If your logic holds, then why didn't the Gamecube have any 720p or 1080i games?
Agreed. Moreover, this is not a hardware limitation issue per se; its a philosophy.
By leaving HD out this round, they change the value proposition. Lets face it most of us will not have an HDTV in the lifespan of the Wii. HDTV is definately the next big thing, and sales are skyrocketing, but it will be several years yet before "everyone has one".
So... consider a game getting the 3 way port. Yeah, the Wii has weaker hardware, but it only needs to push 1/4 the pixels, so it can still run the same games of the same depth and complexity as the other two consoles. Granted the picture quality won't be as good... but that only affects a minority of the playerbase, while they ALL benefit from the lower price.
For someone without an HDTV its almost a ripoff buying hardware they can't benefit from. If you -don't- have an hdtv shelling out the premium for a PS3 to cover a blueray player you can't properly use is almost absurd.
As someone with an HDTV, I'd have loved to see the Wii support it, but given the price difference, I won't feel ripped off in the least that it doesn't. That I really like the direction Nintendo is going with Wii in terms of the controller etc doesn't hurt either.
Wikipedia like human knowledge is fluid in that is ever changing.
Yes, but and my point is that this is actually true of all representations of human knowledge - EXCEPT wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the one representation of knowledge where data is continually added, but never changed. If I write that that elephants have tripled in population, true or untrue, that datum will always be there, to be considered or ignored. In this case its not true, and it won't be on the "front page" of the elephant article for all time (nor should it be), but it will still be there. This is fundamentally different from previous repositories of knowledge, like encyclopedia, where both errors (and inconvenient truths) can be permanently removed, and eventually erased from memory.
The Truth never changes, it is always the same.
Agreed. And I recognize that the contrast between "our knowledge" and "the truth" was Colbert's point, along with a satirization of what wikipedia apparently lets you do to "our knowledge".
My point however is the "irony" of wikipedia. With one hand it gives everyone the freedom to contribute to "our knowledge" (or disrupt it) yet with the other hand it simultaneously "preserves the past" the way no other repository ever has.
Wikipedia represents the state of human knowledge at some point in time which is vastly different than the Truth.
That is true of all encyclopedia.
Wikipedia represents the changing state of human knowledge from some point in time forwards, with emphasis on topics of the day, and greatest emphasis on topics that impact most on the segment of society that contributes to wikipedia. THAT is why Truthiness is longer than Lutheranism.
In 50 years an article about Truthiness might be just one line while the article about Lutheranism will still be the same length, if not longer.
Probably not. Who would shorten it, and why?
Wikipedia only has the "truth of the moment" while the Truth is something timeless.
Wikipedia records changes, so you can actually view the "truth of the moment" as it changes. If they can maintain that in perpetuity THAT may be its greatest contribution to society; the ability to go back in time.
As Colbert observed, anything can be "true" as long you beleive it. But wikipedia, for all his (hilarious!) satire still wins by both enabling errors to be fixed, and enabling previous versions to be seen.
Consider that even the mainstream encyclopedias refer to the terrorist attack of 9/11. 100 years from now, it may be revered as a heroic sacrifice made by the founding fathers of the proud and benevolent Irafganistyiaraq world super-power. But if wikipedia can hold onto its principles, you'd still be able to turn the clock back and read "the version from today" too.
Similiarly if wikipedia existed a few hundred years ago we could look back and read articles about the traiter George Washington, one of the high ranking leaders of a terrorist group seeking to overthrow the government, waging a war to carve his very own country out of the British Empire...or whatever.
Revisionist history has always existed, and will always exist; wikipedia may make history a little easier to revise... but at least makes it easy to see the revisions. And that's worth putting up with a little vandalism. Here's hoping they're still around in 100 years.
I saw the first blueray players setup at the local electronics retailer yesterday. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. I have an HDTV and a decent new progressive scan DVD player.
When I first walked in to the store, and saw the big scren tv playing its movie, I wasn't wowed, I did NOT say: "Damn, that's clear, that can't be a DVD! Is it BlueRay? HDDVD? I gotta find out more!"
I just assumed it was a regular DVD, and didn't give it much thought. I didn't have the slightest idea that I was looking at a BlueRay presentation until I noticed the blue ray logo on the advertising signage underneath.
This is a miles away from when I saw my first DVD, when I was literally amazed. Especially because at that time I mostly watched rented VHS, which were always somewhat worse for the wear.
Factor in the premium for the HD player and the movies themselves. ($46 bucks for movies I would typically pick up for under $20, often under $15)
So, will I get one? Yeah, eventually, when the price comes down to around 200-300, the format war is settled (or rendered irrelevant by cheap dual-mode players), and title availability is high. My first impression left me disctinctly underwhelmed. Paying *that* much more for soemthing that doesn't look even half *that* much better just isn't worth it to me.
Where would the average slashdotter ever go that would take 5 whole minutes? 2.5 minutes is more than enough to get the average slashdotter to the bathroom and back, even with a side trip to the kitchen.
And rather than studying up or discussing the issue with their friends, like an average reader might do for a political or religious story, they completely lose interest.
An average reader would lose interest in all 3, and just read about N Sync band members coming out of the closet. That's all they want to know about anyway.
If you are going to spend full price on a Microsoft Operating system just to make it legit, you might as well buy the new one. I'd wait for Vista, or even get the Vista beta if you wanted to do something right now.
I used to routinely make creations several feet high or square, (we split the old pile 4 ways when we "grew up") it would take 6-8 of those boxes (at $20 USD each) to get that many of the classic blocks again.
Trust me. There was never a normal single set that could make a creation several feet high out of 2x4s. I'd be very curious what you think you had?!
I mean, lets look at the basic sets sets" circa 1975-1985 and see what they had for "basic 2x4" bricks. (Not counting anything funky with slopes, or holes for wheels, etc)
These are some of the "basic universal lego sets" from that era. They were the plain white boxes that usually showed a house or tower or garage type building, along with a vehicle or two - boat, plane, truck, helicopter, or something. They were
Set 720, with 325 pieces has 3 -- link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/720-1 Set 400, with 294 pieces has 4 -- link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/400-1 Set 404, with 467 pieces has 8 -- this set by the way had an MSRP of 40.00 (in 1976) Set 530, with 263 pieces has 13 -- link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/530-1 Set 733, with 493 pieces has 5 --... you get the idea... Set 740, with 523 pieces has 6 Set 744, with 572 pieces has 2 Set 912, with 467 pieces has 8
So even back in the day, the even the universal basic lego sets were pretty anemic on the 2x4s.
However, yes, there were some "really basic bricks only" sets back then too. Lets take a look at a couple of those:
Set "10" with 152 pieces has 48 Set "7" with 413 pieces has 157 - link: Set "5" with 328 pieces has 130 - link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/005-2
So how does this compare with modern lego?
Set 4496 with 805 pieces has 66 (the blue tub i linked before) Set 5486 with 674 pieces has 44 (the red tub i linked before) Set 4423 with 800 pieces has 142
Admittedly the ratios aren't quite as good as they were in the 70's for but lets look at the price too. Set 4423 costs $19.99 Set 4496 & 5486 each cost $29.99
MSRP for Set 5 (the only price I have for that line was 9.95 in 1968), according the currency adjuster on the Federal Reserve website, set 5 would cost 57.90 in today's dollars.
Frankly I think availability and Price of basic blocks today at least as good as or better than it ever was. Factor in that you can log into ebay and buy bulk used lego by the pound and its even better.
but there's still a lack of basic parts on the shelves.
That really depends where you shop I guess. Around here it doesn't seem to be a problem. The ToysRus, Walmart, and Zellers all have a stack of these on the shelves:
Sub in a few star wars space craft to for my classic space stuff.
And I can pretty much recreate my childhood.
All the linked sets are readily available in stores around here, at least.
----------------
the other issue is almost the other extreme with mindstorms. They need better pieces in order to make more useful models. Once you get past a certian size.. about 12" in any direction they "techinic" models become fragile and unweildly to PLAY with./shrug
This one is a non-issue to me. Lego has a scale limitation for most projects. All you can do is get over it. A lego car can only be so big (and be playable) - the available choices for wheels alone are a limiting factor. For motorized creations, yeah the scale limitations are more insurmountable because now you are limited by batteries, motor torque, and so on, not just lego's structural limitations... but so what?
Suppose you *could* make a working lawnmower out of lego... it would be too dangerous to sell to kids.;)
but I cant help but think LEGO's biggest problem was when they went away from generic build kits to licensed sets with highly proprietary (i.e. unusable for much else) pieces.
They pretty much had to.
If the set has no unique pieces a kid with 10 other sets has no real need to buy it.
My kids are playing with thousands of pieces from my childhood. If lego was selling the same generic kits, I'd be hard pressed justifying buying them any new sets. The star war lego sets, for example, allowed us to build better tie fighters and x-wings than we'd been able to build out of classic space and blacktron...
Part of what made LEGO's cool in my day was that you could create just about anything you could think up.
You can still do that...or perhaps you never could.
Making a decent castle out of classic space lego was almost impossible, and making an x-wing out of the classic yellow castle was an exercise in futility. But with a good mix of lego from a variety of new sets, and you have as much freedom as you ever did. More freedom in some cases... I'd have killed for the ball joints that are common now.;)
Todays sets appear to be more of a model kit than a creative toy
Individually that's probably true. But lego still lets you go anywhere once you've got a few sets from different 'genres'.
How the hell do you break the cord? I've swung a first-gen microsoft optimouse over my head in a circle and it only broke [the mouse not the cord] when it hit a concrete wall.
Well, I didn't break the cord right off. I simply broke a wire inside, or at the solder point. I'm not sure what the issue was but I suspect it was getting snagged and then breaking on the "down pull".
It started responding intermittently dropping out everynow and then, and wiggling the cable woul cause the "new hardware detected" bubble too randomly popup.
Logically, if there are gaming addicts, all that shows is that people can and will use entertainment to fill a void in their life. Singling it out like it's pathological, which is what the clinic in TFA does, is uncalled for.
The clinic in TFA is swamped. The neighboring tv addict clinic isn't... oh wait, there isn't one because its such a small problem by comparison that nobody has even bothered opening a clinic for it.
(Ok, yeah, it might be a big problem, and its just invisible. But without real evidence beyond arguments like "Well its possible tv addiction is a big problem because people can obsess about anything" I'm inclined to beleive tv addiction is genuinely less of an issue, whether its because few people are affected, or because few people are seriously impacted by it.)
If gaming addicts need help and intervention, then so do the TV addicts.
Yeah, some probably do.
However an addiction to video games is more visible, when it occurs it can be very severe affecting peoples lives to a great extent.
Getting addicted to caffiene and crack cocain are the same basic problem too, but crack addicts are more of a problem even though the number of people who get cranky without their morning coffee vastly exceeds the number crackheads who'll prostitute themselves between breaking into cars just to keep the fixes coming.
For me the benefit of cordless mice has been that there is no cord to break.
When I used corded mice, I never found the cord really got in my way to the point that I was annoyed by it, but the last 6 corded mice I had all broke where the cord connected to the mouse.
Cordless mice obviously don't suffer that problem.
YMMV, but I won't ever buy a corded mouse again.
Keyboards on the other hand... I'm with you there... mine never leaves the desk... whats the appeal of a cordless keyboard? (outside of a multimedia pc in your living room)
What about those that play a lot, but only because that's what they like to do? Believe it or not it's perfectly possible to spend lots of time playing games, but simply because you've time to spend and that's what you like spending it on.
I'm not arguing that.
For some reason when it's TV or sports or anything like that, it's seen as ok, even when people ARe obsessive about it (I know obsessive TV watchers) hwoever when it's games, oh my god, something horrible must be wrong.
I'm not going to suggest you are lying, but I've never met ANYONE even 2nd hand ("friend of a friend") who was obsessive about TV watching. I know lots of people that you could argue obsess about a show, or a sports league/team, but that's not the same as being what I'd call obsessive about "TV".
This is not to say that we don't need to be aware of game addiction, we do as with any other addiciton.
Agreed.
However the problem is too many seem to think that playing lots of games = game addict.
There is definately some truth to that. Not everyone who plays a lot of games is an "addict", just as not everyone who drinks a lot is an alcoholic. But at the same time, gaming, like alcoholism has a high visibility precisely because it seems to have a higher than average problem rate.
The same sort of questions that root out "problem gambling" or "acholism" from a healthy level can be applied...
"Is gambling the most exciting thing in your life?" "Have you ever missed work or school to gamble?" "Have you ever missed family obligations to gamble?" "Do you lie to friends or family about how much you gamble?" "Do you brag to friends or family about how much you gamble?" "Do you need to spend more time gambling to get the same thrill?" "Do you fight with your family or friends/significant other about how much you gamble?" "Do you feel depressed or lose sleep after you lose money gambling?" "Do you find your self spending the time you aren't gambling thinking about and planning to gamble?" "Do you gamble to escape or forget your problems?" "Do you spend more money gambling than intend to?" etc...
A lot of these can be adapted to other obsessive behaviours, including gaming. And while a yes answer doesn't automatically mean you have a problem, if you see a lot of yes anwsers... then maybe there is one.
To use your example of a person who "simply likes playing video games a lot" or "watches a lot of tv" for example, probably isn't going to have a lot of yes answers... it won't be cutting into other obligations, they won't over spending, or getting depressed or rating it the most important part of their life, or fighting with their girlfriend over it....
Like gaming is the one kind of entertainment that people can't do a lot fo and not be addicted.
Nobody is saying -that-. Gambling, for example, is form of entertainment that is a MUCH bigger problem.
Well that's just not true, it's no different than any other kind of entertainement. Some people will like it occasionally but no more, osme peopel like it a lot, some of those that like it a lot will get obsessive about it and let it rule their lives. However that's true of just about anything.
Yes, but amount of damage it does to their lives, wallets, and the amount of people it affects varies considerably.
a) Obsessively watch new episodes of CSI:Miami - Something that only burns an hour a week, costs 0$, and affects maybe 5 people isn't terribly serious.
b) World of Warcraft - Something that can burns all the time you have, 24x7, costs a minor amount of money in the form of fees, plus lost wages if you hit the point of skipping work, and is known to affect a lot of people is quite a bit more serious.
c) Gambling - Something that can burn all your time, easily bankrupt you, and is estimated to a
You know, a lot of people watch television in excess of 4-6 hours a day. I've never once heard any of them referred to as "addicts."
That's because very few of them have any obsessive compulsion to watch TV. You put them in a room with a TV and they'll watch it... its the path of least resistance to entertainment for a lot of people; for most of them its just lazyness.
If you give them something else to do they won't get all anxious and grouchy until they can sit in front of the TV again. They might have a favorite show or two, or go out of their way to catch specific event... but they don't habitually miss work & school, stay up all night, skip meals and showers, and abandon their friends, just to put little more time in with the TV. If "a lot of people" started doing that then we probably -would- call them addicted.
With video games, particularly MMOGS, however, this is exactly what they do. They'll spend every available waking moment playing them. They will give up their friends, they will skip meals, they will skip school & work.
They aren't "lazy" at all. Laziness requires a certain level of passiveness. "Addicts" aren't passive. Quite the opposite - they will go to great lengths to keep playing as much as possible for as long as possible as often as possible.
Whether or not its a chemical addiction with pysiological withdrawl effects or purely psychological doesn't really matter. Like compulsive gambling, it effects a surprising number of people, and it hits them hard. It is a real problem, and ignoring it or pretending its not real because theirs no obvious chemical dependancy isn't going do anyone any good.
no, it reduces the selling merchant's profits by 5% of the total sales price when compared to pocketing it. Unless of course the 5% is a dealbreaker to the purchaser.
Which it would be if the purchaser had a rewards program from the card. At the very least the vendor has to beat that.
The premise I'm suggesting is more along these lines: suppose the merchant was taking credit card orders from you before. Say I'm ordering a few crates of widgets a month on AMEX, and I then offer to pay cash in exachange for a 4% discount... the vendor, currently paying 5% to amex, ends up 1% ahead of where they were and the buyer ends up 4% ahead (less any "rewards" program they got from AMEX, so in this case both parties end up ahead.
Sure the vendor would -love- to take cash and offer no discount, but who is going to take them up on that when they are getting a 1% cashback reward by using the card? You can call it a "reduction of profits of the total sales price when compared to pocketing it" if you like but, as you noted yourself, its a pretty meaningless number if you couldn't close the deal on those terms anyways.
$4 x 2000 items per month is $8000/mo, not $2000...
Yup. I'm a victim of self-editing. I tweaked the numbers a few times to many, and apparently I forgot to redo the math at the end of it all.:p
'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'
In other words, "adversaries of this country" can safely assume AT&T disclosed large quantities of telephone records. In the unlikely event that they didn't, our adversaries will surely and prudently prefer err on the side of caution.
Citizens of this country, by contrast, have been denied even the semblance of justice, as their own government tramples over their rights.
If that isn't victory for the "adversaries of this country" I don't know what would be.
I'm sorry, my business has a merchant account, and that's not the way it works.
I think you misunderstood me.
AFAIK, all of those rewards programs come directly out of the profits that the bank gets, and not out of the pockets of merchants, I've never heard otherwise.
Where do you think the profits the bank got to fund the rewards program came from?
Your right of course, YOU never get directly docked based on the specific rewards program a particular customer uses, I never meant to imply that. Merely that the rewards programs are ultimately paid for by the transaction fees you pay to visa.
As to your comment about it enabling spontaneous purchases, and being worth it for your business, I completely agree!
But you seem to be thinking, based on what you've said, only from the point of view of a retailer to his customers?? If so, how do you pay your wholesaler for your inventory? By credit card? Only if you have to until you can convince them you are reputable/reliable enough to be allowed to purchase on terms. And how do you think the wholesaler pays for inventory from the manfacturer? I can almost gaurantee you that they aren't using credit cards. And the manufacturer paying for raw materials or components? And so on...
Think about what it would do to the cost of goods to you if a 3.2% "tax" were drawn by visa at each stage of production. By the time you got it could be 10-15% higher. A smart businessman (hell, even a dim wit businessman) could see the opportunity to cut costs 10-15% without affecting anyones profit (except VISAs) simply by switching to cash payments up the supply chain. That's a pretty serious advantage.:)
Credit cards make sense for end-user-consumers, and businesses that service those consumers need to support taking credit cards, but when you start moving up the chain, credit cards rapidly disappear. "Smart businessmen don't use them, because they raise the cost."
So if I don't use my cash-back card and pay cash, the merchant pockets the 5% price increase as profit. If I use the card, he gives the 5% to the credit card company who gives me 1%, a net discount over the prices cash-users pay.
In general yes. Which is why the quote really doesn't apply to joe consumer.
On the other hand, the merchant is basing their profit margins based on the percentage of consumers that use credit vs cash. If its a 50/50 split they might only need to raise their price 2.5% to cover the transaction costs. (e.g. if their target markup is 50%, they might only make 48% on orders with credit cards, and 52% on orders with cash.... if everyone started using credit, they'd have to up the price 2%...)
If the improbable happened, and all credit-card users everywhere boycotted, the credit-card companies would lose the income, but the merchants would have no incentive to cut the prices.
Perhaps, depends entirely on the industry. In segments with lots of competition, prices would likely be cut. Around here, there are several computer parts shops that run on razor thin margins that do not accept credit cards so that they can afford to undercut their competitors that do accept credit cards. (It also has led several to create controversial "3% cash discount" or "4% credit card surcharge" policies which, from my understanding they aren't supposed to do.
At any rate, its the counter example to your scenario where the merchant just pockets the 5% if you pay cash.
Yes, negotiating terms is smarter but few small businessmen have the economic clout (volume) to force suppliers to negotiate substantial price differences.
You might not be able to negotiate terms for -everything- you buy but most businesses that produce or distribute real goods are moving -something- in fairly large quanties. And remember, switching from credit to terms with 5% discount really doesn't require a lot of "clout"... the merchant isn't really doing anything except giving the money they would have paid visa back to you instead. It doesn't affect their bottom line at all, and even a not-so-smart businessman should be able to see that this is MUCH better than buying on credit for a 1% cashback.
A small company moving 2000 100$ items per month. Reducing cost on those items by 4% is $4 per item...is $2000/mo enough enough to cover an employee... or lease the owner a Porsche 911...whatever.:)
Uhh, no it doesn't. I get to pay later and get 1% cash back.
Uhhh... yes it does. The merchant gets to pay VISA say 4% for the priviledge of letting you pay later and get 1% back. Guess what, the merchant you bought from had to raise prices 5% or even more in order to afford allowing you to make purchases with VISA.
As long as I make my payments it is a smart thing to do.
Negotiating terms, buying on account, and paying by cheque is even smarter. Not something you can do when buying a roll of toilet paper at walmart... but then the quote referred to "businessmen" not "walmart shoppers".
Making it illegal to photograph license plates isn't aimed at joe nobody or his private investigator.
Its aimed at preventing megacorporations and governments deploying city or nationwide camera/tracking systems.
It will be trivially easy to enforce because a nation-wide network of cameras is going to be nearly impossible to hide, especially if data that it captures is being actively used.
Consider again that report feature, reports may not be printed and you might have to run thousands of them on a single machine. That 0.7 seconds saved, multiplied over 100,000 transactions becomes 70000 seconds (about 19 hours)
Agreed. *Consider* the situation. Sometimes optimising will make sense. Sometimes it won't. Blindly advocating either is silly.
If you are running 100,000 in an automated batch then yeah it may be worth going back and optimising it. But if the report is only run by one or two executives once a month optimisation is irrelevant. And in still more cases 100,000 people each interactively run one copy of their own report, on their own computer - and in practice saving 100,000 people 0.7 seconds each - that's going to be tough to see a return on, even if it does add up to 19 hours in aggregate.
Slashdot Mirror
If your logic holds, then why didn't the Gamecube have any 720p or 1080i games?
Agreed. Moreover, this is not a hardware limitation issue per se; its a philosophy.
By leaving HD out this round, they change the value proposition. Lets face it most of us will not have an HDTV in the lifespan of the Wii. HDTV is definately the next big thing, and sales are skyrocketing, but it will be several years yet before "everyone has one".
So... consider a game getting the 3 way port. Yeah, the Wii has weaker hardware, but it only needs to push 1/4 the pixels, so it can still run the same games of the same depth and complexity as the other two consoles. Granted the picture quality won't be as good... but that only affects a minority of the playerbase, while they ALL benefit from the lower price.
For someone without an HDTV its almost a ripoff buying hardware they can't benefit from. If you -don't- have an hdtv shelling out the premium for a PS3 to cover a blueray player you can't properly use is almost absurd.
As someone with an HDTV, I'd have loved to see the Wii support it, but given the price difference, I won't feel ripped off in the least that it doesn't. That I really like the direction Nintendo is going with Wii in terms of the controller etc doesn't hurt either.
Don't you mean Israfghyiaanonanaq?
;)
Whichever is ruled by the descendants of Mahmoudahmadinawhatnow
Props on digging up the correct spelling, btw.
-cheers,
Wikipedia like human knowledge is fluid in that is ever changing.
Yes, but and my point is that this is actually true of all representations of human knowledge - EXCEPT wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the one representation of knowledge where data is continually added, but never changed. If I write that that elephants have tripled in population, true or untrue, that datum will always be there, to be considered or ignored. In this case its not true, and it won't be on the "front page" of the elephant article for all time (nor should it be), but it will still be there. This is fundamentally different from previous repositories of knowledge, like encyclopedia, where both errors (and inconvenient truths) can be permanently removed, and eventually erased from memory.
The Truth never changes, it is always the same.
Agreed. And I recognize that the contrast between "our knowledge" and "the truth" was Colbert's point, along with a satirization of what wikipedia apparently lets you do to "our knowledge".
My point however is the "irony" of wikipedia. With one hand it gives everyone the freedom to contribute to "our knowledge" (or disrupt it) yet with the other hand it simultaneously "preserves the past" the way no other repository ever has.
Wikipedia represents the state of human knowledge at some point in time which is vastly different than the Truth.
That is true of all encyclopedia.
Wikipedia represents the changing state of human knowledge from some point in time forwards, with emphasis on topics of the day, and greatest emphasis on topics that impact most on the segment of society that contributes to wikipedia. THAT is why Truthiness is longer than Lutheranism.
In 50 years an article about Truthiness might be just one line while the article about Lutheranism will still be the same length, if not longer.
Probably not. Who would shorten it, and why?
Wikipedia only has the "truth of the moment" while the Truth is something timeless.
Wikipedia records changes, so you can actually view the "truth of the moment" as it changes. If they can maintain that in perpetuity THAT may be its greatest contribution to society; the ability to go back in time.
As Colbert observed, anything can be "true" as long you beleive it. But wikipedia, for all his (hilarious!) satire still wins by both enabling errors to be fixed, and enabling previous versions to be seen.
Consider that even the mainstream encyclopedias refer to the terrorist attack of 9/11. 100 years from now, it may be revered as a heroic sacrifice made by the founding fathers of the proud and benevolent Irafganistyiaraq world super-power. But if wikipedia can hold onto its principles, you'd still be able to turn the clock back and read "the version from today" too.
Similiarly if wikipedia existed a few hundred years ago we could look back and read articles about the traiter George Washington, one of the high ranking leaders of a terrorist group seeking to overthrow the government, waging a war to carve his very own country out of the British Empire...or whatever.
Revisionist history has always existed, and will always exist; wikipedia may make history a little easier to revise... but at least makes it easy to see the revisions. And that's worth putting up with a little vandalism. Here's hoping they're still around in 100 years.
I saw the first blueray players setup at the local electronics retailer yesterday. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. I have an HDTV and a decent new progressive scan DVD player.
When I first walked in to the store, and saw the big scren tv playing its movie, I wasn't wowed, I did NOT say: "Damn, that's clear, that can't be a DVD! Is it BlueRay? HDDVD? I gotta find out more!"
I just assumed it was a regular DVD, and didn't give it much thought. I didn't have the slightest idea that I was looking at a BlueRay presentation until I noticed the blue ray logo on the advertising signage underneath.
This is a miles away from when I saw my first DVD, when I was literally amazed. Especially because at that time I mostly watched rented VHS, which were always somewhat worse for the wear.
Factor in the premium for the HD player and the movies themselves. ($46 bucks for movies I would typically pick up for under $20, often under $15)
So, will I get one? Yeah, eventually, when the price comes down to around 200-300, the format war is settled (or rendered irrelevant by cheap dual-mode players), and title availability is high. My first impression left me disctinctly underwhelmed. Paying *that* much more for soemthing that doesn't look even half *that* much better just isn't worth it to me.
Your mileage will, of course, vary.
READ: the average slashdotter will need 2.
Where would the average slashdotter ever go that would take 5 whole minutes? 2.5 minutes is more than enough to get the average slashdotter to the bathroom and back, even with a side trip to the kitchen.
Uh, if the sex was consensual I doubt you'd even be in court in the first place. All she would have to do is say...
That also assumes she's still alive.
And rather than studying up or discussing the issue with their friends, like an average reader might do for a political or religious story, they completely lose interest.
An average reader would lose interest in all 3, and just read about N Sync band members coming out of the closet. That's all they want to know about anyway.
If you are going to spend full price on a Microsoft Operating system just to make it legit, you might as well buy the new one. I'd wait for Vista, or even get the Vista beta if you wanted to do something right now.
I used to routinely make creations several feet high or square, (we split the old pile 4 ways when we "grew up") it would take 6-8 of those boxes (at $20 USD each) to get that many of the classic blocks again.
... you get the idea...
s albuildingset&v=a
Trust me. There was never a normal single set that could make a creation several feet high out of 2x4s.
I'd be very curious what you think you had?!
I mean, lets look at the basic sets sets" circa 1975-1985 and see what they had for "basic 2x4" bricks. (Not counting anything funky with slopes, or holes for wheels, etc)
These are some of the "basic universal lego sets" from that era. They were the plain white boxes that usually showed a house or tower or garage type building, along with a vehicle or two - boat, plane, truck, helicopter, or something. They were
Set 720, with 325 pieces has 3 -- link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/720-1
Set 400, with 294 pieces has 4 -- link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/400-1
Set 404, with 467 pieces has 8 -- this set by the way had an MSRP of 40.00 (in 1976)
Set 530, with 263 pieces has 13 -- link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/530-1
Set 733, with 493 pieces has 5 --
Set 740, with 523 pieces has 6
Set 744, with 572 pieces has 2
Set 912, with 467 pieces has 8
So even back in the day, the even the universal basic lego sets were pretty anemic on the 2x4s.
However, yes, there were some "really basic bricks only" sets back then too. Lets take a look at a couple of those:
link to box covers: http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qc=lego/basic/univer
Set "10" with 152 pieces has 48
Set "7" with 413 pieces has 157 - link:
Set "5" with 328 pieces has 130 - link: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/005-2
So how does this compare with modern lego?
Set 4496 with 805 pieces has 66 (the blue tub i linked before)
Set 5486 with 674 pieces has 44 (the red tub i linked before)
Set 4423 with 800 pieces has 142
Admittedly the ratios aren't quite as good as they were in the 70's for but lets look at the price too.
Set 4423 costs $19.99
Set 4496 & 5486 each cost $29.99
MSRP for Set 5 (the only price I have for that line was 9.95 in 1968), according the currency adjuster on the Federal Reserve website, set 5 would cost 57.90 in today's dollars.
Frankly I think availability and Price of basic blocks today at least as good as or better than it ever was. Factor in that you can log into ebay and buy bulk used lego by the pound and its even better.
-regards.
but there's still a lack of basic parts on the shelves.
& d=11
/shrug
;)
That really depends where you shop I guess. Around here it doesn't seem to be a problem.
The ToysRus, Walmart, and Zellers all have a stack of these on the shelves:
Start with a couple of these:
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=4496 - 805 basic pieces in a variety of colors
Add in one of these for doors and windows:
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=5482&cn=44&t=5
And maybe this to get you some wheels and propellers, and other funky parts
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=10159
Sub in a few star wars space craft to for my classic space stuff.
And I can pretty much recreate my childhood.
All the linked sets are readily available in stores around here, at least.
----------------
the other issue is almost the other extreme with mindstorms. They need better pieces in order to make more useful models. Once you get past a certian size.. about 12" in any direction they "techinic" models become fragile and unweildly to PLAY with.
This one is a non-issue to me. Lego has a scale limitation for most projects. All you can do is get over it. A lego car can only be so big (and be playable) - the available choices for wheels alone are a limiting factor. For motorized creations, yeah the scale limitations are more insurmountable because now you are limited by batteries, motor torque, and so on, not just lego's structural limitations... but so what?
Suppose you *could* make a working lawnmower out of lego... it would be too dangerous to sell to kids.
but I cant help but think LEGO's biggest problem was when they went away from generic build kits to licensed sets with highly proprietary (i.e. unusable for much else) pieces.
;)
They pretty much had to.
If the set has no unique pieces a kid with 10 other sets has no real need to buy it.
My kids are playing with thousands of pieces from my childhood. If lego was selling the same generic kits, I'd be hard pressed justifying buying them any new sets. The star war lego sets, for example, allowed us to build better tie fighters and x-wings than we'd been able to build out of classic space and blacktron...
Part of what made LEGO's cool in my day was that you could create just about anything you could think up.
You can still do that...or perhaps you never could.
Making a decent castle out of classic space lego was almost impossible, and making an x-wing out of the classic yellow castle was an exercise in futility. But with a good mix of lego from a variety of new sets, and you have as much freedom as you ever did. More freedom in some cases... I'd have killed for the ball joints that are common now.
Todays sets appear to be more of a model kit than a creative toy
Individually that's probably true. But lego still lets you go anywhere once you've got a few sets from different 'genres'.
How the hell do you break the cord? I've swung a first-gen microsoft optimouse over my head in a circle and it only broke [the mouse not the cord] when it hit a concrete wall.
Well, I didn't break the cord right off. I simply broke a wire inside, or at the solder point. I'm not sure what the issue was but I suspect it was getting snagged and then breaking on the "down pull".
It started responding intermittently dropping out everynow and then, and wiggling the cable woul cause the "new hardware detected" bubble too randomly popup.
Logically, if there are gaming addicts, all that shows is that people can and will use entertainment to fill a void in their life. Singling it out like it's pathological, which is what the clinic in TFA does, is uncalled for.
The clinic in TFA is swamped. The neighboring tv addict clinic isn't... oh wait, there isn't one because its such a small problem by comparison that nobody has even bothered opening a clinic for it.
(Ok, yeah, it might be a big problem, and its just invisible. But without real evidence beyond arguments like "Well its possible tv addiction is a big problem because people can obsess about anything" I'm inclined to beleive tv addiction is genuinely less of an issue, whether its because few people are affected, or because few people are seriously impacted by it.)
If gaming addicts need help and intervention, then so do the TV addicts.
Yeah, some probably do.
However an addiction to video games is more visible, when it occurs it can be very severe affecting peoples lives to a great extent.
Getting addicted to caffiene and crack cocain are the same basic problem too, but crack addicts are more of a problem even though the number of people who get cranky without their morning coffee vastly exceeds the number crackheads who'll prostitute themselves between breaking into cars just to keep the fixes coming.
For me the benefit of cordless mice has been that there is no cord to break.
... I'm with you there... mine never leaves the desk... whats the appeal of a cordless keyboard? (outside of a multimedia pc in your living room)
When I used corded mice, I never found the cord really got in my way to the point that I was annoyed by it, but the last 6 corded mice I had all broke where the cord connected to the mouse.
Cordless mice obviously don't suffer that problem.
YMMV, but I won't ever buy a corded mouse again.
Keyboards on the other hand
Ok so what about the gamers that don't?
:)
... it won't be cutting into other obligations, they won't over spending, or getting depressed or rating it the most important part of their life, or fighting with their girlfriend over it....
What about them?
What about those that play a lot, but only because that's what they like to do? Believe it or not it's perfectly possible to spend lots of time playing games, but simply because you've time to spend and that's what you like spending it on.
I'm not arguing that.
For some reason when it's TV or sports or anything like that, it's seen as ok, even when people ARe obsessive about it (I know obsessive TV watchers) hwoever when it's games, oh my god, something horrible must be wrong.
I'm not going to suggest you are lying, but I've never met ANYONE even 2nd hand ("friend of a friend") who was obsessive about TV watching. I know lots of people that you could argue obsess about a show, or a sports league/team, but that's not the same as being what I'd call obsessive about "TV".
This is not to say that we don't need to be aware of game addiction, we do as with any other addiciton.
Agreed.
However the problem is too many seem to think that playing lots of games = game addict.
There is definately some truth to that. Not everyone who plays a lot of games is an "addict", just as not everyone who drinks a lot is an alcoholic. But at the same time, gaming, like alcoholism has a high visibility precisely because it seems to have a higher than average problem rate.
The same sort of questions that root out "problem gambling" or "acholism" from a healthy level can be applied...
"Is gambling the most exciting thing in your life?"
"Have you ever missed work or school to gamble?"
"Have you ever missed family obligations to gamble?"
"Do you lie to friends or family about how much you gamble?"
"Do you brag to friends or family about how much you gamble?"
"Do you need to spend more time gambling to get the same thrill?"
"Do you fight with your family or friends/significant other about how much you gamble?"
"Do you feel depressed or lose sleep after you lose money gambling?"
"Do you find your self spending the time you aren't gambling thinking about and planning to gamble?"
"Do you gamble to escape or forget your problems?"
"Do you spend more money gambling than intend to?"
etc...
A lot of these can be adapted to other obsessive behaviours, including gaming. And while a yes answer doesn't automatically mean you have a problem, if you see a lot of yes anwsers... then maybe there is one.
To use your example of a person who "simply likes playing video games a lot" or "watches a lot of tv" for example, probably isn't going to have a lot of yes answers
Like gaming is the one kind of entertainment that people can't do a lot fo and not be addicted.
Nobody is saying -that-. Gambling, for example, is form of entertainment that is a MUCH bigger problem.
Well that's just not true, it's no different than any other kind of entertainement.
Some people will like it occasionally but no more, osme peopel like it a lot, some of those that like it a lot will get obsessive about it and let it rule their lives. However that's true of just about anything.
Yes, but amount of damage it does to their lives, wallets, and the amount of people it affects varies considerably.
a) Obsessively watch new episodes of CSI:Miami - Something that only burns an hour a week, costs 0$, and affects maybe 5 people isn't terribly serious.
b) World of Warcraft - Something that can burns all the time you have, 24x7, costs a minor amount of money in the form of fees, plus lost wages if you hit the point of skipping work, and is known to affect a lot of people is quite a bit more serious.
c) Gambling - Something that can burn all your time, easily bankrupt you, and is estimated to a
You know, a lot of people watch television in excess of 4-6 hours a day. I've never once heard any of them referred to as "addicts."
That's because very few of them have any obsessive compulsion to watch TV. You put them in a room with a TV and they'll watch it... its the path of least resistance to entertainment for a lot of people; for most of them its just lazyness.
If you give them something else to do they won't get all anxious and grouchy until they can sit in front of the TV again. They might have a favorite show or two, or go out of their way to catch specific event... but they don't habitually miss work & school, stay up all night, skip meals and showers, and abandon their friends, just to put little more time in with the TV. If "a lot of people" started doing that then we probably -would- call them addicted.
With video games, particularly MMOGS, however, this is exactly what they do. They'll spend every available waking moment playing them. They will give up their friends, they will skip meals, they will skip school & work.
They aren't "lazy" at all. Laziness requires a certain level of passiveness. "Addicts" aren't passive. Quite the opposite - they will go to great lengths to keep playing as much as possible for as long as possible as often as possible.
Whether or not its a chemical addiction with pysiological withdrawl effects or purely psychological doesn't really matter. Like compulsive gambling, it effects a surprising number of people, and it hits them hard. It is a real problem, and ignoring it or pretending its not real because theirs no obvious chemical dependancy isn't going do anyone any good.
no, it reduces the selling merchant's profits by 5% of the total sales price when compared to pocketing it. Unless of course the 5% is a dealbreaker to the purchaser.
:p
Which it would be if the purchaser had a rewards program from the card. At the very least the vendor has to beat that.
The premise I'm suggesting is more along these lines: suppose the merchant was taking credit card orders from you before. Say I'm ordering a few crates of widgets a month on AMEX, and I then offer to pay cash in exachange for a 4% discount... the vendor, currently paying 5% to amex, ends up 1% ahead of where they were and the buyer ends up 4% ahead (less any "rewards" program they got from AMEX, so in this case both parties end up ahead.
Sure the vendor would -love- to take cash and offer no discount, but who is going to take them up on that when they are getting a 1% cashback reward by using the card? You can call it a "reduction of profits of the total sales price when compared to pocketing it" if you like but, as you noted yourself, its a pretty meaningless number if you couldn't close the deal on those terms anyways.
$4 x 2000 items per month is $8000/mo, not $2000...
Yup. I'm a victim of self-editing. I tweaked the numbers a few times to many, and apparently I forgot to redo the math at the end of it all.
'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'
In other words, "adversaries of this country" can safely assume AT&T disclosed large quantities of telephone records. In the unlikely event that they didn't, our adversaries will surely and prudently prefer err on the side of caution.
Citizens of this country, by contrast, have been denied even the semblance of justice, as their own government tramples over their rights.
If that isn't victory for the "adversaries of this country" I don't know what would be.
That's a violation of almost every merchant account agreement I've ever seen.
It certainly is. That doesn't prevent it from happening.
I'm sorry, my business has a merchant account, and that's not the way it works.
:)
I think you misunderstood me.
AFAIK, all of those rewards programs come directly out of the profits that the bank gets, and not out of the pockets of merchants, I've never heard otherwise.
Where do you think the profits the bank got to fund the rewards program came from?
Your right of course, YOU never get directly docked based on the specific rewards program a particular customer uses, I never meant to imply that. Merely that the rewards programs are ultimately paid for by the transaction fees you pay to visa.
As to your comment about it enabling spontaneous purchases, and being worth it for your business, I completely agree!
But you seem to be thinking, based on what you've said, only from the point of view of a retailer to his customers?? If so, how do you pay your wholesaler for your inventory? By credit card? Only if you have to until you can convince them you are reputable/reliable enough to be allowed to purchase on terms. And how do you think the wholesaler pays for inventory from the manfacturer? I can almost gaurantee you that they aren't using credit cards. And the manufacturer paying for raw materials or components? And so on...
Think about what it would do to the cost of goods to you if a 3.2% "tax" were drawn by visa at each stage of production. By the time you got it could be 10-15% higher. A smart businessman (hell, even a dim wit businessman) could see the opportunity to cut costs 10-15% without affecting anyones profit (except VISAs) simply by switching to cash payments up the supply chain. That's a pretty serious advantage.
Credit cards make sense for end-user-consumers, and businesses that service those consumers need to support taking credit cards, but when you start moving up the chain, credit cards rapidly disappear. "Smart businessmen don't use them, because they raise the cost."
-cheers,
So if I don't use my cash-back card and pay cash, the merchant pockets the 5% price increase as profit. If I use the card, he gives the 5% to the credit card company who gives me 1%, a net discount over the prices cash-users pay.
:)
In general yes. Which is why the quote really doesn't apply to joe consumer.
On the other hand, the merchant is basing their profit margins based on the percentage of consumers that use credit vs cash. If its a 50/50 split they might only need to raise their price 2.5% to cover the transaction costs. (e.g. if their target markup is 50%, they might only make 48% on orders with credit cards, and 52% on orders with cash.... if everyone started using credit, they'd have to up the price 2%...)
If the improbable happened, and all credit-card users everywhere boycotted, the credit-card companies would lose the income, but the merchants would have no incentive to cut the prices.
Perhaps, depends entirely on the industry. In segments with lots of competition, prices would likely be cut. Around here, there are several computer parts shops that run on razor thin margins that do not accept credit cards so that they can afford to undercut their competitors that do accept credit cards. (It also has led several to create controversial "3% cash discount" or "4% credit card surcharge" policies which, from my understanding they aren't supposed to do.
At any rate, its the counter example to your scenario where the merchant just pockets the 5% if you pay cash.
Yes, negotiating terms is smarter but few small businessmen have the economic clout (volume) to force suppliers to negotiate substantial price differences.
You might not be able to negotiate terms for -everything- you buy but most businesses that produce or distribute real goods are moving -something- in fairly large quanties. And remember, switching from credit to terms with 5% discount really doesn't require a lot of "clout"... the merchant isn't really doing anything except giving the money they would have paid visa back to you instead. It doesn't affect their bottom line at all, and even a not-so-smart businessman should be able to see that this is MUCH better than buying on credit for a 1% cashback.
A small company moving 2000 100$ items per month. Reducing cost on those items by 4% is $4 per item...is $2000/mo enough enough to cover an employee... or lease the owner a Porsche 911...whatever.
Uhh, no it doesn't. I get to pay later and get 1% cash back.
Uhhh... yes it does. The merchant gets to pay VISA say 4% for the priviledge of letting you pay later and get 1% back. Guess what, the merchant you bought from had to raise prices 5% or even more in order to afford allowing you to make purchases with VISA.
As long as I make my payments it is a smart thing to do.
Negotiating terms, buying on account, and paying by cheque is even smarter. Not something you can do when buying a roll of toilet paper at walmart... but then the quote referred to "businessmen" not "walmart shoppers".
Making it illegal to photograph license plates isn't aimed at joe nobody or his private investigator.
Its aimed at preventing megacorporations and governments deploying city or nationwide camera/tracking systems.
It will be trivially easy to enforce because a nation-wide network of cameras is going to be nearly impossible to hide, especially if data that it captures is being actively used.
Consider again that report feature, reports may not be printed and you might have to run thousands of them on a single machine. That 0.7 seconds saved, multiplied over 100,000 transactions becomes 70000 seconds (about 19 hours)
Agreed. *Consider* the situation. Sometimes optimising will make sense. Sometimes it won't. Blindly advocating either is silly.
If you are running 100,000 in an automated batch then yeah it may be worth going back and optimising it. But if the report is only run by one or two executives once a month optimisation is irrelevant. And in still more cases 100,000 people each interactively run one copy of their own report, on their own computer - and in practice saving 100,000 people 0.7 seconds each - that's going to be tough to see a return on, even if it does add up to 19 hours in aggregate.