text:
Loving Le Corbusier (excerpt)
Loving Le Corbusier images
Aspects of home
Building Jerusalem
Change Makers (Blueprint for Living)
Design Icons (Blueprint for Living)
Iconic Buildings (Blueprint for Living)
La France, c'est moi
Ronchamp – the spirit of place
The sky's the limit
Suffer the little creatures
My city of Sydney
La vie d'ennui
Not Always to Plan images
ABC RN Blueprint for Living
By Design (ABC Radio National)
misc. radio
Colin Bisset
writer, traveller, broadcaster
ABC Radio National Blueprint for Living
Losing the blues in Chicago
By Colin Bisset May 24, 2019 ( 3 )
A warm glow comes over me whenever I think of Chicago. My trip there some years back was memorable in many ways. It was unexpected, for a start. My partner, Anthony, was going to a conference in Iowa and almost at the last minute he suggested that I join him for a week in Chicago beforehand. It seemed a long way to go just for a week and I'd have to fly back on my own but I'd always wanted to see the place. At university I had been captivated by Chicago's first skyscrapers and I remember how much I'd enjoyed preparing a seminar on the work of Louis Sullivan, one of the city's many architectural stars, and the man for whom Frank Lloyd Wright first worked.
On that first trip, I wanted to record a piece for the radio programme 'By Design' so I approached the Chicago Architecture Foundation for an interview as they run a huge variety of architectural tours in the city. They could not have been more welcoming. Not only did they set up an interview with one of their key people, Jennifer Masengarb, but they gave us tickets to many of their tours. It was my kind of bliss, spending the days gazing up at those titans of the skyscraper world, experiencing the beauty of Mies van der Rohe's work, and strolling down streets filled with Frank Lloyd Wright's wonderful houses. It was amazing to be in a city that took such pride in its architecture and offered so much.
The day of the radio interview was particularly memorable (you can hear the whole piece here). Anthony had contracted a bout of food poisoning the night before so he needed to rest in bed. I spent the morning exploring Lincoln Park, the area in which we were staying. It's a lovely part of the city, obviously prosperous and quite trendy, with plenty of cafes and interesting shops, and with a relaxed vibe. I remember feeling a growing sense of deep contentment as I walked along the leafy streets and an almost euphoric sensation of all being right with the world. The magical atmosphere was enhanced by drifts of fluffy white seeds from the cottonwood trees, filling the air like dandelion clocks in the breeze, and making me wonder at first if it was actually snowing (in June!). I returned to Anthony feeling nourished by my morning, and hoped that he would be feeling better.
As I walked into the hotel, my phone pinged with a message to call my sister in the UK urgently. It turned out that my father had died. He had been weakened by an infection and succumbed to it remarkably quickly. It was his 85th birthday and he died wearing the new sweater my sister had given him that morning. It was a shock and yet I had a strong sense that there was nothing to be sad about. My father had been pretty miserable since his beloved wife, my mother, had died some two years before. I felt almost happy for him.
Obviously I had to change my travel plans and get to the UK but in the meantime I had an interview to record in central Chicago in an hour. It's funny how you just get on and do the next thing when you get momentous news. The interview went well, and the travel plans were easy to change. The fortnight that followed in the UK was lovely, too. But absorbing the news in Chicago seemed to make everything particularly fine. My father loved travelling and exploring new places. In my last telephone call with him, he was tickled when I told him where I was going and kept singing the name 'Chicago' like in the Sinatra song.
Some cities can't help being exceptional and Chicago will always occupy a special place in my heart.
This week, a half-hour segment of 'Blueprint for Living', the radio programme I write for, is all about Chicago. I've contributed three pieces about some buildings I thought people might miss in their scramble to visit the more famous sights. Here are the written pieces – you can hear the podcast here.
Monadnock north (Wikimedia cc)
Monadnock & Inland Steel
Among Chicago's treasure trove of incredible skyscrapers, it's easy to overlook those that don't immediately vie for your attention. Like the tall block that sits end-on to Jackson Boulevard, across from Mies van der Rohe's colossal Federal Center. It's very plain, built almost entirely from dark brick, and the name above its doorway is taken from a New England mountain – Monadnock. Turn the corner and you'll see it's actually a huge building – not only high but long. This was the largest office building in the world when it first went up in the 1890s. It was built in two parts. The northern part was finished first, designed by John Root and Daniel Burnham, while the southern was completed a few years later by a different firm, as Root had died and Burnham was caught up designing the city's World Fair. The earlier part is the more interesting because its walls are entirely load-bearing. This, in a city where the steel frame was becoming the norm, was a daring throwback to traditional building methods, cocking a snook at the new technology. That load-bearing means the walls are immensely thick at the bottom to take the weight of the building. They curve inwards above the ground floor, and rise for fifteen levels before splaying outwards again to complete the composition. It's notable for its complete lack of decoration. Inside, the long, dark corridors are still lit with the original light fittings, and staircases of moulded metal curl up to rooftop windows. When so often we knock down buildings after only a few decades, it's glorious to find a commercial building, more than a hundred years old, that's survived and been kept in such lovely condition.
For a total contrast, nip up the road to the Inland Steel Building on West Monroe Street. It's the small but gleaming steel-and-glass tower that faces the fabulous Chagall mosaics on the plaza opposite. This was the first office block to go up after the 1930s Depression, and designed by Skidmore Owings and Merrill in 1956. Its spacious Mad Men interiors had no internal supports, meaning genuine open plan flexibility. It's a bright yang to the brooding yin of Monadnock, but both are little triumphs in this abundant city.
Tribune tower to the right, Wrigley to the left
Tribune Tower
One of the pleasures of central Chicago is to stand on the Michigan Avenue Bridge and simply gaze at the buildings around you. There's the 1920s Wrigley Building in all its Spanish Classical glory, and there's Goldberg's 1960s Marina City, like two immense corncobs, and then there's the weirdest skyscraper in America- the Tribune Tower. With its spiky Gothic top, modelled on one of the towers of Rouen cathedral, it's a preposterous blend of modernity and medievalism. The owner of the Chicago Tribune newspaper, Robert McCormack, announced a competition in 1922 for 'the most beautiful office building in the world' which would also show America at its most dynamic. There was a huge response, generating a lively discussion on what a truly modern building should look like. Architects from 23 countries entered over 260 designs. Some were daffy, like Adolf Loos's idea for a huge Doric column, playing on the idea of newspaper columns. Some were cutting edge, like the steel-and-glass of Gropius and Meyer's tower. One was hugely influential, the stepped blocks of Eliel Saarinen's design becoming a blueprint for many skyscrapers from thereon. The winner, though, was the New York firm of Hood and Howells, who would go on to design the glamorous Rockefeller Center in New York. Indeed the Tribune design starts off in the relative sanity of Art Deco before rising up and suddenly switching to full-blown Gothicism, complete with buttresses that do nothing but highlight the pinnacled crown. It was utterly despised by modernists who hated its phony historicism although it inspired Australian architect Marcus Barlow to design in a similar vein the Manchester Unity building in Melbourne a few years later. The Tribune Tower has come to be loved, being almost Post-Modern with that kooky blend of styles. The entrance lobby is as gloomy as a castle's, its walls covered with quotations by Voltaire and Franklin. There are artifacts embedded in its walls, including a cannonball from an English castle. It's all quite mad. And yet that makes it a beacon, even in this city of marvels, and surely that's the perfect symbol for any serious newspaper.
Pleasant Home (Wikimedia cc)
Pleasant Home
Sometimes Chicago can seem like it's just about skyscrapers and Frank Lloyd Wright. Anyone with the least interest in architecture will of course travel out to the suburb of Oak Park to see Wright's own home and studio as well as a dazzling array of his houses, all set in delightful leafy streets. There's also his remarkable Unity Temple of 1906, all cubic concrete given decorative geometric dazzle. A few streets away from Unity Temple you'll find a house with the most cheesy name, Pleasant Home, and while that sounds as bland as an episode of 'The Waltons' it's a good illustration of something of the 1890s that wasn't designed by Wright.
The house is an example of the Prairie style, which was popular throughout the Mid-West a decade or so before Wright stole the limelight and made it his own. It means a low, spreading type of building with deep eaves and porches, that powerful horizontal nature reflecting the expansive Mid-West prairies. Pleasant Home is set in a lush, park-like garden that adds to its presence. Now a museum, it's interesting to contrast it with the more rigorous horizontality of Wright's houses nearby, and to understand how it represents the forging of a new style of American architecture, on the cusp between an Arts and Crafts English style and something much more geometric. It was built in 1897 by George Maher and it's notable for its use of shapes, with broad curved windows that contrast with the square bulk of the main house, the windows cut deeply into the brick. This is a building that relishes light and shade, the shadows giving a crispness that heralds a modern, less ornamented future. Inside, rooms flow one to the other, and are richly decorated with stained glass, floral motifs and expensive timbers worked by the best artisans of the time. Wright took details like this and simplified them, making them his own. This house has all the swagger of American affluence without being overly ostentatious, just as Wright's houses of a decade later would draw together a wealth of fine detail to create something remarkably liveable and intrinsically American. Pleasant homes, indeed.
Do you have a Chicago in your life?
Categories: Architecture, Design, TravelTags: ABC Radio National, architecture, Blueprint for Living, Chicago, Chicago Architecture Foundation, Concrete, Frank Lloyd Wright, Inland Steel, Mies van der Rohe, Modernism, Monadnock, Oak Park, Pleasant Home, Tribune Tower, USA
Messing about in boats
By Colin Bisset 3 weeks ago ( 11 )
By Colin Bisset 1 month ago ( 14 )
Look at it this way
By Colin Bisset 2 months ago ( 7 )
Francesca Howard
May 24, 2019 • 23:17
What a heartfelt post 🙏🏻💫 and so beautifully written and communicated.
It must have been a time of extreme emotion.
I have never been drawn to cities or the US 😆 particularly, but your love of Chicago is beginning to rub off on me. I particularly like being able to recognise it in US tv shows with that building with the quadrilateral light on it (ignorance showing!).
My Chicago is … drumroll please … Venice – who'da guessed it 🙃
Thank you! I think there's a real Renaissance quality to Chicago – the huge commercial palazzi, the wealth of artistic detail, the immense pomp and pride – that really resonates, and which I think you'd recognise. And such a friendly city, too. The building you refer to must be the Crain Building with its sloping diamond top, but the roe you look, the more distinctive features there are. Glorious!… Well, Venice, of course! I reckon Florence would also figure on any list of mine for different but still emotional reasons. Maybe that's the thing – when cities become backdrops to something momentous that happens to us or within us then they are seared into our souls! 🌎
Yes, but it can work the other way too. There are some cities I will never go back to – St Petersburg for instance.
Circling Japan again
The seventh of October
A lesson at Villa Savoye
It's my ABC
Click on bookcover to order
Click on bookcover to order from your preferred retailer
Great but thought this might have happened 20 years ago... twitter.com/nswenviromedia… 2 days ago
@ambradambra Lovely street trees, too. 2 days ago
Just posted a photo @ Cronulla, New South Wales, Australia instagram.com/p/CKCx6lVl3hH/… 2 days ago
@davidlipson Your stateside sanity has been appreciated... 2 days ago
Follow @cdbisset
ABC Radio National architecture Argentina Australia Blueprint for Living Brittany Brutalism chair Chandigarh Chicago Chile China colour Concrete Couvent de la Tourette Denys Lasdun Designers Guild Design Files design icon Eileen Gray family Featurism feng shui flow France Frank Lloyd Wright grief Italy Japan Jean Badovici Kenzo Tange La Tourette Le Corbusier Lingotto London Loving Le Corbusier Marseille Memphis Group Mies van der Rohe Modernism Monadnock nature Nice Norman Foster novels Paris Patagonia Pessac renovation Robin Boyd Ronchamp Sainsbury Centre Scotland Shanghai Sicily Switzerland Sydney The Australian Ugliness Tokyo Travel travelling trees UEA UNESCO UNESCO World Heritage Unite d'habitation USA Venice Vezelay Villa Savoye water Waverley Woody Allen writing Yvonne Gallis
Colin Bisset on Messing about in boats
matt devine on Messing about in boats
MELewis on Messing about in boats


text:
Economics of Game Prices
By JackKieser,
January 20, 2011 in Community
JackKieser
DS EDIT: This is split from the Extra Credits thread.
I'm actually kind of sad they didn't give the two arguments against piracy that I feel are the most pressing:
1 ) Developers need to make more compelling software... and no, just because 2010 had ME2, a CoD, a Halo, and RDR, that does NOT mean that we're putting out quality titles. The ENTIRE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY, across all consoles + PCs (without iDevices) released 1224 games in 2010. Note: that includes multi-console releases (ME2 coming out on 360 and PC counts as 2 releases)... but even taking that into consideration, over 1200 games were released in 2010, and how many of them mattered? How many of them sold? How many of them were even GOOD?
Hint: If you didn't know that many games were even released, then the answer is "very few".
Instead of studios sinking money into all of this shovelware (I cringe to think about how many of those games were Wii trash titles), how about NOT MAKING ALL OF THAT CRAP. Make less games, and make them ALL BETTER. How about only releasing 500, or 300 games total between all consoles, and using all that saved money to make those 300-500 games all AAA titles? If all of those games were must-have games, you'd be selling more. Which brings me to...
2 ) Make the games cheaper. No economist ever teaches this, but lower prices == more sales. If you raise prices, your profit per unit goes up, sure, but you sell less of them, so it doesn't matter anyway. That's how you cause inflation and kill economies. Lower prices means more people CAN buy your product, meaning you'll sell more and offset that lower cost. High costs will never break their ceiling of potential buyers, but low cost items can (and usually do) oversell estimations. You know, part of why I impulse buy gum and not video games is because an impulsive purchase of gum only sets me back 50 cents... and impulse buy of a video game sets me back 50$. I only impulse buy games 10$ or less, if even that. So, lower the cost of your games, and get more people to buy them.
Honestly, most people wouldn't pirate games if they didn't feel persecuted in the first place. No one WANTS to steal. People steal because they feel like they're getting a raw deal and want to stick it to the man. Don't fuck over your customers, and you won't have rampant piracy.
JackKieser 84 posts
The Damned 44 posts
thephoenix 18 posts
zircon 17 posts
1 ) Instead of studios sinking money into all of this shovelware (I cringe to think about how many of those games were Wii trash titles), how about NOT MAKING ALL OF THAT CRAP. Make less games, and make them ALL BETTER. How about only releasing 500, or 300 games total between all consoles, and using all that saved money to make those 300-500 games all AAA titles? If all of those games were must-have games, you'd be selling more.
You're assuming that all those bad games don't sell, and don't make money. Even the shittiest app game on your iPhone gets a few thousand people buying them, and that's tens of thousands of dollars in someone's pocket.
Shovelware sells, and it always will. It's just the way things work. No company will cut out their cheap, quick and dirty products when people willingly buy them again and again.
First, most games these days cost millions to make. MILLIONS. Higher price tags at the store are there to help ensure they recover that cost as much and as quickly as possible. How many of those games must a studio sell to recover the investment? I don't know. But I'm willing to bet it's a lot. Every one that sells for $60 is doing them more good than every one that sells for $40.
Also, I have to point out your incredibly simple approach to economics. You say the economists don't teach "lower price = more sales". This is for a good reason. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY IN REAL LIFE. Dropping the price only works in very specific circumstances. If it did work like that, everything in the world would be a lot cheaper. Cars, house, food, everything would be cheaper.
That's hardly the most likely cause for piracy. I'd say it the fact that humans like to get things for nothing. We love it when something just falls into our laps. We love it when we can get around the work and effort it takes to get something. If you get food simply by picking it up, that a lot easier and instantly satisfying than having to do something for it.
Personal greed is what motivates piracy. Do other reason factor in? Yes, of course. But personal greed is the real reason.
MojoHamster
I've often wondered about game over-pricing (which in my opinion is far worse in the USA than it is in the UK where I live). "Rich people seem to be good at making decisions to keep them rich" is a sentence I can't get out of my head. Another potential benefit of lower prices would be a form of advertising - a more ubiquitous product is a form of free advertising.
Either they are just pig-ignorant, or it is more efficient to lobby governments to help them control supply and demand and those day 1 full price sales are worth the trouble.
Edit : PS @ The Damned, you're fighting assumption with assumption. Instead of patronising caps, you could either speculate or provide facts which prove your point and legitimise your arrogance.
Clefairy
I've personally come to believe that the only thing AAA games bring to the table these days are their production values. Every studio worth talking about in this regard is at least a hundred people. More likely a hundred people in every department. I can't find it right now, but there was a chart floating around a few months back about how much you're liable to make in the industry. Once you get up to asset creation (concept art, modelling, soundtrack, etc.), the company shells out a nice chunk of change in salary to these people every year. Multiplied by the sheer number of artists needed to make a AAA game into reality, and you're well into the multi-millions right there. Not to mention, as stated in the video, these people take a pay cut, sometimes a severe one, so they can do what they love.
Add in marketing costs, new software/hardware kits, any bonuses they decide to hand out, pressing the discs, getting them shipped, the cut that GameStop takes for stocking the damn thing... The amount of money that goes into making just one AAA game happen is ridiculous. Everyone wants to at least break even, any way they can. You see that philosophy in everything from shovelware to derivative game concepts to Project Ten Dollar. And because of market saturation, many games don't hit that mark. Which can and does sink studios, all the time.
2 ) Make the games cheaper.
Only way that's going to happen is if devs and publishers everywhere cut costs. The $60 model has been in place for a while now, it's worked out okay for most parties involved. Corporations are naturally averse to change, because there's no guarantee doing anything other than what you did before won't kill your profit margin. Add in the dizzyingly high stakes that come from the overinflated budget, and you get... Well, pretty much what we've got now.
The only way out, as far as I can see, is for the entire indie scene to explode with popularity. I'm generalizing here, but we're stuck in an arms race of sorts right now, where everybody's trying to add more glitz and more flash on top of the same (or less) gameplay. Somebody, somewhere, is going to have to back off and dial it down. But since small games with big ideas very rarely become smash hits, or even profitable at all, there's no incentive to do so.
There's no such thing as "over-pricing". Every product has an equilibrium price - the price that results in the most revenue. That price is what all businesses strive for. At ANY OTHER PRICE POINT, the business will make less money. If you go down from $50 to $1, you will undoubtedly get more sales... but not necessarily more *total revenue*. Likewise, if you go up from $50 to $500, you'll make a lot more revenue per sale, but the loss in sales will not make up for it. This is what basic economics teaches, and there are basically no exceptions outside of complete monopolies for necessities like energy and heat (which are regulated anyway.)
Don't even get me started on the indie scene, BTW. Almost everyone that says they support "indie games" is being a hypocrite. The indie community is in many ways even more closed-minded than the mainstream game community. Look at all the indie darlings, the fan favorites: almost all of them are either platformers, 8bit, or both. Don't get me wrong, either. I love many of these games. But I've spent the last month trying to promote my own game, "Return All Robots!", which is not 8bit, nor a platformer, and basically not one single indie game site has paid it any attention. Meanwhile, 8bit platformer #5612 gets tons of attention.
So guess what we're going to do next? We're going to make an 8bit platformer, because apparently trying to be inventive and innovative isn't appreciated on ANY level. I'm overblowing it here a little bit for effect, but hopefully you get my point. If you're going to demand that developers make "better games" then you need to pay more attention on what's already out and support those developers who are legitimately trying.
Imagist
People who argue for piracy because they can't afford games (or because "they're overpriced," which is essentially the same argument but modified to say they can't afford as many games) have some weird sense of entitlement. If you can't afford something, you shouldn't have it. That's kind of the way life works. Sure we have a conscience as a society and introduce legislation to ease the "tough love" of this concept with basic necessities like food and shelter, but games hardly fall into that category. You don't have to play every game that comes out just because you're a gamer. Not only will that cost a ridiculously amount of money, it will probably take more time than you'll live. So just choose your games wisely and get over it.
That said, I really liked what you guys said about writing to developers. Pretty much every instance in which I've taken... less than scrupulous action in acquiring games was because I had no other way to try it out. And without trying it out, I'm not going to buy. Here's hoping developers will listen and give us some more (and better) demos.
Wow, guys, way to misunderstand my arguments. Ok, let me break this down for you.
First of all, I never said that a AAA title was ONLY the titles with the best production value. A AAA title is the title with the highest QUALITY. Total quality. Pretty games with shit gameplay are NOT AAA titles; if ME2 was buggier than the first and had terrible gunplay, it wouldn't be AAA, even though it had amazing graphics and a great marketing campaign. The AAA distinction comes AFTER a game is released, not BEFORE.
So, when I say make less shovelware and more AAA games, I mean take the time and money that you're spending making bad games just to sell to stupid people for a quick buck, invest that money on increasing the dev time of your other games by 6 months to a year, and DESIGN THE GAME WELL. Make sure the game is GOOD before you blow money on an art budget. Listen to me when I say this: as someone who has studied AT NINTENDO, I can tell you from experience that games are made and broken on the Game Design Document. That's before even a prototype is made. If your concept is bad, if your story is bad, if your gameplay is shallow and poorly designed, you can't fix that later in the design process. Make less games less often, but ensure that what you DO make is so good, that your consumers literally cannot live without playing it. Not only will you (ultimately) save money (because shovelware is no guarantee by any means), but you'll sell more product because it will be a quality product that people will WANT and NEED to buy.
Secondly, according to current statistics, the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay in the USA (this includes ALL American companies, including companies like Epic, for instance) is 263-1. That means that for every dollar we expect a game coder or graphic artist at EA to make, his CEO is making 262 more dollars. That's. Ridiculous.
Zircon, you say that there's no such thing as "overpricing"? Yeah, that's because economists look at everything in the short term these days. The long term is irrelevant. Make your money now, get your fat bonus, fuck the customer as hard as you can get away with, and if it bankrupts your company, at least YOU got paid. That is the state of American economics, and all it takes is a cursory glance at the state of affairs in America to figure THAT out.
Restructure your business and you will make more money. My family (well, my dad) immigrated to the US with no knowledge of English and about 2$ US. Now, my family is worth multiple MILLIONS of dollars. We did it by building businesses that don't fuck the consumer, and by making our money more slowly, but more surely. It's safer, more effective, and you won't kill your company or burn out your consumer base by doing so. We are living proof that economists are retarded, because by their "laws" we should have run out of money years ago, and yet the BANKS are the ones failing.
If the CEO of EA took a pay cut, it'd lower the cost of the games. If the producers and publishers and stockholders took a pay cut, it lower the cost of their games. Again, after studying at Nintendo, I know how much a AAA title costs to make, and I know that the biggest burden of recouping costs ISN'T paying your designers and artists... it's paying your stockholders, producers, publishers, and CEOs. And, they ALWAYS get payed first.
But... if they took a pay cut, paid the artists and designers better, and cut the cost of the games, not only would they produce more quality work (because the people MAKING the games are working better), but you'll sell more copies that the equations SAY you should sell because people will be more capable, and thus more willing, to buy them. And, you'll sell more copies because pirates who only do it because they think they HAVE to (re: the majority of American college student pirates) will also start buying more legit copies. You'll make less per sale, but your game's shelf life will increase, and you'll sell more copies in the long term.
Part of why it's so hard to recoup game investments is because companies jack up the prices expecting all sales to happen in the first week. No shit, because you're flooding the market and making sustained sales impractical with high prices. The industry is literally manufacturing its own problem... because that problem may be bad for developers and designers, but it's actually GOOD for publishers and investors.
I'm sorry, Zircon, but I'm only going to take what you say about economics with a grain of salt; you're the guy selling mp3 files to college students for hundreds of dollars. That shows a degree of bias and disillusionment.
Most of your post seems to be railing against how companies decide to spend their money and pay their workers. That's fine. I agree with you on basically all of it.
However, what does this have to do with product pricing? There are no exceptions to the rule of equilibrium price. There is always a single price point that will result in the most revenue. This has nothing to do with wanting more profit in the short-term than the long-term - profit isn't even what we're talking about here. This is strictly a matter of what price will yield the highest revenue (calculated by total sales * per-unit price.)
Now, if you want to get into more complex aspects of pricing, such as sales and consumer perception of value, we can. But "overpricing" is a term that makes no sense. If you are charging more than the equilibrium price you are ensuring that you're going to get less total revenue, because fewer people are going to buy at that higher price point.
What are you talking about?
You're correct that, according to economic formulas (which are oddly self-proving, by the way... it's odd the way that economics these days basically treats itself as a religion: "our formulas are correct because when you plug in numbers, you get the expected outcome"), there is a "price" that will yield the higest revenue... But what happens when that revenue isn't high ENOUGH?
For instance, I am EA. I'm making a game. The game has a budget of 10 million. I want to get paid 100K for this game, and I know that each investor will also want that much, AND the producer will want at least that much. So, aside from the ACTUAL price tag of only what the designers, artists, and writers who ACTUALLY make the game are being paid, I now have this overhead cost of what we WANT to be paid. And, because we are EA, the investors, and the producer, we are guaranteed our money first. We get paid first. So, I plug in our expected sales for this game into our little equation, put in a price tag of 50$... but, uh oh. The game won't make that much at 50$. But... 50$ is the equilibrium price... Crap. Oh well, looks like we have to raise the price of the game... because the same economic principles that give us the equilibrium price and the formulas that dictate how to get that price tell us that we shouldn't reduce OUR pay... So the price of the game gets raised.
This is all because the industry has this bizarre sense of entitlement in which publishers and producers HAVE to make their money back first, before the people who actually MAKE the product. I understand that this is a hypothetical, but it's not that far out there, and it's the simplest explanation for the rising cost of games, because the average pay of game employees, just like every other American worker, hasn't risen much in the last decade (if anything, its fallen) and the average team size has only gotten larger for the biggest titles: the Mass Effects, the GTAs, the Red Deads. Meanwhile, EVERY GAME for 360 / PS3, shovelware or not, starts at a 60$ price tag. There's a disconnect there.
Technically, capitalism makes no sense at ALL. Something is worth a set amount... so you're going to pay me MORE than that? Because you say so? Logically, it's unsound. Logically, we had a name for capitalism before "capitalism" was born by the Calvinists... and it was called extortion. But that's another debate for another time. The main point is, capitalism and American economics is self-proving and self-referencing. "There is no such thing as overpricing because we SAY there is no such thing" is not good logic. Something is worth X and we are being charged X+10... that's overpricing. It's really simple, and it's done every day.
Dude, look at your signature. When you first started promoting ZirconTrax on the boards, I checked it out, and for one song to be used in a student project for non-profit purposes, your auto-quote calculator gave me a 120+$ price tag. For one MP3. That wasn't even going to be sold. All I'm trying to say is, that shows a pretty loose hold on the reality of digital distribution / media / supply & demand models, so you're obviously not the best guy to turn to about how the game industry has its economics all messed up.
None of this makes any sense. Raising the price of the game beyond the equilibrium price doesn't somehow equate to more profit or revenue, nor does it equate to more profit or revenue faster. You'll have to explain how that works, because it isn't supported by any logic or economic principles that I know of.
Additionally, "rising cost of games"? How old are you? I remember going to Funcoland when I was 9 and seeing SNES games *routinely* selling for $80-90 or more. Games on average are cheaper than ever when you factor in iPhone, XBIG, XBLA etc., but even looking at premium console games, they were definitely more expensive in the days of the SNES.
I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the "worth" of any good or service varies from person to person. Note that I'm not talking about the COST of something (eg. the literal value of the materials used to make it), I'm talking about "worth" in the sense you're using it. Look at luxury cars. I would never pay $50,000 for a car. A luxury can "on sale" for $50,000 would be "overpriced" to me by about $40,000. Meanwhile, to someone who loves driving luxury cars, $50,000 might be an amazing deal - they might be willing to pay up to $100,000 for the same car.
This is true for ANY good or ANY service. When you aggregate the subjective value that all consumers place on a given good or service, you get a "demand curve". This isn't some magic, abstract law, you've experienced it yourself countless times - any time you look at a product or service and say "that's a deal" or "that's too expensive", and someone else says the opposite. It's because we all value things differently.
If a company tries to charge "too much" for a product, what that means is that they are overestimating the equilibrium price. But guess what? If they do that, fewer people will buy it, and the company will make less money. This will always happen 100% of the time.
Not only is that inaccurate, but it's also not relevant to the discussion. Suffice it to say that my entire career revolves around running businesses based on intellectual property successfully, and I'm doing just fine. Move on.
Edit: The ridiculous thing about this discussion is that you're talking to someone who is probably more liberal than 90% of the people on these forums. I support extensive government regulation and I've posted hundreds of times about how opposed I am to the libertarian philosophy of unfettered capitalism. However, there's a difference between not supporting unfettered capitalism and lacking a basic understanding of economics and logic.
The Derrit
who let jackkeiser back on the internet
Scufo
I remember paying $80 for Majora's Mask. And games are overpriced now? Cripes.
Edit : PS @ The Damned, you're fighting assumption with assumption. Instead of patronizing caps, you could either speculate or provide facts which prove your point and legitimize your arrogance.
How's this: basic theories of economics applied to complex real world economic systems don't work, because said complex systems are complex. There are hundreds of other factors involved, like politics, materials, demand... Anything that difficult to follow and get into can't just be looked at with an easy solution or explanation. There is a reason why being an economist is a career, and not a hobby. You have to send time to learn these things. Hell, even just a beginner-level class will show you how complicated it is, and that's not even a full-blown, multi-year graduate course at an actual school that specializes in economics.
On the subject of personal greed, it is a known factor of people. Everyone has experienced greed, be it themselves or been the victim of another person's greed. Sephfire said it already: a lot of people are claiming all kinds of reasons why they don't wan to pay for the games, but they want to play them any way. It's totally disingenuous and it's bullshit. They aren't downloading the games to make asocial message; they're downloading them to get shit for free.
As for my "arrogance", call it what you want. Jack spouted obviously flawed points and I called him on them. If you think that's bad, just read what Zircon is giving him: point for point counters, and he's doing a damn good job of it. Oh hey! Look at Zircon and Jack's posts. They're both patronizing caps. Hell, in just one of Jack's posts, I counted 13 uses of unnecessary caps use. 13 in one post! Are you going to call them out as well?
EDIT: I'd like to also point out that one of the most successful series ever made is Madden, a game where each version is barely any different from the previous, costs lots of money to make, and sells insanely well despite it's flaws and the company that makes it. How do you respond to that, Jack?
It equates to more short term profit, sure. The hardcore, the ones that will buy your game at any price. How many times do we hear this in a game market analysis? Your sales are made in the first week. Why is this true? The hardcore, the early adopters, the ones who do your word of mouth advertising that (hopefully) will get you longer term sales, will pay almost ANY price. You forget, this is a new age, a digital age, and when you can make a profit selling marked-up PS3s on launch day for 200-300$ of launch price, it becomes obvious that a portion of the consumer base blatantly disregards the economic principles of "equilibrium price" that you're espousing so much.
So, in the short term, you spike the prices of something, expecting that you'll make enough launch week sales off of the hardcore to "pay" for your "project"... only, to an investor, "pay" only means "GET PAID". Remember, the investors get first dibs on profits, so if an investor expects to make investment+5%, then he WILL get that I+5% before the dev studio gets ANY money. Why do you think publishers are posting record profits, but DEVELOPMENT STUDIOS are shutting down left and right? Because the dev studios rely on long term sales, but the publishers and producers only need short term sales to make THEIR investment back. So what if a dev studio fails? This is the 21st century: programmers and graphic artists are a dime a dozen. One fails, and EA just acquires a new one to take its place.
TL;DR: Publishers and producers only care about short term sales, so they sacrifice long term sales by ignoring the equilibrium price. It is the same basic concept that brought down the American financial system: sacrifice long term stability for short term gains.
Additionally, "rising cost of games"? How old are you?
Old enough to remember my dad shelling out A LOT of money to buy me my Genesis. 23, exactly.
I remember going to Funcoland when I was 9 and seeing SNES games *routinely* selling for $80-90 or more. Games on average are cheaper than ever when you factor in iPhone, XBIG, XBLA etc., but even looking at premium console games, they were definitely more expensive in the days of the SNES.
Sure, but GCN games routinely went for 40$, and PS1/2 and Xbox games NEVER sold for 60$; when the current gen systems came out and the prior E3 let us know that game costs were going up, we all shit bricks. I'm sure you remember. I'm not comparing game costs relative to costs 15-20 years ago... I'm talking about how games jumped up in price over 10-15$ in a single generation.
I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the "worth" of any good or service varies from person to person. Note that I'm not talking about the COST of something (eg. the literal value of the materials used to make it), I'm talking about "worth" in the sense you're using it.
I'll take the blame for that. I'm definitely not using the established economic definitions when I say that "cost" == "worth". It's my opinion that, logically, anything that makes "cost" =/= "worth" is bullshit economics. "Cost" should ALWAYS == "worth", or else you are extorting money. And, yes, that means that I think it is logical to imply that "profits" == "extortion".
Look at luxury cars. I would never pay $50,000 for a car. A luxury can "on sale" for $50,000 would be "overpriced" to me by about $40,000. Meanwhile, to someone who loves driving luxury cars, $50,000 might be an amazing deal - they might be willing to pay up to $100,000 for the same car.
But, if the car only costs 15K$ to produce total, I challenge you to find a single average person (re: NOT a car salesman, manufacturer, or aficionado) who WOULDN'T think that selling a car that cost 15K to produce for 50K$ isn't extortion.
What you're not getting is that digital goods break that rule wide open because there is no such thing as supply / demand for digital goods because digital goods have infinite supply. Selling music, movies, games... aside from physical copies, digital media makes no sense to sell because you can produce infinite supply at no additional cost.
So, producing a game, song, or movie has a cost, a cost that I do think should be compensated for (note: this is only my opinion; I don't think it is logically sound to argue that it should be REQUIRED). But, past that initial cost, any extra sales are extortion, because there is no cost to copy digital data infinitely. So, you had better give the consumer pretty damn good reasons not to pirate, because the data is there.
The point is that this is the 21st century, the age of digital media. The rules about buying and selling are changing.
Not trying to say you're totally unknowledgeable. I'm just saying that you have a conflict of interest here, so we should take what you say with a grain of salt.
I have a perfectly good understanding of economics... it's economists that doesn't have a good understanding of economics, because they are applying pre-digital age economic structures to post-digital age economies. You can't do that. Economics needs to evolve into the 21st century, or risk exactly what Extra Credits is implicitly saying when talking about the PS3 Linux users: don't fuck with hackers, because you will lose, and all of your stuff will be pirated. Grow up, evolve, or lose.
EDIT@ The Damned: I respond by saying that Madden shouldn't be sold anymore. Seriously, we have DLC now; just update the roster and stats every year, save yourself the money of dev costs, and sell the game update as required DLC for online play. Screw the hard copies... or rather, sell them at drastically reduced prices each year, so that people without the game can get it, so that they CAN get the DLC updates. Really, the only reason Madden still sells is because stupid frat boys aren't intelligent enough to know they're getting screwed.
Also, Zircon is arguing theory. I'm arguing reality. Reality > theory every time, my man. I learned that making competitive video game rulesets; I didn't even needformal science training to know that. Try telling a physicist that his theory is better than the observable evidence that he's getting in his lab; if the evidence contradicts the theory, the evidence wins.
So... I'm a stupid frat boy? And a few people I know, who hold very non-frat boy jobs like telecommunications, website design, newspaper layout, and my own line of work, non-destructive testing (based upon engineering standards and requiring both math and physics skills), are also stupid frat boys?
I'm not a continuous player of the series by any definition, but I have played it before. Others, including members here, I would like to point out, are players of those games, and I think they would be insulted by that comment.
You know, Zircon said something about you seeming to have issues with the companies, rather than with the games pricing. I can see that quite plainly now. You're not mad about pricing; you're mad about the companies. Did you get turned down by all the big studios or something? Did they personally anger you or do something that affected you in some way other than prices?
Also, the things you said about economists comes off as almost hateful as well. Are you just venting because of bad experiences with one or more? Seriously, it's coming off like that.
I'd also like to point out that most of the time, when people buy a game, they do so in an actual brick-and-mortar store. A store that isn't owned by the developers or publishers of said games. Did any of you take into consideration of the amount the store charges for the games? I beat some of that money isn't the publisher, but the store trying to make money as well. Why aren't you arguing that the stores should lower prices as well, because they're part of the problem.
You started this by using very basic economic theory to support your argument, and now you're using "video game rulesets", which are make up for a system that was itself made, entirely in the imaginations of those making them, to be made into a virtual world that doesn't exist in our actual, physical world, to back your argument up.
Are you sure this is the path of logic you wish to follow? I'm asking because this may very well open yourself up to all kinds of counterpoints, as well as outright heckling from the masses. You're making poor arguments and offering poor defenses for them.
As for "the evidence wins" thing, I like to point out the theory of the flat Earth. All the evidence in the world at various points in history proved it was so. So... how did that turn out? No to mention string theory, as well as quantum theory. All the empirical evidence says it can't work, and shouldn't work in any way. But here we have physical experiments that indicate they do exist and do work they way we think they do.
So... what about that?
Unfortunately, I have to go to work now, but I'd love to continue this conversation when I get home. Should be around 8PM EST. Hope that's cool with you guys. Be back in a few hours.
Let's just focus on one thing here, since it's a pretty fundamental disagreement.
It's not extortion. It's the basic underpinning of any market-based system, also known as "profit". Unless you're absolutely, completely opposed to all market-based economies and literally only support communism, you have to accept that "profit" is a fundamental part of economics. Why bother to sell something if all you're going to do is recoup your costs? In other words, if you have $1 million to make a game, but you can only make $1 million back... why make the game to begin with? What's the point?
Now believe me, if you want to talk about things like health care, I'm 110% AGAINST the concept of insurance companies making anything more than a tiny profit, because it's a basic necessity of life. If someone pays $1 for health care, 99 cents of that dollar should pay for health care, not a CEO's vacation. But when we're talking about PURE LUXURIES, like cars and video games, businesses need incentives to get together the budget to produce products or services. If all they can do is recoup what they spent, then all they're doing is wasting a year (or however long it takes to make the product) since they're just getting however much money they spent back.
Before you bring up indie games/artists/music/open source (etc) yes, I know that some people do things for free or spend their own money to release a game/product and expect nothing back. That's fine. If you've noticed, I've released dozens of free remixes and songs myself. But it's entirely unrealistic to expect every video game developer to stop caring about earning any money and just being content to essentially volunteer their time and resources at cost. If nothing else, earning only what you put in prevents you from ever expanding in scope or size - remember that not all profit simply goes into the pockets of CEOs, but is often reinvested back into new employees, new equipment, new technology, and so on.
As a Canadian, I'd like to point out that we have pretty good healthcare coverage. Even if you go into a private clinic, the government still picks up the tab for it.
Come on, Zircon. Join us. We have pancakes and bacon as our national foods, and the climate isn't that much different from Philadelphia. Our winters can be much more mild, and our summers can get just as hot, depending upon where you are.
Did I mention the all the free maple syrup you can carry? How about a dog sled team for your personal amusement?
BardicKnowledge
I still don't understand why itt we are still having arguments about the equilibrium price. Raising price over equilibrium absolutely will not result in more revenue period -- this is high-school level economics.
An extremely simple example, but nonetheless relevant:
Let's say that you can sell 500 units at $50, and that's your equilibrium price. That becomes $25,000 in income. At $30 you sell 800 units, and at price $60 you sell 400 units. The lower price point sells more copies for less total revenue ($24,000), and the higher price sells fewer copies for less total revenue (again, $24,000).
Those numbers are arbitrary obviously, but the principle of there existing an equilibrium price is not. There will _always_ be one price that generates the highest possible revenue for a product -- a graph of price and units sold will basically never have a straight line on it, always a curve.
Why then, do companies lower the price of games that have been at retail for an extended period of time (usually between 3 and 6 months)? Partly to make space for new games on the shelf, and partly because just like a car, the perceived value of the vast majority of them decreases over time -- the lowering of the price point accommodates this.
So... I'm a stupid frat boy?
I'm assuming that means you buy Madden games, possibly every year? If so, that doesn't mean you're a frat boy... but it does mean you're stupid. Why would you reward EA for that? For doing almost NO work and getting a full 60$ in return? Especially if you get the new iterations, you should want vehemently for EA to switch Madden to a DLC-only system; it's in your best interests for them to do so. If you're using your capitalist vote (read: dollar) to reward EA for doing something that is obviously illogical and extortionist, then you ARE to blame, and it's people like YOU that cause Madden to keep going, despite it's horrible premise.
And a few people I know, who hold very non-frat boy jobs like telecommunications, website design, newspaper layout, and my own line of work, non-destructive testing (based upon engineering standards and requiring both math and physics skills), are also stupid frat boys?
Again, they may not be frat boys, but they sure as hell are stupid, if they keep buying Madden games. Seriously, stop buying them. Force EA to move on to a better, more 21st century system of Madden development.
Good. They should be. You are enablers, enabling EA to continue an outdated and fundamentally flawed (from a consumer standpoint) business model. You know who you're like? People who still buy CDs of music. Seriously, move on to the 21st century, and force the record publishers out of business already by buying digital music. We don't need them. Technology has replaced them and made them obsolete. Just let the industry fade into irrelevance. Same. Basic. Concept.
No. I've never produced or designed a game (to be sold), and I've never pitched to a game publisher or company. I've never even been in contact with anyone from a publisher or developer.
That being said, if I have issue with the pricing, and the companies determine the game's pricing, I suppose that transitively means I have a problem with the companies... which I don't think I've ever said I didn't? OBVIOUSLY I have a problem with them, because their business practices are fundamentally flawed.
Well, I certainly don't want to somehow make people think that I think negatively about economists. That might somehow make me a socialist or something, and we can't have pinkos in America, now can we?
Simply (and without the sarcasm), I am a pragmatist, a logician, and a philosopher by trade; I have problems with ANYONE who acts in an illogical manner, and economists depend on illogical stuff in order to thrive in this world. Again, who do you think made money during the market crash in 2008? Hint: it was the economists who did stupid stuff to kill the economy for short term profits. It's not that hard.
I'd also like to point out that most of the time, when people buy a game, they do so in an actual brick-and-mortar store. A store that isn't owned by the developers or publishers of said games. Did any of you take into consideration of the amount the store charges for the games? I beat some of that money isn't the publisher, but the store trying to make money as well.
The standard video game markup that Gamestop adds to any given console game is anywhere between 10-15$. Again, I've studied this. Look up Professor Christopher Erhardt and Claude Comair; I learned this stuff in their classes. I know what I'm talking about.
Why aren't you arguing that the stores should lower prices as well, because they're part of the problem.
They should. But, Gamestop has worse problems than video game markup. This isn't a discussion about used game sales, however; this is a discussion about piracy, and Gamestop's markup, while substantial and relevant, isn't as important as the base MSRP that the publisher's dictate.
One topic at a time.
I am? No, I'm not. That was banter, not a premise in an overarching argument. Seriously, take a college level logic course; learn how to identify arguments and their component premises and conclusion.
Poor arguments? My argument, the real overarching one, has been, simply, "Publishers and producers have a flawed concept of how 21st century market principles work in relation to digital media, and thus should restructure their business practices to compensate for the increasingly powerful advantage piracy does, and will continue to, have over legitimate sales". Then, I went on to explain how pre-digital age economic values fail miserably when put in the context of the digital revolution and digital content distribution.
All Zircon has been able to say in defense is "economists are right because the formulas they created say they should be right". Who has the poorer argument?
As for "the evidence wins" thing, I like to point out the theory of the flat Earth. All the evidence in the world at various points in history proved it was so.
No, it actually didn't. The evidence was misinterpreted. Properly interpreted and studied, real-world evidence wins every time. Also, you're talking about a time period when saying the Earth is round got you burnt at the stake for heresy, so I think you're argument has a hole or two.
So... how did that turn out? No to mention string theory, as well as quantum theory. All the empirical evidence says it can't work, and shouldn't work in any way. But here we have physical experiments that indicate they do exist and do work they way we think they do.
Which means that we have empirical evidence that says it DOES work. Which means, something is being mishandled or misinterpreted, somewhere along the line. But, we don't throw out the old or new evidence entirely just so we can say we have a working theory. We accept that we don't understand everything, make the theories where we KNOW they can work, and we move on. Current economics would rather throw out the very real evidence that digital media breaks supply / demand models, as well as the common-sense logic that says digital data has, by definition, an infinite supply, in order to keep acting like they have for the past 100 years.
...that. The above.
I'll get to Zircon's post in a bit. Also, I have off of work until next Wednesday... So, plenty of time to lurk and discuss. ^_-
Gollgagh
People who still buy CDs of music.
Fuck. You.
I'm assuming this is going to double-post so... oh well. Sorry guys.
Ok, I'm game for that. Even though I'm replying to you here, please explicitly say at the top of your next post which topic you'd like to talk about now; no sarcasm or talking down or anything. I'd just like it to be clear so I can prepare some data and counter-arguments for you properly.
It's not extortion. It's the basic underpinning of any market-based system, also known as "profit". Unless you're absolutely, completely opposed to all market-based economies and literally only support communism, you have to accept that "profit" is a fundamental part of economics.
Honestly, yeah. I have something you want, you have something I want. We trade for them. Unless I think I can strong-arm you into giving me MORE than you want to for my thing. That's, in a nutshell, what profit is: knowing that something you have is worth X amount, and tricking people into paying X+Y amount instead. I honestly think that if we, in elementary in middle school, gave students a fair shot to have an HONEST discussion about the flaws and merits of profit-based economies, they'd come to the logical conclusion that profit systems == bad. Quick example: Catholic officials have gone on the record saying that capitalism is not only bad, but it's evil and a sin. Now, I'm not one to espouse religion or anything, but those are the guys who claim to be the moral authority.
...that says something.
Why bother to sell something if all you're going to do is recoup your costs? In other words, if you have $1 million to make a game, but you can only make $1 million back... why make the game to begin with? What's the point?
Because you don't make more money by selling at a profit, you make more money by producing more. People think that you HAVE to make money through strict profit, but that's not true at all. We can discuss this in another topic, if you'd like, because it's tangential to this thread.
Before you bring up indie games/artists/music/open source (etc) yes, I know that some people do things for free or spend their own money to release a game/product and expect nothing back. That's fine. If you've noticed, I've released dozens of free remixes and songs myself. But it's entirely unrealistic to expect every video game developer to stop caring about earning any money and just being content to essentially volunteer their time and resources at cost.
Tell that to the guys who put out the Humble Indie Bundle. The HIB#2 brought in a combined total of over $1,825,290. And that was by selling a FREE PRODUCT. And the product was a bunch of poorly-advertised indy games! Yes, you can make money giving something away.
If nothing else, earning only what you put in prevents you from ever expanding in scope or size - remember that not all profit simply goes into the pockets of CEOs, but is often reinvested back into new employees, new equipment, new technology, and so on.
I'd LOVE to get a full breakdown here, because I'm pretty sure that CEO paychecks don't get re-invested anywhere but into the private interests of the CEO. Yes, investors re-invest (it's kind of their thing), but they ARE out to make a lot of money, money that they plan on keeping.
The problem with the current model of game development investment is that the cash flow is totally wrong. Here's an example.
I want to make lemonade to sell, but I need capital to buy the lemons. Let's assume that profit is ok, so you agree to give me 100$ to buy lemons and want me to give you your investment + 5% back. So, I take your money, buy lemons, and make lemonade. I sell it, meaning I give it to a customer, and he gives me money in return. (I know, it's obvious, but stay with me here; I'm being this explicit for a reason). Now, I have your investment + 5%. I have it because the customer gave ME the money. So now I give you your money back.
In this example, the cash flow works kind of like a game of Magic: last-on, first-off. The cash flows from you to me, from me to the customer (in the form of product), then from the customer back to ME (in the form of cash), and finally from me back to you. You get your cut last, but that makes sense, because you're the investor... YOU'RE at the biggest risk here.
Now, contrast that with how GAMES are sold. Investor to Publisher, Publisher to Developer, Developer to Consumer... then from Consumer to Publisher, bypassing the Developer entirely. The most important link in the chain, the people without whom the game couldn't ever exist, get paid last. In this model, profit doesn't help the Dev team expand in scope. In this model, the Dev team has a cyclical dependency on the Publisher for capital, which is never broken. Unless the Dev team is paid more, which happens at the whim of the Publisher only, they can NEVER expand in scope because they have no control over their own profit stream.
Now, how does THAT make sense?
EDIT@Gollgagh: Hey, man. You're the one who's providing the RIAA with so much money. You're the one helping to enable draconian copyright laws that serve to do nothing but punish the consumer. I have no personal beef with you (I've never even met you), but your money is the reason my music and games have DRM, including the stuff I purchase legally.
Lyrai
[Holy shit there is so much bullshit here]
You do realize that in this magical land called the internet that you champion so much, you can get a CD made with your own music, sell it to people, make money, and not involve the RIAA in any way, right?
You did realize this before posting on a forum with several turned-pro musicians, right?
Of course I do, but how much easier, simpler, faster, and more profitable is it to just put your song up on iTunes and be done with it? It's just SMARTER in this day and age to sell digitally. I buy Bad Dudes albums because I like the Bad Dudes and want them to keep making music... but more so that I can have kitschy nerd cred vs. my other nerdy friends when I have physical copies of nerdy music.
If I didn't care about the IRL nerd cred, I'd just buy digital, because it's one less disc I have to hassle with and I get it instantly. On a related note, when I bought OneUps Vol. 2 and Chronotorious (sp?), I torrented both albums while waiting for my physical disc. I bought it already... waiting for the disc was just waiting for a mantelpiece. So, yeah. I pirated OneUps / Bad Dudes music get at me. ^_-
EDIT: We're turning Sephfire's video series thread into some sort of dumping ground.
Jack, you've openly insulted members here for games they like. You've admitted to pirating music from people who happen to be members here. You've made comments that show you only, at best, partially know what you're talking about. You've even gotten into pissing contests with people that are far better suited for it, what with their personal, hands-on experience.
I'm sorry to say it, but I fear for your time here. At best, this will end with a fair bit of resentment on both sides. At worst, I fear a banning or two. (Not mini-modding)
I'll see you guys around. I suspect this is going to end , at the very least, entertainingly.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Gazprom and RUSNANO Will Work Together More Closely in the Area of Certification
Alisher Kalanov: The Fall in Price of Renewables Calls for a Rethink of the Road Map for Energy Development
Vestas and RUSNANO to Localize Production of Wind Turbine Blades under a Special Investment Contract
Anatoly Chubais: To maintain the new technology cluster, the share of RES in the energy mix should be at least 5% by 2035
RUSNANO Group takes part in the programme of events of the IV International Congress REENCON-XXI, which is held in Moscow on 5-6 June. Chairman of the Executive Board of RUSNANO Anatoly Chubais spoke at the plenary session "Present and future of renewable energy. Perspectives for the international cooperation." First Deputy Minister of Energy of the Russian Federation Alexey Teksler, General Director of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety of Germany Karsten Sach, General Director of IRENA Adnan Amin, and General Director of ENEL Russia Carlo Palashano also took part in the discussion.
In his report, Anatoly Chubais said that a completely new technology cluster has been created in Russia: the renewable power generation, which includes power generation and the production of high-tech equipment.
"By 2024 the RES technology cluster will become integral and self-reproducing and will follow the demand of generation, industrial production, R&D and education. In order to maintain the production and scientific groundwork, in the period 2025-2035 it is necessary to renew the existing effective RES public support system, and also to ensure the construction of at least 10 GW of generation and provide at least 5% RES share in the energy mix of the Russian Federation. Otherwise, there are considerable risks that the sector will not be integral, which will lead to its gradual erosion," Anatoly Chubais said.
According to the Head of RUSNANO, following the arrangements of power supply agreements, the competition between investors for the right to implement the RES projects is increasing, and the specific capital costs are declining, which is confirmed by the wind power sector.
"Requirements for equipment localization have established a production base of the RES cluster: investments in Russian localization projects in solar energy are estimated at RUB 25 billion, in wind power—RUB 16 billion. The production capacities of new energy machine building projects will reach 2 GW per year and have a large export potential. It is equally important for the industry that high-tech productions of new sector will invest about 5-7% of annual gross sales in R&D," Anatoly Chubais pointed out.
PDF ~381 Kb
RUSNANO Joint-Stock Company was founded in March 2011 through reorganization of state corporation Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies. JSC RUSNANO contributes to implementation of the state policy on the development of the nanotechnology industry by investing directly and through investment funds of nanotechnology in financially effective high-technology projects providing the development of new production facilities in the Russian Federation. Its primary investment focus is in electronics, optoelectronics and telecommunications, healthcare and biotechnology, metallurgy and metalwork, energy, mechanical engineering and instrument making, construction and industrial materials, chemicals and petrochemicals. 100 percent of RUSNANO's shares are state owned. Thanks to RUSNANO's investments, there are currently 103 factories and R&D Centers opened in 37 regions in Russia. JSC RUSNANO has profit for the last 5 years.
Management of assets of RUSNANO JSC is carried out by Limited Liability Company established in December 2013, RUSNANO Management Company. Anatoly Chubais is the Chairman of its Executive Board.
Work to establish nanotechnology infrastructure and carry out educational programs is fulfilled by RUSNANO's Fund for Infrastructure and Educational Programs, which was also established during the reorganization of the Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies.


Howard Center - Pine Street Counseling is a non profit rehab located in Burlington, VT. Howard Center - Pine Street Counseling specializes in the treatment of mental health illness.
My experience with the Howard Center was very disappointing, no one returned the call, they only worry about charging the insurance, when I arrived I thought they really cared about the clients, but it turns out that it is not. Here I felt ignored, they were not interested in me at any time, I never want to go back to this place.
How effective was Howard Center - Pine Street Counseling?


text:
Bruner Hill () is a hill,  high, which is snow-covered except for some exposed rock on the north face. It rises at the north side of El-Sayed Glacier,  southwest of Mount Shirley, in Marie Byrd Land. It was mapped by the United States Geological Survey from surveys and from U.S. Navy aerial photographs, 1959–65, and named by the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names for Lieutenant Michael G. Bruner, U.S. Navy, LC-130 aircraft commander during Operation Deep Freeze 1970 and 1971.

References

Hills of Marie Byrd Land

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
On Living
Exploring How to Live Better
Why On Living?
Introduction: The Meaning of Meaning
5 Misconceptions
Fundamental Ways of Thinking: Distinctions and Principles ⤧
The Greatest Modern Illness ⤧
The Unavoidable Question
Coherence: The Creator ⤧
Eudaimonic Happiness
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness."
Feeling empty, indifferent, or lost; like life doesn't matter, doesn't make much sense, or doesn't have any real purpose, are normal descriptions of meaninglessness. Taking hold, it can consume your life and make it lesser. And if nothing is done to repel it, it can make you decay and lose out on the greatest things that life has to offer. You will be living, of course, but you will not feel fully alive. You will be aging, to be sure, but you will pass through existence with nothing to show for.
# It's not easy to deal with when one's in it. It's a dark place, solid black. … Looking at it from a place of having meaningfulness, it's not that complicated. But being in that state is far more violating. The way out is long and winding for some. … It might be a theme better suited for clinicians. As a psychology graduate, I do have my thoughts. #
To say the least, meaninglessness causes deep problems—some of the worst that human experience has to offer. And for some, it can even lead to suicide. Considering this, it's not difficult to see meaninglessness as equivalent to a great illness. However, it isn't usually thought of as one, and it isn't covered by the International Classification of Diseases either. While I won't dwell on the reasons why it isn't, I will briefly speculate on three:
One, it's not easily distinguished as a single illness, as many terms and explanations cover it.
Two, it's deeply existential—not so much an illness of the body or the mind specifically, as it's an illness of your entire being—which might make it unfit for classification standards.
And three, it affects nearly everyone at some point in their life, whether they have classified health disorders or not.
I don't know about you, but these reasons only make me want to explore it more. As a topic, meaninglessness is as serious as it gets. Moving on, I will not offer much remedy as of now, because I will mainly focus on the causes; "why can life feel this way?" However, it's my belief that to achieve something—a meaningful life—it's helpful to understand its opposite.
The Evolution of Meaninglessness
Based in evolutionary thinking, I think it's likely that our psychological needs evolved in relation to our physical needs. Going about fulfilling the needs of food, sex, and sleep, usually fulfilled the needs of competence, belonging, and safety—and of course the need for meaning.
In the world that this relationship evolved, however—be it thousands of years ago—normal living tended to satisfy both categories of needs. But as our society developed, it became increasingly easier to fulfill the physical ones; and possible to fulfill them in totally different ways. Instead of having to spend a day outside hunting for our food, we can stay inside and wait for it to arrive on our doorsteps. And while it's far more convenient, it deprives us from naturally fulfilling our psychological needs. While we keep our safety, we lose out on the belongingness in hunting with our tribe, and the competence we feel when we successfully take down a prey.
In and of itself, it's not a bad thing we can order our food. But in the long term, we might need something to compensate for it. We still have the needs within us, and they yearn for their fulfillment. And interestingly, it's almost like the easier the physical needs are satisfied, the harder it's to satisfy the psychological ones.
# We've always strived to fulfill our needs, it's just that it requires more of a conscious effort today.
Considering this, normal living might have actually been meaningful living thousands of years ago. But this isn't necessarily the case today. While many still feel like their life are meaningful, more and more have instances of meaninglessness. And the reason is because the natural ways of deriving coherence, value and purpose are washed out. More than ever, we need to actively seek out those things. We need them. While yesterday's prototype was staying alive, today's prototype is feeling alive.
This, of course, doesn't mean we should strip ourselves from everything that modern age has to offer. But it means we should be more aware of how we're living. And I think living in today's age actually tips the scale in favor of meaningful living. That is, if you're willing to work at it. The alternative is a lack in the three components.
Lacking in Three
Meaninglessness implies a lack of meaning, which means there's a reduced sense of coherence, significance and purpose. And given the fertile ground provided by the intersection of our evolutionary wiring and the modern world, we're at risk. Now, while the modern world doesn't provide meaninglessness in and of itself—and it's certainty not a scapegoat—it might make it easier for meaninglessness to unfold. Without working at it, it's easier to trend towards it. A lack of coherence turns to chaos. A lack of significance makes you feel worthless. And a lack of purpose is a recipe for getting lost. Here's how those lacks occur:
The Clash of Chaos
A lack of coherence can cause uncertainty and confusion. And it occurs when you're unable to make sense of something. Whether it's reading up on a difficult subject or having a weird social encounter, it temporarily sets you out of balance. And in the modern world, there's a lot of opportunities for that to happen. Now, being confused once in a while isn't a bad thing. It's actually good for you, as having to build your coherence only makes for greater understanding. It helps you make meaning of the world.
Most of the time, this meaning-making isn't even a conscious process. It runs in the background, making small iterations as you encounter your experience. But when you face something you can't handle, it really sets in motion. Taken to the extreme, a lack of coherence turns to chaos. And that's not very pleasurable. As the philosopher Rene Descartes describes it:
"Feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles around me so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim to the top."
When the difference between what you know and what you encounter is too large to grasp, the process of building coherence malfunctions. There's an overload, and it leaves you bathing in chaos. Experiences such as betrayal, heart-break, and sudden death can easily cause this—information that's in stark contrast to what you already believe about the world. Now the unconscious tinkering might not be enough anymore. You need to employ a conscious effort to regain your clarity (and sanity). # More on that later. #
You can think of it as a thermostat trying to keep a room warm. Under normal conditions, it will only perform corrective procedures. If a window is opened, it will have to work significantly harder. And if all the windows in the room were shattered, it will have a hard time trying to regain the desired temperature.
The Weary of Worthlessness
A lack of significance can cause indifference. And it occurs when what you're doing isn't valuable to you. For example, if you're forced to do something, rather than doing it willingly, you might have issues in finding it valuable. Now, indifference is not necessarily a bad thing. It's impossible to find everything significant, and a sense of indifference points out what you shouldn't continue to pursue. It's a guide, of sorts.
However, when everything takes on a shade of indifference, there's a problem. If nothing in the world feels valuable to you, there's apathy. And in time, that feeling can turn inwards and influence the way you value yourself—turning into worthlessness. And from there, there's a short way to judging the whole of life meaningless.
There might be multiple reasons triggering such a line of events. If you're pressured into doing things you don't really want to do, if you're having a hard time fitting in, or if you're failing to achieve a sense of mastery, worthlessness can creep in. And then it won't matter if you have plenty of coherence in your life; because you still need to judge it worth living. As Albert Camus said:
"Judging whether life is worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of life. All the rest comes afterwards. One must first answer this."
(adapted quote).
To form an answer, you look for (in the lack of a better word) evidence. And it's in failing to find evidence of worth and significance that you might judge the whole thing meaningless. And if not proven otherwise, it causes a downward spiral—where finding no value reinforces your beliefs about the world. The good thing is that the opposite is also true: you can enter an upwards spiral. # More on that later. #
The Loathing of Feeling Lost
A lack of purpose can cause feelings of being lost. And it occurs when you don't know what you're about or where you're going in life. It's an aimless state with no direction. Graduating high-school might be a prime example of this experience. Although some people know what they're gonna do next, many people do not. There's too many options (and the modern world keeps spewing out more), they're too young to know what they want, and there's too much pressure to conform to certain paths.
Although you don't need a very specific plan, it's helpful to try to establish a sense of where you're going—if not five years from now, at least a week or month from now. It's ok to feel lost sometimes too, because it might help you find a better purpose. Now, what really sets it in motion is ceasing to try at all. When you stop moving is when you really get lost. As Plato once said:
"Lack of activity destroys the good condition of every human being"
It's only in giving up that you make it permanent. Then it's easy to feel like there's no way out, to blow trivial things out of proportion, or get caught up in hedonistic distractions. You're living, but you're unsure of what for. There's nothing in the future to bring coherence or significance to your daily actions.
The good thing, however, is that it doesn't require much to establish a sense of purpose. Because even if you don't know where to go at first, you find out when you start to move. #More on that later.#
Together, chaos, worthlessness and feeling lost produces a sense of meaninglessness.
Lacking in any one of them influences the other two. But that also means that working at any one of the influences the other two.
# Based in these 3 components, and in failing to fulfill them, one might start to tinker with the unavoidable question.
And when that happens, an unavoidable question might begin to enter.
Suffering Doesn't Equal Meaninglessness
You can suffer but still find life meaningful. Suffering is a natural part of life—recognized by all major religions, human philosophies and psychological research. You're likely to have experienced it yourself. And if not, you inevitably will at some point. However, the suffering and the problems are not the problem. The problem is failing to do anything about it.
In suffering, you can experience meaninglessness. But although it can include it, it doesn't have to.
To be clear, suffering isn't pain. Suffering, in it's simplest form, only concerns meaning-making. And it occurs when there's a discrepancy between what you believe and how the world works.
# See worldview.
Seen this way, suffering is only meaningless if you insist on maintaining your old beliefs. Suffering is clawing to your old beliefs when faced with new information. It's wanting something different than what's currently possible.
The search for meaning, and meaningfulness, and meaningful living, is the antidote.
Some things are worth suffering for. The search for meaning is in itself meaningful.
Yes, it's painful, but it's worthwhile.
Viktor Frankl said:
"In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning"
Meaning-making is a natural response to pain and trauma. It's suffering, but it's not meaningless. Failing to find new value in the meaning-making process is the problem.
As Viktor Frankl, the psychiatrist who survived the Nazi concentration camps, observed,
"Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning."
# The Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard would have argued this is a leap of faith—an act of trusting something outside the boundaries of reason. Although we cannot know for sure, we have to act as if it's true. And by doing so—by pursuing a meaningful life—we will come to discover that life, indeed, is meaningful.


text:
Q: cognos: Pick up the initial value for every row of a crosstab I have a requirement in which i have to pick up the initial value of each row in a crosstab..
My crosstab looks like this
value   1960  1970  2010  2011
aus        10               5          11      6
eng                             5        2
bra            11           4
ind                           8             11
i have to add another column which picks up the initial value for every row based on the year..
so the result should look like this.

value   1960  1970  2010  2011    initialValue
aus        10               5          11      6         10
eng                             5        2          5
bra            11           4                             11
ind                           8             11                    8

A: You should be able to use the minimum() function to determine the lowest value for year and then return the value corresponding to that. The expression for the initialValue data item would be something like:
total(
CASE
WHEN [Year] = minimum([Year] for [Language])
THEN [Value]
ELSE 0
END
for [Language])

We get the lowest year for the specific language in the data set using the minimum() function using the for clause to define the aggregation level. If the year of the row matches this number, we output the value, otherwise we output 0. We then total everything up for each language which should give us the value for the lowest year.
This solution assumes that the numbers displayed in your crosstab are totals of lower-level row detail. If the aggregate is something different, such as average or count, the wrapping summary function should be changed accordingly.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I use RDP a lot now, but would like to be able to see my own PC's task bar, for instance Outlook may show messages.
Sure there are many web pages discussing this. This is my quick run-down.
Drag a window so that the cursor hits the left/right edge of screen at which point the window will snap left/right. Do this with two windows and you can compare two documents.
If you find others then please comment and I can add them to the main article here.
Or links to pages that list these out.
Windows could not connect to the Group Policy Client service. This problem prevents standard users from logging on to the system.
"The crash of your computer during Windows Updates may have caused that !
I had this issue on my laptop since November, and it really bugged me. I sifted through the event log and found the pattern of events that preceded the issue, and, probably, caused it.
In short, the pattern is as follows: Windows updates run automatically as scheduled, and when reboot is initiated after the updates are finished, the computer crashes (probably during reboot sequence). When it boots up, it reports that the last shutdown was unexpected, and the issue begins to occur.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services this path should contain gpsvc key (a folder), which is responsible for service parameters and configuration. I found that the key was intact, so, you do not touch anything here – just check that the key exists.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\SVCHOST This is the most important path you should look into, as it must contain the keys and values referred in the key #1. Below are descriptions what must be present there.
There must be Multi-String value called GPSvcGroup. My laptop was missing it. So, you should create multi-string value named GPSvcGroup and assign it value GPSvc.
Next, you must create a key (a folder) and name it GPSvcGroup – this key normally should be there, but, again, it was missin on my laptop.
Second is called CoInitializeSecurityParam and it must have value of 1.
Once you complete all steps above, reboot the computer and the problem will be fixed.
I set up Windows 7 Homegroup on my PC and was able to see this from my laptop.
However I was unable to see my PC from my laptop.
After some reading decided to remove my almost redundant McAffee from my laptop. As soon as I did this Homegroup started working. As did remote connections to SQL Server.


well at least i do!!
Gotta maintain that CF, don't want it to look like this.
couldn't you just swap your stock hood back on when it gets that cold?
there are so many 3m rubbing compounds i personally would like to know which one you are talking about.
and im assuming you cant get this out can you?


text:
HelpLine/Office 716-226-6264 | In a Crisis? Click here
Funders, Sponsors & Partners
Mental Illness Basics
Finding Services
Family Support Group
Family-to-Family Classes
Family Education Meetings
Family & Friends Seminar
Borderline Personality Disorder Class
Mind Matters Resource Guide
Treatment Resources
Same Day and Urgent Care
Emergency Care & Hospitalization
Community-Based Services
Group-Specific Services
Child & Youth Treatment
Emergency Care & Hospitalization – Child & Youth
Day Treatment & School-Based
Inpatient/Detox
Co-Occurring Mental Illness & Substance Abuse
Support Groups - Substance Use Disorder
Living with a Mental Illness
Recreation & Socializing
Respite & After Hours Centers
Employment, Education & Training
Support & Other Resources
Advocating for a Loved One or Yourself
Legal & Criminal Justice
Other Basic Needs
Books & Online Resources
Fight Stigma
Mental illness is not always easy to recognize, NAMI is here to provide mental health support and resources
You are here: Home1 / Mental Illness Basics2 / Where to Begin
Mental illness can develop over a long period of time. Mental illness is not always easy to recognize. In the case of a teenager or young adult, some behaviors may be considered typical for that age or chalked up to rebellion, expressing individuality or showing independence. School problems, declining grades, alcohol or drug use, moodiness, depression or anxiety may be difficult to differentiate from "being a teenager." For older adults, even the elderly, it may be hard to determine if mental health is a factor in their lives.
Mental illness may also appear suddenly and without obvious warning. Some signs include escalation and intensity of prior symptoms, psychosis, threats of suicide, involvement with the judicial system, or other behaviors such self-harming (e.g., cutting) or an eating disorder.
Regardless of the way mental illness enters your life, you may experience sadness, shock, trauma, confusion, denial and guilt. Your life suddenly turns upside down.
Adding stress and confusion to an already difficult time, the mental health system is difficult to navigate. Health and mental health providers, social services, schools and colleges, and families do not, or are not permitted to, share information. Privacy laws make it harder to coordinate services. The many financial aspects of receiving care also create challenges. Your health insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid, an employer plan or a health exchange plan, or the lack of health insurance, directly affects which services are available to you. Some organizations (e.g., health homes) have implemented programs for people who meet certain criteria to receive most services through its one organization.
"Where to begin?" is the first question most people have.
Assessment is the first step. Since recovery and stabilization are more achievable if a mental health condition is treated early, locating appropriate affordable treatment and accessing it in a timely fashion are critical. Regardless if mental illness is mild, moderate or severe, early diagnosis is important. (Note: In the case of an emergency you need to seek care immediately. See Emergency Services.)
Various professionals can help you begin: a primary care physician or pediatrician, a school counselor, social worker or teacher, or a university Student Services or health center. Family and friends can be a great resource. You may be surprised how many people have gone to a mental health professional, or know of others who have done so. See Finding Services later in this section.
This may be a good time to call the NAMI Buffalo HelpLine (716-226-6264). Our trained volunteers – family members who have walked in your shoes – can provide support, provide resources and referrals, or by simply listening. We support you no matter where you are in your journey – whether deciding if you even need to seek services, or have been on this road for a long time.
Copyright © 2020 NAMI Buffalo & Erie County
Website Designed by OtherWisz Creative


text:
Aforizem (grško αφoρισμoς ,aphorismos) je zgoščeno, duhovito izražena globoka misel, domislica, oziroma resnica.

Aforizem je tujka, ki je k nam prišla v uporabo v 19. stoletju prevzeta iz nemške besede Aphorismus oziroma latinske  aphorismus iz grške besede aphorismos v pomenu besede kratek stavek, vsebujoč glavno misel.

Pomembnejši slovenski aforisti
 Žarko Petan
 Bojan Schwentner
 Evgen Jurič

Viri
 Verbič, France, Slovar tujk, Cankarjeva založba, Ljubljana, 1979
 Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, prva knjiga, DZS, Ljubljana 1980
 Snoj, Marko, Slovenski etimološki slovar, Založba Modrijan, Ljubljana, 2003

Književnost
Izposojenke iz grščine
 Humor


a00FitBrunette . PlayfulFrank. AlexandRaccoon. PATAKI.
ZooeyPrettyJeanx3RonaldooAlexandRaccoon .BAREBACKGUYS208RobinTestPacc1MyraBelleSweetSallySweett .RobertoNightZooeyPrettyTattooedSteveDIRTYASS69XX .RobertoNightKeilyxKarterdirtypornxcoupleAlishaElectra .TattooedSteveTattooedSteveaesteticboyLittleMashaBB .DARIAWILLSZooeyPrettyIktidaySweetyNikka .IktidayJohnnaRockefeler01tatianapinkSalvador4Lorenzo .RobertoNightBlackguy9196helen2730Iktiday .lunnaaandjeisonnAlexandRaccoonBellaUpton0DARIAWILLS .TattooedSteveRaphysweetBunetteSexyasianPRETTYgay .HornyBrunette21garahTITSAbrilGarciaMilana07 .
LATINAvsASIANBOYhelen2730RiichardBladeNikolaijones .LiliAndLutorZooeyPrettyPlayfulFrankCasual .SweetGuyScotCuteNadiForUErikaAndJodySalvador4Lorenzo .AngelaSLUTHornyBrunette21NikkyCandySensualSindora .SexyXxXReyKaattyeSexyDreamRomancedelyacrazy .RonaldooErikaAndJodySallySweettlunnaaandjeisonn .HornyBrunette21JohnnaRockefelerCasualHornyBrunette21 .TomasooRoxanna6TomasooSalvador4Lorenzo .asianPRETTYgayYourLoveAffairEveNymphoHornyBrunette21 .StevenRiderZarrinnaaCuteNadiForUBeautyElle .Milana07garahTITSSinfulBunnyDreamRomance .


The glamorous digital imagery below, is part of 2019 GMC Video Interior content which is listed within Wallpaper, 2019 gmc sierra 1500 video, 2019 gmc truck video, 2019 gmc denali video and posted at September 3rd, 2018 18:04:08 PM by admin.
Car Trend reviews the 2019 GMC Video where consumers can find detailed information on specs, fuel economy, transmission and safety. Additional new features for the 2019 GMC Video include a heated steering wheel, and optional heated and power operated front seats on lower-trim models with cloth upholstery. Front-wheel drive is standard and all-wheel drive is optional. In addition to the gas-only model, the 2019 GMC Video is also available as a hybrid with all-wheel drive as standard.
In a 2017 comparison test that included the other cars, the 2019 GMC Video placed fifth. Handling also proved to be another 2019 GMC Video weak spot and we found the steering to be numb.
The 2019 GMC Video, on the other hand, is a better package, as we noted in a 2017 First Test, thanks to its smooth powertrain and well-calibrated brakes that smoothly transition between regenerative and mechanical braking. However, since it isn't a plug-in hybrid, the 2019 GMC Video doesn't have much EV mode range and can only travel around 0.5 miles on electricity.A rear view camera with rear parking sensors is now standard on all models.
Here is needful notification on 2019 gmc sierra video. We have the world class assets for 2019 gmc sierra video. Check it out for yourself! You can gather New 2019 GMC Video Interior guide and look the latest 2019 GMC Video Interior in here.


text:
Democrats Just Flipped Their 40th Seat in the House
Stop quibbling people. It was a wave.
Senior ReporterBio | Follow
Mother Jones illustration
Four weeks and two days after the polls closed on Election Day, three-term California Republican Rep. David Valadao conceded to Democrat TJ Cox, handing Democrats their 40th pickup of the cycle. Cox, an engineer from Fresno, unseated Valadao in a Central Valley district that went for Hillary Clinton by more than 15 points but frustrated Democrats downballot for years. Valadao is the seventh California Republican to lose his seat, a historic wipeout and a new rock bottom for the GOP in the state that helped usher in modern conservatism. With the counting in California finally over, that leaves just one unsettled race—North Carolina's ninth district, where Republican Mark Harris' narrow lead has been called into question amid allegations of election fraud.
The tentative final tally for Democrats looks a lot different than it did on Election Day, in large part because of the way elections work in California. Any ballot mailed by the end of the day on November 6th was counted, which meant that it took weeks for the final races to be settled. The Associated Press and NBC News, among other outlets, initially called the race for Valadao, and only retracted their projection late last month, when Cox took the lead. Twelve of the 40 seats Democrats picked up were called after November 6.
That it seemed to happen in slow motion shouldn't detract from the significance of what Democrats accomplished. They picked up more seats than they have in any midterm since Watergate. They carried all but three of the 25 Republican-held districts carried by Clinton. By any measure, it was a wave.
California Republicans Ponder Their Darkest Hour
Bryan Schatz


I am working on Optimization of MVC Project in which I am using css and js file to bundled to a single files. But when I updated in css or js it not reflecting in web browser. After Rebuild the project it worked fine.


Dr. Randall Voigt would like to welcome you to an amazing dental experience! By combining advanced dental technology with a gentle, friendly style, Dr. Voigt and his team will make you and your family more comfortable than you ever thought possible. "As a doctor, I recognize that my patients are unique individuals who have placed a great deal of trust in me and my team. That is just one reason why I value each and every patient relationship."
The minute you walk through the door, you will know you have come to the right place. The office has a comforting atmosphere and inviting team members that will make you feel right at home. Best of all, Dr. Voigt takes the time to get to know each and every patient one-on-one, helping you make informed choices about your dental health. As a dental professional Dr. Voigt stays up to date on the latest advancements in dentistry in order to provide the most current treatment options for his patients. Implant dentistry, Invisalign, Orthodontics and Cerec one visit crowns are just some of the services we offer to help you maintain a beautiful, healthy smile. Dr. Voigt completed his training in Implant Dentistry at the University of Texas Health Science Center's Dental Implantology Preceptorship program. As an Invisalign Premier Provider he has helped many of his patients achieve a beautiful smile. We offer Cerec one visit crowns which can be a great option when you have time restraints and would like to have your crown completed in one visit. We would love the opportunity to create a beautiful smile for you to be proud of.
A third generation Texan, Dr. Voigt was born and raised in San Antonio. He graduated from Jefferson High School and then went on to study at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. He later earned his doctorate at the University of Texas Health Science Center School of Dentistry in San Antonio. Each year he attends extensive post-doctoral studies in clinical dentistry, focusing on cosmetics and minimally invasive dentistry. Dr Voigt is an active member of the American Dental Association, Texas Dental Association, San Antonio District Dental Society and the International Association of Orthodontics. He and his wife Jeaninne have been married for 20 years. They have five daughters, 3 grandchildren and 2 dogs. In his free time you can find Dr. Voigt barbecuing, fishing, and spending time with his friends and family at the lake. He is a dedicated San Antonio Spurs fan, having played basketball since he was a young boy. He also enjoys a good game of Texas Hold'em when he can find the time.
"I appreciate the time you've taken to visit our website and find out more about the dental practice, my team, and the many services we can provide to help you achieve optimum oral health."