Slashdot Mirror


Spread The Love (And Pay Us)

Digitus1337 writes "Wired has an article up about a new online service known as 'FunHi.' You sign up and join a community, and give your fellows gifts, but as Wired has reported, 'these are not ordinary gifts. They're purely digital: little flashing icons of cars, planes, diamond rings and other virtual representations of expensive items included in messages members send each other. And FunHi members don't seem to care that the real money they're spending on the gifts, at prices as high as $30 an item, is going straight into the company's coffers." This leaves just one question unanswered... why didn't I think of this?" It sounds like an April Fool's Joke, but then, so does online trading of Everquest loot.

442 comments

  1. wow... by AssProphet · · Score: 5, Insightful


    FunHI - yet another reason capitalism should come with a warning

    1. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm with a name like AssProphet, you would fit right in comfortably on Funhi. There is a role for you .. remarkable.

    2. Re:wow... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      The FunHi Goldunn Rule: If ya can't say sumtin' nice, then don't say shieat!

      I guess I won't say Shieat.

    3. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With $30, you might be able to buy your friend some common sense.

  2. Snobby Greedy Bitch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about the Snobby Greedy Bitch... the one who thinks these gifts are reprsentative of real ones?

    Then $30 will seem quite inexpensive.

    1. Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch... by websaber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's getting to the point were some people have so much that there's nothing you can buy them, so now you can give the thought with out burdening them with the need to actually deal with the item.

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    2. Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch... by UberQwerty · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA: It's $30 for a faux CREDIT CARD. In real life, they're free. (Also, when you buy it for someone, they get $28.00 in credit to spend on more worthless imaginary stuff. What a deal!)

      By comparison, the second most expensive item is a faux private jet, valued at $14.99

      --


      PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
    3. Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch... by SYFer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The people playing this are probably not the types who "have everything" at all. Sadly, as with most things bling, its the people who can least afford it that are drawn in like moths to the flame.

      --
      "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    4. Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 0, Troll

      Interesting that the fee on the $10 card is $3, and the fee on the $30 card is $2.

      Theyz bee opressing the po with them high ratez. But the rich crakez payz less.

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    5. Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch... by bicho · · Score: 1

      uhm... err...
      You kow, gifts are not the only possible kind of presents... (or should it be the other way around?)

      what about dinner, or party or something else?

      I would take japanese food gift anytime :-9

      --

      errera hunamum ets
    6. Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this a troll?
      The parent is using the same tone as the site in question.

      It is interesting that the charge for the cheaper card is greater than the expensive one.

  3. Why would I pay for this? by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 1, Funny


    I can send digital files to my friends for FREE thank you very much!

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:Why would I pay for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einstein was an atheist, you insensate clod!

    2. Re:Why would I pay for this? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 3, Funny

      YOU wouldn't pay for this.

      But somebody who didn't understand technology and didn't want to MIGHT pay for it because they thought it was a cute idea. These are the same people who buy new Sims add-ons for the additional wallpaper and landscaping. These are the people keeing Pier 1, Tuesday Morning and the Christmas Tree Shop in business. These are the same people who keep buying me candles, picture frames and other tchotchkes when what I really need is a new fucking laptop.

      In short, women will pay for this, because it is useless but kind of cute and not too expensive.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:Why would I pay for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant appeal to authority anyway.

    4. Re:Why would I pay for this? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 2, Interesting

      God I hate all that stuff.

      It dosen't even register when you ask them to give money instead of some useless trinkets.

      I'm trying to save up for the down payment on a motorcycle that I want very badly. I'm trying to do this without affecting my family budget. So I'm saving a portion of my weekly lunch money, carpooling to work some days, doing without excess CD's, etc. And over the last year I've saved quite a bit of money.

      Before Christman I thought it'd be nice if I could transform gifts into savings. So when people called my wife to ask what I wanted, she told them that I would prefer money because I'm saving for something.

      Besides my wife herself, not 1 person went 'out of their way' to give me cash. I don't get it. They think they're doing me a favor by buying me alluminum coffee mugs and gift certificates to clothing stores I don't even like.

      My Mother actually told me that there's no thought in giving money. So she gives me a gift certificate to Target instead. Go figure.

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    5. Re:Why would I pay for this? by secolactico · · Score: 1

      It dosen't even register when you ask them to give money instead of some useless trinkets

      Because it is considered rude to show the exact value of a gift. That's why stores that gift-wrap remove the stickers with the price (usually).

      The exception, of course, are gift certificates.

      My sister and I have an arrangement for xmas: we each assume that we will give each other the same amount in cash and not actually give each other anything. She can buy whatever she wants with the money she was going to use and so do I.

      I hate gift giving. I never know what to buy so I end up buying the wrong thing (I have *offended* a lot of people with clothing) so now my gf does the gift shopping for me. When I need to buy her something, I recruit her best friend. Makes sense and saves aggravation. All I have to do is put up the money.

      --
      No sig
    6. Re:Why would I pay for this? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Never could figure that one out.

      But how is it rude when I'm specifically asking for this. I don't care if they want to spend $10 or $100. Just drop it in an envelope and exchange giftw with me. No problem.

      Why isn't it considered rude to burden someone with something unwanted and unneeded? I happen to think so, and I go out of my way to either buy something that the recipient can really use, or give them the means to do so themselves.

      I can't understand why people don't think that way.

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    7. Re:Why would I pay for this? by secolactico · · Score: 1

      But how is it rude when I'm specifically asking for this

      Because you are probably a practical person. I know I am. Some people feel this is going against the grain, no matter how much you tell them otherwise. Maybe that's the way they were brought up or somesuch. It's hard to get rid of the ways of one's childhood. Myself, I eat buffalo wings with fork and knife (yet I have no trouble eating pizza with my bare hands).

      As much as I hate to sound sexist, women are specially bad at being practical when it comes to gifts (for men).

      --
      No sig
    8. Re:Why would I pay for this? by telbij · · Score: 1

      YOU wouldn't pay for this.

      No, this is a game for celebrity culture geeks.

      It's really just another MMORPG, except it's centered around the concept of the real life social games that so many people dedicate their lives to.

      I find it to be a waste of time, but no more so than Everquest, and possibly less because the core of the game is social and not based around formulaic statistics-based quests. Well maybe it's formulaic, but that is a flaw in the players and not the game.

      Kudos to whoever thought of this.

    9. Re:Why would I pay for this? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > These are the same people who keep buying me candles, picture frames and other tchotchkes when what I really need is a new fucking laptop.

      Bah! A real hacker would extract the hydrogen from the carbon in the candles, and build a carbon-reinforced fuel cell to power the picture frame they turned into a new fucking laptop!

    10. Re:Why would I pay for this? by phaggood · · Score: 0

      > why? why, I say!

      Ah, 'cause the Illuminatus (-ii? -ers?) who control the manufacture of holidays (see: Mom's Day, Sweetest Day, Secretary's day...) have convinced a significant part of the population that purchasing color-printed cardboard with public domain poems for $8.95 is not an astronomical waste of money.

      Or, maybe it was the 'Special Moments' figurines that are the entry chute on the slippery-slope toward the fall of western civilization...

    11. Re:Why would I pay for this? by hoop33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But how is it rude when I'm specifically asking for this. I don't care if they want to spend $10 or $100. Just drop it in an envelope and exchange giftw with me. No problem.

      It's your presumptuousness that's rude. When people give gifts, they do so because they want to, and want to express themselves through the gift. They're not signing up for some program you set up.

    12. Re:Why would I pay for this? by Unoti · · Score: 1

      Everquest really is more social as well. Even though there are quests in the game, they don't form the heart of what it's all about. Grouping is required for progress and loot in EQ, and popularity is required for the best kind of grouping. In the end, EQ is all about cliques and popularity. Who you know, and how much they like you.

    13. Re:Why would I pay for this? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if you'd sold them on the idea a little more -- some more communication about how you really want that motorcycle and how hard it is to save for it and how much it would mean to you if someone felt they could contribute to the "motorcycle fund".

      On the flip side -- the fact that it's a motorcycle could have turned many people in your family off. They're viewed as supremely dangerous by many people and their silent refusal to help you purchase one may have been their own "practicality" kicking in. There's a reason medical staff call them "donor-cycles".

      I'm not arguing for either side (but I'm sure someone will start up the completely off-topic "motorcycles aren't dangerous!" thread now. It's a requirement of the Religion of the Bike, to defend it's honor. And yes, I have ridden in the past, and would like to again -- I don't currently own a bike.)

      Your mother's comment sounds like that was EXACTLY the subtle point she was trying to make -- she doesn't want you to buy a motorcycle anyway... "no thought in it"... that means that she THOUGHT about giving you a Target gift certificate INSTEAD of money for a bike. Perhaps she'd like to see you live a long, healthy life with your lovely wife.

      Perhaps it's your family's subtle way of saying, "Get off the whole motorcycle thing, man."

      Just a guess -- I don't know your family.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  4. Status symbols by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol, as is using a $10 bill to light your cigar.

    So too is throwing your money away with a virtual gift. let them who want to, do it.

    1. Re:Status symbols by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 1

      I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol, as is using a $10 bill to light your cigar.

      And there's the adage "It's the thought that counts." And many of the gifts mentioned aren't really functional anyway (excluding the car).

      Of course, if your friend is the kind who turns around and sells your gifts for cash, they may not like these gifts as much.

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    2. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The diamond ring is only a status symobol because of the virtual scarcity that DeBeers, etc create. It's closer to this FunHI scam than many relize.

    3. Re:Status symbols by jkabbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol

      Agreed. Buying a diamond is saying "here DeBeers, have some money" just so other people can see that you gave DeBeers lots of money. It's simply a more socially accepted method of throwing your money away.

    4. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them. It has nothing to do with status symbols. Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.

    5. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the laugh.

    6. Re:Status symbols by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Diamonds are just as nice to look at as other stones. Stones that, I might add, cost a small fraction of what diamonds do despite their relative rarity (in nature - not the artificial rarity that DeBeers constructed).

      And, thankfully, my fiancee is not all doped up on diamonds like most women. She wanted a $250 sapphire from Sam's Club for her engagement ring. Yes, gentlemen....I have found the perfect woman :)

    7. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is not totally insane to invest in gems or jewelry. i.e., one can expect a resale market and if one is well-informed, one can exploit the market .

      There is no resale market here, it would seem.

    8. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you want? They're nerds.

      They probably can't tell Cubic Zirconium from the real thing, anyway.

    9. Re:Status symbols by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Funny
      We're looking at getting a graphite, coal, diamond, buckyball engagement ring. And she swears up and down that she hates o-chem and is a physical chemist.

      Polished hard coal and diamonds look nice together, btw.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    10. Re:Status symbols by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the perfect woman would accept a pearl necklace. On a nightly basis.

    11. Re:Status symbols by Retric · · Score: 1

      "it is not totally insane to invest in gems or jewelry. i.e., one can expect a resale market" AKA it's not stupid to trust in the stupidity of others. Hmm, Dimonds are basicly just carbon that's hard and shinny. Never got the whole *bling bling* think about them. Then again cash is just a paper so you realy can trust in the stupidity of others on some things.

    12. Re:Status symbols by scubacuda · · Score: 1
      There's a funny Phil Hendrie show in which one of Phil's "guests" argue that women can't tell the difference between diamonds and cubic zirconium rings.

    13. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pearl necklace? That's sick. The perfect woman swallows...

    14. Re:Status symbols by qbert911 · · Score: 1

      Some women do not understand that there is no substance anywhere in the world, synthetic or natural, that has the extremely effective skin-softening and gravity-defying effects of your love juices.

      At least that's what it said in the pamphlet I made for her...

    15. Re:Status symbols by evilad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lots of people find other, cheaper things prettier, but still insist on diamonds as a token of fidelity.

      The Royal Ontario Museum had a display on gemstones for a while, with a placard over the diamond display anwering the FAQ: "Why are diamonds so valuable?" with a simple "Scarcity and excellent marketing."

    16. Re:Status symbols by Tim+Browse · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, sure. Diamonds are real scarce.

    17. Re:Status symbols by neurojab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them. It has nothing to do with status symbols.

      Yeah right. Diamonds look nice, but so do countless other less expensive gemstones. Diamonds do have status associated with them, and that status and "tradition" is due to being propped up by DeBeers. If people just wanted to buy something that looked nice, why do wedding rings always have to have diamonds in them? Surely a few people must think a ring looks just fine without having to be diamond-encrusted, or perhaps prefer emeralds, opals, or rubies.

      The previous poster is quite right about the diamond cartel, your positive feelings about diamonds are in no small part due to their propoganda.

      >Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.

      It's possible the previous poster has never spoken to a girl. It's also possible he talks to intelligent women instead of wasting his time on materialistic girls.

    18. Re:Status symbols by hanssprudel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a) Cubic zirconium looks just as good. Many other gems that cost less actually look better.

      b) Even if you have specially trained eyes that can actually tell the difference, and you have some strange need for the diamonds, then modern industrially produced diamonds are actually more pure then mined ones. You need a microscope to tell the difference, and when you do, you rule out the man made one because it is too perfect. Yet the gemstones that DeBeer's has managed to manipulate you into buying are all mined - simply because they are about status rather than beauty.

    19. Re:Status symbols by the_consumer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, a nerd is more likely to test a purported diamond's hardness against softer materials in order to prove its authenticity.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    20. Re:Status symbols by krumms · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. The only way you could manage to get hold of that many pearls is if you were an oyster far-... oh.

    21. Re:Status symbols by el_gordo101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a) Cubic zirconium looks just as good. Many other gems that cost less actually look better.

      Try to explain that to a real-world, emotion-having, concerned-about-what-her-friends-think woman and see how far you get. "But honey, the Cubic zirconium is just as good as a diamond, plus we aren't supporting DeBeers! Hey wait, where are you going? Honey? Baby?"

      --
      TODO: Insert witty sig
    22. Re:Status symbols by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Yet the gemstones that DeBeer's has managed to manipulate you into buying are all mined - simply because they are about status rather than beauty.
      Well, that, and until very recently it's been very, very difficult to produce a man-made diamond of so-called gem grade. Most of the manufactured diamonds produced thus far have been used in industrial applications (diamond drills and so forth).

      Another interesting distinction of synthetic diamonds is that they tend to fluoresce under UV light -- which sounds like an advantage to me, but it's become one of DeBeers' tests to find out whether a diamond is "counterfeit" or not.

      Yeah, I saw that Nova special, too.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    23. Re:Status symbols by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a factory north of here that makes synthetic gems that are guarenteed to fool even experts.

      Shelby diamonds, in shelby michigan. they have to laser etch their logo into the edge of every gem to make identification easier for most experts.

      They prefected a process that adds natural like imperfections into their gems, but they are chemically identical to the natural thing.

      this is why I laugh at everyone that buy's gem's for their finger or neck. It makes me want to sell them a DVD rewinder.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    24. Re:Status symbols by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And we're back to the point about how diamonds are just status symbols.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    25. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been producing gem grade diamonds for quite a while now. Heck, even about 5 years ago they were making diamonds with the remains of your parted loved ones.

      Trouble is, as the parent said, that the lab-made diamonds are TOO PURE. What's so hard to grasp about that?

    26. Re:Status symbols by dmccarty · · Score: 1

      Another fine nugget of wisdom about relationships with women. I can't wait to share this with women I meet. Thanks, Slashdot!

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    27. Re:Status symbols by mph · · Score: 1
      Some women do not understand that there is no substance anywhere in the world, synthetic or natural, that has the extremely effective skin-softening and gravity-defying effects of your love juices.
      Have I got the girl for you...
    28. Re:Status symbols by qfranke · · Score: 1

      Remember tulips? Whats a tulip really worth? A buck or two at the most. Yet at one point in time people would pay a whole lot for a lowly Tulip bulb. Imagine how you'd feel when the squirals dug up thousand dollar bulbs!

    29. Re:Status symbols by Deagol · · Score: 1
      And, thankfully, my fiancee is not all doped up on diamonds like most women. She wanted a $250 sapphire from Sam's Club for her engagement ring. Yes, gentlemen....I have found the perfect woman :)

      I got you beat. My wife didn't even see the point in an engagement ring (we eloped to Vegas, anyway). Our wedding bands are made of silver. Grand total for both (with shipping): $100. 6.5 years of marriage, and going strong.

      Though she does like red stones. If I had bought her a red garnet ring, she would have liked that just as much. She thinks gold and diamonds are pretty tacky, though.

    30. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One's a status symbol. The other's a federal offence (and possibly municipal one depending on where you light up). Say 'Hi' to Martha.

    31. Re:Status symbols by BlackFoliage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could find a real-world, emotion-having, NOT-concerned-about-what-idiots-think women who shares your values. Do you really want to spend your life with someone who throws ethics out the window for a sparkly piece of junk?

    32. Re:Status symbols by gregmac · · Score: 1

      Or you could find a real-world, emotion-having, NOT-concerned-about-what-idiots-think women who shares your values. Do you really want to spend your life with someone who throws ethics out the window for a sparkly piece of junk?

      Speaking of real-world, where are you living? All women will do that. Don't believe me? How many women do you know that are engaged that don't have a diamond ring?

      --
      Speak before you think
    33. Re:Status symbols by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thank God my real-world, emotion-having girlfriend is more concerned about feeding the hungry and stopping de-facro slavery and international economic imperalism than about impressing her friends with carbon rocks.

      And she's not only ethical, she's hot!

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    34. Re:Status symbols by BlackFoliage · · Score: 1

      Well, the US, so definitly not the real world. ;-)

      Seriously, there are women out there that hate diamonds (yes, I know some). Just like there are women out there who vary in almost every other way possible. I do concede that most people seem to have diamonds, but that doesn't mean it's insane to want someone who shares your values, whatever they may be. I guess that was my point.

      Plus I like to be self righteous. This is Slashdot, after all.

    35. Re:Status symbols by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but she doesn't shave her armpits and wears the birkenstocks for two weeks straight. And eventually all that Ben & Jerry's ice cream will catch up with her.

    36. Re:Status symbols by System.out.println() · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It more than "looks fine", cubic zirconium is indistinguishable from an actual diamond except with special equipment. But buying a cubic zirconium ring is often seen in society as, "My fiance(e) isn't worth a real diamond, here's a fake one." ....even if no one can tell. ....it makes no sense whatsoever.

    37. Re:Status symbols by fatquack · · Score: 1

      I am living in NL and everybody here I know who is married/engaged have plain gold weddingrings.usually woth an inscription on the inside.Haven't seen a diamond wedding ring IRL ever.

    38. Re:Status symbols by rblum · · Score: 1

      Cubic Zirconium can easily be spotted with just a modicum of gem experience. And they don't look *quite* as nice as diamonds.

      Preferring *natural* diamonds is probably a status thing, yes. After all, what makes a diamond beautiful is only partially in the material - a lot of it is in the cut, and that would be the same for both.

    39. Re:Status symbols by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's the engagement rings that have the diamonds. Wedding rings normally don't have gems set into them.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.

    41. Re:Status symbols by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Really, most of what we in the developed world spend money on is status symbols. The value in a Mercedes or a Rolex isn't in the actual car, it's in the status they provide. Why do people buy new cars? Status. Lights inside your case, to wow your friends at the LAN party? Status. A neatly mowed front lawn? Status. (Seriously! Read Thorstein Veblen's seminal _Theory of the Leisure Class_.) Martha Stewart housewares? Status.

      The key to value and status is scarcity. Period. If something is useful, beautiful or cool, and scarce because it's programmed into the MMPORG, it's valuable. That scarcity value is no different than the scarcity value that comes from being stamped by a trademark (Rolex, Mercedes), artificial scarcity from a cartel (diamonds), or actual scarcity (land in Tokyo).

      Outside of monopolies and cartels, what makes something scarce (and therefore valuable) is the time it takes to make or get. Stuff is valuable in MMPORGs because it takes time to get. This is no different than what makes some physical object valuable.

      If you think about it, a deed or patent is just as virtual as that leet EQ weapon. There is no physical reality there, just ideas in peoples' heads (and laws to back them up, which are also virtual). The value is only in the usefulness and scarcity.

      Which raises the question; How long until governments start trying to tax the online economies in MMPORGs?

    42. Re:Status symbols by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>they have to laser etch their logo into the edge of every gem to make identification easier for most experts.

      Is this a law/regulation of some kind? Or are they taking payment from DeBeers for this. (In the form of 'protection' money.)

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    43. Re:Status symbols by Spoing · · Score: 1
      To back you up...

      I told a young woman that diamonds are going to become cheap over the next 10 years. She didn't like that at all.

      When I pointed out that it was OK that there would no doubt be something that is as expensive as diamonds and would take the place of them, she was greatly relieved.

      Yeah, it's what they look like -- not the fact they cost $1-10K and can be sold easily. Yep, strictly the looks. Sure it is!

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    44. Re:Status symbols by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      Buying a diamond is saying "here DeBeers, have some money"

      Practically, yes. In theory, since DeBeers have created a market, the stones have value, and they can be re-sold.

      No, I am not going to argue that anyone who re-sells a diamond will not lose money: they will. But they won't lose 100% of their purchase price.

      Society defines "value" simply as "what someone else will pay for it". That's why diamonds have value -- there is another sucker who will pay for it!

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    45. Re:Status symbols by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      Is it possible yet to buy gem grade diamonds for jewelry from those two manufacturers that have figured out how to do it? That way I get a good bargain and don't have to support deBeers.

      --

      +++ATH0
    46. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) Cubic zirconium looks just as good. Many other gems that cost less actually look better.

      Such as Moissonite, the trade name for a kind of Silicon Carbide jewel:

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/moissanite1.htm

      These look *better* than diamonds.

    47. Re:Status symbols by ryanwright · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of real-world, where are you living? All women will do that. Don't believe me?

      No, I don't. My wife doesn't care about diamonds or other gems. We have gold wedding bands with no decorations. Cost less than $100 for the pair. If I had wasted money on diamonds, she probably wouldn't have married me.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    48. Re:Status symbols by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Deagol,

      Our wedding bands are made of silver. Grand total for both (with shipping): $100. 6.5 years of marriage, and going strong.

      My wife and I will be 7 years this July. Gold bands, under $100 for the pair. It's good to be married to an intelligent woman. :)

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    49. Re:Status symbols by lrucker · · Score: 1
      This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them.

      I think they're nice to look at, but that's mainly due to the high index of refraction. That doesn't make them nice enough to justify the price, though.

      Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea

      I am one, so I think I have an idea.

    50. Re:Status symbols by phaggood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously, there are women out there that hate diamonds (yes, I know some)

      Man, *that's* what I should have put on my match.com ad:

      Dude seeks chick for perm relationship; must be a techie, at least have some opinion about one of the 'Treks'. If it leads to something serious, prefer woman who believes a memory (i.e. a month in Nepal) is forever, and a diamond is just a rock.

    51. Re:Status symbols by syrinx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Speaking of real-world, where are you living? All women will do that. Don't believe me? How many women do you know that are engaged that don't have a diamond ring?

      My roommate just got engaged. His fiancee doesn't have a diamond engagement ring.

      So there's one.

      I haven't seen any other engagement rings recently, so so far I'm at 100% non-diamond. :P

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    52. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I told a young woman that diamonds are going to become cheap over the next 10 years. She didn't like that at all. When I pointed out that it was OK that there would no doubt be something that is as expensive as diamonds and would take the place of them, she was greatly relieved.
      Excellent move! And of course she's gonna ask, "What do you think that'll be?" And then you can be all like "2-liters of Pepsi -- I'll buy one for you now! That's how special you are!"
    53. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      All women will do that. Don't believe me? How many women do you know that are engaged that don't have a diamond ring?


      Several, including my wife. We actually had people ask "What do you do when you get to the 'with this ring' part?" in our wedding ceremony, as if it was mandated by law. Sheep.

    54. Re:Status symbols by rossifer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them.

      Sure, but they should buy them at the market price, not at the DeBeers artificial price. Just try to sell a diamond to a store for a fraction of the price they've got on a similar diamond. The moment you leave a retail store with a shiny new diamond, it loses 50-80% of it's value as a saleable good.

      People who like diamonds should buy diamonds at estate sales and keep the DeBeers markup in their pocket. There are smaller jewelers who will help with this process, grading a diamond pre-sale (when possible), buying it for you, resetting it in your own jewelry, and selling you a very nice diamond ring for a small fraction of the price of the same ring from a retail store.

      There's going to be a small diamond in my soon-to-be fiancee's ring (along with a similar sized garnet: our birthstones), but most of the money that DeBeers would prefer I spent on a diamond ring is going to be spent on her double laser eye surgery instead.

      Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.

      This is what's commonly known as an ad-hominem argument. It doesn't make your argument any more compelling, and often makes you look rather spiteful and mean-spirited. I'd recommend that you avoid similar statements in future discussions.

      Regards,
      Ross

    55. Re:Status symbols by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does that mean the cz doesn't look like a diamond, or that she's a gold-digging whore who wants to know she can yank you around by your dick to the tune of $10k for a stupid rock?

      Sorry, but it's the truth. If the ring will never be subjected to a test that would prove the stone isn't a cz then it should be irrelevant if it is. If she's demanding real diamond it's merely for a status symbol.

      Perhaps I'm unreasonably rational and ignoring the emotional aspects, but I feel that if someone throws away a house down-payment (3-6 months after-tax wages, the "recommended" ammount, is probably 5-10% of the purchase value of a house in your price-range) just for bragging rights, they're an idiot.

    56. Re:Status symbols by mikeee · · Score: 1

      Emeralds and Opals are relatively fragile.

      (Rubies, like diamonds, are quite sturdy).

    57. Re:Status symbols by nfgaida · · Score: 1

      Wow Intresting. That article gives a real good behind the scenes view of the whole diamond trade.

      --
      *elevator music plays*
    58. Re:Status symbols by DrCode · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they'll still be diamonds, but that they'll be "designer" gems. So even though a raw 1-carat stone might only cost $100, the ones you'll see at jewelry stores will be designed and/or cut by someone with a French name, and they'll still cost $1000 or more.

    59. Re:Status symbols by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1
      Precisely. Another consideration is where it was mined. We've already started to see it with the "Sirius Diamond" mined exclusively in Canada and sold only through certain shops (or should I say shoppes???).

      Before we got married, I explained to my wife how the cartels/syndicates conspire to keep the stones' value artificially inflated and made sure she knew about the Human Rights violations that go hand-in-hand with mining. I explained that synthetic diamonds will soon be common and you'll be able to buy diamonds by the bucket, like granite at the rock store down the road. She was incredulous at first, then researched it and agreed.

      Guess what she had to have on her finger the day we got married?

      They don't care when it comes down to "Go Time". It's like planning on saving or donating a percentage of your paycheck before it hits the bank. Easy enough to say it before it is time to act on it...

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    60. Re:Status symbols by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. My guess is that they'll still be diamonds, but that they'll be "designer" gems. So even though a raw 1-carat stone might only cost $100, the ones you'll see at jewelry stores will be designed and/or cut by someone with a French name, and they'll still cost $1000 or more.

      Agreed. Along those lines I can see a good market for 'glowing' designer diamonds...more unique, visible, thus higher status.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    61. Re:Status symbols by josh+glaser · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that. My mom got engaged on Friday. No ring. It's not that my mom is depressingly practical or anything...I'm sure she'd like to have anything pretty or valuable, but it's usually not that important to her, and that was the case here. She just loves the man so much. She really couldn't care less.

    62. Re:Status symbols by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Actually, Emeralds and Rubies have a much higher hardness than Opals. Emeralds are a 7.5 to 8 on Mohs Scale, and Rubies (and Sapphires, both forms of Corundum) are a 9. Diamonds are a 10. Opals are a 4.5 to a 6.
      BTW = It's recommended that you don't facet stones with a hardness less than 7 (quartz) since most abrasion comes from sand, (silica grit is similar to quartz in hardness), and scratches show up readily on faceted stones.
      This is why Opals are polished into cabochons or beads.

    63. Re:Status symbols by Blacklantern · · Score: 1

      I read about this once.........With women, its not about the "diamond" its about the man investing a large amount of his resources on her thus, proving his commitment to her.

      --


      "There is only a one in six billion chance that you actually exist"
    64. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does she have a sister?

    65. Re:Status symbols by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Well, they are being created right now - I saw a Horizon programme on them.

      Gemesis makes yellow diamonds which are incredibly rare in nature, and makes sure that you know that they are artificial. They sell them at a 1/3rd the price of 'wild' diamonds in order not to screw the market up completely.

      I guess this is how it'll be for a long, long time - they may be able to make these things for little money, but you sell them for what the market will stand, and pay.

    66. Re:Status symbols by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      Speaking of real-world, where are you living? All women will do that. Don't believe me? How many women do you know that are engaged that don't have a diamond ring?

      There are plenty of women who think diamonds are a scam. I know a handful of people married in the last few years who have not gone with a diamond, as well as a handful that have had a very "traditional" wedding.

      I know my social circle is not "normal", but we aren't that odd. We live mostly in L.A. and are geeks, gearheads, layers, teachers, coders, contractors (houses, not coding), artists, chefs... and are a representitive slice of "20's to 40's mostly white LA".

      My girlfriend thinks diamonds are nothing more than a lame status symbol, although we have no plans to marry.

      Tackett

    67. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. If a woman won't marry me because I'm not into getting a $10K diamond ring, I'd consider that a bonus and be better off knowing sooner rather than later.

    68. Re:Status symbols by fatquack · · Score: 1

      Over here these rings are usually just one ring. When you are engaged you put it on your left hand (or right, depending on your religion IIRC) and when you marry you move it to the other hand.

    69. Re:Status symbols by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Actually, Zircons look a lot nicer.

    70. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot and smart.. She already figured out how cheap you are ?? Take it from someone who knows .. Diamonds are a girls best friend, and they get real appreciative if you know what i mean.

    71. Re:Status symbols by Wargames · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the beginnings of the greeting card industry.

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    72. Re:Status symbols by perdelucena · · Score: 1

      Diamonds are not that rare. There are Twinkle twinkle little stars, that are nothing but diamonds themselves.
      I think in the far future we might 'liberate' one of this planets/asteroids, etc...

    73. Re:Status symbols by jcsehak · · Score: 1

      Heh. I did that once as a kid...
      doodleoodleoo... doodleoodleoo... doodleoodleoo... (ie Wayne's World)

      I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, and I was in the Talented and Gifted program. Lord knows why - I'm not that smart (I don't even have a clue how to spell inadaquate, see below for evidence). Just interested in stuff, I guess. It probably should've been called the piss-off-the-rest-of-the-kids-and-make-them-feel-i nadaquate program. But hey, it worked for me, I got to do fun stuff while most of the other kids had to do boring classroom crap.

      Anyhoo, I had learned that diamonds were the hardest substance on earth, and they could cut though anything. My teacher mentioned she had a real diamond, on this ring right here. So I said "no way! Lemme see," and grabbed her hand and drew the stone over my piece of paper, to cut it. I expected it to cut like a laser, and was severely disappointed when it only dented the paper. "how come it didn't cut the paper?" I asked, skeptical. She drew her hand away, out of my reach. She didn't have an answer, but assured me that it was a real diamond. I thought it was sad that she could be so easily duped by her fiance.

      Looking back, I reckon you have to expect things like that to happen if you're going to teach a bunch of smart-ass "talented and gifted" kids...

      --

      c-hack.com |
    74. Re:Status symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... Only if you count "human eyes" as special equipment. I can spot them 9 times out of 10, but then my mother's a jeweller, and I've grown up around both.

    75. Re:Status symbols by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Cubic zirconium looks just as good. Many other gems that cost less actually look better.

      I don't know about cubic zirconium, but certainly rubies & sapphires look very cool--and the star variety far surpass any diamond IMHO. Emeralds are pretty sweet too. For that matter, there are a good number of lesser-known gems which look pretty damn good. Still, diamonds do have their appeal, although they're not what I'd buy were I a woman after jewelry.

      Even if you have specially trained eyes that can actually tell the difference, and you have some strange need for the diamonds, then modern industrially produced diamonds are actually more pure then mined ones.

      IMHO there is something very, very cool about something which has been gestated in the earth for millions of years. Man-made cannot match that.

      That said, I want to buy some sapphire bar stock:-)

    76. Re:Status symbols by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      3-6 months?! Is that what de Beers tells people? I thought the guideline was 1 month.

  5. Personally... by pubjames · · Score: 5, Funny


    I'd love you more if you just gave me the money...

    1. Re:Personally... by pubjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      Troll? I was being serious. And joking.

    2. Re:Personally... by sevenmonkey · · Score: 1

      Business plan step-by-step: 1. PROFIT!!!

  6. Article Text - for those who don't like sound ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Original text: http://tinyurl.com/2332n

    Over the last month, Nikoma Lee has received more than $1,000 worth of gifts from friends she barely knows and only recently met through a new service called FunHi.

    For Lee to receive gifts from near strangers is probably not all that uncommon, as she's a beautiful young woman beginning a career as a model.

    During the same time period, George Georgiades, a 25-year-old consultant, has spent about a grand giving presents to his own group of new FunHi friends.

    But these are not ordinary gifts. They're purely digital: little flashing icons of cars, planes, diamond rings and other virtual representations of expensive items included in messages members send each other. And FunHi members don't seem to care that the real money they're spending on the gifts, at prices as high as $30 an item, is going straight into the company's coffers.

    "It gives me the same pleasure like at Christmas," says Georgiades. "When the money ran out, I went and got more. A hundred dollars at a time, (and) over time it added up."

    Mike Peng, too, has been buying gifts for his fellow FunHi members at a rapid rate. Often, he says, it was as a result of him and other members trying to out-generous each other.

    I "got into a tag fest with some of them," Peng says. "It's like if someone got you something, you get them something back, and with a few people I got into a gift-giving contest."

    All told, the 26-year-old says, he's spent nearly $300 on gifts in just three weeks.

    A visit to the FunHi Gift Shoppe gives a quick lesson in the service's hip-hop sensibility. Though surely a small percentage of FunHi's users actually talk like the gangstas they portray, it's evident that nearly everyone involved has fun pretending they do.

    Thus, members can spend real dollars on things such as a "FunHi Luv Byrd." For $15, a FunHi member could give another pal this "plane," which is touted in the gift shop as "the ultimate symbol of the Playa that knows no limits to luv! No matter where you at, you can get there just in time to watch the sunset together on the beaches of an exotic paradise. Hanger and white-gloved crew included. Bring yo baby and take off for an adventure anytime."

    Another option might be $7 for "The Cleaner," a rather ominous gift for the paranoid. Its blurb says, "Every playa is bound to make some enemies. Get your favorite balla' their very own hitman. Put the contract out, sit back and watch the haters drop. One bullet, no trace and no case."

    The point of all this gift giving is that FunHi members want to meet as many of each other as possible, and quickly. Where eBay members get a feedback rating showing their trustworthiness, FunHi users rack up a "buzz" rating, as well as "fans." One way the buzz ratings and numbers of fans go up is by being seen within the community as generous and responsive to receiving gifts.

    Of course, being a young good-looking female doesn't hurt, as the members with the most fans are all women whose pictures show them in sexy, alluring poses.
    To hear Joshua Selman tell it, FunHi never intended to get its members to spend significant amounts of cold hard cash on these virtual gifts.

    "It's ludicrous," says Selman, the company's vice president of business development. "It wasn't something we had planned. Our customers asked us for this.... It just exploded on us. It's not like we're trying to bilk people. They really want it. I think it's a prestige" thing. Georgiades seems to agree with Selman's notion.

    "If someone is nice enough to get me something nice, I always try and return the favor," he says.

    He also says he doesn't mind that FunHi is pocketing the money he spends on gifts that, other than demonstrating his esteem for the recipient, can't be used for anything, or even be re-gifted.

    "It's a donation for a service," he says. "I probably overdid it though. Gotta feed the habit."

    In fact, Georgiades says FunHi shouldn't be blamed for its mem

  7. Sounds like the perfect mailing list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Nigerian scam suckers and potential MMORPG players.

  8. Dammit!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHy can't I think of a cool scam like this ?!

  9. On the plus side... by Channard · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... maybe the people who are prepared to pay out cash for virtual items will be so busy trading their nonexistent gifts they won't have time to breed, and the average IQ will go up. At the very least, it should keep the terminally gullible out of circulation.

    1. Re:On the plus side... by theCulture · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's take a more direct approach: Let people subscribe to this for six months, then have a cull of all community members, preferably with something large and blunt.

      Result: The base level of stupidity is removed from the gene pool. Rejoice!

      --
      theCulture - "A strange combination of English middle class home counties and californian surf-bum"
    2. Re:On the plus side... by Otter · · Score: 1
      In fact, they're using pictures of expensive gifts to woo pictures of beautiful women! (By the standards of the camwhore community, anyway.) Even Jared Diamond would be baffled.

      There is a sort of demented logic to it, but as you say, it's unlikely that any real breeding will result.

    3. Re:On the plus side... by bluelantern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably not. Barnum's Corollary: If a sucker is born every minute now, a sucker will be born at least every minute in the future.

      Not to mention having a high IQ is far less correlated with being a sucker than being born in the suburbs.

    4. Re:On the plus side... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Funny
      And perhaps this will drain their coffers so they can't spend this money on spam. God, just wait till the spammers catch onto this......

      "Buy an animated gif of a penis up to 3" longer than yours! Guaranteed! $50"

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:On the plus side... by jgabby · · Score: 1

      The average IQ can't go up. It's defined as 100.

    6. Re:On the plus side... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      in can go up in relative terms, which is obviously what was being said :P Relative to today's ratios, the average in the future being higher. Perfectly reasonable thing to say. You're simply judging tomorrow's results relative to the scale "rigidly attached to" today, as Einstein would say :P

  10. Like.... by bitchell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like purchasing a square on the moon. Whats the point.

    A fool and their money are soon parted.

    1. Re:Like.... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      No, the moon land could be valuable in future. It probably won't, but it could - especially if you buy it for a child and they keep it into adulthood.

      A digital image is not going to rise in value because it is not tangible property and it can be easily reproduced.

    2. Re:Like.... by strictnein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It probably won't, but it could - especially if you buy it for a child and they keep it into adulthood.

      Except for the people who are "selling" land on the moon, have no legal right to do so, and therefore you are just giving money to them as an example of your own stupidity.

    3. Re:Like.... by bitchell · · Score: 1

      Moon land won't mean shit, the government will just step in and take it all away as soon as it has any hint of value.

    4. Re:Like.... by JosKarith · · Score: 0

      And what do you think the chances are of your descendant not having their little plot of moon land confiscated/compulsory purchased the second it actually becomes valuable?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    5. Re:Like.... by greenhide · · Score: 1

      Dear Sir,

      I think that owning moon real estate is a very cool idea.

      However, there is just one problem:
      Imminent domain.

      You see, the government can always say that they need the land for the "public good", and then they can just take it.

      Personally, I think that the US should own the moon because, come on, like some other country can afford it? We have Walmart, what does Canada have? Maple syrup and hockey. We're clearly superior.

      So, once the US owns the moon, they will probably want people to do land management on it -- you know, drill and exploit the resources there, build roads, and dump all of our excess garbage there.

      So, there's no way that the US will ever pay anyone for land on the moon, because c'mon, they can just take it away. What's the guy who sold moon real estate going to do, attack the US military? He will be killed in only a few seconds, probably. Although maybe they would just lock him up to prevent there being any innocent casualties.

      So, instead, wait until the US issues its Moon Bonds for owning the moon -- you know, to pay for moon upkeep, utilities, things like that. That way, it'll be almost as if you're owning the moon, but really you just own a piece of paper that says you own part of the moon, so keep it safe.

      For good real estate options, go to ebay. There are all of these cities that are practically empty now, and you can buy whole lots for just a couple of dollars. And even if the land never increases in value, you can always just tell your kid when he grows up, "Hey kid! You have to go live in a lot in Bumfart Illinois now, cuz that's all you're getting from me from now on." That's because you have to show your kids that you're the boss.

      Not them. You.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    6. Re:Like.... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      This might sound naive, but can the US gov't still take my moon land when I am in the UK and I bought it from a seller in the UK (it is legit, I checked it all out and it's not one of those fake ones)? I never really thought of the consequences, and to be honest I got the land more for geek factor than as a serious investment, but it would be irritating if I lost it nonetheless.

    7. Re:Like.... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      the point is that the person in the UK didn't own the moon. As soon as we start populating the moon, you'll lose it. Whatever countr[y|ies] claim the moon as part of their territory, will then delve it out to themselves. They won't care a hill of beans that you paid some goof money for somthing he didn't own.

      I'm really hoping you were just being funny.

    8. Re:Like.... by greenhide · · Score: 1

      Did the UK ever land someone on the moon? Ever?!?

      No.

      So the UK has absolutely no claim to the moon.

      Plus, they might have been important in the past, but the UK is really very, very tiny. Whereas the US is very big.

      Granted, Russia is larger, it takes up more of the world's surface, so it makes up more of the world by percentage of land. But its population is really tiny, and it has no money.

      The combination of the US's population, land mass, and wealth makes it the best option for moon ownership.

      There's no way that UK guy is legitimate. Your moon deeds aren't worth the cool looking pieces of paper they're printed on.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    9. Re:Like.... by the+hermit · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they'll start selling virtual "pet rocks"...

      Talk about double stupidity!

    10. Re:Like.... by karnal · · Score: 1

      "A digital image is not going to rise in value because it is not tangible property and it can be easily reproduced."

      Someone should tell this to the RIAA.

      --
      Karnal
    11. Re:Like.... by esswedl · · Score: 2, Funny

      However, there is just one problem:
      Imminent domain.


      Eminent. As in: given the large volume of comments on Slashdot, a misspelling of "eminent domain" is imminent.

    12. Re:Like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And again the point is missed. I believe the fact of giving is not in the actual value, but in the act. Funhi doesnt propose that you need to give a gift, it is said that the users wanted to be able to have that feature. The real value in the site is the social networking feature, the hookups . that is the key. Being able to connect socially without the hassle of breathing air.

    13. Re:Like.... by Surt · · Score: 1

      They know. That's why cd's cost $25 at initial release and $12 a few years later. Depreciation rather than appreciation.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:Like.... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Like trading a day's work for a little piece of green paper stamped with a picture of a dead president, what's the point?

    15. Re:Like.... by bugbread · · Score: 1

      My uncle bought me some "land on the moon". Sure, now I realize that it's just a con, but when I was a kid I thought it was just about the coolest present I ever got. I still have the deed. And I still think that uncle had about the coolest tastes in presents ever.

      So will it be monetarily valuable for that kid when he grows up? No. But will it be emotionally valuable? You betcha.

    16. Re:Like.... by strictnein · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Just like naming a star after someone, "buying" land on the moon for someone would be a cool gift.

      The original poster seemed to imply that you could actually buy property on the moon and that it would be a good investement someday.

  11. Amazing by mr.henry · · Score: 4, Funny
    This reminds me of a line from Larouche in Adaptation:

    I'm training myself on the internet. It's fascinating. I'm doing pornography. It's amazing how much these suckers will pay for photographs of chicks. And it doesn't matter if they're fat or ugly or what.

    Paying for crappy porn.. that's bad. But paying 30 bucks for a stupid icon? These people are dumber than that guy that loves his spam.

    1. Re:Amazing by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      I'd pay 30 bucks to not have to look at crappy porn when I get on the internet. Damn adware!!

    2. Re:Amazing by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Chris Cooper deserves an Oscar. The guy is brilliant. This is the same guy who played the repressed Marine in American Beauty. He's had some shitty roles, like the CIA captain in Bourne Identity, but his character in Adaptation was terrific.

    3. Re:Amazing by EtherMonkey · · Score: 1

      I pity the poor, lonely people who have so little self-esteem, self-respect, joy or involvement with others in the real world that they feel driven to waste their lives and their money on such bullcrap.

      But worst, I detest the greedy, self-centered vultures who exploit people who really need a good psychiatrist or psychologist, not another enabler.

      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    4. Re:Amazing by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      Chris Cooper deserves an Oscar... but his character in Adaptation was terrific.

      He has won an oscar, for his role in Adaptation in fact.

  12. Brain-dead lusers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Cripes, why didn't I patent this?

    1) sell online, virtual junk
    2) get AOL community interested
    3) ???
    4) Profit!

    (fp?)

    1. Re:Brain-dead lusers by spikev · · Score: 1

      Do you really need the ??? ?

      Or are you just representing the mental processes of the AOL community as they work for your profits?

    2. Re:Brain-dead lusers by Not+One+Of+Us · · Score: 1

      There doesn't even need to be a step three.

    3. Re:Brain-dead lusers by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Dude...I don't think there is suppose to be a 3)??? in that. My god...YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE EQUATION!!! Who knew that the AOL user community was the key the whole time...

  13. It's kind of like having a real life tamagotchi by bl4nk · · Score: 3, Funny

    That you spend real life money on..

    1. Re:It's kind of like having a real life tamagotchi by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have one of those. It's called a dog.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    2. Re:It's kind of like having a real life tamagotchi by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given that people are trying to get laid it's more like a tamacoochie.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:It's kind of like having a real life tamagotchi by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Cats and dogs...living together?

      Mass hysteria!

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    4. Re:It's kind of like having a real life tamagotchi by rthille · · Score: 1


      Real life dogs are way way better than a stupid tamagotchi. No, it's much more like a cat. :-)

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  14. Not just April's fools by arcanumas · · Score: 0, Troll

    It just proves that Fools are not found only in April but all year round.
    April Fools jokes are not funny compared to reality..

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  15. More proof that... by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A fool and their money soon part. Capitalism seems to make this easier, and the internet makes it EVEN easier. I say good for this company, if an idiot wants to spend $30 on a picture of a ring, let him, it is no less idiotic than spending a couple grand on a real one.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    1. Re:More proof that... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Funny
      I find myself wondering what will happen if the recipient of the icon of the diamond ring starts copying and distributing those icons.

      Suddenly, fake diamond-ring-icons will threaten the natural diamond-ring-icon cartel, and FunHi will have to spend millions researching and building devices for distinguishing between the natural and fake icons; millions more advertising that only "Natural Diamond-Ring-Icons" show real love.

      You see ... you cynics ... ripping off the gullible is not just the fast-track to the gravy train. Getting a sustainable revenue channel by scamming the soft-of-the-brain is harder than it looks.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:More proof that... by ratamacue · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      A fool and their money soon part. Capitalism seems to make this easier

      Funny you say that. Under socialism, the fool and his money are forced to part. In other words, the fool doesn't even have to be persuaded. What could be "easier" than that?

    3. Re:More proof that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you say that. Under socialism, the fool and his money are forced to part. In other words, the fool doesn't even have to be persuaded. What could be "easier" than that?

      Uhm.. No. Under socialism the fool is given money taken from those who actually earned it.

    4. Re:More proof that... by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      A fool and their money soon part. Capitalism seems to make this easier...

      Ha! You've obviously never been involved in the government acquisitions process. More fools, and a lot more money.

    5. Re:More proof that... by ratamacue · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, but the post was trying to imply (quite incorrectly) that capitalism somehow makes it "easier" for money to be "wasted", when exactly the opposite is true. (Who's more likely to "waste" their wealth -- he who earns it through honest work, or he who simply takes it by force?)

      Whether the money was originally owned by a fool wasn't really my concern.

    6. Re:More proof that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops!

      The IPIA (Icon Protection Industry Association) is suing me for downloading fake icons off KaZaA!

    7. Re:More proof that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "FunHi will have to spend millions researching and building devices for distinguishing between the natural and fake icons; millions more advertising that only "Natural Diamond-Ring-Icons" show real love."

      Comedy and Intelligence, great post.

    8. Re:More proof that... by jackbox · · Score: 1

      Getting a sustainable revenue channel by scamming the soft-of-the-brain is harder than it looks.

      Yes, but if you find a method to do so, you must patent it immediately!

      See? It looks like common business sense now, doesn't it!!

  16. Charm Bracelets? by themightythor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These sound like the charm bracelets that my little sister drooled over in the 80's. Except even more pointless.

    1. Re:Charm Bracelets? by Ateryx · · Score: 1
      These sound like the charm bracelets that my little sister drooled over in the 80's. Except even more pointless.

      I'll have you know that advanced levels of computing power and precision grade machine engineering go into making every charm. THATS why it costs $20 for an 1/10 gram, stanless steel piece of elegance.

      Sadly enough it seems lately charm braclets are making a comeback.

      --
      "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
  17. Cool! by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

    This is so cool! I'm signing up right after my labotomy!

    Next thing you know AIM will be charging for the use of emoticons in their IMs...

    --
    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    1. Re:Cool! by zapp · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know AIM will be charging for the use of emoticons in their IMs...

      QUICK! pattent that idea before they do!

      --
      no comment
  18. Looks like they ripped their rating system... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Their buzz system (scroll down) is a direct ripoff of eBay's feedback system. Wonder how long they get sued for that?

    1. Re:Looks like they ripped their rating system... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Funny

      About the time that kindergarden teachers band together and sue ebay for using stars as a feedback method.

      Ebay didn't think of it first.

    2. Re:Looks like they ripped their rating system... by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1

      I can't tell, since FunHi is currently FunSlashdotted, but do you have to buy something before leaving feedba^H^H^H^H^Hbuzz ratings for someone?
      Oh, to be one of eBay's lawyers -- the real winners in all this.
      --

    3. Re:Looks like they ripped their rating system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Their buzz system (scroll down) is a direct ripoff of eBay's feedback system. Wonder how long they get sued for that?"

      Soon after eBay gets sued for the gossiping and bitching idea which is a direct rip-off of the medieval market.

    4. Re:Looks like they ripped their rating system... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Ah, but ebay turned it into a business model. It's the business model you patent. Last time I checked kindergarten teachers got paid dirt for handing out those stars because no one cares about children.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  19. Much ado about nothing... by bc90021 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    "Selman says FunHi has banked about $10,000 in the month since FunHi launched. And given that Georgiades himself has paid about 10 percent of that, it's clear that not all of the service's 6,500 active members are doing the same thing."

    If two people (the article mentions one other having spent $1000) account for 20% of the $10K that this company has made in a month, this seems more like silliness on the part of a very few people, and shouldn't really be considered "newsworthy".

    1. Re:Much ado about nothing... by DR+SoB · · Score: 5, Funny

      But it's a great way to make your stock go up and get out early!!

      1. Invent dumb idea
      2. Have rich investor modify the stock price
      3. Profit!
      4. RUN!

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    2. Re:Much ado about nothing... by .nuno · · Score: 1

      But not very original, is it?

      --
      .sig
    3. Re:Much ado about nothing... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      There's a saying in business.....called the 80/20 rule.

      "80% of your revenue comes from 20% of your customers."

      Oh well, I just see it as financial Darwinism.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:Much ado about nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you are wrong:

      The article mentions one _getting_ gifts to the tune of 1000. Not giving them.

      Also, the one who paid 10% is the founder, he probably just set his account status to unlimited - he didn't neccessarily have to pay his own system 1000$ to give away gifts :-)

      So, the 10K are probably well distributed over the system and all from "customers".

      Damn, I am just to "legit" to have such brilliant ideas: "sell nothing for money" :(

      Cheers,

      Tels

    5. Re:Much ado about nothing... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      This story is eminently newsworthy. See America's Finest News Source for similar stories.

    6. Re:Much ado about nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here...

      You forgot

      3.???

  20. People will pay a lot for esteem and attention by Trespass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may sound silly, but little things like this are seen as validating by a lot of people who spend a significant amount of time online. You don't really 'have' anything, but you know that someone, somewhere spent money on you.

    1. Re:People will pay a lot for esteem and attention by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you would like to spend money on me, you can paypal it to drink at hyperlogos dot org. This will cut out the middleman, except for the percentage I have to pay to paypal :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:People will pay a lot for esteem and attention by globalar · · Score: 1

      It's all about the motions. Flowers, jewelery, candy, etc. in real life are simply sensual expressions of communication - perhaps a precusor to physical intimacy (or maybe just a hug). This example (the site) is also sensual, though at most only two-dimensional (sound and vision).

      Communicating through gifts is an old idea. Businesses (diamond cartels, flourists, card makers) have banked on this for a long time. Money seems to have become a gauge for not only the value ($cost) of items, but also their value of expression. Therefore, a more expensive item is simply more valuable in relational terms.

      I think money is percieved as too important in our society (world?) and this is a great example of superficial expression and/or how replacable a diamond or a rose really is with anything - even with icons. Think about it - a rose, a jet, a diamond. In relational terms (as a gift) they are icons/symbols of status/wealth/love/desire/?. It's all in the mind really.

  21. Popularity by gid13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article mentions that the most popular members are invariably attractive females whose pictures show them scantily clad and in sexy poses.

    Seeing as this "buying nothing" idea is a capitalist's dream, I think it's only a matter of time before these attractive females rise up above their alleged vapidity to realize that they can control the world. As much as I hate to admit it, think about it: who would you vote for between George W. and Britney Spears?

    1. Re:Popularity by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm sure that they're all very attractive. Just like in real life.

      Deception. The Internet's full of it.

    2. Re:Popularity by sct · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is there any way I can just shoot myself instead? Maybe I would just kill myself with a fork.

      Couldn't you at least pick a non-slutty "woman" over Ms. Spears? Or maybe a modern era politician over a Puritan wannabe?

    3. Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hmm, well Brittany Spears managed (with well chosen/lucky choices of advisors I'm sure) to parlay a few contacts, good looks, and mediocre singing ability into a multimillion dollar a year industry.

      Bush managed to use his family name to fail in the oil business - in Texas, poorly perform at owning a baseball team, before being forced to do something that relies almost wholly on connections and little to no talent - a politician.

    4. Re:Popularity by UberQwerty · · Score: 1

      Well, judging from my sig...

      --


      PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
    5. Re:Popularity by aukaru · · Score: 0, Troll
      As much as I hate to admit it, think about it: who would you vote for between George W. and Britney Spears?

      I would do just like I am going to do with the present choice of W or F. I will vote for neither.

    6. Re:Popularity by Bastian · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be able to vote because I'd be in Canada still working on earning my citizenship long before it came down to a choice between letting Dubya or Britney Spears run my country.

    7. Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who would you vote for between George W. and Britney Spears?

      Not a fair comparison; I would vote for the goatse.cx guy before I voted for Bush. Attractiveness doesn't come into it.

    8. Re:Popularity by General+Winter · · Score: 0

      The scantily clad girls are probably company employees enticing the losers who use this service to throw their money away.

    9. Re:Popularity by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man, in a way, we're always buying nothing. Buy a $15 poster, that's just $.10 worth of paper covered in $.50 worth of ink. Buy a $6salad, you have $.75 worth of vegetable parts in a $.20 plastic case. Shit, even a $200 computer chip is just a few ounces of sand with a negligible amount of metal.

      But that doesn't mean these things don't have value. If you think that poster will look good on the wall, you'll pay for it. If you're hungry, you'll buy the salad. And if you need to process something, you'll buy the chip.

      This value is in people's perception of the extra effort spent by people in processing these raw materials. Now, those raw materials are basically worthless in the digital world, but if you can process them into a form that people value, then they're worth it.

      That doesn't mean this idea isn't stupid, of course. If I want my friends to know I care about them, I'll send them some bitchin' MP3s.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    10. Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure they are not really guys.

    11. Re:Popularity by gcalvin · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed, George W. Bush is already President. Enjoy the Great White North, eh?

    12. Re:Popularity by Surt · · Score: 1

      Britney Spears because I would expect her to be comparatively harmless? The real question is would anyone who currently plans to vote democrat in the forthcoming election change their vote if the democratic candidate were Britney Spears.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    13. Re:Popularity by dekashizl · · Score: 1

      Wish I could mod this up, as it's one of the most insightful posts in here.

      It's interesting psychologically how people associate value with things. As another example, in the board game Monopoly during the frequently misunderstood property auction (see official rules), many players are unwilling to bid higher than the printed value of the property on the board. In reality, the value of the property is based on who has the other properties of that color, expected future income, and general strategy, yet people see the number and think "oh ok that's how much this is worth". Odd, but at least predictable and makes it easy to gain the upper hand...

  22. fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An fool and his money are soon parted.

  23. Excellent! by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's good to know that there are plenty of suckers left in the world, I was getting worried that my combo hair brush, vegetable peeler and ice skate sharpener wasn't going to sell!

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Excellent! by Virtex · · Score: 1

      Oh my GOD! You have to tell me where I can buy one of those! I've just gotta have one!

      --
      For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
  24. Brilliant! Slashdot could make money this way... by jrduncans · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How I wish that I were unscrupulous enough to come up with such an idea. This system would be equivalent to: if Slashdot moderation were geared towards highly rating those posts that advertised for their sponsors...

  25. Hmmm by cca93014 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just as well there aren't 2 billion starving people in the...

    Oh, wait.

  26. So do these people meet up in real life? by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

    If it'll get me layed I'll shell out $30 on an icon.. :D

    BANG!

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
    1. Re:So do these people meet up in real life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would help if you knew how to spell laid.

  27. Test for them? by grub · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Their domain expires 09-apr-2007. I guess the short term domain "lease" suggests this was an experiment for them, which seems to have paid off. Now I'm wondering what else they've done or had planned.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  28. a digital diamond ring for my gf by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

    gf: LIKEOMGWTF!!!!11

    me: but it's the thought that counts, right?

    1. Re:a digital diamond ring for my gf by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      I don't know how to tell you this, but a lot of girls that talk like that are cops.

      Have you ever met this "girlfriend"? You haven't been asking her for nude pictures or trying to arrange a "meeting", have you?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:a digital diamond ring for my gf by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      it's worse than you imagine.

      she lives in my imagination. ;-)

  29. Wow, people and what they will do by ethiaa · · Score: 1

    Wow, I have to say people will fall for anything. Why not just take the $30 and send it to me. That way I can send them receipts for new stuff that I buy and it will serve the same purpose

  30. Last chance..... by AsimovBesterClarke · · Score: 1

    ....to send me your dollar.

    --
    Ads are broken.
  31. no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real value of diamonds is a small fraction of what they cost in the market. The reason they are expensive is because a smart cartell has established them as expensive, if valueless, tokens of affection. And there is ample precedent in biology: males are supposed to demonstrate their wealth and prowess by not having to care about expending costly resources on useless pursuits.

    However, if you are going to do this, why not dispose of your resources in some socially valuable way? Demonstrate your boundless resources by making a "platinum circle" donation to your local opera house, either in your own name or in your sweetheart's name.

    1. Re:no different from diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why the new "man made" diamonds are only about 1/4 of the cost of real diamonds.. and look a lot cooler too.

      Have you SEEN those man made yellow diamonds?

      (you need a $20,000 peice of equiment to tell the difference between the real and false ones. Otherwise, even aged and experienced jewlers cant tell)

    2. Re:no different from diamonds by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, as an economist, about the magic formula that you're using that determines value absent from a market...

      Ah wait. I've just figured it out; it's your personal utility function. Well, that's fine, but it only applies to you, you of course realize? And that the market value is the aggregation of everybody else's equally valid personal utility functions?

      What was your point again?

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    3. Re:no different from diamonds by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      >males are supposed to demonstrate their wealth and prowess by not having to care about expending costly resources on useless pursuits.

      So are you saying that all the slashdot trolls are demonstrating their mating suitability?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    4. Re:no different from diamonds by XaXXon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just like the parent said, except not to an opera house.

      Donate here or here

      Or buy them some music from here where the artist gets 50% of the proceeds. BTW, don't be fooled into thinking that iTunes or whatever gives money to artists. It's just as bad as buying a CD. Unfortunately, there's no way to buy music you hear on popular music stations and actually have a reasonable portion of that music get to the artist </rant>

    5. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The real value of diamonds is a small fraction of what they cost in the market.

      The "real value" of any good or service is whatever you can get in exchange for it - any notion of intrinsic worth is a specious concept, as is any valuation other than exchange value. If people didn't value diamonds as highly as DeBeers does, they simply wouldn't buy them.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    6. Re:no different from diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only through DeBeers' marketing and advertising genius combined with their iron control on supply of the market that people value diamonds as they do. They have made diamonds into the ultimate tool of emotional blackmail. "You didn't buy me a diamond ring? You don't love me!"

    7. Re:no different from diamonds by Retric · · Score: 1

      He is making an asumption about the value of an item were it not for a given use. Aka, I own a lot of oil it's great but what is it's value when fusion come into the market. Well I can use it to make plastic. But, it's value would only be x.

      People try to predict markets based on there knowlage of the value of an item outside of the price of an item. Which is basicly a function of the use that hast the most value and is limited by it's production cost's and relative scarcity.
      AKA dimonds are worth 1/4 of what people pay becose that's what people who are not makeing jewlry out of them will pay for dimonds that don't sparcle ect.

    8. Re:no different from diamonds by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      That's such a load of crap.

      Diamonds have been valuable for thousands of years, and will remain valueable for thousands of years, long after your opera house has fallen to dust.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re:no different from diamonds by bleublue · · Score: 1

      No kidding. But life is meant to be lived. If my girlfriend enjoys owning/staring at an expensive ring more than she enjoys opera, who is too judge? Both could be considered "useless" pursuits as neither are required to sustain life.

    10. Re:no different from diamonds by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Demonstrate your boundless resources by making a "platinum circle" donation to your local opera house


      So, what's the "real value" of an opera house? In what way is the intrinsic value of listening to music greater than the intrinsic value of looking at a sparkling stone?


      Although so many people deride money, it's in the end one of the greatest and most important inventions ever made. Money is what allows one to make comparisons between the value of wildly different things, as judged by society as a whole, and make choices accordingly. You may not agree with the choices other people make, but that's how democracy and the market work. If you attribute more value to an opera house than to a diamond, that's your choice. Give money to the opera house instead of buying a diamond. But it seems that, cartel or not, a lot of people think diamonds have a higher value than opera houses.

    11. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      It's only through DeBeers' marketing and advertising genius combined with their iron control on supply of the market that people value diamonds as they do.

      Perhaps, but ultimately we're all responsible for our own decisions. If you don't buy into the DeBeers marketing, as you're certainly free to choose, then nobody will force you to buy diamonds. If, on the other hand, your Auric Goldfinger-ish nature causes you to desire diamonds above all else, you can buy as many as you like - or as many as you can afford, anyway. But either way, who am I to begrudge you your choice, or to argue that you're somehow not capable of rationally deciding for yourself? Emotional blackmail or not, you don't have to see things their way, just because they say so.

      Not that my wife gives a flying fuck about my uber-rational arguments, of course - sometimes it's easier to just go with the flow, no matter how dumb you think it might be. Trust me ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    12. Re:no different from diamonds by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, right. Try to sell a diamond. See what offers you get.

      For a good laugh, search eBay for "diamonds". Or worse, Google, for "we buy diamonds". You'll see some of the slimiest ads around. "Diamond buyers" with Hotmail addresses. Cubic zircons advertised as diamonds. The same photo appearing in multiple eBay ads for different items.

    13. Re:no different from diamonds by dmccarty · · Score: 1

      You're desparately single, aren't you.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    14. Re:no different from diamonds by GT_Alias · · Score: 1
      The "real value" of any good or service is whatever you can get in exchange for it

      Like and endless supply of always-accessible sexual favors!? Hmmm.....seems I've been had....

    15. Re:no different from diamonds by YellowBook · · Score: 1
      The "real value" of any good or service is whatever you can get in exchange for it - any notion of intrinsic worth is a specious concept, as is any valuation other than exchange value.

      Well, there's certainly been a lot of money and effort expended to propagandize us all to believe that. That doesn't change the fact that things actually do have a "use value": the concrete way in which a thing meets human needs. The fact that things also have exchange value doesn't change that, it just obscures it.

      --
      The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
      Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
    16. Re:no different from diamonds by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Mating? What? Huh?

    17. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      That doesn't change the fact that things actually do have a "use value": the concrete way in which a thing meets human needs.

      Argue for that idea all you like, but I predict serious problems when you sit down and try to quantify such a thing. Exchange value is hardly the only way to value things, but it's the only way that's even remotely close to objective.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    18. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      Like and endless supply of always-accessible sexual favors!? Hmmm.....seems I've been had....

      Yeah, I haven't found anyone who will pay me to fuck them either. Maybe those DeBeers guys can offer me some marketing tips. ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    19. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      The "real value" of any good or service is whatever you can get in exchange for it - any notion of intrinsic worth is a specious concept, as is any valuation other than exchange value if people didn't value diamonds as highly as DeBeers does, they simply wouldn't buy them.

      Yes, and my point is that they "value them as highly" for psychological reasons. It's the same reason people pay a lot of money for some brand name leather handbag.

      And it is perfectly valid to ask the question of what diamonds would be valued at by the market if they lacked this psychological factor and if DeBeers didn't distort the market. That's not a question about any kind of "intrinsic value", it's a perfectly sensible free market question. Companies face that question constantly when pricing products: how much would consumers pay (in the free market) if we left out feature "X" or if competitor "Y" didn't exist? Likewise, it is perfectly valid to ask how much consumers would pay for diamonds if they weren't perceived as a "token of love" and if DeBeers didn't create an artificial scarcity in them. The answer is that people would probably not pay a whole lot, since diamonds would be very scarce and since there are many substitutes of similar appearance.

    20. Re:no different from diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blum Bump

    21. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      So, what's the "real value" of an opera house? In what way is the intrinsic value of listening to music greater than the intrinsic value of looking at a sparkling stone?

      My comparison was intended to be between spending lots of money on animated GIFs vs. donations to a charity or non-profit.

      But it seems that, cartel or not, a lot of people think diamonds have a higher value than opera houses.

      I suspect, in part, it's less committal: they can always sell the diamond again. However, personally, I would view diamonds as a rather risky investment in the long run.

    22. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, as an economist, about the magic formula that you're using that determines value absent from a market...

      Who said anything about "absent from a market"? We are comparing two different markets in diamonds: one actual, in which DeBeers has created artificial scarcity and has created a mystique surrounding diamonds, and one hypothetical, in which those two factors are missing. We can ask: what price would people be willing to pay for diamonds in the second case?

      Real, working economists face those kinds of comparisons between actual and hypothetical markets all the time. For example, they have to predict what price people would be willing to pay if a product includes a new feature, is marketed a certain way, or if a competitor enters the market. In a sense, that sort of thing is the bread-and-butter of large areas of real-world economics.

    23. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      Yes, and my point is that they "value them as highly" for psychological reasons.

      Fine, but this is trivially true of just about everything - people assign the values that they do to things for purely psychological reasons, no matter which thing it is we're discussing in particular. You could, if you wished, survive just fine on a steady diet of tofu, water, and nutritional supplements, but I'm willing to bet that you spend a little extra each week on food for somewhat subjective reasons.

      Asking how much people would pay for diamonds if diamonds weren't seen as a token of esteem is somewhat like asking how much people would pay for steak if it wasn't tasty. "Not much" is the answer, but that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know - you've simply restated the observation that people won't pay as much for things that they don't like as much. They apparently like the taste of steak, arguments about what would happen if they didn't notwithstanding.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    24. Re:no different from diamonds by hendridm · · Score: 1
      Demonstrate your boundless resources by making a "platinum circle" donation to your local opera house, either in your own name or in your sweetheart's name.

      Because she doesn't get to keep it as her own and brag about what her man got her to the women at work. Same as flowers - they're useless and overpriced, but she wants to feel you love her so much that you'd sacrifice money on something useless just for her and nobody else (wow, he must really love me!).

      I just wish girls would switch their measure of affection to something more useful, like an HDTV or a DVD player with 5-disc changer :/

    25. Re:no different from diamonds by sjb21043 · · Score: 1

      Uh, "whatever you can get in exchange for it", so diamonds have a "real value" of about half the price they go for at diamond wholesalers. Just try to sell that diamond engagement ring. If you can even find someone outside of a pawn shop who'll take the thing, you won't get more than half what you spent, and probably far less. The DeBeers cartel controls virtually all of the sales channels for diamonds, and they don't buy 'em back.

    26. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1

      You won't get back what you paid when you sell your car, your clothes, your college textbooks, your stereo, your computer, or just about anything else you own. What else is new?

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    27. Re:no different from diamonds by WNight · · Score: 1

      Can she tell the difference between the opera and a DVD of an opera in 'normal' usage (ie, watching one, then the other)? Can she tell the difference between a cz and a diamond in 'normal' usage (ie, wearing one, then wearing the other)? You can be trained to notice the difference, but I've worked in the jewellery industry and my opinion is that the differences aren't a matter of 'better'. You can get a coated cut-glass 'stone' that glitters more than a diamond and if you like the way it looks (and it's in a piece that plays to its strengths) then the cut-glass makes just as nice of a piece.

      The durability of diamonds is an issue, but you could get the cut-glass replaced every year for life for less than the price of a 1ct diamond, there's a limit to the value of durability.

      If you can't tell the difference between choices and expected usage will not show a difference, is there a difference, in a practical sense? If not, can you justify an often exorbitant price difference?

    28. Re:no different from diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad most of the music at Magnatune sucks and there is so little of it to choose from. It reminds me of mp3.com but with far less variety. At least the production quality of the work is good, but unfortunately the talent is lacking at this time.

    29. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Fine, but this is trivially true of just about everything - people assign the values that they do to things for purely psychological reasons, no matter which thing it is we're discussing in particular.

      But in the case of diamonds, we aren't talking about arbitrary psychological reasons, we are talking about the effects of the DeBeers's marketing strategy. That is, we are asking: how much return on investment has DeBeers gotten out of their marketing? That is probably one of the most standard microeconomic questions you can ask. There is nothing "trivial" about that question, nor is it in any way esotheric.

      Asking how much people would pay for diamonds if diamonds weren't seen as a token of esteem is somewhat like asking how much people would pay for steak if it wasn't tasty. [...] They apparently like the taste of steak, arguments about what would happen if they didn't notwithstanding.

      We can ask how much people would be paying for steak if it weren't for the Meat Producers of America marketing campaigns. The answer is: probably about the same as they are paying now--as you say, people just like the taste of meat. In fact, decades of vegetarian activism and health warnings haven't made much of a difference.

      We can ask how much people would be paying for diamonds if it weren't for DeBeers marketing. The answer is: probably much less than they are paying now (there are models for quantifying "much less", but that's not the point here). There are no physical qualities of diamonds that make them in any way more appealing than lots of other shiny, glittery gemstones or artificially created substances that cost much less.

      So, the demand for meat is almost certainly much less dependent on marketing and advertising than the demand for diamonds. And, again, there is nothing obscure or "un"-economic about that kind of analysis--it's an analysis good-ol', down-to-earth US companies do every day for just about every product: what's our return on each marketing dollar?

    30. Re:no different from diamonds by bleublue · · Score: 1

      I agree, but knowing that its real and/or expensive matters to many people. There are countless markets where this is true: jewelery, art, fashion, antiques. Here is a good example. It refers to a painting that has just been verified as authentic and expected to bring in over 5 million at auction. If it couldn't be authenticated or it was a fake it might fetch a few thousand...but its the same item in either case.

    31. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      But in the case of diamonds, we aren't talking about arbitrary psychological reasons...

      Sure we are. DeBeers has done the same thing that innumerable other manufacturers have done, from Jaguar to Apple Computers to Miller beer - they've found a way to appeal to consumers by creating psychological responses attendant to their product. There's no physical quality to Kobe beef that makes it more appealing than pigs' feet, and yet people pay much, much more for Kobe than for a jar of pickled pigs' feet. A Jaguar doesn't do anything more, carwise, than does a Hyundai, and yet people pay five times more for a Jaguar than they do for a Hyundai. So why single out diamonds as being a particularly egregious example of things being sold beyond what we might call their value-in-the-absence-of-marketing?

      Further, isn't a certain amount of marketing inevitable? If Hyundai makes a million cars, but doesn't tell anyone, they won't sell any of them. Can we then infer that, in the absence of marketing, a Hyundai is actually worthless? Can we further castigate Hyundai for artificially inflating the price above their value-in-the-absence-of-marketing of zero? Or is it that you object to diamonds in a way that you don't object to Jaguars or Hyundais or Macintoshes? ;)

      We can ask how much people would be paying for steak if it weren't for the Meat Producers of America marketing campaigns. The answer is: probably about the same as they are paying now--as you say, people just like the taste of meat.

      Which leads one to wonder exactly what the point of marketing by meat producers is, if you're right. After all, you say their ROI is just about zero - worse than zero, really, since you say they're wasting money on advertising that does nothing for their business - and yet they apparently piss away millions each year promoting the sale of beef and pork and chicken. Why?

      We can ask how much people would be paying for diamonds if it weren't for DeBeers marketing. The answer is: probably much less than they are paying now

      A claim not borne out by the historical record, unfortunately. People have been spending obscene amounts of money for gems for thousands of years, despite the fact that "marketing" in the modern sense hardly existed. Gems have been highly prized throughout history, and therefore mostly been the exclusive province of the rich due to that. All DeBeers has done is bring that same cachet to the masses, along with the ability to actually realize it. Want a really nice diamond? You don't have to be the Duc d'Waffles or whatever any more, unlike in 1600 or so, thanks to the efforts of DeBeers, et al...

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    32. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      DeBeers has done the same thing that innumerable other manufacturers have done, from Jaguar to Apple Computers to Miller beer - they've found a way to appeal to consumers by creating psychological responses attendant to their product.

      Yes, and like innumerable other manufacturers, we can ask how much the brand contributes to the price consumers are willing to pay. That is, how much more are people willing to pay for an Apple rather than a non-name box, for a Dell rather than a non-name box, for a Jaguar rather than for an equally powerful Toyota, etc.

      And like innumerable other manufacturers that sell their products for far more than equivalent no-name products, consumers should be aware what they are paying for: the brand name and the appearances. You spend money on it to demonstrate your ability to dispose of large quantities of money. And there is nothing wrong with that, you should just do it consciously, rather than fooling yourself into thinking that you get "value" for your money from any other aspect of the product.

      Many people, when they actually think about why diamonds cost as much as they do, will end up valuing them less. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. You are, of course, free to disagree.

      Which leads one to wonder exactly what the point of marketing by meat producers is, if you're right.

      The point is that they make "normal" returns on their marketing dollar for a product people would otherwise perhaps buy a little less of. In contrast, DeBeers would make a tiny fraction of what they are making if they didn't market the way they do.

      A claim not borne out by the historical record, unfortunately. People have been spending obscene amounts of money for gems for thousands of years, despite the fact that "marketing" in the modern sense hardly existed. Gems have been highly prized throughout history,

      Gems actually used to be scarce. Now, the scarcity in something like diamonds is (largely) purposely created, both because we have much more efficient mining operations and because there are good artificial substitutes. In fact, even the creation of undetectable, flawless artificial diamonds won't change the scarcity because DeBeers will just shift marketing slightly and sell "certified 'real' diamonds". If they have to, they'll mark or register the "real" diamonds in a central database. Should a 1 million ton diamond asteroid soft-land in the Sahara desert, they'll start marketing "certified 'real' terrestrial diamonds". And on and on. They really are just selling a brand.

      All DeBeers has done is bring that same cachet to the masses, along with the ability to actually realize it. Want a really nice diamond? You don't have to be the Duc d'Waffles or whatever any more, unlike in 1600 or so, thanks to the efforts of DeBeers, et al...

      No. DeBeers has created a cartel that keeps prices artificially high. And they have made "diamonds" a brand like Apple, Jaguar, and others, as opposed to no-name functional brands. The branding bit is standard corporate fare and people like me think the image should be deconstructed. The cartel bit is arguably illegal and certainly contrary to free market principles.

      All DeBeers has done is bring that same cachet to the masses, along with the ability to actually realize it.

      I'd prefer if people expressed their "cachet" through charitable giving: it disposes of the money just as effectively as buying useless baubles, but it serves a better purpose than to line the pockets of DeBeers. And if the charitable giving is chosen well, it can have a much more positive impact on the economy than DeBeers (giving to non-profit research labs, contributing to private space exploration, etc.). In my opinion, DeBeers's activities are economically and socially worthless or even harmful.

    33. Re:no different from diamonds by WNight · · Score: 1

      If people are so greedy and stupid as to reject an identically appearing stone simply because it's not as expensive, fuck em. I know it's something a lot of people feel but I really don't think their feelings are relevant to anything.

      I really have no patience for the ego-driven need to have more expensive toys than someone else and therefore no respect for people who feel this way.

      This sort of elitist, classist, bullshit is just as ignorant as racism and just as damaging. People who exhibit these traits should be treated like a Klan member in full garb.

    34. Re:no different from diamonds by sjb21043 · · Score: 1

      Your car, clothes, textbooks, stereo, and computer aren't considered "investments". Diamonds are routinely pitched as investment items akin to gold.

      In fact, in response to the discovery, in the 70s, of significant new source of diamonds in the Soviet Union, DeBeers made some noteworthy changes to their advertising to create a market for "investment diamonds".

      These diamonds are sold as investments for typical wholesale prices. If you even open the packages in which they're delivered, it violates the investment terms and they're back to being ordinary diamonds. This for the hardest substance known to man - it's not like you'd scuff them or anything.

      Also, your car, clothes, and textbooks wear out. When you go to resell them, they're not the same items they were when you bought them. The diamond in my mother's engagement ring from 40-odd years ago is no different today than back then.

      Your stereo and computer aren't the same items, either - when you bought them they were new tech, cutting edge stuff. Today, there are lots of better ones available. Diamonds don't change, yet they somehow depreciate in value.

      The reasons the items you listed lose value is because they don't compare well with new items of the same type. Diamonds do - other than stylistic factors, the diamonds from 100 years ago are indistinguishable from diamonds today. Today's diamonds tend to be smaller and the popular styles in which they're cut are a little different - and those differences in demand were carefully engineered by DeBeers to match the output of those new Soviet diamond mines, mind you - but they're still the same diamond. There's no reason for them to have lost value. If you took a 100-year old diamond and dropped it into a box with 20 brand new ones, no one could tell the difference.

    35. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      That is, how much more are people willing to pay for an Apple rather than a non-name box, for a Dell rather than a non-name box, for a Jaguar rather than for an equally powerful Toyota, etc.

      Jaguar = $X. Toyota = $Y. $X - $Y = something, I guess. Would you prefer that cars, gems, computers, et cetera, were all identical, all coming in plain white boxes marked "CAR", "GEM", "COMPUTER", and so forth? Really, you're coming perilously close to suggesting that less choice is better than more choice, and I have to admit that's a new one on me. ;)

      And like innumerable other manufacturers that sell their products for far more than equivalent no-name products, consumers should be aware what they are paying for: the brand name and the appearances.

      You make it sound almost revelatory. Really, you're not alone in understanding this. But even if you are, so what? So what if people buy things for reasons you disapprove of? If I want to take all my money, pile it up in the yard, set it on fire, and use it to roast marshmallows, how on earth does that affect you that you feel compelled to lecture others about how to handle their own money? Would you listen to someone who suggested that you were foolish for not buying the latest fashions in clothes, cars, music, et cetera? How are your preferences any less subjective than that person's would be?

      Many people, when they actually think about why diamonds cost as much as they do, will end up valuing them less. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

      Why? Because you disapprove of how other people are spending their money?

      Gems actually used to be scarce....They really are just selling a brand.

      So what? So is Jaguar. So is Nike. So is McDonalds. So is Red Hat. You make it sound like some evil unique to diamonds, when in fact it's simply the way business is done by virtually any company you care to name.

      The branding bit is standard corporate fare and people like me think the image should be deconstructed.

      Deconstruct away, but it won't do you a bit of good. People like the effects of branding. It makes them happy to feel that they've got something special, rather than a big white box labeled "CAR", just like everyone else's. Even when they're on the outside looking in, it gives them something to aspire to, to pursue, an incentive to achieve. They buy a Jaguar or a diamond or a $3,000 Armani suit because of that little bit of psychological uplift they get from owning those things. Hey, maybe you're right - maybe people are living a lie by living that way, but they're happier that way, and they simply won't listen when you try to take that feeling away from them. They want to feel special, to feel different, no matter how illusory you find that to be. Sorry, but that's the truth - you're forever doomed to be the only enlightened one in the world ;)

      The cartel bit is arguably illegal and certainly contrary to free market principles.

      Probably, but they've been pretty successful about insulating themselves against any enforcement, particularly since I see no signs that anyone is interested in making it stick by invading South Africa or whatever. In the end, you're always free to not buy diamonds, if you so wish, just as others are free to do so if they wish.

      In my opinion, DeBeers's activities are economically and socially worthless or even harmful.

      For better or for worse, societies and economies are not built around your personal preferences. You have the same choice everyone else has - to buy or not to buy. I reiterate one of my earlier points - if people didn't value diamonds as highly as DeBeers does, they simply wouldn't buy them. Whether or not you think they "should" value them that highly is neither here nor there - they do, and that's that. Your personal preferences are no more or less subjective than anyone else's, and arguing against people's subjective value preferences based on your own subjective value preferences amounts to precious little more than you announcing that your way is better just because you say so. It may make you feel better to say it, but don't expect anyone to take it particularly seriously.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    36. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      Diamonds are routinely pitched as investment items akin to gold.

      Caveat emptor. It's incumbent upon you to take responsibility for understanding and wisely choosing your own investments, whatever you choose to "invest" in, whether it's diamonds or gold or stock or carpet lint.

      The diamond in my mother's engagement ring from 40-odd years ago is no different today than back then.

      Yeah, but DeBeers does provide value in one sense. If I want to buy a particularly sparkly and flawless diamond, I can be reasonably sure that the gradations DeBeers assigns to its stones have some objective basis. Their reputation is all they have, and that reputation depends on it being so. Unless I'm a gemological expert myself, I pretty much have to take your word for it about the qualities of the diamond you're selling, which many people are loathe to do. More risk to me equals lower price for you - that's the way the ball bounces, whether it's diamonds or anything else.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    37. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Jaguar = $X. Toyota = $Y. $X - $Y = something, I guess. Would you prefer that cars, gems, computers, et cetera, were all identical, all coming in plain white boxes marked "CAR", "GEM", "COMPUTER", and so forth?

      How does that follow? If I could wave a magic wand, I would not eliminate Jaguars, I'd simply bring their pricing in line with functionally equivalent cars from other manufacturers.

      Really, you're coming perilously close to suggesting that less choice is better than more choice, and I have to admit that's a new one on me. ;)

      I suggested no such thing.

      (However, I fail to see the peril in that suggestion. Modern psychologists and economists are saying exactly that: choice not only has an economic cost associated with it, it also often makes people unhappy.)

      For better or for worse, societies and economies are not built around your personal preferences. You have the same choice everyone else has - to buy or not to buy.

      Contrary to the very limited view you seem to have of humans and their social and economic interactions, I and everybody else has a lot more choices than whether to buy or not to buy. For example, people can tell each other about their experiences with products (e.g., "brand X may be expensive, but its quality is low"). And they can tell each other about their own views of brands ("I think buying brand X is not cool"). That's as much a legitimate and integral part of our free market economy as purchasing decisions and corporate marketing. And it is particularly relevant to brands and products whose value is highly dependent on perceptions and associations.

      In different words, DeBeers has the right to construct a brand "diamond" and people like me have the right to deconstruct it again.

      Why? Because you disapprove of how other people are spending their money?

      Yes. Just like each of us has every right to spend our money any way we like, each of us also has every right to disapprove of, and publicly criticize, each other's spending decisions. It's a free country, and that applies to both spending and speech.

    38. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      If I could wave a magic wand, I would not eliminate Jaguars, I'd simply bring their pricing in line with functionally equivalent cars from other manufacturers.

      That's effectively the same thing as waving a magic wand and eliminating them outright - people who buy Jaguars rather than Toyotas buy them because they're more expensive. Eliminate the price difference, and you've eliminated the thing that differentiates Jaguars from Toyotas in most people's minds.

      Modern psychologists and economists are saying exactly that: choice not only has an economic cost associated with it, it also often makes people unhappy.

      There is some question about how much choice consumers are comfortable with, but I don't think you'll get very far arguing that no choice at all is therefore the best outcome. The fact that people can feel overwhelmed when faced with a hundred different brands of toothpaste does not lead to the conclusion that one and only one brand is their preferred set of options.

      Contrary to the very limited view you seem to have of humans and their social and economic interactions, I and everybody else has a lot more choices than whether to buy or not to buy.

      Do you want to discuss economic interactions, or social interactions? Given that you seemed to be starting off with economic interactions, you really do have only two options - buy or don't buy. If you want to discuss social interactions, that's another ball of wax. As I said before, deconstruct away, but don't be surprised if most people don't react the way you think they "should".

      Just like each of us has every right to spend our money any way we like, each of us also has every right to disapprove of, and publicly criticize, each other's spending decisions. It's a free country, and that applies to both spending and speech.

      Of course, you can probably expect someone to exercise their freedom to point out that you're simply arguing that people should substitute your subjective values for their own currently held values, for no particular reason other than because you think they ought to. Why don't you instead adopt my values and preferences? I think you ought to do that, personally, although I suspect you'll react to that suggestion in much the same way as most people will tend to react to your suggestion that their values are somehow incorrect. You should definitely buy a diamond. And a Jaguar. You are failing to consider the social benefits of owning premium goods, and therefore your values are incorrect. Trust me. ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    39. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Given that you seemed to be starting off with economic interactions, you really do have only two options - buy or don't buy

      Well, if that is your view, why don't you tell DeBeers and Jaguar not to advertise? By your reasoning, they also have only two options: to offer something for sale or not to offer it for sale. By your reasoning, there should be no marketing, advertising, or anything else. By your reasoning, buyers and sellers just bump into each other randomly, I suppose.

      Of course, you can probably expect someone to exercise their freedom to point out that you're simply arguing that people should substitute your subjective values for their own currently held values, for no particular reason other than because you think they ought to.

      I gave a much more specific argument than that. If you demonstrate your ability to dispose of income by buying a diamond, you are lining the pockets of the DeBeers cartel and contributing to unnecessary and destructive mining operations. If you demonstrate your ability to dispose of income by contribution to a charity, cultural or artistic cause, or to medical or scientific research, you may achieve some additional good.

      Now, maybe you don't care about any of those things. But I bet a lot of other people do.

      And that's, not surprisingly, why charitable giving "in lieu of gifts/flowers" is actually becoming more and more socially acceptable.

      You should definitely buy a diamond. And a Jaguar. You are failing to consider the social benefits of owning premium goods, and therefore your values are incorrect.

      I know the value of owning premium goods: products for which you pay a premium because they are created using better craftsmanship, better designs, and better materials.

      That is entirely different from goods whose primary purpose is to demonstrate that you have lots of money. Demonstrating that you have lots of money is a bad idea. In fact, most people who feel compelled to demonstrate that they have lots of money probably don't actually have a lot of money. The compulsion to show off one's wealth diminishes as the actual wealth increases. Trust me on that one. But understatement is perhaps a concept the nouveau riche don't understand... You can read all about it here.

    40. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      Well, if that is your view, why don't you tell DeBeers and Jaguar not to advertise?

      Because I'm perfectly happy allowing adults to work out their own interactions for themselves, without feeling the need to inject my own values into someone else's transactions.

      I gave a much more specific argument than that.

      Did you? Let's see - "If you demonstrate your ability to dispose of income by buying a diamond..."

      ...you are lining the pockets of the DeBeers cartel...

      "I don't like DeBeers."

      ....contributing to unnecessary and destructive mining operations....

      "I don't like mining."

      If you demonstrate your ability to dispose of income by contribution to a charity, cultural or artistic cause, or to medical or scientific research, you may achieve some additional good.

      "I like these other things instead. And so should you."

      And so forth. Okay, the "you should too" bit is implied, but it's a fairly straightforward reading. And what are all those but your own subjective value judgments? "Giving your money to DeBeers is bad, because I say so. Giving your money to this other person is good, because I say so." Well, not to put too fine of a point on it, but who are you?

      And that's, not surprisingly, why charitable giving "in lieu of gifts/flowers" is actually becoming more and more socially acceptable.

      In the obituary pages, maybe, but if you'll glance upwards, you'll notice an article up above that details the emergence of a social circle that places value on the giving of wholly nonexistent (but expensive) gifts. You may think that foolish and wrong - it's obvious you do - but it's not your choice, and their choices are neither better or worse than yours, only different.

      There's a reason those glossy utility charts and graphs in your intro to microeconomics text were unitless - personal desires are not an inherently quantifiable concept, and therefore the idea of comparing and ranking them by any means other than the gross tool of exchange value is a dead end.

      Demonstrating that you have lots of money is a bad idea.

      LOL. And that statement is a matter of objective, universal, no-two-ways-about-it truth, right?

      Well, thanks for demonstrating my point, anyway ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    41. Re:no different from diamonds by sjb21043 · · Score: 1

      Except that we got into this thread because of general_re's suggestion that the value of diamonds results from exchanges.

      My point is that there *is* no exchange for diamonds. The cartel sells diamonds, essentially no one else does (or can, they've been reported to use some pretty strongarm tactics). To talk about "market value" in diamonds is a ridiculous notion - the concept doesn't apply.

    42. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that was me ;)

      To talk about "market value" in diamonds is a ridiculous notion - the concept doesn't apply.

      If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to sell your diamonds at all. But you can, although the point has been raised that you probably won't get back what you paid for it. Which is true, but all that means is that diamonds are worth less in secondary markets than they are in the first instance. This is not unique to diamonds, as I said before.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    43. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Because I'm perfectly happy allowing adults to work out their own interactions for themselves,

      Well, and I am not happy with that. The reason is that we know that people are not perfectly rational economic agents: they have limited information and they have limited resources to reason things through. So, people make suboptimal choices. Now, some of their suboptimal choices I don't care about, but other suboptimal choices also hurt me personally. So, it makes sense to help other people get more information and to help them reason things through.

      In fact, your own behavior is not rational: if you let your fellow man engage in arbitrary irrational behavior, you end up hurting yourself. The ability to share information and to share reasoning in order to benefit each other is a fundamental aspect of human societies and human economic behavior (non zero-sum game). It's a good bet that that's why we developed language and communication in the first place.

      without feeling the need to inject my own values into someone else's transactions.

      It has nothing to do with "injecting my values". I'm merely connecting values I presume most people to have with their actions. That is, I'm saying, if you don't like big mining cartels, don't buy diamonds. I'm not telling you to dislike big mining cartels, I'm simply assuming you don't. If my assumption about your values doesn't apply to you (maybe you own part of DeBeers), I think you can figure that out for yourself.

      "Demonstrating that you have lots of money is a bad idea."

      LOL. And that statement is a matter of objective, universal, no-two-ways-about-it truth, right?


      Actually, it is. More precisely, it is again a shorthand for an implication: "If you demonstrate that you have lots of money, you will attract people who are after your money, by legal or illegal means. I find attracting those kinds of people unpleasant, and if you think about it, you probably would, too." A second part of the argument is that "If you truly have lots of money, people will know it even if you don't show it off; therefore, ostentatious displays of wealth generally indicate people who have achieved only modest wealth in comparison and are eager to show it off." Same deal: if you want to attract frauds and thieves and if you want your image to be that of someone who has recently come into modest amounts of money, go ahead, show off; but you should be aware of what you are doing and what the consequences are.

    44. Re:no different from diamonds by general_re · · Score: 1
      Well, and I am not happy with that.

      I've noticed ;)

      The reason is that we know that people are not perfectly rational economic agents: they have limited information and they have limited resources to reason things through. So, people make suboptimal choices.

      Fine, but that's always going to be true, no matter what you do - none of us are omniscient, after all. We make do with the information we have at hand, but you're not really talking about value-neutral information in the end anyway - "I don't like diamonds" is "information" of a sort, but not objective, factual information that assists anyone else in the decision to buy or not buy a diamond. It's a statement of your position, which, unless you're operating on the assumption that everyone cares what you think, is not particularly useful information when it comes to the decision to buy or not to buy.

      Now, some of their suboptimal choices I don't care about, but other suboptimal choices also hurt me personally.

      This would be a good place to show how someone else buying a diamond hurts you personally.

      The ability to share information and to share reasoning in order to benefit each other is a fundamental aspect of human societies and human economic behavior (non zero-sum game)

      But again, you're not sharing information or reasoning of the sort that is useful to others. Saying, for example, that buying diamonds is "lining the pockets of DeBeers" is one of those trivially true things that doesn't tell anyone they didn't already know. Buying a Big Mac? You're "lining the pockets" of McDonalds. But you already knew that, didn't you? Saying that buying diamonds contributes to "unnecessary" mining is a statement of opinion, not of fact - how can "unnecessary" be anything other than a subjective judgement?

      That is, I'm saying, if you don't like big mining cartels, don't buy diamonds. I'm not telling you to dislike big mining cartels, I'm simply assuming you don't.

      Why would you assume that people happen to share your values, particularly those people who have decided to go out and buy a diamond? It's all well and good to talk about the bad things that happen when people don't have all the available information, but when you talk about specific decisions, you really have no way of knowing what information those people have, nor what factors they considered in their decision, do you? Isn't it entirely possible that there exist people who have access to all the information you have, and yet still disagree with you? Isn't it just a touch arrogant to assume that if people had more information, they would agree with you, and that those who disagree with you lack some relevant information? Isn't it also possible that those who decide to buy diamonds have information that you lack, and therefore your decision is the suboptimal decision?

      Same deal: if you want to attract frauds and thieves and if you want your image to be that of someone who has recently come into modest amounts of money, go ahead, show off; but you should be aware of what you are doing and what the consequences are.

      Same deal: you're simply assuming that people who don't act in accordance with what you think is the optimal course are lacking information you have. But you have no way of knowing that. You don't know what you don't know, in the end.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    45. Re:no different from diamonds by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Fine, but that's always going to be true, no matter what you do - none of us are omniscient, after all.

      So? Less ignorance is still better than more ignorance.

      This would be a good place to show how someone else buying a diamond hurts you personally.

      Easy. DeBeers sells roughly $5.5 billion dollars per year. What economic activity does that create? Destructive mining in Africa, lots of security jobs (many of them non-US), lots of marketing, lots of real estate investment. It would do you and me and anybody else in the US a whole lot of good if that kind of money instead went into R&D jobs and manufacturing. In particular R&D spending generates far more economic activity per dollar and a far bigger increase in our standard of living than a dollar spent on digging up African mud.

      Saying, for example, that buying diamonds is "lining the pockets of DeBeers" is one of those trivially true things that doesn't tell anyone they didn't already know.

      I bet most people don't know that and don't think about it when buying a diamond. Furthermore, I suspect that most people don't think about what many other people really think of them when they buy certain products that are marketed as "luxury products for image-conscious buyers". We will just have to agree to disagree on our assessments here.

      Why would you assume that people happen to share your values, particularly those people who have decided to go out and buy a diamond? It's all well and good to talk about the bad things that happen when people don't have all the available information, but when you talk about specific decisions, you really have no way of knowing what information those people have,

      I don't have to know because it doesn't matter. If I want to convince you of not doing something by saying "don't do X because it leads to Y", there is no point in explicitly addressing the case where you actually like "outcome Y"--presumably, you'll figure that one out for yourself, and if you don't, all the better as far as I'm concerned.

      Same deal: you're simply assuming that people who don't act in accordance with what you think is the optimal course are lacking information you have.

      No, I merely don't care about those other people in making statements. That's not a personal foible, it's the way language works in the real world.

      If you act in some way because you lack information or haven't reasoned something through, I can convince you. If you have all the information and have reasoned things through for yourself, and you act differently because you have different preferences, then there is no point in taking you into account in such an argument at all.

  32. How much are these 'gifts worth'? by Fluidic+Binary · · Score: 1

    I have always found these sorts of economies very odd. They also tend to be rather unstable.

    I wonder if this system will endure or eventually collapse.

    Also how do you handle fraud incases like this, where the only person who determines value is the individual selling the item. What I mean by this, is how value is a digital file that can be trivially replaced. Does its actual cost related to bandwidth or harddrive space etc?

    Who should legally determine value in systems like this?

  33. The FunHI Corporation is a division... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...of P.T. Barnum global holdings.

  34. The most obvious reply ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators prepare to mod 10,000 indignant replies of "I'm not stupid enough to fall for this!, I would never be involved in something like that!"

    Make anything "cute" enough and you'll get a backing from fools. Now if only the moderators thought my anonymous cowardice was cute enough to moderate up. :) ;) ;D etc

  35. Obligatory by Mateito · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why don't people give the money to the starving in Africa or use it to find a cure for cancer?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why don't people give the money to the starving in Africa or use it to find a cure for cancer?

      Because they don't get anything tangible in.. oh.. nevermind.

  36. People are dumb shits by andy_shepard · · Score: 1

    Wow. Just when I thought my opinion of the average person couldn't get any lower, I see something like this.

  37. Way too much. by Omni+Magnus · · Score: 1

    I am sorry, but anybody who buys Everquest characters, or stuff for their characters is almost as much of a loser as the guy who played the game 8 hours a day to get it. I am not saying that all people who play MMORPGs are losers, just the ones that pay for stuff and spend way too much time on it.

    1. Re:Way too much. by BasharTeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not like there aren't a thousand other "accepted" hobbies in the world that eat up far more time and money. Let people spend their life / time / money as they see fit. If you don't like it, just don't play. If you're just knocking on other people because you can't seem to find a hobby that interests you as much, I pity you.

    2. Re:Way too much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU hypocrite! If I want to spend my life/time/money berating people for spending their life/time/money on stupid endeavors then it's certainly within my right. I have found a hobby that interests me and it's pointing out the stupidity of the public in general. Consider yourself pointed out.

  38. Let them pay up... by CharAznable · · Score: 1

    If you pay 30 dollars for a digital representation of a diamond ring, then you deserve to be 30 dollars poorer. Same as people who think coffee is worth 3 bucks a cup, and MS Office is worth 300 bucks.

    --
    The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
    1. Re:Let them pay up... by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      atleast coffee is a real tangible object that to some degree abides by supply and demand. granted coffee bean companies have burned shiploads of beans to dispose of them instead of selling them.

      your point is well taken.

    2. Re:Let them pay up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coffee is worth 3 bucks a cup -- I have migraines. Coffee and nuts (almonds, walnuts, et al) are two of the best ways for me to combat them. 2 cups a day and my headaches go away.

      Plus, the tanic acid is good for me.

    3. Re:Let them pay up... by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      1. You're sure you're not getting caffiene withdrawl headaches and not migraines?

      2. I'm pretty sure that various nuts are on that long list of "10,001 foods that might give some people migraines"

      Just tryin' to help...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  39. Why is this a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bit of an over reaction!

  40. Should make for some interesting lawsuits/cases by Channard · · Score: 1

    So if these virtual items are worth money, I wonder what will happen when some enterprising hacker finds a way to copy them for free? Will the company try to sue the person for copying items that have no inherent value anyway. And what when someone asks for their virtual engagement ring back when they break up with their virtual fiancee?

  41. FunHi from Yuggoth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a new plot by those dreaded MiGo (the Fungi from Yuggoth).

  42. meh by monkease · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

    but really, this does go to show something about how we attach value to even worthless things. way back when in britain there was a fad involving flower bulbs; way back when in america there was a fad involving beanie babies. when you really think about it, does the negligible manufacturing cost of a beanie baby really make it signifigantly more valuable than a magnetic charge on a hard drive?

  43. Theft ? by Dave21212 · · Score: 1


    Ok, so what happens the first time someone 'steals' a 'virtual' diamond ring on this service... I mean, do you call out the virtual police, perform a virtual investigation, put virtual handcuffs on the virtual criminal, call the virtual judge... you get the idea.

    You just *know* it's going to happen. What sort of crazy conversion laws do you think they'll try to apply ?

    Man, I would really hate to have to tell the inmate next to me that I'm in for "stealing a bunch of diamond icons for my cyber-girlfriend"

    --
    "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
  44. Before you go off on FunHi people being stupid... by Wampus+Aurelius · · Score: 1

    "It's ludicrous," says Selman, the company's vice president of business development. "It wasn't something we had planned. Our customers asked us for this.... It just exploded on us. It's not like we're trying to bilk people. They really want it. I think it's a prestige" thing. Georgiades seems to agree with Selman's notion.

    Selman says FunHi has banked about $10,000 in the month since FunHi launched. And given that [one customer] himself has paid about 10 percent of that, it's clear that not all of the service's 6,500 active members are doing the same thing.


    So probably only a few members are spending money for nothing, and the owners claim it wasn't their idea. Fascinating.

  45. This seems fine to me, basic economics by bludstone · · Score: 1

    (I never took an econ class, so this is just my thoughts on the subject)

    So, they create a community that has a percieved value in virtual items. There is a demand (that they created) for these items (that they created.) They supply falsely "limited" virtual items at a price.

    Well, if people are willing and happy to pay it, they can supply it. Seems fine to me. Hopefully people are happy with their purchases. I wouldnt buy into it, personally. But, then again, Im the type that thinks MMORPGS are fairly foolish as well.

    --

    no .sig
  46. Wouldn't it be nice ? by DrYak · · Score: 1

    ...if they gave a part (say, half of it) to non-profit organisation to education of developping countries or whatever....

    NO, Buying porsches doesn't count as non-profit organisation !

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  47. Use of money by uucp2 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow, this definitely goes to #2 place in my "top 10 ways to waste money list", right after SCO's Linux licenses.

  48. Not to worry by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just bought them some pictures of food.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not to worry by Myopic · · Score: 1

      man that's funny. i'm laughin'.

      seriously imagine the look on a starving kid's face when he gets a picture of a cupcake to his village email address.

  49. But is it a conn? by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    I guess a student posing behind the picture of a sexy girl could attact enough "love" to pay for his salary, the models photo-shoot, and leave some profit for the company...

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  50. Oh, hush. by cduffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not like the money that's spent on this is taken out of circulation, no? It's just moved somewhere else -- a company that pays its employees and (presumably) its shareholders [via dividends], who it turn spend it on... well, whatever they spend it on, which may or may not include feeding starving people.

    Indeed, if the people who spend money on this are the kind of people who aren't inclined to give money to feed the starving, then it's to the benefit of those who are starving that the money is now out of their hands and in someone else's.

    1. Re:Oh, hush. by cca93014 · · Score: 1

      What have you been to an "Economics for dummies" presentation, as hosted by some sort of fucked up Republican idiot who manages to make people believe the concept of trickle down wealth?

      The money no doubt goes straight into the pocket of some smart and lucky 26 year old arsehole who promptly spends it all on Porsches and blowing coke up assholes, that sort of thing.

      What, you think he gives it to UNICEF?

    2. Re:Oh, hush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, but his coke dealer might...

    3. Re:Oh, hush. by general_re · · Score: 1
      And then the Porsche dealer and the coke smuggler promptly take the money they get and set it on fire, right?

      You're just positing a different set of hands for that money to pass through. Eventually it'll make it back to someone you approve of, I promise.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    4. Re:Oh, hush. by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2

      They probably rent out one or two racks in a colo center somewhere with a megabit or two pipe and probably have 1 or 2 staff... Maybe thats unrealistic, but its certainly possible. I doubt their overhead is very high.

    5. Re:Oh, hush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who DOES give money to UNICEF? None of the people involved. Why not? Because they don't want to. That's the wonderful thing about America, people can do what they WANT to.

      Oh, right. Looks like I've just blown your wide-eyed idealistic pining right out of the water. My bad.

      Cut your hair and get a fucking job, son.

    6. Re:Oh, hush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good answer!!!!

  51. Almost... by nicky_d · · Score: 1

    Well, this is halfway there. Instead of spending money on actual crap, people are spending money on abstractions of crap. Now, the next step is to get them to create this crap on their own, make their own icons, and send those. Use MS Paint or whatever you've got. And that could be the start of something healthy, the path leading away from the crap. A community where people made gifts of original creations, that seems like a sound idea to me. FunHI! has achieved the important first step of removing money from the equation. Onward!

  52. Re:Why is this a troll? by arcanumas · · Score: 1

    Over reaction? If this had been posted on April fools day everyone would be thinking "Can't they come up with something less obvious?"

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  53. Everquest Humer eh? by Chitlenz · · Score: 1

    I know at least 2 ppl that broke 6-figures last year playing that game and selling the cash they made from item sales to yantis (the 1000lb gorilla of the everquest auctions).

    In fact, EQ item sales have caused the rise of sweatshops of players to farm cashworthy loot as mentioned on /. before ....

    http://games.slashdot.org/games/03/11/24/0141243 .s html

    -chitlenz

    --
    Imagination is the silver lining of Intelligence.
    1. Re:Everquest Humer eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      selling the cash they made from item sales to yantis (the 1000lb gorilla of the everquest auctions).

      Ironically, 'yantis' is an anagram of 'sanity.' Sanity is something that Everquest traders lack.

    2. Re:Everquest Humer eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a friend of mine who does this. He makes a shit load of cash each year from it. I was going to go into it with him, but I didn't want to use my "play char" to do it. Plus, I was too lazy to PL an alt.

      He has also bought chars on EQ. At one point, he bought a level 65 bard, with really uber gear for $900. He owns like 5 or 6 accounts.

      Personally, I have bought ingame money before. I think over the 3 years I played, I spent maybe $300. (Outside of normal game fees, and the cost of the expanstions)

  54. The only thing worse... by waynegoode · · Score: 1
    Next thing you know people will be paying good hard cash for a bottle of water.

    Wait a minute! Now there is an idea for the ultimate waste of money: virtual bottled water.

  55. Pimp by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article:

    Of course, being a young good-looking female doesn't hurt, as the members with the most fans are all women whose pictures show them in sexy, alluring poses.

    &

    The service aims, according to what might be called its bylaws, to foster purely positive and friendly interactions.

    Sheesh. Why not just call it "FunHo" and be done with it?

  56. It's A Club... by TexTex · · Score: 1

    HiFun has a few things going for it. It's a members site which essentially ranks its members. Those who receive the most gifts are the most popular, so this could be compared with a dating service or one of those hot-or-not sites a few years back. Also, it's similar to friendster in that you collect this circle of people around you who you've invited inside.

    Their members publish photos of themselves...attractive women in various poses as well as some regular looking joes. So now it's personal and less sterile than just icons or avatars.

    Would people pay membership dues for something like this? Sure they would... HiFun has created an interactive webboard that just happens to draw some income for themselves. All of their elements have worked quite well before in parts of the web...might as well work for them too.

    --
    -Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
    1. Re:It's A Club... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you resell gift you recive if so find a pic of some unknown porn star and post her pic as your and the resell the gifts for real $$$

  57. so, of those cute girls with the wish lists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what percent of them are actually employees of FunHi... and have a face/body like goatse?

    internet sex/flirting, you can always fake being cute or even being female.

  58. US$30 != FunHi$30, and why its brilliant by salmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    See real money gets changed for fake money. I think it's like US$10=FUnHi$30. Plus some of the gifts give the recipient even more fake money. All in all, most "gifts" cost just a few cents.

    The thing is that they're tapping an already existing culture- racing and souping up import cars. It serves as a fan-club kind of thing for these import models, and then expands from there.

    I really have to hand it to the guys who started it. They tapped a culture well, provided a means for them to play on the internet together and found a way to make a tidy profit off of it. Besides, you don't even need to pay to use it. You don't have to buy "gifts" for people. It's just a nice way to say "I like you" or whatever that backed up by a little bit more.

    I'll admit, I accidently ran into this early on in its development and started playing along for mostly 2 reasons: 1) I was newly single so having cute asian girls give me compliments boosted my ego 2) I'm horrible with internet culture (IMing and other sorts of things where you speak with abbreviations and smileys) so I thought it would be funny to see how well I do (and how well "they" do) with my paragraphs and thinking.

    It was fun for a while, but now it's getting really dull. Next!

    1. Re:US$30 != FunHi$30, and why its brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute? Asain Girls? Are you insane? jeez dude, get a life or get out more. No tits, stupid, flat face, and crooked teeth. All they do is talk on their $400 hello kitty telephones and get money for blowjobs. Asain girls are just plain nasty.

  59. Damn i want to exploit them too! by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Wow some people will buy anything!

    "FunHi.Com has taken the lead as a next generation social networking site. Recognizing that online relationship time is replacing mainstay leisure activities like movies, TV and night clubs, it is successfully diverting leisure purchases to the relationship site itself. Results show that purchasing a virtual box of chocolates for another FunHi.Com member is far more satisfying than the passive glow of a film or TV screen?"

    So basically you pay this company and the girls on the site get a cut. Now im not one to judge, i mean people are in to whatever they want, but really! some people are just too sad.

    oh shit look! a linux thong!!! i have to get it for that cute girl on the front page, then maybe ill get laid?

    Actually no really can you get linux thongs? i want!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  60. Goes to show how braindead consumers are. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here, let me draw a picture of a diamond ring... store it in this database here. Now, I'll have you and a few others sign up as members to this database.

    You pay me $$, I will do a simple "INSERT INTO" statement and associate the diamond ring record with the recipient's user ID. You will feel good because you sent them a "gift", they will feel happy because they think they will have received a real gift.

    You will think it's fun, I will think it's funny. I will be rich, you will be paying me to alter my data in my database.

    At least this gives hope to people trying to make money out there.

    I have an idea. I have a website filled with members and their email addresses. When you want to send a gift, YOU draw the gift using MS Paint. Upload the picture, I will email it to the recipient of your choice, and I will only charge $1.99. See, because YOU drew it and it would be from YOU! (The sad thing is, people would probably go for it)

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  61. Golden Rule? Shieat? by HomeGroove · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the site:
    The FunHi Goldunn Rule: If ya can't say sumtin' nice, then don't say shieat!
    I find it hard to call something a "company" when they have the non-word "shieat" and "sumtin'" on their site.
    --

    ----
    Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt

  62. Re:Why is this a troll? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

    agreed.

  63. Reminds me of an old joke by gsasha · · Score: 1

    Two cowboys, John and Jim, are walking in the prairie. John sees a pile of manure and says "Jim, I bet $50 that you won't eat this pile". And Jim bets on this and eats it.
    Then John sees another pile and says again "I bet $100 you won't eat this one". And Jim bets and eats it too, getting his $100.
    Now Jim is very upset for eating lots of manure, so, seeing another pile, he says "John, I bet $150 that you won't eat this one!". And John bets and eats it, winning $150.
    Then after a couple of minutes, John says reluctantly "Jim, don't you think we've just eaten loads of manure for nothing?".

  64. teen entertainment by Blue+Master · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in Norway, and here teenagers have for many years spent big money on ringtones, logos, screensavers etc for their mobile phones. Now, with the new phones, people have started paying for mms messages, games etc as well.

    Also, there are tons of tv programs where you can pay for having your sms shown on the screen for a brief moment. Sort of like using IRC, but spending $1-2 each time you press enter.

    My point, I guess, is that the way young people spend their money doesn't really amaze me anymore...

  65. Axiom of capitalism by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    "the average IQ of a dollar tends to rise"

    Kind of an economic version of evolution-in-action.

  66. Gimmie by hcob$ · · Score: 1

    So if I go out and bought a girl a virtual dinner at an expensive restauraunt, a virtual diamond engament ring... does that mean I'll get virtual....... well you can finish that
    .

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  67. Southpark Raisins by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anyone seen that southpark episode "raisins"? this reminds me of it so much!

    "MissEvelyn: I need some virtual loot. If you want to show me you care, send me some. Your profile will show everyone you're a "Playa." I'll receive the icons and know i'm special. I'm counting on you to help me get noticed in style. Holla!"

    wonder what percentage they get?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  68. A double standard? by abh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's post after post on here of people saying "this is stupid", "I can't believe these people pay for stupid icons", and "why would anyone buy virtual anything".

    Yet there's quite a bit of the /. crowd that thinks it is perfectly normal and acceptable to sell items or characters for an EverQuest game. Hello... Pot, you have a call on line one. It's Kettle.

    1. Re:A double standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tet there's quite a bit of the /. crowd that thinks it is perfectly normal and acceptable to sell items or characters for an EverQuest game"

      Actually I don't think that's the case. Most EverQuest fans who are hardcore enough to spend lots of money on virtual items don't have time to waste here on Slashdot. If they are online and not playing they are probably in a forum talking about the game. Most people here think that's pretty dumb as well so I don't your hypocrite call stands up that well, at least here at /. Now if this were an EveryQuest forum on the other hand an people were mocking it...

    2. Re:A double standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Most people believe both are stupid (this and EQ trading). We also believe the game owner should not have the right to stop the players from exercising their stupidity. That's where the problem lies.

      Likewise, if FunHi were stopped by lawmakers, we'd all be in an uproar, let the stupid do what they want. In fact, this sort of thing should be encouraged by lawmakers, the sooner the stupid are parted from their money through harmless ways the better, and the funnier.

    3. Re:A double standard? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Yet there's quite a bit of the /. crowd that thinks it is perfectly normal and acceptable to sell items or characters for an EverQuest game."

      However, a number of Slashdot posters are critical of EverQuest items, as well. Furthermore, the EverQuest items at least have a use, even if that use is constrained to virtual progress in a virtual world. In contrast, the FunHi items are purely ornamental -- you can't even use them within the virtual world.

      On the other hand, there's one thing that I think does justify the FunHi system -- the trick is to look at the real money being paid as donations to keep the site going. The status symbol rewards are just fun little virtual recognitions of those donations. This isn't like EverQuest where everyone is already paying monthly to keep the servers up and running.

    4. Re:A double standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're saying that a hivemind has internally divergent viewpoints? is that a criticism?

      I got a news flash, folks. We all lead individual though insignificant lives and are fully capable of forming individual though insignificant thoughts and opinions.

    5. Re:A double standard? by Hays · · Score: 1

      I think the selling of everquest items is reasonable. The items have a real use, just in some virtual environment where people spend a lot of time. Who cares that the item has no use in the _real world_, it will see just as much use (or more) in its virtual world than many items in the real world. Concepts like price also make sense because everquest items have rarity or are difficult to acquire. Really there's no reason the economics of the real world can't carry over to a virtual world.

      and they do -
      article
      another article

    6. Re:A double standard? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some Slashdot posters think FunHi gifts are dumb. Other Slashdot posters sell Everquest stuff. Hint: they are _different_ _people_.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:A double standard? by Colazar · · Score: 1
      There's post after post on here of people saying "this is stupid", "I can't believe these people pay for stupid icons"

      Yet there's quite a bit of the /. crowd that thinks it is perfectly normal and acceptable to sell items or characters for an EverQuest game. No conflict here at all. It's stupid to *buy* virtual items. It is, however, very smart to *sell* them.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    8. Re:A double standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is Kettle going to say?

      "Hi. I'm black!!!"?

    9. Re:A double standard? by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Try to get someone to distinguish, in real terms, the difference between selling a sword on Everquest and selling the game itself? Purchasing the game and subscription to SOE allows you to "participate" in the virtual world. The kick ass sword allows you to alter the method of your particpation. You may get to run with a clan you otherwise couldn't, etc etc.

      If you still see a difference, then what about the add-on worlds? Added contennt, otherwise restricted areas you can only go if you spend money. What exactly is the difference?

    10. Re:A double standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could of fooled me. I mean...US

      Anyhow, return to duty QT544-A8. You are required to post a vitriolic attack on some new Microsoft Technology on another thread, two trolls and at least three items of pure FP!OMGRORFOFL stuff before you can log-out.

    11. Re:A double standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Pot Kettle... Following your line of reasoning it would be stupid to pay for computer-games and expansion-packs as well. They are also "virtual tools for entertainment" meaningless outside the computer-environment...

      (Of course, one reason buy stuff in virtual worlds is that the games are boring-as-designed. So one pay to overcome the flaws in the design. FunHi is different. That builds on the desire to impress ladies...)

    12. Re:A double standard? by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Yet there's quite a bit of the /. crowd that thinks it is perfectly normal and acceptable to sell items or characters for an EverQuest game.

      There's quite a bit more of the /. crowd that thinks the Everquest items are just as stupid.

  69. Free love? by Bitmanhome · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Luv don't cost a thang: $.01
    Nuff sed.
    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  70. the only thing that really makes me angry... by sevenmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    The only thing about this kind of business that really makes me angry is that I didn't think of it first...

  71. Trading EQ loot by Anonymous+Daredevil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I still don't understand why some people think paying cash for EQ loot is strange.

    You pay cash to play the game at all in the first place. Many people then pay cash for the strategy guide to let them play better. Some people buy new equipment to let them play better, like a new flightstick with detached throttle for their new flight sim.

    In the old adventure game days if you got stuck, you could call a number and pay per minute to listen to hints to get you unstuck. You basically paid money to continue in the game.

    What if you didn't need a strategy, or a hint to progress in the game? What if what you needed was better equipment or more levels? Why would it be so strange to pay for those, but not the other things?

    1. Re:Trading EQ loot by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Well in a game atleast the item you buy does something useful in the virtual world. An animated gif not only doesnt do anything useful, it looks shite and you can already see it for free on the site without paying for it. The way it works is that firstly people are deluded (ok i really shouldnt judge) and secondly sad (mostly geeks by the look of the icons) think that if they give one of the top rated girls an icon.. well i dont have to say any more. In reallity, if i was one of these girls i would think a guy who sent me a virtual ring was pretty hopeless but id take my cut from funhi for having my shots on their page.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  72. In a nutshell by 0x41 · · Score: 1

    Fool $$$

    1. Re:In a nutshell by 0x41 · · Score: 1

      Heh, try again..
      Fool <------------- soon ------------> $$$

  73. Something else I wished I thought of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ringtone downloads: huge business, costs almost nothing to produce.

  74. Outdoing each other in generosity? by Badgerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People like to compete. We like a challenge. We also like to reciprocate. We're social animals.

    FunHi, using symbols, tapped into that part of us, probably to their own surprise. It's symbols, though silly, have value - in dollars. So you can "measure" how much someone spent on you (or someone else) and ignore, thank, reciprocate, or compete appropriately.

    Do I think it'll last? No. But it's worth studying.

    Just my 2 cents. Or, in the future, 1/50 of a Slashdollar!

    (And yes, I expect FunHi's idea to be imitated to death).

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  75. That headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...should become the next slogan for the Herpes cream I'm always seeing advertised.

  76. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people spend money on anything but the bare necessities of a pair of jeans, sneakers, some food and a bicycle?

    It's because people are consumers and are believe that they can't make any difference by donating money.

    You can't show off the healthy child you help feed like you can show off the blood diamond that his parents died mining out of the earth.

  77. Just Like Friendster... by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

    In that the end goal for users of this service is random, semi-anonymous sex...

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    1. Re:Just Like Friendster... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      its just well suited that a condom packet and a FunHi icon are the same shape

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Just Like Friendster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nothing to see here, move along."

      Death to that phrase. I'll decide for myself, thanks ever so fucking much.

  78. Fools and their money.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The investments that people make in order to avoid actually having to deal with the real world are astounding. Wasting time is one thing but now they're wasting their money, too! Hey, why buy your girlfriend flowers when you can buy virtual ones for some imaginary chick online? Oh yeah, why even bother with a real live girlfriend when you can sit in front of a computer and chat with an imaginary one? Now I know why they make 3-button mice.

    In the immortal words of William Shatner: "Get a life!".

  79. Re:Brilliant! Slashdot could make money this way.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Doesn't it already.

    1.Post anti MS (or pro Linux) troll.
    2.Gets modded as Insightful.
    3.Gets meta-modded as fair
    4.Original Mod is more likely to get mod points.

  80. they're all asian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that explains everything

  81. It's the game of better-than by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

    Everybody has their own way of attempting to prove themselves better than those around them. Some people spend money on art collections, some fix up their car to be as pretty as possible, some spend a lot of money on tickets to sports games that will be nothing but a statistic in ten years.

    When it comes right down to it, if something doesn't directly improve your personal effectiveness it's essentially valueless to those who aren't keyed into your personal scale of better-than.

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  82. Wealth is wealth by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When doesn't wealth trickle down to the poor? Answer: when resources are being consumed. For instance, if gasoline is being burned in SUV's when it's needed for tractors, that could be an example of wealth not trickling down. However, I believe the problem of hunger isn't caused by insufficient food,but by bad distribution. Therefore, getting money out of the hands of those who have it will, eventually, put it in the hands of the needy. Spend it on a Porsche, the Porsche factory will pay some workers, who will pay their housemaids: that's "trickle down" for you.

    1. Re:Wealth is wealth by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 1


      Really, the general case is more like "Spend it on a Porsche, the Porsche CEO will pay their housemaids and gardeners. ". Though in Porsche's case, the workers are unionized, so they do get a fair wage and therefore a share of the wealth.

      Wealth doesn't trickle down when management and owners skim it off. For example, a lot more wealth trickles down to workers in unionized grocery stores than in a Walmart.

      The basic point is correct, however. Distribution is the key, and famines these days occur mainly because of disruption(e.g. war), or inefficiencies (e.g. monopolies and exploitation) in the distribution networks. Oddly enough, monopolies on food distribution don't survive long in democratic countries....

  83. Profit for it's Own Sake by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    At the risk of making the submitter sound terminally naive, where else would their cash go besides the company coffers? Heck, Gunbound works the same way now. You pay to dress your character up in fancy items, which can affect your gameplay. While you can get the items foor free it take a hellva lot longer. it's digital, has no real world value, but people buy anyway.

    Kinda like people buying/selling Diablo items, I imagine.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  84. virtual life leads to physical death by r5t8i6y3 · · Score: 1

    this says a lot about how much we live in our heads

    how disconnected we are from the physical world

    how disconnected we are from other people

    the more we engage in a virtual existence, the less time we have to be in the physical world

    being physically disconnected from our local communities leads to a default acceptance of unsustainable lifestyles

    an example:

    i make my living doing computer consulting. i buy my food with the money i earn. this food comes from all over the globe transported to me by polluting the earth. if i had to accept all the pollution generated from just the transport of my food into my home i'd probably be asphyxiated. the computers that i fix to make the money i think i need to exist probably create more toxic byproducts than i'd be willing to store or release into my home so *i choose* to store or release these toxics into someone else's "backyard".

    the flip side (a tangible example of how connectedness to place can result in sustainable choices):

    when i go out jogging and breath the exhaust from all the automobiles driving past me i gag. as a result i've chosen to drive my car less and bicycle instead with the ultimate intention of getting rid of my car.

    peace

  85. Re:Before you go off on FunHi people being stupid. by statusbar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is all good.

    My new realization is: A fool and his money are best parted. The last thing you want are bunches of fools with effective personal or political power.

    --jeff++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
  86. Tux thong!? ugh... by AngstAndGuitar · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who noticed that there is a black thongfeaturing Tux!? Talk about logo misuse....

    --
    Less look fast, more go fast.
    1. Re:Tux thong!? ugh... by vvenka1 · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing i noticed. I'm getting way too much into linux.

  87. In Japan, people pay just to have a conversations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    attractive women. I wonder if people would pay just to exchange emails with attractive (or supposedly attractive) women

  88. Re:Read it all...you'll be glad you did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yuor trnaslaiontn, thoguh hornoable, is unnceesrsay. as lnog as we hvae the fsirt and lsat lteter in the crroect posiotin of the wrod oedrr, we wlil be fnie rdaeing it.

  89. Maybe Changing Though by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Artificial high price of diamonds may be changing. Here is an article about quality mass produced diamonds, that I read some time back.

  90. Re:Golden Rule? Shieat? by LookSharp · · Score: 1

    In the words of Jamie Kennedy,

    "Don't be hatin'!"

    This neo-hipster urban language (I call it Pimp) is the new Jive/Ebonics/Ghetto dialect. Cope.

  91. They've got a great thing going on here. by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You have to note that the prices don't really match up - The $30 super biznatch iced out platinum plastik translates to $20 real money. Still, it's hilarious.

    It seems to me they're a bunch of slashdot-style geeks blatantly milking a huge group of retards - the hint is the "Dominatrix Sub Whip +2" - I don't expect the idiots who actually use that site to have any idea what a +2 is.

    I also doubt that anyone who really wrote the way they do would be able to set up a complicated website.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  92. Re:Golden Rule? Shieat? by megan_of_wutai · · Score: 4, Funny

    This place is a horrific written image of pain.

    I quote:

    FunHi is your friendly gangsta, playa pimp, banging hunie community. Haters and lamers shall be dealt with to the FULL extent of da law

    My eyes, they bleed!

    My brain, it bleeds!

  93. What the hell is wrong with the mods today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posts marked as troll or re-dundant when they are neither?

  94. What are you doing by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    on the internet? That money you're wasting on yourself could be better spent feeding the hungry. I bet you have the nerve to drive a car, too.

    Starvation isn't a money problem. It doesn't take money to plant a garden and grow food. The problem is the assholes in charge who prevent the food from going to people who need it that need to be overthrown.

    There's plenty of food. And buying more of it isn't going to make the situation better for anyone but the assholes in charge who hoard it for themselves.

    The poor will always be with you. If you feel so compelled, help the poor in far away places. I'd rather help those around me. And that involves buying crap that helps pay their wages so that they don't starve.

    I don't suppose you stopped to think that if nobody bought anything they didn't need, 90%+ of the population would be out of work and unable to afford to eat. Our society functions based on the buying and selling of crap. Just like every other country.

    If you go to the Mexican border at least, everybody is selling something. Buying a pot or a flower you don't need really equates to feeding the seller and his family.

    Buying a stupid little icon helps keep this guy fed and with the extra money he buys more crap which puts money in a lot of people's pockets so they can eat and so on down the line.

    To claim that we shouldn't buy anything frivilous is incredibly short sighted. I don't think you realize how many poor people survive selling frivilous crap working at fast food joints, restaurants and what not. You think corporations should just give people money? Where do you think their money comes from?

    Ben

    1. Re:What are you doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this for an idea, everyone just goeas out and gives everyone they meet some money. That way we cut out all this production and services crap and really get the economy going. No one will need to work because they'll be to busy giving and receiving money the whole time.

      Or how about this one, we stop regarding unemployment as a problem and regard it as a sign of the efficiency of modern society. And reward them for being such icons of modern capitalist progress.

    2. Re:What are you doing by danila · · Score: 1

      There is a problem with what the system you describe. When someone makes their living selling frivolous crap, he is not being a productive memeber of the society. Yes, others decide to support him and he has something to waste the time on, but he is not providing anything valuable.

      The society would be much better off if he was paid the same amount of money by the same people, but he would instead do something useful. Of course, under capitalism there is no distinction between something useful and some crap, if someone pays money for this, it is valuable, period.

      This makes so many Americans (since the US is the most capitalistic) believe that anything that creates jobs is good. This also makes the US the country that spends the biggest chunk of its research budget on military stuff (more than 50%, actually). Other countries, like, say, Finland, spend 0.1% on military research. Americans choose to convince themselves that a dollar spent on designing a bomber is somehow as useful as a dollar spent on designing a cargo jet.

      P.S. May be I strayed from the topic too far... The point was that, all things equal, people should do useful things instead of wasting their time on some crap (said I on Slashdot).
      P.P.S. I do realise that some of the tech is dual-use, but it is still ridiculous. Only 5 countries (IIRC) spend more than 5% of research budget on military stuff, including the US, and only 15 countries or so spend more than 1% on it. Why does US feel it is necessary (a rhetorical question)?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  95. Overseas by velocidisc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Virtual accesories and avatars are a big business in Korea

    --
    Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fit
  96. Perfect place by wardomon · · Score: 0

    to meet fellow Slashdotters.

    --

    - - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
  97. True for men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But women have a different response to diamonds. The sparkle stimulates their brain more than it does men...and their response is a feeling of great beauty.

    Given that most (not all) women draw much of their self-esteem from their feeling that they are beautiful, the diamond ring is primarily a means of becomming beautiful, and hence happy.

    Whether or not this is the way it SHOULD be is immaterial...

  98. I thought... by Lugor · · Score: 0, Redundant

    SCO owned the patent for getting money for nothing...

  99. Horrible by megan_of_wutai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FunHi seems to be an extreme manifestation of the overly materialistic culture it has emanated from (people who call themselves a "gangsta" or a "playa" or a "hunie", modern popular culture basically), it's just... too horrible for words.

    People judging how popular and loved they are on the basis of how much other people have spent on them *puke*.

    I guess they could all be doing it in an ironic and political fashion to show all members of capitalist societies to be whores. I'm sorta doubting that's the case, personally.

    1. Re:Horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree entirely. It's sickening. It depresses me knowing that people are so status conscious as to put stock in this sort of crap. I think we're all going to hell

    2. Re:Horrible by Myopic · · Score: 1

      it's not that i disagree with you, it's just that you sound a little sour grapes. Like no one ever spent money on you to show they care, so you're bitter. Again, it's not that i disagree, just be aware of the tone you give off, dogg.

      peace

    3. Re:Horrible by megan_of_wutai · · Score: 1

      Today I did a bad thing. I almost replied to a troll. I'm so ashamed... [the sound of wracking sobs follows].

  100. Not, brittany, by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She's too obvious. Now a contest between liv tyler and George bush.... Thats got more of a dilema.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Not, brittany, by Myopic · · Score: 1

      dude liv tyler is not hot, i'm sorry. i'm baffled that people think so. drew barrymore, on the other hand...

    2. Re:Not, brittany, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizen, your taste is clearly defective, please report to the nearest liquidation centre, your co-operation has been noted.

  101. Show me some luv.... by Thud457 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    gimmie a dollar!

    For TWO dollars, I'll go away and leave you alone!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  102. It's 1999 all over again by FattMattP · · Score: 1

    It's 1999 all over again. I though the bubble burst for companies like this.

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  103. You're not a unique special flake... by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just bought a case of paste-on foil gold stars at Office Depot. Now I'm going to completely destroy the intellectual economy of the local kindergarten. BWAHAHAHAHA!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  104. Who thought this up? by sumdeus · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm amazed at the person/group who thought up this idea. What sane person or group actually thought this would make money for them.

    Apparently I'm just not enlightened enough for this line of thinking...this is definately another step toward the perfect society.

    --
    Peter: I got an idea, an idea so smart my head would explode if I even began to know what I was talking about.
    1. Re:Who thought this up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See this is where you are wrong.. They are all Insane, Totally mad, and this is how it was conceived, from the bowels of a crazy mind.

  105. Why didn't I think of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This leaves just one question unanswered... why didn't I think of this?
    Probably because you are naive enought to think that a sufficient proportion of the population to support such a venture isn't that stupid.

  106. It's all about re-sellability by ry4an · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The items in everquest can be re-sold and potentially for a profit. The items at FunHi (to my limited understanding) can't be regifted or sold.

    It's makes all the difference in the world. It's why people will buy 'shares' in a company which are esentially vitual property too -- because they're resellable.

  107. It's like they have to invent things for rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    people to spend their money on. Once they've bought all the neccesities and run out of neat toys to buy, what else is there ? Virtual presents for virtual girlfriends.

  108. If people pay for ringtones... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    ...they might as well pay for icons. In fact, operator logos for mobiles are paid icons too. It's not all that different really. That said, I personally wouldn't pay for ringtones either.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  109. "Blood" is such a biased label by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    I prefer to think that I am helping to put money in the pockets of :

    • kidnappers
    • slavemasters
    • gun companies
    • pitbull breeders
    • shovel manufacturers
    • smugglers
    • whip manufacturers
    and create jobs for the underpriverledged.
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  110. How can they spare the money to do this? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    When they spend so much on crack?
    They obviously consume VAST quanities of crack cocaine.

    This is the dumbest shit I have EVER seen...

    These idiots deserve to go broke, throwing their money down the toilet like this.

    All I can say is Muwhahahahhahahahahaha!!!!

  111. What do you mean "like"? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to the stories in Gamespot, Ananova, and Breaking News the 40 million plus selling virtual pet is coming back. The Tamagotchi Plus will have a few changes this time around: better screen, more animation sequences, five times more capacity. The big add-on is wireless. Now Tamagotchi will interact will each other and be able to exchange gifts, make friends, have eating contests, or get married and create offspring. (No word on Tamagotchi sex or divorce yet.) Bandai will even have machines in a fast food chain to allow downloading new accessories. (Japan only at first, of course.)

    Since they IR network and transfer data objects, I'm working on an infectious Tamagotchi plague. It's for the children's sake.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  112. I wonder if there is an Amber listed ... by hetairoi · · Score: 1
    --
    you're all figments of my deranged imagination
  113. VHAT A COUNTRY!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next, we'll have to institute some sort of government standards agency to insure that our beautiful virtual girfriend isn't selling 200%, is really beautiful, and is really a girl!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  114. You missed the point... by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Looks like its an advanced form of "Rate my nakedness" sites.. except you post revealing photos as people tip you... Send me a tip and I'll reveal my underthings... hmmm, now that is inrteresting.

    --
    meh
  115. Re:Article Text - for those who don't like sound a by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
    "It's totally goatse" says Selman...

    Who's the assclown who modded the parent up?

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  116. Re:Status symbols - $6k piece of rock by nxs212 · · Score: 3, Informative

    mod up!
    Excellent article about DeBeers scumbags
    http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82feb/ 8202diamon d1.htm

    Wired had an article about artificial/cultured diamonds; decent read.
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/di amond.h tml

    Also, if you care about exploited children in Africa, watch Child Soldiers. It's really depressing; Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, etc. use diamond money to buy weapons and send kids to war.
    I guess DeBeers' would defend themselves by saying that those kids would otherwise have too much free time on their hands and get in trouble hanging out at schools, playgrounds and working on their families' farms.

  117. Re:Status symbols-Mac Cube by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got my wife a Mac Cube and flat screen. Nothing like being married to a computer geek (she's a telecom analyst and loves having Mac DTP and command line tools all together).

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  118. Deep discount here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Deep discount here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL this is great!!! This person actually thinks there is value in those animated icons.. Your missing the whole point ma nigga. Props on your hax0rz abilities, you missed the mark.

    2. Re:Deep discount here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I missed the mark on purpose because i think the site is stupid and the whole playa / nigga / balla / is gay as hell.

      d

  119. In other news.... by retro128 · · Score: 1

    ...the Icy Hot Stuntaz have begun their bid for world conquest.

    --
    -R
  120. Been Done before / Will be done again by DeanFox · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm showing my age reminding everybody about Pet Rocks.

    People would complain how stupid they were as they stood in line to get one.

    The inventer retired a multi-millionare.

    Strap that Adonomizer to your head and while it zaps your brain repeat... I - will - not - buy - stupid - shit - for - no - reason...

    1. Re:Been Done before / Will be done again by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      I was thinging about an idea for "pet potatoes" It's like a pet rock but unlike a rock it's actually alive. You have to feed it like a plant but it requires less care than a real pet. And the good thing is that if you decide you are bored with it you can eat it. Try that with a pet rock or animal pet or even most plants. I'm too lazy to do it. But bewarned, the next person to implement it gets sued by me.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  121. Irony by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's really sad is that I bet some of the "high rollas" on this site are actually buying themselves gifts from alternate accounts, or are company shills designed to motivate a much smaller number of legitimate members to compete for more intangible crap.

    Ultimately, you have to respect a venture like this, that can make a person alternate between thoughts of "WTF This is sick" and "Wow, this is genius". It's both interesting & entertaining, and profoudly sad and pathetic as well. What an eloquent microcosm of capitalism, superficiality and materialism.

  122. Pooteeweet! by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    It sounds like an April Fool's Joke, but then, so does online trading of Everquest loot.

    ... or stock, gold, tulips ... or money. One of the interesting points of Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos is how the value of things is what we make them. Today, an ounce of gold may be worth $400 to me (I haven't checked the market), but tomorrow, if I'm hungry, I may well trade it for a can of Dinty Moore stew.

    If you have a bank account, you may feel comforted to know that the money you have in it is represented by ones and zeroes, the same as that Everquest loot. It could be worthless before the market closes today!

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  123. whatta rip! by haxor_style · · Score: 1

    what a scam! I can't believe that people would actually pay for this.

    --
    Chiggdy Chiggdy check yo'self before yo reck yo'self.
  124. Just goes to show by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    In the great thundering herd of dumbass there are 2% that will buy anything. These fools have more money than brains, and are the same ones that open attachments from people they don't know.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    1. Re:Just goes to show by DeanFox · · Score: 1

      If you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart. If you are not a liberal at 40 you need more education.

  125. grammar police strikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fool and HIS money are soon parted.

    1. Re:grammar police strikes by bitchell · · Score: 1

      Ahh Yes but I was being politically correct. You can't be sexist these days so I was only covering my arse by say THEIR.

      At least I spelt that correctly.

  126. Re:Status symbols-Mac Cube by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

    Wait, you mean like, instead of a ring?

  127. Re:Brilliant! Slashdot could make money this way.. by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1
    if Slashdot moderation were geared towards highly rating those posts that advertised for their sponsors...
    By the way, check out ITManagersJournal.com, they have some very interesting things. Also, be sure to buy one of the new Sun rack mount servers, it runs linux and solaris really fast!
    --
    Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  128. Re:Status symbols-Mac Cube by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Naw, the Cube kept slipping around under her finger. Would have had to balance it with another cube.

    The cube was my 4 year anniversary gift to her.

    Wife's aunt ran a pawn shop and she knows how fast jewelery depreciates (almost as fast as computers). She prefers something that is actually useful (and plays solitare) to a rock.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  129. What a great idea by lightspawn · · Score: 1

    It's a gift you don't need a place to store!

    Quick, what's the combined volume of stuff people you care about got you that you don't actually need?

  130. Money Laundering Scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else could this be used for?

  131. "There is a sucker born every minute" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people are dumb enough to spend money on this they deserver what they get.

  132. Time = Money by Gwenna · · Score: 1

    If I'm going to play an online game, but only have a few hours to play each week because, say, I have a job, it makes sense to spend some real money to move ahead. If I were unemployed, it might make sense to spend those 40+ hours a week online finding stuff, then selling it.

    Playing online games such as Everquest shouldn't be restricted to people with lots of time. Without being able to buy items, those of us with little time would have a hard time advancing, and it wouldn't be as much fun.

    --
    More sugar!
    1. Re:Time = Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this for a while. trouble was, I ended up spending far more money on pot to make the endless grinding moreinteresting than I made form selling gear/characters.

      But it was a very pleasently stoned 3 months tho.... :D

  133. Re:Brilliant! Slashdot could make money this way.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just make a few comments to some company execs about how their website looks really /. worthy, and that bandwidth is getting really expensive these days. Leave a buisness card with a swiss bank account number on it :-)

  134. Breast by canineK9 · · Score: 1

    This is the best business model I've seen since the MardiGras artists that were charging women $5.00 to paint designs on their breasts. Paint with brush in one hand and hold it with the other. And try not to fall off your stool too often.

  135. Re:Status symbols - $6k piece of rock by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    Jesus. I think that everyone considering engagement should read this article.

    I feel like a sheep for having fallen for the Diamond is Forever crap.

    Fortunately(?) when I got engaged I wasn't making a lot of money and could only afford a 3/4 carat diamond. So I don't feel as bad as I would had I bought a bigger rock.

    wbs.

    --
    Huh?
  136. Buying diamond jewelry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to an auction. Buy an estate piece for 20% the cost of what the equivalent would be in a store. Go to a store and get it cleaned for free. DeBeers gets nothing. You get a happy partner...

  137. What is this? by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

    1999? Do I get a free computer with it?

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  138. D'oh. by vuo · · Score: 0

    This is not new. The service by Sulake Labs Oy, Habbo Hotel has already achieved some popularity by selling "virtual furniture" to a game which is like Sim with bad graphics and a weak chat system. The furniture is paid by sending a SMS text message, so the spent money is charged in the phone bill. The users are usually kids, who can spend a terrible amount of money without realizing it. It is available in English: Habbo Hotel

  139. This gives me hope. by shiwala · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see that I might just have a market to sell my DVD rewinder that's shaped like a car!

  140. Target Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can tell what their target market is from this wonderful quote on their www site:

    FunHi.com is NOT a place to rate or hate.
    FunHi is your friendly gangsta, playa pimp, banging hunie community. Haters and lamers shall be dealt with to the FULL extent of da law (and then some).


    Yeah, they are going after that "young middle class suburban dipshit" demographic. The same group that thinks it's cool to talk/dress like the rappers do in their videos.

  141. This... by ziggy_zero · · Score: 1

    ....along with the emergence of tv shows like "I Want a Famous Face" and "The Swan" has caused me to start babbling like an old man about how society is going to hell in a handbasket. And I'm only 18.

    --
    I belong to the ______ generation.
  142. Wow. . . by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1

    This site just screams ghetto. Even though it's a cantonese word, seeing the item descriptions is sad. Then you click to see profiles and your heart sinks to know people actually pay for this crap.

    I'm in shock.

  143. average beginning teacher salary $30,719. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Teachers are not nearly as poorly paid as you suggest.

    FROM: http://www.aft.org/press/salary/downloads/SalarySu rvey-TX.pdf

    WASHINGTON - Texas ranked 30th in the nation for its average teacher salaries during the 2001-02 school year, according to the latest American Federation of Teachers state-by-state teacher salary survey released today. Texas's average teacher salary for 2001-02 was $39,230, up 2.3 percent from the previous year. The state ranked 17th for its average beginning teacher salary, which was $30,938, up 3.7 percent from the previous year. The report, which covers the 50 states and the District of Columbia, is based on the most recent data available. The U.S. average teacher salary for the 2001-2002 school year was $44,367. The average beginning teacher salary was $30,719. Nationally, the AFT salary survey found that improved beginning teacher salaries and a depressed job market have helped alleviate the teacher shortage. But the good news is tempered by the report's finding that overall salary growth has been slowed because of state fiscal crises. "Thanks to better starting salaries, the shrinking teacher shortage should help reduce class sizes. But we can't afford to ignore and lose experienced teachers, whose salaries are not showing much improvement," said AFT President Sandra Feldman. Texas came in 30th nationally and posted the highest average teacher salary regionally. Here are the national rankings for the other Southwestern states: Arizona was 33rd at $38,510; New Mexico was 42nd at $36,716; and Oklahoma was 49th at $32,870. The AFT report also found that the shortage of teachers for all subjects in 2002 dropped to 1999 levels. However, considerable shortages still remain for math, physics, chemistry, earth science, biology and Spanish-language teachers. At the other end of the spectrum, there was an oversupply of physical education teachers. The report found a balanced supply and demand for elementary school teachers.

  144. Been there, seen that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever heard of Habbo Hotel?

  145. This is strange by goadya · · Score: 0

    pl3453...JU5t $eND C45h!

    --
    First they ignore you Then they laugh at you Then they fight you Then you win -Mohandas Gandhi
  146. It is a Sacrifice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These gifts effectively convert money into status in a way that buying something useful does not, because they are a "sacrifice". Just like sacrificing a lamb to your God (Old Testiment), Women love demonstration that you are willing to sacrifice something monetary, social, etc in an unguaranteed attempt to woo them. It demonstrates that Money means nothing to you compared to what they mean to you. It's more effective to get them a "pretty, but valueless token" (diamond ring, nifty computer icon, etc) in return because it's a memorium of what you sacrificed (and how few others would do so) every time they see or think about it. So, as counterintuitive as it sounds, it should be considered a currency conversion. :)

    1. Re:It is a Sacrifice by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is, why do men make such sacrifices to women? For the pussy? Yet men do it even when they don't get the pussy (online, or in situations where the possibility of getting pussy is very very low).

      I personally think it's a socially conditioned thing, and a power thing. Women control so much, men feel obligated to sacrifice (money, self-esteem, pride, sense of justice and fairness, whatever) to the altar of the female. So it's very similar to the old testament idea of sacrifice, it's a religious thing...

      I've experienced the same thing in the crack game. In fact, I got royally fucked up because I refused to sacrifice my crack to the crack hos. So they shut me down, they became jealous of the damn crack! Absurd, unbelievable, ridiculous, bizarre. Read more about it in my journal if you're so inclined...

  147. To think by thinkninja · · Score: 1

    If the girls (er, hunies) were to whore themselves out to an adult site like they do on FunHi they would actually get some of the take instead of just stupid gifs.

    --
    "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
  148. This is why we have to give tax cuts to the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else could they afford to puy pretend stuff for their pretend girlfriends

  149. Just hack the source by jacklebot · · Score: 1

    Why pay 15 bucks for an animated gif of a F*****g jet, when you just hack the source and get them for free. This is just plain stupid. Jackal

    1. Re:Just hack the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are the village idiot of hackers. YOu just dont get it do you?

  150. Diamonds for aesthetic reasons... by Quiet+Sound · · Score: 1

    This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them

    And how many of them can tell the difference between a diamond and cubic zirconium? Incidently, a close female friend of mine would prefer cubic zirconium because of the price difference.

  151. my gf threw me out by pjgeer · · Score: 1

    after closer inspection revealed it to be a digital cubic zirconia.

  152. Americans by Raunch · · Score: 1

    Americans are idiots. I can say this because I am one. Nonetheless, the value of an item is for the most part a direct function of it's scarcity. Gold is expensive because there is only so much to go around. Diamonds are expensive becasue idiotic americans think that there aren't very many of them.

    Same goes for digital gifts. Authentic ones cost money not everyone has one. Does anyone out there really thing that we are spending our money on things we need? Pet rocks?

    If I didn't have my iPod I'd be heartbroken(true) but do I need it? Well, whatever makes you happy. What else has value attached to its scarcity? Karma point maybe.... No. Couldn't be.

    --
    George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
  153. Cubic zirconium as good as diamond? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've been reading too much ad copy, and not looking at enough gems. Cubic zirconium has a very different index of refraction from diamond, so instead of a multicolored sparkle it just looks white. Also, CZ decays in UV light; if you wear one outside for a few days, it'll cloud up.

    That said, there are several other very attractive white gems. Moissanite looks pretty good, and good-looking white sapphires are starting to come out of the labs for cheap.

  154. Re:average beginning teacher salary $30,719. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF did you post this non related drivel here?

  155. funhi user by porcusPiscis · · Score: 1

    i have it on good authority that one of the interviewees is a slashdotter ;) george

  156. Its an obvious hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a joke guys... couple days to April fulls and all. Don't take it seriuosly you foolz.

  157. jewelry depreciation? by geoswan · · Score: 1

    For those of us not in the know, could you outline how and why jewelry depreciates? All I know about jewelry I learned from the antiques roadshow.

    1. Re:jewelry depreciation? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's so much depreciation as the fact that diamonds (and diamond jewelry) cost one thing 'new' and a hell of a lot less than that used. It's kinda' like the price drop on a car when you drive it off the lot. Even if you try to resell it an hour later, it's worth less. DeBeers has a great interest in people buying new diamonds and has done a lot of marketing work to ensure that there is limited secondary trade in used diamonds. The only jewelery that holds it's value is stuff that was done by a particular designer or is built around a one-of-a-kind gem (Hope Diamond, etc.). You won't even find any kind of blue book value on diamonds or jewelery. Your best bet, if you want to get maximum cash for a gemstone is to try and sell it to a private individual.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  158. Microsoft SQL Error by dreadlock9 · · Score: 1

    I just joined funhi, and when I tried update my program I got this:

    Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80040e14'

    Line 1: Incorrect syntax near ','. /my/accountinfo.asp, line 142

    Looks like I wont be upgrading my pimp status on funhi :( hehe

  159. Re:average beginning teacher salary $30,719. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Because the parent said teachers are underpaid and I was showing him that he was talking out his ass.

  160. An old Soviet joke by danila · · Score: 0, Troll

    Q: Is it true that under communism we will be able to order food via telephone?
    A: Yes, but it will be delivered via television.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  161. I like that joke... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    ...much better than my own. Thanks for making me laugh! I'll bet that's the only time this April 1 I actually find something funny.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley