Your recommendations would only result in the elimination of GOLD farmers, not farming in general. Epic items, herbs, pots, etc would all be sold in black market, Dollars-for-items auctions outside the game. OR, it would simply be replaced with the concept of paying someone an hourly rate to level-farm for your character. Where there's a market demand, the service will be sold. Current MMORPG paradigms that reward hours played will always have the problem of some guy in China wanting 50 cents an hour to do something for you in game.
I would guess the majority of the 6 million folks playing WoW didn't build their computer. If "Gamer" means playing shooters, then maybe yes. If Gamer means someone playing WoW 40 hours a week, I'm not sure your hypothesis holds.
That being said, there's no reason that Alienware has to integrate fully with Dell. If they're able to leverage Dell's purchasing & supply management folks, it could be huge for Alienware. Companies have brands that don't fully integrate all the time. Ford owns Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin. It doesn't necessarily mean that an Aston Martin is now equal in quality to a Ford Focus.
I doubt that the US could do anything if the EU decides to impose a large hefty fine of several XX billions on Microsoft.
I agree with your points except for this one statement. There are a lot more anti-trust cases going on in the US and the EU, and I'm pretty sure the US could retaliate by blocking the activities of European firms in the US. In fact, I think this is already going on. Everyone has noticed the souring of US/EU relations, and sadly I think it is showing up in some anti-trust cases.
I had a friend involved recently with an anti-trust case where an EU firm was attempting to purchase a US firm. The federal courts blocking it cited anti-trust issues, despite evidence to the contrary- the combined firm was going to have 25% in the US market in an industry that was far from concentrated.
The American lawyers representing the EU firm walked away saying this was retaliation for a previous case in the EU where another American firm (in a different industry) had been blocked. This kind of crap happens all the time, probably, and just doesn't merit the attention that MS gets.
Regardless of the facts of the MS case, there is definitely a trend towards antitrust fines being used not for the public good, but simply as a revenue generation tool. US States are huge offenders here, and the EU bureacracy generates a huge amount of its revenue through antitrust fines. Its an easy way to raise revenue without raising taxes, and the public typically doesn't know or object.
The tobacco case you referred to is a great example- US states were delighted to roll the fines into their general expenses fund rather than use the funds for the purposes specified in the settlement. No significant objections were raised by the public. Attorney Generals everywhere took notice and started to adjust their behavior accordingly in the antitrust courts.
All of these sequels should never have been made, because they have the effect of diminishing the original, all for the sake of more money.
The Matrix was ripped off from a science fiction writer who submitted her script to the Wachowski Brothers in the 1980's. An FBI investigation and court proceedings decided that they had indeed stolen her work and awarded her damages. In fact, thirty minutes of footage was edited out of the original because these segments were verbatim plagiarism of the original work. It's no wonder the sequels were crap- the brothers actually wrote the scripts themselves.
That is my *right*. I bought the damn car, I own it, so I'm going to do with it what I please.
You are not, however, allowed to roll back the mileage on the odometer even though it is technically feasible. The vast, vast majority of complaints about the legality of modifying hardware/software are the legal and moral equivalents of rolling back the odometer. If the activity is specifically undertaken to cheat someone out of revenue, then what you are doing is immoral and should be illegal. Why is it OK for Tivo to give out free boxes and charge a monthly fee for it, but it's not OK for Ford to charge you per mile driven (which IS done under a leasing agreement)?
2006 could turn out to be Microsoft's annus horribilis, since the chances must be very high they'll soon have to fess up and say Janaury 2007 is a bad time to launch Vista
What a coincidence! Vista comes from Microsoft's anus horribilis.
I'm curious where you picked this sentiment up. I've been in "consumer" marketing for a long time, and it means something very specific to us-- that the "customer" is not-for-profit and is the end-user of the product. It was never meant to be a derogatory term. Consumer Reports, Consumers Union, National Consumers League, etc are all examples of groups that embrace the rights of the household.
If I were to guess, most people who get upset about the term consumer are equating it with consumerism/materialism, which is not the case. To marketers, it is just a simple way to prevent confusion between someone buying my product to resell - a "Customer" such as a grocery store and a "consumer" - someone who is actually using my product.
It's very easy and, in my mind, a little simplistic to point to some ridiculous patents and imply that the system is therefore broken. As I mentioned, the patent SYSTEM has always and will always require the patent-holder to defend his patent in a court. A patent is not protection against infringement, it's a piece of paper. The old slogan is "if you don't need to defend your patent in court, you never needed it in the first place."
Almost all the error is based on one misconception-- that the patent system protected/protects the little guy. It does not, and never did. Any major company could come along and crush a small patent holder, either by engineering around it, or simply going to market in direct contradiction to the patent. Any well publicized cases you've heard of (if you've heard of any) where the little guy won are exceptions, not the rule. Read the story of Robert Kearns to learn a little bit about the "good old days" some folks seem to think existed where it was hard to obtain a patent. It ruined his life and bankrupted him, even though he eventually won the case. Nothing has changed since then.
I'm not trying to be an apologist here for the way things are or were, but I would hope that folks would be more thoughtful than to let some journalist pull out the old "dog-bites-man" card and fool everyone.
Patent Protection of an invention is a two-part process. Step One: File for and receive a patent. Step Two: Defend the patent in court. Both pieces are essential.
This won't stand up in court. It used to be that the most challenging part of invention protection was receiving a patent. Once you had a patent, most federal courts would uphold the defensibility of the invention.
Today, the patent office has pushed the responsiblity of invention defense to the federal court system. The statistics bear our that many, many more patents are being awarded, with much higher percentages of success. On the other hand, Federal Courts are siding with patent holders much less than they used to. The system is not necessarily broken, it only means that a patent is worth less and easier to obtain than it used to be.
Build a WoW IM Client already
on
No WoW for the 360
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If Blizzard really wanted to keep folks hooked, they'd just build an IM client for subscribers. For those of us with jobs, it be a great way to stay unproductive at work. I'd wager it's the social aspects of guilds that keep folks subscribing over the years.
rather than trying to stop the flow of information -- who's sending large amounts of money to whom, which is a relative impossibility.
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy! If, however, contributions were funneled through an intermediary, it would not be difficult to stop what you're proposing. I could group all donations together that occured within, say, 2 months of each other. The more donations coming in (presumuably for a more important political office), the easier it would be to hide the information trail. A non-profit could take over this role and take responsibility for ensuring that money is not coming from illegal sources (whatever that meant).
You are right about one thing, our choices are to have publicly funded candidates or privately funded candidates. Some states have moved over to publicly funded candidates (like judges). We would have to figure out where the money would come from, and how it would be distributed. Would a Communist party candidate for president receive as much as the Republican or Democratic candidate. If so, it seems ridiculous. If not, how are we not just supporting the status quo? Tough questions to answer...
All donations should be required to be anonymous. The only reason to attach your name to a donation is with the 'quid pro quo' expectation that you're getting favors in return for your money. Of course, no politician would ever propose this, because it would absolutely kill donations, which would only be more proof of who works for whom. That, and the media corporations would have an absolute fit. After all, THEY are the primary beneficiary of these insane build-ups in campaign finance war chests.
I agree. The ban was initially put in place by the FCC, not the FAA, primarily because the concept of a cell phone travelling at 500 MPH jumping from tower to tower would wreak havoc with the cell system, NOT because of any safety concerns. I would wager your chances of getting killed by someone driving with a cell phone are orders of magnitude more than dying in a plane crash caused by a cell phone- even when standardized by per mile, per minute, etc. Safety is not the issue, and we shouldn't pretend our overseeing adminstrations are concerned about it. They are there to protect the interests of the telecommunications companies...
Today he wines and dines some senators, tommorrow it's illegal to sell used videogames or run emulators.
Not to let facts get in the way of a good joke, BUT the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association and Video Software Dealers Association are trade groups for retail software vendors.
Their objective is to make sure bills don't get passed that limit software resale. In fact, they recently blocked a California law seeking to do just that.
It's an interesting question you bring up. If Blizzard or any other MMORPG developer was interested in eliminating Chinese Farmers (in China), the MoTD would be "Falun Gong, democracy, freedom of speech, and other misc. Western Ideals FTW."
Since they're not making any pro-democracy statments, I deduct therefore that Blizzard loves farmers.
Slashdot Mirror
Your recommendations would only result in the elimination of GOLD farmers, not farming in general. Epic items, herbs, pots, etc would all be sold in black market, Dollars-for-items auctions outside the game. OR, it would simply be replaced with the concept of paying someone an hourly rate to level-farm for your character. Where there's a market demand, the service will be sold. Current MMORPG paradigms that reward hours played will always have the problem of some guy in China wanting 50 cents an hour to do something for you in game.
I think you mean per month.
I would guess the majority of the 6 million folks playing WoW didn't build their computer. If "Gamer" means playing shooters, then maybe yes. If Gamer means someone playing WoW 40 hours a week, I'm not sure your hypothesis holds.
That being said, there's no reason that Alienware has to integrate fully with Dell. If they're able to leverage Dell's purchasing & supply management folks, it could be huge for Alienware. Companies have brands that don't fully integrate all the time. Ford owns Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin. It doesn't necessarily mean that an Aston Martin is now equal in quality to a Ford Focus.
I know you're joking and all, but I still feel like pointing out for those who modded you Insightful why this isn't so simple.
The rod up your butt must have a rod up it's butt.
I also disagree. The Bungie Webmaster in 1996 is just as funny in 2006.
Western RPGs is where YOU make the story, and how you want to do it.
Put concisely,
In US RPG, you make the story.
In Soviet RPG, story makes you!
I doubt that the US could do anything if the EU decides to impose a large hefty fine of several XX billions on Microsoft.
I agree with your points except for this one statement. There are a lot more anti-trust cases going on in the US and the EU, and I'm pretty sure the US could retaliate by blocking the activities of European firms in the US. In fact, I think this is already going on. Everyone has noticed the souring of US/EU relations, and sadly I think it is showing up in some anti-trust cases.
I had a friend involved recently with an anti-trust case where an EU firm was attempting to purchase a US firm. The federal courts blocking it cited anti-trust issues, despite evidence to the contrary- the combined firm was going to have 25% in the US market in an industry that was far from concentrated.
The American lawyers representing the EU firm walked away saying this was retaliation for a previous case in the EU where another American firm (in a different industry) had been blocked. This kind of crap happens all the time, probably, and just doesn't merit the attention that MS gets.
Regardless of the facts of the MS case, there is definitely a trend towards antitrust fines being used not for the public good, but simply as a revenue generation tool. US States are huge offenders here, and the EU bureacracy generates a huge amount of its revenue through antitrust fines. Its an easy way to raise revenue without raising taxes, and the public typically doesn't know or object.
The tobacco case you referred to is a great example- US states were delighted to roll the fines into their general expenses fund rather than use the funds for the purposes specified in the settlement. No significant objections were raised by the public. Attorney Generals everywhere took notice and started to adjust their behavior accordingly in the antitrust courts.
All of these sequels should never have been made, because they have the effect of diminishing the original, all for the sake of more money.
The Matrix was ripped off from a science fiction writer who submitted her script to the Wachowski Brothers in the 1980's. An FBI investigation and court proceedings decided that they had indeed stolen her work and awarded her damages. In fact, thirty minutes of footage was edited out of the original because these segments were verbatim plagiarism of the original work. It's no wonder the sequels were crap- the brothers actually wrote the scripts themselves.
That is my *right*. I bought the damn car, I own it, so I'm going to do with it what I please.
You are not, however, allowed to roll back the mileage on the odometer even though it is technically feasible. The vast, vast majority of complaints about the legality of modifying hardware/software are the legal and moral equivalents of rolling back the odometer. If the activity is specifically undertaken to cheat someone out of revenue, then what you are doing is immoral and should be illegal. Why is it OK for Tivo to give out free boxes and charge a monthly fee for it, but it's not OK for Ford to charge you per mile driven (which IS done under a leasing agreement)?
2006 could turn out to be Microsoft's annus horribilis, since the chances must be very high they'll soon have to fess up and say Janaury 2007 is a bad time to launch Vista
What a coincidence! Vista comes from Microsoft's anus horribilis.
Wow. I've heard of not reading TFA, but who doesn't even bother to read the first sentence of the article summary?
I heard it's going to be bundled with Team Fortress 2.
"Ooh, my number is bigger than yours! I'm better/smarter/faster!"
:p
I have more gamer points than you! I'm richer and have more free time...
I'm curious where you picked this sentiment up. I've been in "consumer" marketing for a long time, and it means something very specific to us-- that the "customer" is not-for-profit and is the end-user of the product. It was never meant to be a derogatory term. Consumer Reports, Consumers Union, National Consumers League, etc are all examples of groups that embrace the rights of the household.
If I were to guess, most people who get upset about the term consumer are equating it with consumerism/materialism, which is not the case. To marketers, it is just a simple way to prevent confusion between someone buying my product to resell - a "Customer" such as a grocery store and a "consumer" - someone who is actually using my product.
Very funny, but please restrict your use of quotes to the following accepted sources on Slashot:
Simpsons Episode 1F13 - Deep Space Homer
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, AKA Star Wars
Zero Wing
Yakov Smirnov
Thank you for your compliance.
It's very easy and, in my mind, a little simplistic to point to some ridiculous patents and imply that the system is therefore broken. As I mentioned, the patent SYSTEM has always and will always require the patent-holder to defend his patent in a court. A patent is not protection against infringement, it's a piece of paper. The old slogan is "if you don't need to defend your patent in court, you never needed it in the first place."
Almost all the error is based on one misconception-- that the patent system protected/protects the little guy. It does not, and never did. Any major company could come along and crush a small patent holder, either by engineering around it, or simply going to market in direct contradiction to the patent. Any well publicized cases you've heard of (if you've heard of any) where the little guy won are exceptions, not the rule. Read the story of Robert Kearns to learn a little bit about the "good old days" some folks seem to think existed where it was hard to obtain a patent. It ruined his life and bankrupted him, even though he eventually won the case. Nothing has changed since then.
I'm not trying to be an apologist here for the way things are or were, but I would hope that folks would be more thoughtful than to let some journalist pull out the old "dog-bites-man" card and fool everyone.
Patent Protection of an invention is a two-part process. Step One: File for and receive a patent. Step Two: Defend the patent in court. Both pieces are essential.
This won't stand up in court. It used to be that the most challenging part of invention protection was receiving a patent. Once you had a patent, most federal courts would uphold the defensibility of the invention.
Today, the patent office has pushed the responsiblity of invention defense to the federal court system. The statistics bear our that many, many more patents are being awarded, with much higher percentages of success. On the other hand, Federal Courts are siding with patent holders much less than they used to. The system is not necessarily broken, it only means that a patent is worth less and easier to obtain than it used to be.
If Blizzard really wanted to keep folks hooked, they'd just build an IM client for subscribers. For those of us with jobs, it be a great way to stay unproductive at work. I'd wager it's the social aspects of guilds that keep folks subscribing over the years.
rather than trying to stop the flow of information -- who's sending large amounts of money to whom, which is a relative impossibility.
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy! If, however, contributions were funneled through an intermediary, it would not be difficult to stop what you're proposing. I could group all donations together that occured within, say, 2 months of each other. The more donations coming in (presumuably for a more important political office), the easier it would be to hide the information trail. A non-profit could take over this role and take responsibility for ensuring that money is not coming from illegal sources (whatever that meant).
You are right about one thing, our choices are to have publicly funded candidates or privately funded candidates. Some states have moved over to publicly funded candidates (like judges). We would have to figure out where the money would come from, and how it would be distributed. Would a Communist party candidate for president receive as much as the Republican or Democratic candidate. If so, it seems ridiculous. If not, how are we not just supporting the status quo? Tough questions to answer...
All donations should be required to be anonymous. The only reason to attach your name to a donation is with the 'quid pro quo' expectation that you're getting favors in return for your money. Of course, no politician would ever propose this, because it would absolutely kill donations, which would only be more proof of who works for whom. That, and the media corporations would have an absolute fit. After all, THEY are the primary beneficiary of these insane build-ups in campaign finance war chests.
I agree. The ban was initially put in place by the FCC, not the FAA, primarily because the concept of a cell phone travelling at 500 MPH jumping from tower to tower would wreak havoc with the cell system, NOT because of any safety concerns. I would wager your chances of getting killed by someone driving with a cell phone are orders of magnitude more than dying in a plane crash caused by a cell phone- even when standardized by per mile, per minute, etc. Safety is not the issue, and we shouldn't pretend our overseeing adminstrations are concerned about it. They are there to protect the interests of the telecommunications companies...
What other ways are there to get an egg slowly from 15 feet up to the ground?
Helium/Hydrogen/Hot Air baloons?
Today he wines and dines some senators, tommorrow it's illegal to sell used videogames or run emulators.
Not to let facts get in the way of a good joke, BUT the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association and Video Software Dealers Association are trade groups for retail software vendors.
Their objective is to make sure bills don't get passed that limit software resale. In fact, they recently blocked a California law seeking to do just that.
It's an interesting question you bring up. If Blizzard or any other MMORPG developer was interested in eliminating Chinese Farmers (in China), the MoTD would be "Falun Gong, democracy, freedom of speech, and other misc. Western Ideals FTW."
Since they're not making any pro-democracy statments, I deduct therefore that Blizzard loves farmers.
isn't Nintendogs another game that hasn't got a precise goal?
Nintendogs didn't send Zonk a copy with a $100 bill tucked into the manual.