond what was tested. If you want to communicate effectively about very complex concepts, you need a complex language, and most likely a shared perception of how your language describes things.
Nuance is completely overlooked in his study, though I guess nuance isn't so important when your system only has to solve two binary and two quaternary variables.
So I guess my concern is that his measuring stick of "effectiveness" is a little short for me...
YMMV (though if it does, it doesn't really matter as long as we respond the same way, right?)
"I mean, the thing came out in the dark ages of 1998 and that thing had everything. RTSing and FPSing and ninjaing and hovertank racing and Cold War cliches."
That's all very good, but what about pirates? Did it have pirates?
No game can claim to have everything without at least a token nod to action on the high seas.
Well, that's not TFA. That's one source quoted by TFA. Without reading the research that Schadler used to come to his conclusion, I won't dispute it.
"Schadler says he's long believed that Blu-ray held the edge due to its superior capacity and the fact that Sony's PlayStation 3 will play Blu-ray movie discs. Oh really, and MS support via the 360 for HD-DVD won't have a cancelling effect on this?"
Well, it depends. -(some number) +(some other number) != 0.
Perhaps more people will be purchasing movies to watch on their PS3 than people will for the 360? Without studying the market, there's no way you can say the effects would cancel out.
Also, "Ted Schadler, vice president at Forrester Research, released a report that proclaimed, 'Blu-ray Will Win a Pyrrhic Victory Over HD-DVD.' " (emphasis mine)
In a pyrrhic victory, even the winner loses. I think Schadler's point is that in the end, Blu-ray will have a larger market share, possibly close to all the market. However, the cost in lost sales due to the format wars will be extremely damaging to market acceptance of the new tech. For example, there is no way I'm going to buy a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player (outside of my consoles) until I know for sure which format will be supported 5-10 years from now. Until then, I'll stick to plain old DVD.
Well, brick-and-mortar overhead also accounts for some of that. The thing is, millions of people are willing to ay 50 or 60 bucks for a new game... so the price seems pretty fair. Me, I just wait to get it used, or wait until it hits the 'classics' stage and I can pick it up for $20.
The Hero System is another that works very well in lots of genres.
I converted a bunch of AD&D 2nd edition players to Hero System, all were in agreement that AD&D lacks realism... when they realized that a single arrow could indeed kill a level 4 PC, that was a shock.
Hero System is still a little Roll-heavy, but it's up to the GM to make gameplay revolve around roleplaying.
I had an incredibly good time with Gamma World, that was hard to replicate with AD&D... why?
Because of the profusion of rules in AD&D. GW had a nice small rule set, and everything else was up to the GM, which woorked out quite well for me, since I had a great one.
Nothing spoils a nice table-top session like a rules-lawyer player.
OTOH, I played in some fun Rolemaster campaigns, and if you like rules, you'll love Rolemaster.
"I mean the funny thing is I can buy the PC version of Call of Duty 2 for $35 on sale ($40 regular) yet the 360 one will be at least $50."
Aside from console licensing, which another person pointed out (and is the method by which MS & Sony attempt to recoup their losses on console sales & end up with a profit), there is the issue of demand. I'm not sure of units sold for CoD2 PC vs Console, but for new-release high-demand games without a console port (WoW, I'm looking at you) prices seem to be a bit higher than $40.
Come to think of it, WoW is not a good example, since game purchase is not the primary source of revenue. But Deus Ex etc sold for ~$50 at release.
"I have a better idea - why dont I assume that my doctor, who has trained for nearly a decade (and more), and who would probably have multiple orders of magnitude more information on me on my condition, would know best, and let them tell me if I need you drug., instead of listening to drug company propeganda?"
Because the doctors are subjected to marketing campaigns that are nearly as bad as the ones directed at consumers (BTW, in terms of pharma, you are a consumer -- not a patient).
Sure, you should trust your doctor more than some ad on TV, but there is no substitute for educating yourself. I worked in pharmacies during college -- I can't tell you how many times a doctor screwed up a prescription, which was caught by the pharmacist. This doesn't even include all the unnecessary prescriptions (like antibiotics for a common cold).
In terms of trusting medical professionals, this is the order, most trust to least, as I see it:
Pharmacists -- they know their stuff, because they are the last line of defense before someone has a harmful/fatal DI or AE.
Doctors -- you need to build a relationship before they'll give a rat's ass about anything except getting you through the door
Nurses -- some are great, but you need to be very careful
Pharma reps -- anything to sell more units.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the vessels (and various CT) are grown ex utero and not on the capillary scale. They are no easier to transplant than donated or synthetic vessels... the only difference is the risk of rejection being close to zero.
Also, not eating junk won't help you if you're on dialysis... you're still getting poked with a needle at least weekly, which is the cause of the degradation.
"the vast majority of people are not repeat visitors to the same hotel..."
No, but the vast number of frequent travelers are. Business travelers, jetsetters, etc... Not only that but for people who rarely travel to the same destination a lot still tend to stay at a particular chain. Incentive programs have made a big difference with this.
Even those of us who only stay at hotels 5x a year tend to stay in the same ones, if we go to the same city every year. Find one you like, stick to it.
You're paying to not have to be bothered with calling the front desk. The idea is that everything is at your fingertips, without you having to take action.
Believe me, if you're in NY, and not by choice, it's VERY nice having a few hours where you don't have to interact with anyone at any level.
Plus, this won't affect the room rates much, since it makes service more efficient -- reducing personnel costs.
There's nothing the tech in this room offers that isn't already done by humans at fine hotels (repeat customer at $HOTEL_CHAIN? They'll remember your preferences*). The only difference is, it's automated... automation is making headway in the service industry, since people have become more accustomed to it.
*As an example, by wife and I stay at Embassy Suites a lot... when the reservation is in her name, the thermostat is always at 75F when we check in. She did not ask for this -- I assume they noticed a pattern, and added it to her profile. In contrast, when the reservation is in my name, it's at 68F.
Ever send employees to travel on business, had them stay at a luxury hotel? Bringing in your own soda/booze is very declasse, and bad, bad form to be seen doing it at a good hotel.
Believe me, those minibars need replenishing very often.
Sure, but the best of the schlock is still schlock. Those standards that a movie has to make to get wide release? Profitability. A lot of the time, that means low-risk endeavors like sequels or adaptations. Studios fear throwing $80mil or more into a movie that doesn't have wide appeal. Same thing is happening with video games... the companies that can afford the best production quality aren't going to toss millions in dev cash into a high-risk title, until they've pockets deep enough to do so (like Take2 is close to doing, for instance). Then, they'll only do it until they get burned once or twice.
This is only going to get worse as the big movie houses start producing their own games, instead of selling IP rights to traditional game devs.
Well, lost potential revenues are one thing, LOSSES are another. And actually, it looks like the federal government redefined "loss" in re: fraud cases, here's the proposal (1998), see Appendix A: http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Lossdefn.pdf (pdf)
The fact of the matter is, though, that the MPAA can use LOSS when discussing these 'ghost' revenues, unless they are on their financial statements and disclosures.
They can claim they "LOST" sales. They can claim they "LOST" revenues. They can even claim that they "LOST $XXX,XXX,XXX in revenues according totheir calculations. They cannot claim they realized a financial LOSS though, unless they did.
The problem is not how they use loss -- the problem is that many people don't understand the difference between financial loss and whatever mumbo-jumbo the **AA are spewing.
Although, semantically, it would be nice if those of us in the know fdid not refer to their phantom revenues as "LOSS" though, since it is a matter of public perception.
"The author of the report, Marc de Gentile-Williams, said, "At 30 years of age, the games industry still suffers from an endemic lack of professional management compared to less mature industries such as the mobile telephony and the internet industries. "
Translation: Hire me! I'll make sure you have a few of those 80!
Only 80 [major release] games will be profitable. Dev costs of 3-6 mil, marketing costs up the wazoo, licensing costs eating up more of the pie... the game industry is turning into the movie industry.
TFA says that there is a lack of good management in the games industry, causing tons of bankruptcies etc. I say, great! I'd rather not have a static set of three game companies creating all the content. Besides, part of the reason that so many gaming companies drop off the face of the earth is that there is actual competition in the games industry... it's put up or shut up.
Whereas, in the movie industry, the consumer will put up with any schlock as long as it is one step better than the current competition (which changes frequently, due to short theater runs).
"I wonder how long yakForFree will remain *free*? I suppose their free plan is a give away for getting people to sign up for the enhanced services. But I can envision a time in the near future when the free will giveway to *cheap*."
If they grab enough marketshare, they can sell advertising to splash during usage. I can't see any other way of them making money off this without charging for it. Also, by stating that it's a videophone, they can limit people complaining about ad display on their monitors, like people did when it was attempted with VOIP... though I'm sure it will be in their EULA.
Possibly a tiered fee system, pay more for no ads.
Good point, but in my experience, most high school lit classes are all about knowing the plot and the characters. So, if someone can scrape by without ever actually opening the original work... well... crap.
My point was that the English language in use may actually be shrinking, not growing. As many words drop from the vernacular as are added to it, to the point that a lot of literature written in modern English, particularly prior to the first half of the 20th century, cannot be appreciated by a typical person.
If it stimulates interest, great... but at what cost? I'd rather not see a gimmicky text message, why wouldn't they text an actual quote? The whole reason for the abbreviations in text messaging is to save time when writing... I don't think it's necessary here.
"'We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology.'
Umm, is not 'their own independent analysis' rather oxymoronic?"
Well, it's redundant, but it doesn't even apply here... if they use Security Innovation's methodology, it's no longer an independent analysis.
"Language (specifically English for this context) is not a static language: it's always growing"
Well, I would agree that English, as a written language, is growing in terms of vocabulary... but I'd also say that English, as a spoken language, is not.
Sure, it changes, but I don't think it grows more than the growth of the English-speaking population can account for.
Words selected for nuanced meanings aren't used so much in verbal communication, since inflection and tone can easily add that nuance... the difficulty of this is that people lose the nuanced meanings of the written word. For example, 'utilize' != 'use' -- but the difference is lost on many people.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=Ironwood+and+Laneview&word2=Ironwood+and+Ediso n
Googlefight agrees, Ironwood and Edison has over twice the results.
If you mean to say that Cliff's Notes did reduce literature, but that this will do no worse harm, then I agree. Literature, like other expressive art, is about form as much as function. Unfortunately, people who use the Cliff's Notes to pass a high school lit class are missing at least half the value of the work.
This has very real effects, one easily comes to mind -- why do you think we get subjected to all these crappy movies? Or rather, why do you think so many people are willing to spend so much money on them?
"In other words, people only need to convey a small amount of information to communicate effectively, and they can do so while holding fundamentally different ideas about how their language describes the world."
Hundreds of slashdotters disagree.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure this applies to effective communication beyond what was tested. If you want to communicate effectively about very complex concepts, you need a complex language, and most likely a shared perception of how your language describes things.
Nuance is completely overlooked in his study, though I guess nuance isn't so important when your system only has to solve two binary and two quaternary variables.
So I guess my concern is that his measuring stick of "effectiveness" is a little short for me...
YMMV (though if it does, it doesn't really matter as long as we respond the same way, right?)
"The gags are all about the randomness of the wrong information cluttering his minds"
Gack. I feel overwhelmed sometimes with all the info clouding my single mind, I wonder how he manages with two or more?
TFA is, well, not a FA. The 'book review' is, well, not a book review. And the summary... well, you get the point, right?
I've got another summary (interpretation) of the excerpt:
Must prioritize. Must act according to priorities. Slashdot is not a priority. STFU & GBTW.
--Hemos
Funny, I never knew my boss's Slashdot alter ego was Hemos.
"Banning the ability to install other IM clients is anti-competitive, not merely bundling."
No, leveraging monopoly market-share of the OS to force adoption of an unrelated product is anti-competitive.
"Let's sue Apple for bundling their programs into their OS."
See above; Apple does not qualify as a trust or monopoly, so bundling does not force adoption of unrelated product on the vast majority of the market.
"I mean, the thing came out in the dark ages of 1998 and that thing had everything. RTSing and FPSing and ninjaing and hovertank racing and Cold War cliches."
That's all very good, but what about pirates? Did it have pirates?
No game can claim to have everything without at least a token nod to action on the high seas.
Well, that's not TFA. That's one source quoted by TFA. Without reading the research that Schadler used to come to his conclusion, I won't dispute it.
"Schadler says he's long believed that Blu-ray held the edge due to its superior capacity and the fact that Sony's PlayStation 3 will play Blu-ray movie discs. Oh really, and MS support via the 360 for HD-DVD won't have a cancelling effect on this?"
Well, it depends. -(some number) +(some other number) != 0.
Perhaps more people will be purchasing movies to watch on their PS3 than people will for the 360? Without studying the market, there's no way you can say the effects would cancel out.
Also, "Ted Schadler, vice president at Forrester Research, released a report that proclaimed, 'Blu-ray Will Win a Pyrrhic Victory Over HD-DVD.' " (emphasis mine)
In a pyrrhic victory, even the winner loses. I think Schadler's point is that in the end, Blu-ray will have a larger market share, possibly close to all the market. However, the cost in lost sales due to the format wars will be extremely damaging to market acceptance of the new tech. For example, there is no way I'm going to buy a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player (outside of my consoles) until I know for sure which format will be supported 5-10 years from now. Until then, I'll stick to plain old DVD.
MMO Adom? Question -- would you ever encounter anyone in the Infinite Dungeon, since it's generated anew each time you ascend/descend?
Well, brick-and-mortar overhead also accounts for some of that. The thing is, millions of people are willing to ay 50 or 60 bucks for a new game... so the price seems pretty fair. Me, I just wait to get it used, or wait until it hits the 'classics' stage and I can pick it up for $20.
The Hero System is another that works very well in lots of genres.
I converted a bunch of AD&D 2nd edition players to Hero System, all were in agreement that AD&D lacks realism... when they realized that a single arrow could indeed kill a level 4 PC, that was a shock.
Hero System is still a little Roll-heavy, but it's up to the GM to make gameplay revolve around roleplaying.
I had an incredibly good time with Gamma World, that was hard to replicate with AD&D... why?
Because of the profusion of rules in AD&D. GW had a nice small rule set, and everything else was up to the GM, which woorked out quite well for me, since I had a great one.
Nothing spoils a nice table-top session like a rules-lawyer player.
OTOH, I played in some fun Rolemaster campaigns, and if you like rules, you'll love Rolemaster.
"I mean the funny thing is I can buy the PC version of Call of Duty 2 for $35 on sale ($40 regular) yet the 360 one will be at least $50."
Aside from console licensing, which another person pointed out (and is the method by which MS & Sony attempt to recoup their losses on console sales & end up with a profit), there is the issue of demand. I'm not sure of units sold for CoD2 PC vs Console, but for new-release high-demand games without a console port (WoW, I'm looking at you) prices seem to be a bit higher than $40.
Come to think of it, WoW is not a good example, since game purchase is not the primary source of revenue. But Deus Ex etc sold for ~$50 at release.
"I have a better idea - why dont I assume that my doctor, who has trained for nearly a decade (and more), and who would probably have multiple orders of magnitude more information on me on my condition, would know best, and let them tell me if I need you drug., instead of listening to drug company propeganda?"
Because the doctors are subjected to marketing campaigns that are nearly as bad as the ones directed at consumers (BTW, in terms of pharma, you are a consumer -- not a patient).
Sure, you should trust your doctor more than some ad on TV, but there is no substitute for educating yourself. I worked in pharmacies during college -- I can't tell you how many times a doctor screwed up a prescription, which was caught by the pharmacist. This doesn't even include all the unnecessary prescriptions (like antibiotics for a common cold).
In terms of trusting medical professionals, this is the order, most trust to least, as I see it:
Pharmacists -- they know their stuff, because they are the last line of defense before someone has a harmful/fatal DI or AE.
Doctors -- you need to build a relationship before they'll give a rat's ass about anything except getting you through the door
Nurses -- some are great, but you need to be very careful
Pharma reps -- anything to sell more units.
Of course, there are exceptions to all of these.
But I'd never put blanket trust in an MD.