I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I'd like to correct one small factual error.
It's difficult to know how many households have guns, since there isn't any (official, formal, comprehensive) firearm registry (aside, of course, from the class III firearms registry)*. However, most estimates put the number of American households with at least one firearm in the vicinity of 80 million. There are an estimated ~200 million firearms in civilian hands in the US.
*Note that I don't consider this a bad thing; these days I sometimes think it's the only thing preventing a complete collapse into de facto totalitarianism. I do find it interesting that there is a large overlap between the group of people who think Bush was illegally elected and the group of people who think personal firearm ownership should be registered, restricted, or outright banned. My question to them is: if Bush was illegally elected, then the election process is broken. Logically, then, we can't trust the election process to fix the problem. If we disarm the population, what recourse do we then have?
International cooperation is a good thing. And it's nice to share a standard frequency.
But I also think this is nothing more than a recognition of reality. Unless they deliberately enforced licensing restrictions preventing it, I'm quite sure the market would have provided a dual-system device very shortly after Galileo was operative.
You mean, able to process facts like living in a society which places enormous social value on receiving a diamond ring? That the value of diamonds is not an accurate reflection of their inherent scarcity does not change the value of diamonds.
Or, put another way, gold and platinum are just about as arbitrarily valued as diamonds. Gold in particular, as it's a specifically unsuitable metal for an item one intends to wear on a finger for one's entire life. It's about as undurable as one could hope for.
You, obviously, are free to take a principled stand on any issue you wish to. But it's not accurate to claim that anyone who wants a diamond ring is necessarily ignorant of facts. That person may just not weight the "true" economic value of a diamond over the social value of a diamond to the same extent you do.
I'm operating with a different definition of fear. If I'm reading the article correctly - and I may not be - they're addressing emotional fear. When my friend offers me the hot stock tip, I'm not deciding against it because I've got an emotional fear response (butterflies in the stomach, heightened heart rate, goosebumps, etc), I'm deciding against it because I recognize that it's a bad risk/reward proposition.
Insofar as that represents fear of losing a lot of money, then it is a fear response - but I don't believe that to be the type of fear response the drug affects.
Fear makes us cautious of our actions, and stops us from doing stupid things.
I disagree. There are lots of things I don't do not because I'm emotionally afraid of them, but because I recognize them as bad ideas. I don't drink a twelve pack a night because of the health problems and discomfort it would cause. That's not a fear response, it's a "that's stupid" response.
Unless one categorizes all desire to avoid negative consequences as fear - which I think is neither accurate in itself, nor the definition of "fear" used in the article - I see no reason to think that people without fear would suddenly become crazed, irrational actors constantly committing unintentional suicide.
Everyone seems to be hopping on the "but fear is useful!" bandwagon - but I'm not sure it is. Fear, the emotion, is an instinctive reaction to danger, whether that danger is real or simply perceived. I don't see that it's necessarily bad to replace the gut response with a rational response.
That is, I doubt the drug will remove awareness of danger, simply the emotional reaction to it. While supersoldiers leap to every SF fan's mind, imagine what this could do for everyone who's got any kind of irrational fear. Fear of flying, fear of public speaking, fear of talking to girls, the whole list of phobias. Even in situations where fear is justified - wartime combatants, for example - I don't know that fear is helpful in comparison to the ability to rationally assess threats.
Regardless, in society at large most people most of the time aren't afraid of real threats, they're afraid of imagined (or at least, disproportionately perceived) threats.
Besides which, even the real threats faced by a significant percentage of people in modern industrialized society strike me as predominantly not susceptible to the "fight, flight, or freeze" response.
If you're serious about using RAID arrays and want to have uber-storage, 10 SATA ports isn't that over the top. I don't disagree that it's overkill, to be sure, but not to a degree I find silly for a top-end, top-dollar product.
4 GbE ports does seem a bit much, though. 2 you could team on a home network to potentially good effect, but with 4 you've got teaming and redundancy (assuming you can even set it up that way). I really don't see the need for network redundancy in my apartment. I suppose it does open up the possibility of using the box as a router...but I wouldn't want to do that with my main rig anyway, so it still seems sort of pointless.
I don't know about that...how many PCIe 16x slots do you use in an average server? How much do you care if your MB runs silent in your average data center? What do you need 10 USB ports, or even a single Firewire port for in a DL380? Or an optical audio output?
No, this board looks to me like it's exactly what they're marketing it as: a mainboard for the home enthusiast.
That's - at least in large part - due to there being no real compelling reason for optical drives to be SATA. An 18x DVD reader is moving, what, roughly 24Mb/sec?
I also don't expect to see SATA floppy drives available any time soon.
Exactly my point. Other posters seem to believe that everyone being "outed" would lead to some sort of "everything that isn't evil is acceptable" culture. I tend to agree with you, however, that it would lead to the kind of low-grade intolerance of differentness we have in modern society becoming high-grade intolernace with all but the force of law behind it.
But you already have a system exhaust fan. Going from a 100 mm fan to a 120 mm fan (running at the same RPM to move more air) won't increase the noise level as much as keeping the 100 mm and also having a whiny little 40 mm fan on the northbridge. And that's assuming that you actually need to increase the total air throughput.
I've certainly built systems where the total air throughput was more than adequate to move all the heat, but it wasn't adequate to cool down a specific hotspot. Which isn't surprising, since this is why we've got heat sinks and fans on CPUs: they don't increase total air flow through the case, they just even out the heat load to take better advantage of that total air flow.
Anyway, my point is that this really should make the system quieter, either because you get to ditch the particularly noisy little fan on the chipset in favor of a size increase on your biggest (and therefore quietest) fan, or because you can just take better advantage of your existing biggest (and therefore quietest) fan.
I believe that there is also the assumption that objects are not receding at greater than the speed of light.
You're right, that's also an assumption being made.
The expanding universe seems to imply that the size of the universe that we can actually interact with is finite.
Not only finite, but shrinking. It was just a couple weeks ago I read this article on ars, which asserts that 100 billion years from now, universal expansion will have progressed to the point where we can't see anything that isn't part of our local cluster (which will a single, large galaxy at that point).
Yesterday, AT&T weighed in. In a letter to the FCC, AT&T said Google's "eleventh hour request" was self-serving because [bleat, bleat, bleat]
Google, you scamps.
Say it ain't so! I'm ashamed of you. Do no evil, indeed. How can you not follow the example of fine, upstanding, generous, social-minded, humble, helpful, concerned, responsible, AT&T?
AT&T - now there's who you should take your cue from. They've never had anything other than the general welfare and the good of the little guy in their warm, altruistic hearts. I can't believe the FCC would even deign to hear the recommendations of anyone else, since AT&T has proven time and time again that all they want - all they've ever wanted - is what's best for everyone, even at great peril to their bottom line.
Pervasive monitoring would "out" a lot of human behavior and necessarily change social norms
Agreed.
I do not think, however, it's safe to say that it would change them for the better. One might hope that social norms would change to become more accepting - that is, that all behaviors that are not illegal or unethical would also not be shameful. One might fear, however, that what would really happen is a tyranny of the majority situation regarding such behaviors, moving them from simply shameful to practically illegal. Behaviors engaged in by any minority (by which I mean mathematical minortiy, not ethnic minority) would, potentially, be threatened.
Furries, for example. As far as I can tell, there is nothing unethical, illegal, or immoral about that particular fetish. Nonetheless, in an "everything is public" society, the population of non-furries is so much greater than the population of furries that the furries might just be effectively eliminated.
Obviously, there are plenty of other examples that could be used, but I hope you take my point.
In addition, there is another, more general concern: for all of human history, societies have found some activities to be taboo (I mean this as distinct from illegal). Assuming that some form of natural selection of societies takes place, the fact that this is still true may indicate that there is societal value in holding some behaviors as, while not illegal, worthy of censure.
Alternatively, of course, it could be argued that it is a form of societal natural selection to have a privacy-less society, and having no taboos is the next evolutionary step.
Of course, if it's an evolutionary dead end...well, I would rather not be a member of the group to find that out.
That is, in part, the problem. One of the arguments against including the Bill of Rights was that the enumeration of certain rights would implicitly mean that some rights are more protected than others. The inclusion of the 9th was intended to avoid that problem.
Clearly, it has not succeeded.
Insofar as we wish to abide by the intent of the founders, there should be no distinction made between the rights enumerated by amendments 1-8, and the rights collectively enumerated (not that the phrase actually makes sense, but I hope you take my meaning) in the 9th (and 10th, for that matter).
The hundreds of tiny embarassments that everyone is guilty of.
Society to date has depended on much of what one does being private - everyone knows that 90% of men masturbate (and 10% lie about it), but it's not polite to discuss or exhibit, and it's embarassing to be discovered. This is, perhaps, irrational, but it is also the way things are.
Maybe you don't want people knowing that you bought Hairspray on HD-DVD. Maybe you don't want people knowing that you're gay. Maybe you don't want people knowing you had an abortion. Maybe you don't want people knowing your great grandfather owned slaves. Maybe you don't want people knowing you smoke weed. Maybe you don't want people knowing you donate money to the Republican party. Maybe you don't want people knowing you did 3 years' hard time - whether or not you were actually guilty. Maybe you don't want your abusive ex-husband to know where you live.
The other alternative is to make sure you stay both legal and conformant to all social norms. Which, even if possible, isn't the way most people want to live their lives.
Given society as it currently is, those are your choices. Your personal crusade to change the social norms such that nothing legitimate is embarassing any more, though possibly impressive, is unlikely to bear fruit before privacy is eliminated.
Uppity computer scientist thinks she can teach engineers more about those technology-dielectric things. I'll show her a dielectric - I'll teach her not to catch those technology-capacitor things!
Olber's Paradox isn't necessarily a problem. It's only a problem if you assume a macroscopically homogeneous universe that has been around forever.
If the universe isn't macroscopically homogeneous, you wouldn't necessarily see light everywhere. For a degenerate case, imagine a universe such that there is an infinite number of galaxies which are all coplanar. You would have one bright band in the sky, but most of the sky would be dark.
If you assume the universe is infinite in space but finite in time, then it's possible that there simply hasn't been time for light from objects more than ~14 billion light years away to reach us.
Really, all Olber's paradox teaches us is that the universe cannot have all of the properties of being infinite in space, infinite in time, and macroscopically homogeneous. Our observations indicate that (to the limit of our ability to perceive) it is macroscopically homgeneous, so at least one of the other two must not be the case.
1) Poker is, in fact, a game of skill. But if you actually think that the amount of money one brings to the table relative to other players isn't a huge determining factor of how well one does, you obviously haven't played much poker. Notably, this is why poker tournaments generally specifiy how much money one starts with: to level the playing field.
2) M:tG was, in large part, about who had spent more money on cards. Just like street racing is, in large part, about who has spent more money on his car. The other part - and a significant one - is the skill of building a deck given the cards you have. A random assortment of super rare cards generally won't beat a carefully crafted deck. But you're right in that actually playing the game is the least important skill involved.
3) Of course you didn't walk into a level playing field. It's a collectible card game, for crying out loud. The whole point was to make the field non-level. That's precisely what separates it from other card games: the game is in the collection and setup, not in the playing. It's perfectly understandable to not like it because of that, but it's not like you're being cheated. That's the nature of the game.
4) Not that it matters, but I won't deny I went through my M:tG phase in college. I almost completely stopped buying cards in 1995. I bought one deck in 1996 and one deck in 1997, and not a single card since then. Total money spent? Probably on the order of $400.
How is this surprising? I imagine you'd get a similar reaction if you sat down at a poker table and produced a stack of hundreds you had run off on your inkjet. The scarcity of the game piece (in this case, money) is key to the game.
Similarly in M:tG, the game balance depends on the rarity of the cards. Free access to as many copies as desired of whatever cards you choose does completely change the nature of the game (which is why you always want to play with people in similar financial circumstances as yourself...sort of like poker).
If your point was simply to highlight that WotC was selling cards rather than a game, fair enough - though I don't think there's anyone who would argue with you. It is, after all, called a collectible card game for a reason.
If your point was to make a negative comment about either your friends or players of M:tG, however, I think you missed the mark.
Heh. If only I could go back in time......you would tell WotC to not completely ruin their hojillion-dollar game by flooding the market with expansions every couple months, steadily increasing the power/cost ratio of all their cards, regularly invalidating old (valuable!) cards, and engaging in general asshattery? Or that there's no legitimate place in tabletop RPG for version "3.5" of anything?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I'd like to correct one small factual error.
It's difficult to know how many households have guns, since there isn't any (official, formal, comprehensive) firearm registry (aside, of course, from the class III firearms registry)*. However, most estimates put the number of American households with at least one firearm in the vicinity of 80 million. There are an estimated ~200 million firearms in civilian hands in the US.
*Note that I don't consider this a bad thing; these days I sometimes think it's the only thing preventing a complete collapse into de facto totalitarianism. I do find it interesting that there is a large overlap between the group of people who think Bush was illegally elected and the group of people who think personal firearm ownership should be registered, restricted, or outright banned. My question to them is: if Bush was illegally elected, then the election process is broken. Logically, then, we can't trust the election process to fix the problem. If we disarm the population, what recourse do we then have?
While I didn't know that before, I find it strangely unsurprising.
International cooperation is a good thing. And it's nice to share a standard frequency.
But I also think this is nothing more than a recognition of reality. Unless they deliberately enforced licensing restrictions preventing it, I'm quite sure the market would have provided a dual-system device very shortly after Galileo was operative.
You mean, able to process facts like living in a society which places enormous social value on receiving a diamond ring? That the value of diamonds is not an accurate reflection of their inherent scarcity does not change the value of diamonds.
Or, put another way, gold and platinum are just about as arbitrarily valued as diamonds. Gold in particular, as it's a specifically unsuitable metal for an item one intends to wear on a finger for one's entire life. It's about as undurable as one could hope for.
You, obviously, are free to take a principled stand on any issue you wish to. But it's not accurate to claim that anyone who wants a diamond ring is necessarily ignorant of facts. That person may just not weight the "true" economic value of a diamond over the social value of a diamond to the same extent you do.
But you're assuming that those 9 times out of 10 don't cost you anything significant. If that's not true, then your logic doesn't hold.
I'm operating with a different definition of fear. If I'm reading the article correctly - and I may not be - they're addressing emotional fear. When my friend offers me the hot stock tip, I'm not deciding against it because I've got an emotional fear response (butterflies in the stomach, heightened heart rate, goosebumps, etc), I'm deciding against it because I recognize that it's a bad risk/reward proposition.
Insofar as that represents fear of losing a lot of money, then it is a fear response - but I don't believe that to be the type of fear response the drug affects.
Fear makes us cautious of our actions, and stops us from doing stupid things.
I disagree. There are lots of things I don't do not because I'm emotionally afraid of them, but because I recognize them as bad ideas. I don't drink a twelve pack a night because of the health problems and discomfort it would cause. That's not a fear response, it's a "that's stupid" response.
Unless one categorizes all desire to avoid negative consequences as fear - which I think is neither accurate in itself, nor the definition of "fear" used in the article - I see no reason to think that people without fear would suddenly become crazed, irrational actors constantly committing unintentional suicide.
Everyone seems to be hopping on the "but fear is useful!" bandwagon - but I'm not sure it is. Fear, the emotion, is an instinctive reaction to danger, whether that danger is real or simply perceived. I don't see that it's necessarily bad to replace the gut response with a rational response.
That is, I doubt the drug will remove awareness of danger, simply the emotional reaction to it. While supersoldiers leap to every SF fan's mind, imagine what this could do for everyone who's got any kind of irrational fear. Fear of flying, fear of public speaking, fear of talking to girls, the whole list of phobias. Even in situations where fear is justified - wartime combatants, for example - I don't know that fear is helpful in comparison to the ability to rationally assess threats.
Regardless, in society at large most people most of the time aren't afraid of real threats, they're afraid of imagined (or at least, disproportionately perceived) threats.
Besides which, even the real threats faced by a significant percentage of people in modern industrialized society strike me as predominantly not susceptible to the "fight, flight, or freeze" response.
If you're serious about using RAID arrays and want to have uber-storage, 10 SATA ports isn't that over the top. I don't disagree that it's overkill, to be sure, but not to a degree I find silly for a top-end, top-dollar product.
4 GbE ports does seem a bit much, though. 2 you could team on a home network to potentially good effect, but with 4 you've got teaming and redundancy (assuming you can even set it up that way). I really don't see the need for network redundancy in my apartment. I suppose it does open up the possibility of using the box as a router...but I wouldn't want to do that with my main rig anyway, so it still seems sort of pointless.
I don't know about that...how many PCIe 16x slots do you use in an average server? How much do you care if your MB runs silent in your average data center? What do you need 10 USB ports, or even a single Firewire port for in a DL380? Or an optical audio output?
No, this board looks to me like it's exactly what they're marketing it as: a mainboard for the home enthusiast.
That's - at least in large part - due to there being no real compelling reason for optical drives to be SATA. An 18x DVD reader is moving, what, roughly 24Mb/sec?
I also don't expect to see SATA floppy drives available any time soon.
Bah. I don't think I'll ever see a resonance cascade--
--you'll have to excuse me. I have to go wait for someone...in the test chamber.
Exactly my point. Other posters seem to believe that everyone being "outed" would lead to some sort of "everything that isn't evil is acceptable" culture. I tend to agree with you, however, that it would lead to the kind of low-grade intolerance of differentness we have in modern society becoming high-grade intolernace with all but the force of law behind it.
But you already have a system exhaust fan. Going from a 100 mm fan to a 120 mm fan (running at the same RPM to move more air) won't increase the noise level as much as keeping the 100 mm and also having a whiny little 40 mm fan on the northbridge. And that's assuming that you actually need to increase the total air throughput.
I've certainly built systems where the total air throughput was more than adequate to move all the heat, but it wasn't adequate to cool down a specific hotspot. Which isn't surprising, since this is why we've got heat sinks and fans on CPUs: they don't increase total air flow through the case, they just even out the heat load to take better advantage of that total air flow.
Anyway, my point is that this really should make the system quieter, either because you get to ditch the particularly noisy little fan on the chipset in favor of a size increase on your biggest (and therefore quietest) fan, or because you can just take better advantage of your existing biggest (and therefore quietest) fan.
I believe that there is also the assumption that objects are not receding at greater than the speed of light.
You're right, that's also an assumption being made.
The expanding universe seems to imply that the size of the universe that we can actually interact with is finite.
Not only finite, but shrinking. It was just a couple weeks ago I read this article on ars, which asserts that 100 billion years from now, universal expansion will have progressed to the point where we can't see anything that isn't part of our local cluster (which will a single, large galaxy at that point).
Yesterday, AT&T weighed in. In a letter to the FCC, AT&T said Google's "eleventh hour request" was self-serving because [bleat, bleat, bleat]
Google, you scamps.
Say it ain't so! I'm ashamed of you. Do no evil, indeed. How can you not follow the example of fine, upstanding, generous, social-minded, humble, helpful, concerned, responsible, AT&T?
AT&T - now there's who you should take your cue from. They've never had anything other than the general welfare and the good of the little guy in their warm, altruistic hearts. I can't believe the FCC would even deign to hear the recommendations of anyone else, since AT&T has proven time and time again that all they want - all they've ever wanted - is what's best for everyone, even at great peril to their bottom line.
Pervasive monitoring would "out" a lot of human behavior and necessarily change social norms
Agreed.
I do not think, however, it's safe to say that it would change them for the better. One might hope that social norms would change to become more accepting - that is, that all behaviors that are not illegal or unethical would also not be shameful. One might fear, however, that what would really happen is a tyranny of the majority situation regarding such behaviors, moving them from simply shameful to practically illegal. Behaviors engaged in by any minority (by which I mean mathematical minortiy, not ethnic minority) would, potentially, be threatened.
Furries, for example. As far as I can tell, there is nothing unethical, illegal, or immoral about that particular fetish. Nonetheless, in an "everything is public" society, the population of non-furries is so much greater than the population of furries that the furries might just be effectively eliminated.
Obviously, there are plenty of other examples that could be used, but I hope you take my point.
In addition, there is another, more general concern: for all of human history, societies have found some activities to be taboo (I mean this as distinct from illegal). Assuming that some form of natural selection of societies takes place, the fact that this is still true may indicate that there is societal value in holding some behaviors as, while not illegal, worthy of censure.
Alternatively, of course, it could be argued that it is a form of societal natural selection to have a privacy-less society, and having no taboos is the next evolutionary step.
Of course, if it's an evolutionary dead end...well, I would rather not be a member of the group to find that out.
That is, in part, the problem. One of the arguments against including the Bill of Rights was that the enumeration of certain rights would implicitly mean that some rights are more protected than others. The inclusion of the 9th was intended to avoid that problem.
Clearly, it has not succeeded.
Insofar as we wish to abide by the intent of the founders, there should be no distinction made between the rights enumerated by amendments 1-8, and the rights collectively enumerated (not that the phrase actually makes sense, but I hope you take my meaning) in the 9th (and 10th, for that matter).
What do I have to hide
The hundreds of tiny embarassments that everyone is guilty of.
Society to date has depended on much of what one does being private - everyone knows that 90% of men masturbate (and 10% lie about it), but it's not polite to discuss or exhibit, and it's embarassing to be discovered. This is, perhaps, irrational, but it is also the way things are.
Maybe you don't want people knowing that you bought Hairspray on HD-DVD. Maybe you don't want people knowing that you're gay. Maybe you don't want people knowing you had an abortion. Maybe you don't want people knowing your great grandfather owned slaves. Maybe you don't want people knowing you smoke weed. Maybe you don't want people knowing you donate money to the Republican party. Maybe you don't want people knowing you did 3 years' hard time - whether or not you were actually guilty. Maybe you don't want your abusive ex-husband to know where you live.
The other alternative is to make sure you stay both legal and conformant to all social norms. Which, even if possible, isn't the way most people want to live their lives.
Given society as it currently is, those are your choices. Your personal crusade to change the social norms such that nothing legitimate is embarassing any more, though possibly impressive, is unlikely to bear fruit before privacy is eliminated.
Uppity computer scientist thinks she can teach engineers more about those technology-dielectric things. I'll show her a dielectric - I'll teach her not to catch those technology-capacitor things!
Olber's Paradox isn't necessarily a problem. It's only a problem if you assume a macroscopically homogeneous universe that has been around forever.
If the universe isn't macroscopically homogeneous, you wouldn't necessarily see light everywhere. For a degenerate case, imagine a universe such that there is an infinite number of galaxies which are all coplanar. You would have one bright band in the sky, but most of the sky would be dark.
If you assume the universe is infinite in space but finite in time, then it's possible that there simply hasn't been time for light from objects more than ~14 billion light years away to reach us.
Really, all Olber's paradox teaches us is that the universe cannot have all of the properties of being infinite in space, infinite in time, and macroscopically homogeneous. Our observations indicate that (to the limit of our ability to perceive) it is macroscopically homgeneous, so at least one of the other two must not be the case.
Too late for you to see this, but what the hell.
1) Poker is, in fact, a game of skill. But if you actually think that the amount of money one brings to the table relative to other players isn't a huge determining factor of how well one does, you obviously haven't played much poker. Notably, this is why poker tournaments generally specifiy how much money one starts with: to level the playing field.
2) M:tG was, in large part, about who had spent more money on cards. Just like street racing is, in large part, about who has spent more money on his car. The other part - and a significant one - is the skill of building a deck given the cards you have. A random assortment of super rare cards generally won't beat a carefully crafted deck. But you're right in that actually playing the game is the least important skill involved.
3) Of course you didn't walk into a level playing field. It's a collectible card game, for crying out loud. The whole point was to make the field non-level. That's precisely what separates it from other card games: the game is in the collection and setup, not in the playing. It's perfectly understandable to not like it because of that, but it's not like you're being cheated. That's the nature of the game.
4) Not that it matters, but I won't deny I went through my M:tG phase in college. I almost completely stopped buying cards in 1995. I bought one deck in 1996 and one deck in 1997, and not a single card since then. Total money spent? Probably on the order of $400.
For whatever that's worth.
n/t
How is this surprising? I imagine you'd get a similar reaction if you sat down at a poker table and produced a stack of hundreds you had run off on your inkjet. The scarcity of the game piece (in this case, money) is key to the game.
Similarly in M:tG, the game balance depends on the rarity of the cards. Free access to as many copies as desired of whatever cards you choose does completely change the nature of the game (which is why you always want to play with people in similar financial circumstances as yourself...sort of like poker).
If your point was simply to highlight that WotC was selling cards rather than a game, fair enough - though I don't think there's anyone who would argue with you. It is, after all, called a collectible card game for a reason.
If your point was to make a negative comment about either your friends or players of M:tG, however, I think you missed the mark.
Heh. If only I could go back in time... ...you would tell WotC to not completely ruin their hojillion-dollar game by flooding the market with expansions every couple months, steadily increasing the power/cost ratio of all their cards, regularly invalidating old (valuable!) cards, and engaging in general asshattery? Or that there's no legitimate place in tabletop RPG for version "3.5" of anything?
'Cos that would be pretty nice of you.