One wonders if we should have a new Geneva convention, which spells out the rights (or - better yet - lack thereof) of non-state affiliated combatants who fight out of uniform, purposefully inflict casualties on civilian populations, and attempt to hide in said civilian populations where civilians effectively act as a "shield" against them.
Of course, any attempt would probably have opposition from Europeans who are scared of the militant Middle Easterners both in their midst and abroad, and Middle Eastern powers who support terrorism would oppose such measures because they would be promoted by "the West."
Did you take into account that "huge tax cuts" tend to pay for themselves down the line, given enough time? We saw it in the '80s, and we're seeing it now...if it wasn't for the government's fiscal irresponsibility (even outside the military spending), we'd be able to put more money back into the taxpayer's pocket.
Everything is relative, I suppose, but it hurts my head to think of anything north of the Mason-Dixon line as "Down South." For goodness' sake, man, at least don't CAPITALIZE it. You make this Louisianian's head hurt.
Keep in mind, though, that connections aren't everything. The guys who rake it in often have some pretty big failures in their past as well. MOST entrepeneurs - even the ones who have good connections and start out ahead of everyone else - still fail to some degree. Whenever I see a story like this, someone is always finding a way to complain about success.
Well, guess what...this kid and his family succeeded. GOOD FOR THEM. They're going to live and eat well for a long time. They aren't going to live off of the rest of our tax money.
They are contributing. SO WHAT if they have connections...should they NOT use them? Should they just give away everything and start from scratch simply because otherwise they would have an "unfair advantage?" Does that mean that they SHOULDN'T succeed?
Sure, we would probably like to see a little more in the way of honest reporting, but journalism is all about limited viewpoints anyway.
I'm not going to comlain that someone succeeded, even if they had an "unfair advantage." They didn't screw someone over. They didn't hide money and step on others to succeed. They didn't cause someone else to fail. Go find something worthwhile to whine about if you're of the opinion that this family SHOULDN'T have made it. Go find a way to bring the poor up, NOT the rich down.
Anyway, $60K (which is probably what you would get with no astronaut experience) isn't much of a salary these days.
I'm sorry, what profession are we talking about again? Accountant? Desk jockey? Bartender?
Nope. Sorry. ASTRO NAUT. Fly in space, and get PAID SOMETHING to do it. It's stuff like this that makes me agonize over my history degree.
Like a guy said before, some folks would near give an arm and a leg for this....plus, what COULDN'T you do afterward? Unless you're a crazy diaper-wearing creepo, having a resume that consisted of nothing other than a photo with you in a spacesuit opens quite a few doors.
My issue when I was in class - and now in the business world - is that the major drawback of computers is the screens. Having a backlit screen - essentially staring at a light bulb for hours at a time - can't be good. I much prefer reading from paper...it seems to be less eye strain.
That's nice. Are you complaining or do you have a solution which actually produces real results, good profits, and generally makes people's lives better when implemented?
Actually, this may be a matter of cost, not technology - a cost that may be easily regained by the winnings. Someone may just need the incentive to do it. Putting a man on the moon is hard...putting a robot...eh, not so much. We launch something out of orbit every few years now, so the tech is there. Heck, the expense may be designing the robot, not the delivery system.
On the other side of this, we are seeing an interesting new breed of athlete...particularly football. The Madden Football generation is playing now, and with its fairly complex play-calling ability, what we are going to find is there may actually arise some Gen-X coaches who...ahem...know how to handle clock management. LOTS of football players are learning how to be more intelligent about the game through video games, and it gives coaches an interesting way to simulate plays and game situations.
So his simulation is based on the presumption that everything is "market-based" and "tied together by markets". Since he can learn from his model only insofar as it is accurate, and since the Real World has other factors..... why should we care about this?
Because it's how our own system started, even many thousands of years ago. If you can create a pure economic system without the other factors added in yet, you can use it as a base model to see what REALLY causes certain outcomes in the real world. It's an interesting study because a raw economic model has never really existed, at least not for long. Something good can and will come of studying MMO economics, simply because they haven't truly been seen so well on a scale worth studying.
We can learn something from EVE's single-server system because it started from scratch...something that macroeconomics in the real world can't simulate. It's practically a true free-market economy with pure free-market hindrances (such as goldfarming) without the corruption/influence of past or failed economic styles (such as communism or mercantilism unless they develop in-game somehow).
You're right about multiple-server systems, though.
Using MMORPG's as a tool for economic study is near-genius by the way...it allows for some interesting tinkering and study without awful side-effects, and you can correct many problems practically overnight (such as kicking out goldfarmers or re-working accounts to give people more gold or something).
I can see the usefulness for survival-type purposes, but are we going to see some people from overprotective germ-scared parents to not-quite hypochondriacs start overusing some of these things, such that their immune systems fail to become hardened enough to disease?
Isn't there a point where catching a freakin' cold or flu may actually be GOOD for you down the road?
True enough, particularly when it comes to radical, religious-driven terrorism. When a crazy cause which calls to circumvent laws to obtain goals because there is a higher order tells you to blow something up, a "true believer" gets it done.
More or less. As we've seen in the US, terrorists here post-9/11 tend to not be too bright (as were several in Europe who couldn't figure out they were compromised for a while).
It's also true about firearms in the US (ducks because of a but is merely a trollish statement to tick off gun grabbers).
The problem here is that the article doesn't produce any evidence that US systems or servers were used (which is possible that they were...hence the need for the recent FISA change). Keep in mind, FISA was written before the popular use of internet and cell phones. Should our government be able to listen in on us at a whim? No.
Do they? Probably not so much as conspiracists like to believe, and probably more than those of us who support surveillance with and among known - or reasonably suspected - foreign terrorists - even when US systems and citizens are involved.
I don't buy the ZOMG BUSH LISTENS TO ALL UR PHONE CALLS mantra, and I rarely see a proper solution from that crowd anyway - just more whining and complaining.
Slashdot Mirror
One wonders if we should have a new Geneva convention, which spells out the rights (or - better yet - lack thereof) of non-state affiliated combatants who fight out of uniform, purposefully inflict casualties on civilian populations, and attempt to hide in said civilian populations where civilians effectively act as a "shield" against them.
Of course, any attempt would probably have opposition from Europeans who are scared of the militant Middle Easterners both in their midst and abroad, and Middle Eastern powers who support terrorism would oppose such measures because they would be promoted by "the West."
Did you take into account that "huge tax cuts" tend to pay for themselves down the line, given enough time? We saw it in the '80s, and we're seeing it now...if it wasn't for the government's fiscal irresponsibility (even outside the military spending), we'd be able to put more money back into the taxpayer's pocket.
Everything is relative, I suppose, but it hurts my head to think of anything north of the Mason-Dixon line as "Down South." For goodness' sake, man, at least don't CAPITALIZE it. You make this Louisianian's head hurt.
Good job on getting some common sense and reality as fp on this article. Too bad there are people who already posted without reading this.
Keep in mind, though, that connections aren't everything. The guys who rake it in often have some pretty big failures in their past as well. MOST entrepeneurs - even the ones who have good connections and start out ahead of everyone else - still fail to some degree. Whenever I see a story like this, someone is always finding a way to complain about success.
Well, guess what...this kid and his family succeeded. GOOD FOR THEM. They're going to live and eat well for a long time. They aren't going to live off of the rest of our tax money.
They are contributing. SO WHAT if they have connections...should they NOT use them? Should they just give away everything and start from scratch simply because otherwise they would have an "unfair advantage?" Does that mean that they SHOULDN'T succeed?
Sure, we would probably like to see a little more in the way of honest reporting, but journalism is all about limited viewpoints anyway.
I'm not going to comlain that someone succeeded, even if they had an "unfair advantage." They didn't screw someone over. They didn't hide money and step on others to succeed. They didn't cause someone else to fail. Go find something worthwhile to whine about if you're of the opinion that this family SHOULDN'T have made it. Go find a way to bring the poor up, NOT the rich down.
Hmmm...that coincides with the release date of Duke Nukem. Give or take 3-20 years.
Anyway, $60K (which is probably what you would get with no astronaut experience) isn't much of a salary these days.
I'm sorry, what profession are we talking about again? Accountant? Desk jockey? Bartender?
Nope. Sorry. ASTRO NAUT. Fly in space, and get PAID SOMETHING to do it. It's stuff like this that makes me agonize over my history degree.
Like a guy said before, some folks would near give an arm and a leg for this....plus, what COULDN'T you do afterward? Unless you're a crazy diaper-wearing creepo, having a resume that consisted of nothing other than a photo with you in a spacesuit opens quite a few doors.
Kerry, like any other politician, probably wouldn't have given a realistic answer anyway.
PEBCAK
My issue when I was in class - and now in the business world - is that the major drawback of computers is the screens. Having a backlit screen - essentially staring at a light bulb for hours at a time - can't be good. I much prefer reading from paper...it seems to be less eye strain.
That's nice. Are you complaining or do you have a solution which actually produces real results, good profits, and generally makes people's lives better when implemented?
Actually, this may be a matter of cost, not technology - a cost that may be easily regained by the winnings. Someone may just need the incentive to do it. Putting a man on the moon is hard...putting a robot...eh, not so much. We launch something out of orbit every few years now, so the tech is there. Heck, the expense may be designing the robot, not the delivery system.
On the other side of this, we are seeing an interesting new breed of athlete...particularly football. The Madden Football generation is playing now, and with its fairly complex play-calling ability, what we are going to find is there may actually arise some Gen-X coaches who...ahem...know how to handle clock management. LOTS of football players are learning how to be more intelligent about the game through video games, and it gives coaches an interesting way to simulate plays and game situations.
There's a "low ammo" joke here that I won't make.
I'm guessing you never shot a Thompson full-auto.
It's an interesting experience. For a few seconds, you are really and truly GANGSTER.
So his simulation is based on the presumption that everything is "market-based" and "tied together by markets". Since he can learn from his model only insofar as it is accurate, and since the Real World has other factors... .. why should we care about this?
Because it's how our own system started, even many thousands of years ago. If you can create a pure economic system without the other factors added in yet, you can use it as a base model to see what REALLY causes certain outcomes in the real world. It's an interesting study because a raw economic model has never really existed, at least not for long. Something good can and will come of studying MMO economics, simply because they haven't truly been seen so well on a scale worth studying.
Both are useful.
We can learn something from EVE's single-server system because it started from scratch...something that macroeconomics in the real world can't simulate. It's practically a true free-market economy with pure free-market hindrances (such as goldfarming) without the corruption/influence of past or failed economic styles (such as communism or mercantilism unless they develop in-game somehow).
You're right about multiple-server systems, though.
Using MMORPG's as a tool for economic study is near-genius by the way...it allows for some interesting tinkering and study without awful side-effects, and you can correct many problems practically overnight (such as kicking out goldfarmers or re-working accounts to give people more gold or something).
You can ONLY build/own/modify an old or new one with a specific license. It's either '85 or '86.
And that license ISN'T easy to get...if you value privacy more than gun ownership, don't get one.
I can see the usefulness for survival-type purposes, but are we going to see some people from overprotective germ-scared parents to not-quite hypochondriacs start overusing some of these things, such that their immune systems fail to become hardened enough to disease? Isn't there a point where catching a freakin' cold or flu may actually be GOOD for you down the road?
Not just that, but it was a GREAT way to get at an opponent...go crash with them for a bit, and you could hamper their incomes.
Sweet, one step closer to me getting gamma-induced powers...HULK SMASH....
Yeah, it's called Sociology. I might not have a problem with them if I ever met one who I actually liked or made any sense...
Unless, of course, you're in a privately owned small business and know how to follow the rules and still make money.
True enough, particularly when it comes to radical, religious-driven terrorism. When a crazy cause which calls to circumvent laws to obtain goals because there is a higher order tells you to blow something up, a "true believer" gets it done.
More or less. As we've seen in the US, terrorists here post-9/11 tend to not be too bright (as were several in Europe who couldn't figure out they were compromised for a while).
It's also true about firearms in the US (ducks because of a but is merely a trollish statement to tick off gun grabbers).
The problem here is that the article doesn't produce any evidence that US systems or servers were used (which is possible that they were...hence the need for the recent FISA change). Keep in mind, FISA was written before the popular use of internet and cell phones. Should our government be able to listen in on us at a whim? No.
Do they? Probably not so much as conspiracists like to believe, and probably more than those of us who support surveillance with and among known - or reasonably suspected - foreign terrorists - even when US systems and citizens are involved.
I don't buy the ZOMG BUSH LISTENS TO ALL UR PHONE CALLS mantra, and I rarely see a proper solution from that crowd anyway - just more whining and complaining.