Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard, Square/Enix Ban Yet More Farmers
Eurogamer has the news that both Blizzard and Square/Enix have banned another batch of players for farming. The number of accounts, and the amount of money removed from the economy, is astonishing. From the article: "According to the World of Warcraft website, some 30,000 accounts were banned last month - and, as a result, more than 30 million gold were removed from the economy across all realms ... Based on the results of this investigation, more than 250 [FFXI] accounts among those found to be involved in large-scale RMT operations have been terminated... Thanks to these measures, more than 250 billion gil has been removed from circulation."
A similar topic to the World or Warcraft policy on sex in games.+ guild+-+page+2/2100-1043_3-6033112-2.html?tag=st.n um
s pa?threadID=1332&start=45&tstart=0
http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian
You can read more about the Transvestite, Gay, Lesbian and Bi guild on the official GnH forums. Be careful to not make them upset, as their own forum moderator (Deodatus (P.E.) states, "Here's the deal, from this point forward only discussion about this guild or whatever the guild leader deems as conversation for the guild." So the Gay guild leader is the one calling the shots over there for what is or is not allowed.
GnH official forum
http://community.godsandheroes.com/jive4/thread.j
I know it seems silly these days, but farm subsidizing farms is really about maintaining American farms in case if there were say... World War III or a blockade with the Soviets over running all our 3rd world food producers we'd still have the infrastructure to feed ourselves (nevermind the nuclear fallout)
But I suppose it also is a political move to prevent other nations from getting a must have commodity (you know food) from being controlled by other nations in which we would have to go about invading them to provide more of this item. You know... Kind of like oil.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Farmers in other countries seem to stay afloat without subsidies. Subsidies only make the system more inefficient because you don't have to put in any effort to excel if the system will pay you to do nothing.
Land doesn't work that way. It is where it is. A given piece of land is either capable of producing food, or not. If you really want to ensure any of this, the solution is to enact legislation preventing building residences or non-farming businesses on arable farmland.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Farmers in other countries seem to stay afloat without subsidies.
not really. not in the canadian west anyway. a bunch of the farmers are barely hanging on and there are currently a lot of farms for sale around here.
subsidies are a good thing IMO, as you can't really make a profit off of basic food stuffs (at least on the raw materials level), so people have to be compelled to produce them rather than something more profitable as a cash crop.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
That threat has long passed. World War III ran from 1947 to 1991. From the perspective of the United States, it was a mostly cold war except for some major police actions in Korea and Vietnam. Prof. Eliot A. Cohen and other analysts have described the Global War on Terrorism as "World War IV".
First they came for the farmers
but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a farmer
Then they came for the griefers
but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a griefer
Then they came for the campers
but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a camper
But at least it's still a safe place for homophobes
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I think that the real reason for farm subsidies is to maintain an excess of production in the country. Natural economics would tend to drive farmers out of business until you started getting into shortages and the price of food rose to the point that people can sustain themselves in the farming industry. It'd be lean and mean, but unable to feed everyone in the case of a disaster.
Then you get a number of subsidies that amount to paying farmers in exchange for all the regulations they have to comply with that raise their cost of doing business.
Of course, my idea of a intelligent 'subsidy' would be the government paying enough money to have a three year supply of wheat/corn/etc. Each year the oldest is sold, new grain is put in it's place. Given natural wastage and decay, some of the grain would no longer be considered human edible and would have to be sold as feed or worse. So it'd increase average demand and provide the country with a comfortable reserve in case of widespread crop failures.
I say three years because even with massive farming failures we should be able to adjust, somehow, in that time.
I don't read AC A human right