I just watched the press conference and the officer addressing the press said that they had no reason to believe that the incidents are linked. There might only be one shooter, or there might have been two. They are not discounting either possibility at the moment.
Also, I think the other person (I didn't catch who he was since I tuned in a few minutes late, but I assume he was a faculty member of some sort) mentioned that they closed the residence right after the first incident. The reason why they didn't close the rest of the campus was that according to the information they had, the shooter had left campus and might have even been going out of state.
Most of the rest of the press conference was the typical "I don't know"/"I can't release that information right now" rhetoric. I think this leads some credence to the possibility that there might be two shooters, since they wouldn't want to tell the other suspect what information they have. This is pure speculation, though.
who does the managing?
as a subset of that: can we trust them? what about potential abuse? etc. how does restriction produce greater freedom? how can you get more free than uncensored? Allow me to skip your first point for now. The idea that restriction provides greater freedom is actually shown in many aspects of life. The restriction of nasty behaviour provides greater freedom of productive behaviour. Consider:
- Restricting the freedom to murder and rape provides greater freedom for people to move about and do productive things instead of having to fear going out. - Restricting the freedom to grab face masks provides greater freedom for football players to do their thing without having to fear for their head getting ripped off. - Restricting the freedom for teachers to have sex with high school kids (for countries/states with lower ages of consent) provides greater freedom for kids to learn.
The entire concept of "government" is the restriction of freedom of certain behaviours to provide greater freedom for all. This automatically answers your next question, which is to say that censorship is a form of enforcing the restriction, thus leading to greater freedom.
Going back to your first point, though. I think you answered your own question. What makes Slashdot work? A relatively robust moderating system that punishes unwanted behaviour (trolls/flaimbaits/etc are punished by having their posts not shown through the use of filters) and allows greater freedom for productive behaviour (insightful/interesting/etc posts are promoted). This answers your sub-question as well. In other words, the community is doing the managing. And, to answer your sub-question, the more people you have managing the content, there is less bias in censoring unwanted content (usually).
HOWEVER, after saying all that, I don't believe in restricting speech. Simply because of the fact that someone may have a perfectly valid point, but be censored because the rest of the community doesn't like what they say.
I wouldn't put it that bluntly. Although I would tend to agree, there are some complications.
I believe that personal transactions between people should not be taxed. If I hold a garage sale to sell off my used clothes/books/toys, I don't think the CRA (Canadian IRS) will come knocking on my door if I don't report that on my tax forms. In fact, I pretty sure we don't even have to report garage sale income. Likewise, if I make a rare sale of my virtual junk, $10 for a purp [Destiny], for example (excuse me for using old examples, I haven't played the WoW for a while), or even selling my account because I don't want to play anymore, I shouldn't have to pay taxes.
However, it is when you make a business out of it that it gets messy. It's one thing for someone to sell his old vinyl collection and garage sales once or twice a year, but it's something else entirely when his "garage sale" is going on once or twice a week, and he constantly replenishes his "collection". At that point, it becomes a business, and the CRA/IRS might have a bit of a problem with that. Similarly, when selling a purple drop occasionally turns to regularly selling gold, DKP, or other services/items for real world cash, it becomes a business and not just simple personal transactions.
Then you run into the question of who collects the tax, and how taxes are administered. The "US" version of WoW is actually the North American version. Do Canadians pay American tax because we play on American servers? Or are people taxed in their state/province of residence? Does it matter who the buyer is and where they live? Can the seller write off their WoW subscription, related hardware purchases, or other "business" expenses (Cheetos and Bawls)? Where do you draw the line between personal transactions and commercial transactions? How about businesses based in foreign countries (a la stereotypical Chinese farmer)?
Of course, there's the other complication that you're actually NOT ALLOWED to do this according to the Blizzard EULA. If Blizzard decides to change the EULA to legally allow transactions, how will THEY profit from it (if you think Blizzard isn't going to pounce at the opportunity to make some extra cash, you're being pretty naive)? There are too many factors to consider. I don't think the market is big enough right now for any government intervention. Sure, there may be several hundred thousand changing hands each year, but that's far from being a major market. Chasing after people for taxes might be more trouble than it's worth.
So after saying all of that, it is probably all moot. I don't think anything will happen in the foreseeable future, simply because the scope of the market is so small right now. Not only that, but the effective lifetime of each MMO is pretty short in the grand scheme of things.
IIRC, Apple does not make the hardware. Apple designs the hardware, and contracts ASUS (at least as far as the MBs and MBPs are concerned I think, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) to manufacture it. Apple is, as it seems to me, more of a lifestyle and design firm moreso than a typical hardware/software company.
To butcher an old saying: Apple doesn't make the steak. Apple makes it sizzle.
Thanks for the recommendations. I already do all of that.
However, the reality is that there is an entire genre of games tailored towards my preferences. As are there genres of games tailored to other people's preferences. I fail to see how my preferences are inferior to yours. They may be completely different, sure, but since when did the word "game" come to mean anything other than interactive activities of entertainment? Football is a game. Baseball is a game. Call of Duty is a game. Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Chess is a game. Are all those games the same? Are any of them superior to another?
I take it you like RPGs. Well then, your preferences are different than people who like FPSes. Does that make FPSes or RPGs or Football or D&D or any other game any more inferior or superior to another?
I expect different things from the games that I like than you do from the games that you like. It's just that simple.
I prefer FMVs to scripted in-game-engine cutscenes, because FMVs provide "prettier pictures", more natural movement, etc. I am not "against" scripted in-game-engine cutscenes, per se, I just don't think that they are of the same quality as FMVs. In fact, if the level of detail in scripted cutscenes were close to the level of detail in FMVs, I WOULD prefer scripted cutscenes.
Now, here's another question: What if the developers are now using the space for high-res textures, more realistic looking models, so that they can make scripted cut scenes of the same quality as FMVs? Why is it that we are assuming they're for detailed FMVs rather than high-res texture packs?
Nice job on the bias/assumption.
I, and a ton of people I know, play the game SOLELY for the cutscenes, storyline, voiceovers, etc. The gameplay is more of a bonus for us. It all comes down to preference. I play through FF games just to experience the story. We play games as a form of interactive movie, if you will. And if this will enhance our experience, good!
Just because new technology doesn't enhance YOUR experience, it doesn't mean it doesn't enhance ANYONE'S experience.
Slashdot Mirror
I just watched the press conference and the officer addressing the press said that they had no reason to believe that the incidents are linked. There might only be one shooter, or there might have been two. They are not discounting either possibility at the moment.
Also, I think the other person (I didn't catch who he was since I tuned in a few minutes late, but I assume he was a faculty member of some sort) mentioned that they closed the residence right after the first incident. The reason why they didn't close the rest of the campus was that according to the information they had, the shooter had left campus and might have even been going out of state.
Most of the rest of the press conference was the typical "I don't know"/"I can't release that information right now" rhetoric. I think this leads some credence to the possibility that there might be two shooters, since they wouldn't want to tell the other suspect what information they have. This is pure speculation, though.
as a subset of that: can we trust them? what about potential abuse? etc.
how does restriction produce greater freedom?
how can you get more free than uncensored? Allow me to skip your first point for now. The idea that restriction provides greater freedom is actually shown in many aspects of life. The restriction of nasty behaviour provides greater freedom of productive behaviour. Consider:
- Restricting the freedom to murder and rape provides greater freedom for people to move about and do productive things instead of having to fear going out.
- Restricting the freedom to grab face masks provides greater freedom for football players to do their thing without having to fear for their head getting ripped off.
- Restricting the freedom for teachers to have sex with high school kids (for countries/states with lower ages of consent) provides greater freedom for kids to learn.
The entire concept of "government" is the restriction of freedom of certain behaviours to provide greater freedom for all. This automatically answers your next question, which is to say that censorship is a form of enforcing the restriction, thus leading to greater freedom.
Going back to your first point, though. I think you answered your own question. What makes Slashdot work? A relatively robust moderating system that punishes unwanted behaviour (trolls/flaimbaits/etc are punished by having their posts not shown through the use of filters) and allows greater freedom for productive behaviour (insightful/interesting/etc posts are promoted). This answers your sub-question as well. In other words, the community is doing the managing. And, to answer your sub-question, the more people you have managing the content, there is less bias in censoring unwanted content (usually).
HOWEVER, after saying all that, I don't believe in restricting speech. Simply because of the fact that someone may have a perfectly valid point, but be censored because the rest of the community doesn't like what they say.
I wouldn't put it that bluntly. Although I would tend to agree, there are some complications.
I believe that personal transactions between people should not be taxed. If I hold a garage sale to sell off my used clothes/books/toys, I don't think the CRA (Canadian IRS) will come knocking on my door if I don't report that on my tax forms. In fact, I pretty sure we don't even have to report garage sale income. Likewise, if I make a rare sale of my virtual junk, $10 for a purp [Destiny], for example (excuse me for using old examples, I haven't played the WoW for a while), or even selling my account because I don't want to play anymore, I shouldn't have to pay taxes.
However, it is when you make a business out of it that it gets messy. It's one thing for someone to sell his old vinyl collection and garage sales once or twice a year, but it's something else entirely when his "garage sale" is going on once or twice a week, and he constantly replenishes his "collection". At that point, it becomes a business, and the CRA/IRS might have a bit of a problem with that. Similarly, when selling a purple drop occasionally turns to regularly selling gold, DKP, or other services/items for real world cash, it becomes a business and not just simple personal transactions.
Then you run into the question of who collects the tax, and how taxes are administered. The "US" version of WoW is actually the North American version. Do Canadians pay American tax because we play on American servers? Or are people taxed in their state/province of residence? Does it matter who the buyer is and where they live? Can the seller write off their WoW subscription, related hardware purchases, or other "business" expenses (Cheetos and Bawls)? Where do you draw the line between personal transactions and commercial transactions? How about businesses based in foreign countries (a la stereotypical Chinese farmer)?
Of course, there's the other complication that you're actually NOT ALLOWED to do this according to the Blizzard EULA. If Blizzard decides to change the EULA to legally allow transactions, how will THEY profit from it (if you think Blizzard isn't going to pounce at the opportunity to make some extra cash, you're being pretty naive)? There are too many factors to consider. I don't think the market is big enough right now for any government intervention. Sure, there may be several hundred thousand changing hands each year, but that's far from being a major market. Chasing after people for taxes might be more trouble than it's worth.
So after saying all of that, it is probably all moot. I don't think anything will happen in the foreseeable future, simply because the scope of the market is so small right now. Not only that, but the effective lifetime of each MMO is pretty short in the grand scheme of things.
Or, they could make a slot in the guitar controller, and slip the wiimote into it! No need for any unnecessary extended objects.
IIRC, Apple does not make the hardware. Apple designs the hardware, and contracts ASUS (at least as far as the MBs and MBPs are concerned I think, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) to manufacture it. Apple is, as it seems to me, more of a lifestyle and design firm moreso than a typical hardware/software company.
To butcher an old saying: Apple doesn't make the steak. Apple makes it sizzle.
Thanks for the recommendations. I already do all of that.
However, the reality is that there is an entire genre of games tailored towards my preferences. As are there genres of games tailored to other people's preferences. I fail to see how my preferences are inferior to yours. They may be completely different, sure, but since when did the word "game" come to mean anything other than interactive activities of entertainment? Football is a game. Baseball is a game. Call of Duty is a game. Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Chess is a game. Are all those games the same? Are any of them superior to another?
I take it you like RPGs. Well then, your preferences are different than people who like FPSes. Does that make FPSes or RPGs or Football or D&D or any other game any more inferior or superior to another?
I expect different things from the games that I like than you do from the games that you like. It's just that simple.
I prefer FMVs to scripted in-game-engine cutscenes, because FMVs provide "prettier pictures", more natural movement, etc. I am not "against" scripted in-game-engine cutscenes, per se, I just don't think that they are of the same quality as FMVs. In fact, if the level of detail in scripted cutscenes were close to the level of detail in FMVs, I WOULD prefer scripted cutscenes. Now, here's another question: What if the developers are now using the space for high-res textures, more realistic looking models, so that they can make scripted cut scenes of the same quality as FMVs? Why is it that we are assuming they're for detailed FMVs rather than high-res texture packs?
Nice job on the bias/assumption. I, and a ton of people I know, play the game SOLELY for the cutscenes, storyline, voiceovers, etc. The gameplay is more of a bonus for us. It all comes down to preference. I play through FF games just to experience the story. We play games as a form of interactive movie, if you will. And if this will enhance our experience, good! Just because new technology doesn't enhance YOUR experience, it doesn't mean it doesn't enhance ANYONE'S experience.