Yet factional warfare already seems to be quieting down. In the first few weeks after it I saw FW missions points in low sec all the time.
I don't think I've seen a single FW mission beacon in over a week now though.
Partly people are discovering how expensive FW is to do... others are finding out that with their learning implants going up in smoke they are skilling slower and thus keeping game features out of reach longer, which is annoying.
It is all what you make of it. The game can be pretty newbie friendly if you do a little reading or ask advice (nicely). The game IS pretty complicated, but if you go through the tutorial it will give you the basics.
Where most people run into trouble though is it is not a good power leveling game. If you go in to play and have fun EvE can be great for a newbie (esp since you have so little to loose, you can take lots of risks).. if you go in expecting to be great at things and quickly become powerful then it will be extremely frustrating.
One thing that a newbie can do is try a little of everything. One of the first things I did was learn to fly all the T1 frigates (low end cheap ships, not much SP or ISK required) and all the basic small weapons, which gave me weeks of just trying stuff out and seeing how things worked. Not exactly power leveling but it does give you a huge amount of 'what ifs'
Yep, they do have the short lifespans and disease.
At this point they do have a use for numbers (they have limited trade with the outside for things like shotgun shells and the like) and they have been exposed to numbers (so they know they exist) since Everett and his wife (and occasional poor grad student) have been going down there for decades...
So at this point it is probably that culturally they do not wish to import the numbers.
Actually they do not worry about time much either. Hunting is 'for fun' trade is done on a barter basis, gathering comes down to 'I am hungry, I will walk over here and get something eatable'.
The imagery of the full time hunter-gatherer spending all their time to survive doesn't hold in in their case.
That is actually one of the key points in support of the idea,... morality IS a survival mechanism, at least a form of it is. The problem tends to be that people take the 'morality is a luxury' concept too literally when what you have to do is separate 'survival morality' from 'luxury morality'.
Because organized relgions thrive on taking advantage of those in a bad situation?
Tell some poor farmer that if he does what you say and follow your orders,then he will be rewarded with all the luxary that the upper class gets, yes, that farmer will be quite relgious. But no more moral.
Unless they have someone handling pretty much thier entire life for them and letting them live in an isolated little back-yard where they don't need to interact.. they probably would not survive long.
The Piraha are actually pretty spoiled and lazy.... very ID oriented.
It is only a load of crap if hardware/software never change again and video games freeze in time, never to be improved again.
In which case we can also take away tech support (since customers think they game they paid for will magicly work on all hardware/software without glithes), we can take away commuity forums, ideas and suggestions, the whole thing.
No patches, no updates, no improvements, no sequals.
Conversely though it also makes it more difficult to hide details from your competitor or to convince an underwriter that you have a secure chain.
And thinking about it, GPL does not really stop your competitor from integrating chunks of your code into their stuff, it just makes it easier (assuming lawsuit) to grab some of their stuff back. If they do not add any value then they gain but you do not.
GCC, glibc an the Linux kernel allow you to create works using them, so the are not the best example here. The bulk of the things 'using' them get around the 'derived works' issue. They actually act very BSD in that regard.
Someone who writies and application using GCC (and thus including bits of gcc within it'self), linking to glibc, or talking to the kernel does not have to GPL that program.
If either of these 3 components required anything that touched them to be GPL too then they would probalby not be very successful since many programmers would seek a more permissive tool to build things off of.
Though with long tail it looks like 'the rich get richer and the nitch go from zero to something', so while the artists don't make out like bandits it is still better for them then the pure blockbuster model.
Having now gone through the entire piece, I'm changing my take from skeptical to balanced. The research does not actually go against "Long Tail" theory at all (despite the researching saying it does, which is really confusing).
The end argument of the research basicly says that heavy customers do in fact dip into tail markets and having a good obscure selection can be really good for business but it is important to keep a good eye on cost/return on such content. Much of this is actually in the advertising/marketing space and is really talking about how you PROMOTE your material rather then what you carry... so promote the popular things that will draw people in then have a good selection of obscure things to satisfy the wide requirements of heavy customers.
So it almost reads like a 'long tail has some good business logic behind it but chris is an overenthusasitic idiot who simplifies things and abanonds balance and cost/benifit anaysis'
Eh, the thing with Harvard researchers though is they can be very narrow viewed in their targets. They often focus a lot on big players and methods that work well for big companies so the research tends to be slanted that way. While they have some really useful things to say they have to be taken with a grain of salt if you are aiming for small under-served markets or not planning to get huge.
A typical concept, which actually relates here, would be saying that nitches are not worth serving because the mass market is so much bigger and the margins are higher, therefor you should only serve the mass market. Nitch markets have caps on them, mass markets generally do not. The reasoning works really well if you want to grow large and compete dirrectly with the other biggies, but fails flat if you are trying to go into a nitch with little or no existing competition.
Brick and Mortar stores? No. Other online stores quite possibly.
I can recall years ago I did the bulk of my bookshopping through Abe Books. They handled the obscure stuff really well (back when amazon didn't) but didn't have all that great of a 'top 10' support. As amazon moved into the obscure space I shifted there since they supported both cases well.
There are still books that I can only get on AbeBooks or other such obscure sites (scientific journals and adult material both fall into this catagory)... if some newly built site aggrigated those AND amazon's obscure stuff and handled the common things at least remotely well I would probably migrate to that store.
Much of TFA focuses on things like "20% of your catalog generates 80% of your revenue, so the 20% is more profitable and should be focused on.
But that kinda sidestepps the point. If I went to my boss and said 'Hey, I have a method where we can get 10-30% more revenue with no significant additional infrastructure outside content space' you better believe they would jump on the idea.
Conversly if I said 'hey, I can cut a small percent of our operating costs by reducing our content selection but it will cost us around 20% of our revenue' I would be tarred and feathered.
Yes 90% of the customers buy 10% of the goods, but what is the breakdown for each customer? Personally MOST of the time I buy in that 10%, but I also go to amazon for that other 90% (even if it only makes up 10% of my buying)... if amazon can't deliver that they then not only loose that 10% of my buying but the other 90% because I will just move to a store that handles my full needs better.
Might have something to do with learning style. Some people seem to benefit from the way UML lays things out, other people find them more frustrating then just looking over the headers or example code.
I don't know, as a 'someone else' I find diagrams pretty useless for understanding a system. A good API document, spec, or header file directory does wonders.
Because the sites the malware connects through pay via click through.
What that bit of malware probably did was go around to a bunch of sites that the author gets fees from and makes it look like someone is browsing them.
Get a botnet of 1,000 computers going and it looks like hacker X convinced 1,000 people to view the site over and over.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet factional warfare already seems to be quieting down. In the first few weeks after it I saw FW missions points in low sec all the time.
I don't think I've seen a single FW mission beacon in over a week now though.
Partly people are discovering how expensive FW is to do... others are finding out that with their learning implants going up in smoke they are skilling slower and thus keeping game features out of reach longer, which is annoying.
Most of the core dev team at CCP is made up of old UO PvPers.
It is all what you make of it. The game can be pretty newbie friendly if you do a little reading or ask advice (nicely). The game IS pretty complicated, but if you go through the tutorial it will give you the basics.
Where most people run into trouble though is it is not a good power leveling game. If you go in to play and have fun EvE can be great for a newbie (esp since you have so little to loose, you can take lots of risks).. if you go in expecting to be great at things and quickly become powerful then it will be extremely frustrating.
One thing that a newbie can do is try a little of everything. One of the first things I did was learn to fly all the T1 frigates (low end cheap ships, not much SP or ISK required) and all the basic small weapons, which gave me weeks of just trying stuff out and seeing how things worked. Not exactly power leveling but it does give you a huge amount of 'what ifs'
Ah, if I had mod points right now....
The corruption in BoB has become ledgendary ^_^
Yep, they do have the short lifespans and disease.
At this point they do have a use for numbers (they have limited trade with the outside for things like shotgun shells and the like) and they have been exposed to numbers (so they know they exist) since Everett and his wife (and occasional poor grad student) have been going down there for decades...
So at this point it is probably that culturally they do not wish to import the numbers.
Actually they do not worry about time much either. Hunting is 'for fun' trade is done on a barter basis, gathering comes down to 'I am hungry, I will walk over here and get something eatable'.
The imagery of the full time hunter-gatherer spending all their time to survive doesn't hold in in their case.
That is actually one of the key points in support of the idea,... morality IS a survival mechanism, at least a form of it is. The problem tends to be that people take the 'morality is a luxury' concept too literally when what you have to do is separate 'survival morality' from 'luxury morality'.
Because organized relgions thrive on taking advantage of those in a bad situation?
Tell some poor farmer that if he does what you say and follow your orders,then he will be rewarded with all the luxary that the upper class gets, yes, that farmer will be quite relgious. But no more moral.
Unless they have someone handling pretty much thier entire life for them and letting them live in an isolated little back-yard where they don't need to interact.. they probably would not survive long.
The Piraha are actually pretty spoiled and lazy.... very ID oriented.
It is only a load of crap if hardware/software never change again and video games freeze in time, never to be improved again.
In which case we can also take away tech support (since customers think they game they paid for will magicly work on all hardware/software without glithes), we can take away commuity forums, ideas and suggestions, the whole thing.
No patches, no updates, no improvements, no sequals.
*headdesk*
Conversely though it also makes it more difficult to hide details from your competitor or to convince an underwriter that you have a secure chain.
And thinking about it, GPL does not really stop your competitor from integrating chunks of your code into their stuff, it just makes it easier (assuming lawsuit) to grab some of their stuff back. If they do not add any value then they gain but you do not.
GCC, glibc an the Linux kernel allow you to create works using them, so the are not the best example here. The bulk of the things 'using' them get around the 'derived works' issue. They actually act very BSD in that regard.
Someone who writies and application using GCC (and thus including bits of gcc within it'self), linking to glibc, or talking to the kernel does not have to GPL that program.
If either of these 3 components required anything that touched them to be GPL too then they would probalby not be very successful since many programmers would seek a more permissive tool to build things off of.
Good breakdown.
Though with long tail it looks like 'the rich get richer and the nitch go from zero to something', so while the artists don't make out like bandits it is still better for them then the pure blockbuster model.
Having now gone through the entire piece, I'm changing my take from skeptical to balanced. The research does not actually go against "Long Tail" theory at all (despite the researching saying it does, which is really confusing).
The end argument of the research basicly says that heavy customers do in fact dip into tail markets and having a good obscure selection can be really good for business but it is important to keep a good eye on cost/return on such content. Much of this is actually in the advertising/marketing space and is really talking about how you PROMOTE your material rather then what you carry... so promote the popular things that will draw people in then have a good selection of obscure things to satisfy the wide requirements of heavy customers.
So it almost reads like a 'long tail has some good business logic behind it but chris is an overenthusasitic idiot who simplifies things and abanonds balance and cost/benifit anaysis'
A simplier way to put my point... their pieces tends to make sense on a macro scale,... but apply poorly to little 'mom and pop' companies.
Yeah, poor summary there. ^_^
Eh, the thing with Harvard researchers though is they can be very narrow viewed in their targets. They often focus a lot on big players and methods that work well for big companies so the research tends to be slanted that way. While they have some really useful things to say they have to be taken with a grain of salt if you are aiming for small under-served markets or not planning to get huge.
A typical concept, which actually relates here, would be saying that nitches are not worth serving because the mass market is so much bigger and the margins are higher, therefor you should only serve the mass market. Nitch markets have caps on them, mass markets generally do not. The reasoning works really well if you want to grow large and compete dirrectly with the other biggies, but fails flat if you are trying to go into a nitch with little or no existing competition.
Brick and Mortar stores? No. Other online stores quite possibly.
I can recall years ago I did the bulk of my bookshopping through Abe Books. They handled the obscure stuff really well (back when amazon didn't) but didn't have all that great of a 'top 10' support. As amazon moved into the obscure space I shifted there since they supported both cases well.
There are still books that I can only get on AbeBooks or other such obscure sites (scientific journals and adult material both fall into this catagory)... if some newly built site aggrigated those AND amazon's obscure stuff and handled the common things at least remotely well I would probably migrate to that store.
Much of TFA focuses on things like "20% of your catalog generates 80% of your revenue, so the 20% is more profitable and should be focused on.
But that kinda sidestepps the point. If I went to my boss and said 'Hey, I have a method where we can get 10-30% more revenue with no significant additional infrastructure outside content space' you better believe they would jump on the idea.
Conversly if I said 'hey, I can cut a small percent of our operating costs by reducing our content selection but it will cost us around 20% of our revenue' I would be tarred and feathered.
Chris Anderson is an idiot, but he only popularized long tail theory, not developed it. Shouldn't hold a twit supporter against a good idea.
One thing I am curoius how or if they tracked...
Yes 90% of the customers buy 10% of the goods, but what is the breakdown for each customer? Personally MOST of the time I buy in that 10%, but I also go to amazon for that other 90% (even if it only makes up 10% of my buying)... if amazon can't deliver that they then not only loose that 10% of my buying but the other 90% because I will just move to a store that handles my full needs better.
Might have something to do with learning style. Some people seem to benefit from the way UML lays things out, other people find them more frustrating then just looking over the headers or example code.
I don't know, as a 'someone else' I find diagrams pretty useless for understanding a system. A good API document, spec, or header file directory does wonders.
Yeah, wired has really dropped in quality. I used to really enjoy the site but now I just go there to watch the flamewars in the comments section.
seriously, wired.com posters make slashdot look like a beacon of intellect, critical thinking, and politeness.
Because the sites the malware connects through pay via click through.
What that bit of malware probably did was go around to a bunch of sites that the author gets fees from and makes it look like someone is browsing them.
Get a botnet of 1,000 computers going and it looks like hacker X convinced 1,000 people to view the site over and over.
*nods* people tend to forget how critical it is to democracy to have a non-democratic check in the system to keep the balance.