Good points you raise there.

I'd also want to know about the shipping costs associated with any quoted prices. I've done my share of building systems. I know from experience that the strategy of seeking the cheapest cost on each and every part is easily undone by shipping fees.

===

Commenting now on the larger discussion, it's not always about getting the cheapest price. Building my own NAS cost me more money than buying an off-the-shelf solution, but what I got with my own build was better specs and much more flexibility than what vendors offered. I've performed experiments with it that I'm sure I would have had a hard time performing with an off-the-shelf solution, even with one whose firmware I could have replaced with somethig more palatable. There was no direct equivalent to what I ended up building.

It's a shame I have no mod points right now, because your contribution is definitely worthy of being read.

Tell her the reason she got a shock is because of her negative emotions.

You missed this bit: "There may be good reasons for this figure, since they have to recoup their costs."

All the graphs, charts, calculations are "good reasons." I did not say they were just pulling numbers out of thin air. Their opinion is an informed one but it is still an opinion. Even with all the good reasons, they have to realize that there is difference in kind between their assessment that the game should cost $60 and the assessment of a natural quality. But they don't. They think that their $60 assessment is on part with finding that a bunch of apples weighs 10kg. For the industry, their $60 assessment should elicit the same agreement from other folks as the assessment that a bunch of apples weighs 10kg. When they find that folks do not agree with them, it is as puzzling to them as finding that people claim their 10kg bunch of apples weights 1kg or 3kg.

(Postmodernists like to claim that there is no difference between opinions and facts. So for them measuring the bunch of apples to be 10kg is just as much opinion as saying the game is worth $60. And saying "seeing this movie cost me $12" or "the running time of this movie was 93 minutes" is just as much opinion as saying "this movie sucked!" Then again, for postmodernists, gravity is also opinion, that the moon is not made of cheese is also opinion, that lightning is not caused by gremlins is also opinion, etc.)

You say:

Part of it is our fault, because we just accept that games cost $60 (or whatever).

The industry lamenting that people are not going to pay $60 when there are games available for $1 (or 99 cents) is proof that a good deal of people are no longer accepting the $60 figure. If I can derive the same enjoyment from buying a $1 game than I can get from buying a $60 game, why on earth should I pay $60? Probably the $60 game has "better" graphics but better graphics does not mean greater enjoyment. When a lot of people perform this reasoning and consequently stop buying $60 games, those who think that $60 is the way things ought to be --- that it is the natural order of things --- are completely confused.

'If there's anything that's killing us [in the traditional games business] it's dollar apps. How do you sell someone a $60 game that's really worth it? They're used to 99 cents

And again, the fat cats in the industry are looking at things backwards. Once the costs are calculated, they figure each copy of the game should go for $60. There may be good reasons for this figure, since they have to recoup their costs. In their head, they think that this $60 figure they discovered is a natural fact, like weight, for instance, is a natural fact. If you take a bunch of apples and put them on a scale, you'll get a certain weight. Give the same bunch of apples to someone else and they'll get the same weight. (Those who would like to quibble can go jump off a cliff a this point.) You can repeat the experiment with 10, 100, 1000 people and maybe after discovering that their scale needs recalibrating, they'll agree on the weight.

The $60 figure is not like this. It is not a natural fact. It is an opinion that the game holds such value to potential buyers that they'll willingly give up $60 for it. And then if you ask 10, 100, 1000 people about how much they value the game, they'll give very different answers. It may very well be that no one agrees that the value of the game is such that it is worth $60. Now, if it so happens that there are games which are sold for $1 which provide what people seek in a game, why should they be willing to pay $60?

So the fat cats say "$60", the market says "no way!" but because the fat cats think their opinion is a natural fact, they then assume that there is something terribly wrong with the world. They do not ever consider that their opinion that their $60 game is "really worth $60" could be mistaken because they think the $60 figure is a natural fact rather than an opinion.

(Other entertainment media also think like this. CD sales declining? It is not because we do not deliver the value people want. It is because something external (e.g. piracy) is interfering with the order of nature.)

"In the US, the spirit of rugged individualism is held up an an ideal to aspire to. In the US, the government imposing mandates saying "You WILL use THIS system." is likely to result in a backlash. More so than in many other places."

Good grief! Go ahead. Invent your own "ruggedly individual" system of measurements and then try to communicate with the government in your own units or do regulated business in those units. That's gonna go really well. The government already mandates by law and de facto the use of certain units.

Quest Title: "Fruit Flies Hold the Key To Faster Computing"

Walkthrough:

Diplomatic route:

1. Go to the flies.
2. Talk them into cooperating with you. (You'll get a 75 Speech check at some point.)
3. The flies are going to agree to cooperate but they'll ask you to gather 10 issues of "Flies Monthly" in exchange for the key. (Follow this link for the locations of the issues.)
4. Once you get the magazines, go back to the flies.
5. Give them the issues. They'll give you a "Key to Faster Computing."
6. Open safe to get the "Faster Computing."

Non-diplomatic route:

1. Sneak on the flies.
2. Plant live grenade.
3. Walk away.
4. Boom.
5. Go back to the corpse of the flees and grab the "Key to Faster Computing."
6. Open safe to get the "Faster Computing."

Note: If Miss Puss is in your party, she'll eat the flies at first sight. You'll then have to wait for her to pass them and the key. Wait for about 24 hours. You'll eventually see her... hmm... do her business. Click on the business to open it, get the key. By the way, this business of hers is just a regular locker so you could use it as a convenient location to hoard stuff.

Boy: "Mooooom! The couch crapped all over the carpet again!"

Mom: "It's okay, Timmy. Our carpet is coprophage."

I am going to put my money where my mouth is. I've done it before.

Once upon a time I had nVidia and ATI hardware on my computers. I could compare how well each company provided support for Linux. In neither case was their support stellar but nVidia did more than ATI. So when came time to buy a new laptop, no machine with ATI hardware made it onto the short list. They were disqualified from the start.

In recent years, it seems that AMD is supporting Linux better than nVidia does. So it is likely that when I buy another machine, those with nVidia hardware will be disqualified from the start.

Also, I'm never buying Acer again... but that's another rant.

There have been a number of times lately I felt that to win the game I had to be able to read the game developer's mind. The fight with Loghain in Dragon Age was one such case. By the time I got there, my party was able to win most battles without difficulty. Sometimes there were battles which required more strategy but battles were not overwhelmingly difficult. With Loghain, I got my ass kicked in 2 seconds maybe 4 or 5 times before I wised up. Can you say difficulty spike? I decided that I was not going to put up with this shit. I went to the Internet and found that if you put Morrigan against him, it is a piece of cake. Then I moved on.

I had a similar experience with the last battle in Bioshock. Got there, got my ass kicked several times. Again, the previous battles were difficult but not overwhelmingly so. I read up on some strategies but still got my ass kicked. Then I read that if you have selected this and that ability it is a piece of cake. In this case, I said screw this, uninstalled the game and watched the final cut scene on Youtube.

I doubt that developers read this but just in case. This shit is precisely why I decided to NOT buy Bioshock 2. I've also decided that I'm not going to buy any more Dragon Age.

You are completely right.

I remember when extreme programming (part of agile programming) was still new and being promoted. I have not kept abreast of developments but at that time there was only one project for which extreme programming had been systematically used: the C3 project at Chrysler. It turns out the project was a resounding failure. However, every time the extreme programming snake oil peddlers had something to say about it, they'd defend extreme programming by stating that the reason the project failed was not due to to the process but due to internal politics.

Yeah, and I have a process to get cold fusion from ingredients found in my kitchen. What? It did not work? That's because a ghost interfered.

I went and read the article and found that even to this day the defenders of agile methods pepper their statements with disclaimers:

Solid programming skills are necessary for agile development, Cunningham stressed. "There's a lot of people who get into this field who actually find programming tedious and don't want to do it," Cunningham says. "If you enjoy doing it and want to do it well, that helps a lot."

Well, duh... is this not the case for any method? This is just setting up the stage for again pointing fingers at anything except the method when projects using agile methods fail. The whole agile thinking starts from the axiom "agile methodologies are intrinsically successful". So any problem is seen to come from outside.

Well, if this becomes the norm, you've got a problem. Watch what you post or live the life of a hobo. Yay!

I can't talk about other fields but in the humanities, the pay for writing an encyclopedia article is really minimal. As for tenure, encyclopedia articles do not count because an encyclopedia article does not contribute to the advancement of the field. The problem with Wikipedia is not tenure or pay but the fact that uninformed idiots can ruin the contributions of someone who knows what he is talking about.

True, true!

We can also add to your list rag doll physics in computer games. I'm sure many slashdotters can remember games where dead or unconscious enemies moved in unrealistic ways because the development team decided that they had to highlight the damn rag doll physics engine. "Wait! A dead enemy moves?" someone asks. Why, yes. In some games, hiding corpses would avoid raising suspicions. When a dead enemy being dragged to a hidden spot jerks like he's having an epileptic fit, that's just to highlight rag doll physics.

And also booby physics, in some games.

And how some designers decided to add a realistic touch in making all characters breathe. "Look at the level of detail in our game! Characters breathe! In real time! You can see it!" Except that in real life, the rising of the chest is nowhere as so noticeable as in the game so it ends up just looking like the characters are constantly trying to calm themselves with deep breathing.