I'm not stupid, I used to be in Goonfleet. I just don't consider only really slowing other ships down for months to be "fun" because I have to wait for my skills to slowly gather over time.
As someone who did WoW + its endgame years ago, I disagree.
and don't confuse endgame WoW with being able to do anything useful in EVE. EVE is complete apples and oranges--there is no raiding, nothing like battlegrounds where you are matched up in level tiers, etc...
I'm not trolling, but I fail to see the point of EVE for several reasons. I used to play EVE myself for a few months but quit...
One, why play a game that takes you at least a year to be able to do anything fun and useful? That's not a game at all, that's a job.
Two, CCP has shown themselves in the past to be shady and unreliable, having developers specifically favor certain alliances and otherwise abuse their powers for their own in-game corporations.
Three, the amount of bugs and inability to cope for server stress for large battles (which is the meat and potatoes of this game--large space wars!) has apparently been evident for quite some time now.
I understand that EVE online fills a niche few other games do, and EVE is probably the only one that even attempts what it does, but, IMO, that in no way means the CCP has displayed what I would consider a necessary amount of competence or good game design to make me want to play it. I mean, if Age of Conan (no, EVE is nowhere near the mess that game was at) was the only MMO out there I still wouldn't play it even though I like MMOs.
It's pretty poor form when CCP will claim that subscribers need to account for their own ineptitude when playing their game and not take responsibility for their own, and not even fire the developers that gave unfair advantages to their own corporations way back when. And I hear the game masters are incompetent jerks, too...
Then maybe the "free market" and socialism are not as at odds as you think they are. When libertarians and the like speak of free market it's not necessarily money changing hands that they want to see, it's simply relationships made in mutual agreement.
It is not so much socialism I hate as it is state socialism, that is, top-down, enforced socialism upon people. You're perfectly free to tear down corporations simply by refusing to engage with them. Corporations do what is most profitable, but profits don't come out of thin air--they come out of people.
You can, after all, have socialist ends via free market means. How is a union anti-capitalist? Or, how is a co-op anti-capitalist? They are forces working within the free market. It is a perversion of the free market, a regulation, to control and stop voluntary unions--and the government does that, too, as the government has claimed the power to be able to end strikes.
That isn't to say that I think most unions are crooked. I think a lot of them are, and a lot of them reward seniority over everything else, especially the amount of work you do, need, etc. But they do not have to be crooked, and just like the consumers must reform market forces by responsible purchasing and actually asserting their own purchasing power as active, and not passive, consumers, unions must be reformed not by a government but by union members themselves.
Voluntary unions are quite capitalist. I have no problem with them, and they are in essence a worker's cartel. We definitely ought to have good, non-corrupt union action.
In the end corporations can only give what people accept, otherwise they crumble. A government will jail you for noncompliance.
....and, not to mention, you might as well excuse any act of government at all that way. "Don't like the DMCA? Well, move to Somalia, they don't have the DMCA... they don't have a government!"
"Don't like the Patriot Act? Somalia doesn't have the Patriot Act!"
Wipe the smug off your face.
"You want free healthcare? Cuba has free healthcare!"
...which is only enabled by customers and employees that accept what is offered to them; individuals can avoid doing business with a corporation, but cannot escape the grasp of a government.
The primary argument against socialism always boils down to this: "Mine! I don't want to share!"
And the primary argument for socialism is a gun to someone else's head telling them this: "Yes you will."
Next time you find someone else sleeping in your bed, you better let them stay there, because "it's mine!" is no longer a valid argument for you to ever use.
When people say the USA is unfettered capitalism, it is a demonstration that "capitalism" no longer means anything.
Capitalism, or rather, the free market, is hated by schemers because it does not provide a top-down mechanism for social control to inflict one's personal preferences and beliefs on the general population.
I think most people that say "greed is good" is precisely because "greed is useful" in the way you say it is.
Nonetheless, it is a stupid term, because "greed" usually implies theft and unethical means of acquiring property, which is not really what the Ayn Randers advocate...
Not all of us believe in strong, top-down "obey us, citizen!"-style governing, which socialism depends upon. Capitalism, with informed and active consumers, should (or at least, could) do anything socialists want as an emergent byproduct of consumer collective action, without the "might-makes-right" and "I'm morally superior to you" leftist chestbeating.
If large groups of individuals cannot collectively gather and mutually agree to provide each other with healthcare, protection, etc, then they do not, as a group, deserve it.
Maybe people are too stupid to be informed and active consumers--I'd agree--but then again, if they're stupid stupid to mutually and collectively leverage their own bargaining power, they're in no position to vote for the people that tax them and can stick them in jail...!
As long as our justification is the almighty dollar, this situation is only getting worse. I am not one to advocate socialism in any form, but capitalism only works when those who benefit from the system perform their social responsibility towards their employees and treat them right.
That's a completely subjective judgment and the whole point of a capitalist system is that worker/employer come to a mutual agreement. Fair is whatever both sides agree is fair.
The real problem is consumer (and worker) complacency.
Do we have to see 90% of the population below the poverty line before we will wake up and see it for what it is?
What?! The poverty line is (usually) a relative estimate. If you want to see "true" poverty, like in Africa, you'll be much harder pressed to find it. You say you are not one to advocate socialism but your rhetoric is pretty similar to the standard arguments for socialism. The whole point of a capitalist exchange is both sides benefit, otherwise, said exchange would not take place. Gigantic profits are not a problem. How they are acquiring it, however, may be.
Slashdot Mirror
And you can't really do all of those things, you have to specialize in one of them, at least to some degree.
And mining? You might as well get an online job or something, because mining is probably the most boring thing in the world.
I'm not stupid, I used to be in Goonfleet. I just don't consider only really slowing other ships down for months to be "fun" because I have to wait for my skills to slowly gather over time.
As someone who did WoW + its endgame years ago, I disagree.
I said FUN and USEFUL, not fun and/or useful. Big difference--swarming the enemies and slowing them down is not fun, it's mindless and tedious.
Yup.
and don't confuse endgame WoW with being able to do anything useful in EVE. EVE is complete apples and oranges--there is no raiding, nothing like battlegrounds where you are matched up in level tiers, etc...
I never said you can't be useful in low level ships, you can--but your job basically is slowing other ships down. Not fun.
I'm not trolling, but I fail to see the point of EVE for several reasons. I used to play EVE myself for a few months but quit...
One, why play a game that takes you at least a year to be able to do anything fun and useful? That's not a game at all, that's a job.
Two, CCP has shown themselves in the past to be shady and unreliable, having developers specifically favor certain alliances and otherwise abuse their powers for their own in-game corporations.
Three, the amount of bugs and inability to cope for server stress for large battles (which is the meat and potatoes of this game--large space wars!) has apparently been evident for quite some time now.
I understand that EVE online fills a niche few other games do, and EVE is probably the only one that even attempts what it does, but, IMO, that in no way means the CCP has displayed what I would consider a necessary amount of competence or good game design to make me want to play it. I mean, if Age of Conan (no, EVE is nowhere near the mess that game was at) was the only MMO out there I still wouldn't play it even though I like MMOs.
It's pretty poor form when CCP will claim that subscribers need to account for their own ineptitude when playing their game and not take responsibility for their own, and not even fire the developers that gave unfair advantages to their own corporations way back when. And I hear the game masters are incompetent jerks, too...
Actually it turns out that they already have diplomatic immunity.
Nevermind, this is more evidence the Alex Jones crowd blows things out of proportion.
Obama literally gave a certain group of people a license to kill.
Obama is f-ing twisted. This is actually making me start to believe the Alex Jones NEW WORLD ORDER guys. Ugh.
B-b-b-but some bald guy told me that the Diary of Anne Frank, and the holocaust, were a hoax!
"When in Nazi Germany, do as the Nazis do."
B-b-b-but poor coffee growers in South America...!
Then maybe the "free market" and socialism are not as at odds as you think they are. When libertarians and the like speak of free market it's not necessarily money changing hands that they want to see, it's simply relationships made in mutual agreement.
It is not so much socialism I hate as it is state socialism, that is, top-down, enforced socialism upon people. You're perfectly free to tear down corporations simply by refusing to engage with them. Corporations do what is most profitable, but profits don't come out of thin air--they come out of people.
You can, after all, have socialist ends via free market means. How is a union anti-capitalist? Or, how is a co-op anti-capitalist? They are forces working within the free market. It is a perversion of the free market, a regulation, to control and stop voluntary unions--and the government does that, too, as the government has claimed the power to be able to end strikes.
That isn't to say that I think most unions are crooked. I think a lot of them are, and a lot of them reward seniority over everything else, especially the amount of work you do, need, etc. But they do not have to be crooked, and just like the consumers must reform market forces by responsible purchasing and actually asserting their own purchasing power as active, and not passive, consumers, unions must be reformed not by a government but by union members themselves.
Voluntary unions are quite capitalist. I have no problem with them, and they are in essence a worker's cartel. We definitely ought to have good, non-corrupt union action.
In the end corporations can only give what people accept, otherwise they crumble. A government will jail you for noncompliance.
....and, not to mention, you might as well excuse any act of government at all that way. "Don't like the DMCA? Well, move to Somalia, they don't have the DMCA... they don't have a government!"
"Don't like the Patriot Act? Somalia doesn't have the Patriot Act!"
Wipe the smug off your face.
"You want free healthcare? Cuba has free healthcare!"
That's just like the argument, "if you like socialism, you should move to Cuba."
...which is only enabled by customers and employees that accept what is offered to them; individuals can avoid doing business with a corporation, but cannot escape the grasp of a government.
OK, that's what I thought, I was just sleepy and unsure if I wasn't misinterpreting it.
I was being tongue-in-cheek :)
And the primary argument for socialism is a gun to someone else's head telling them this: "Yes you will."
Next time you find someone else sleeping in your bed, you better let them stay there, because "it's mine!" is no longer a valid argument for you to ever use.
When people say the USA is unfettered capitalism, it is a demonstration that "capitalism" no longer means anything.
Capitalism, or rather, the free market, is hated by schemers because it does not provide a top-down mechanism for social control to inflict one's personal preferences and beliefs on the general population.
I think most people that say "greed is good" is precisely because "greed is useful" in the way you say it is.
Nonetheless, it is a stupid term, because "greed" usually implies theft and unethical means of acquiring property, which is not really what the Ayn Randers advocate...
Not all of us believe in strong, top-down "obey us, citizen!"-style governing, which socialism depends upon. Capitalism, with informed and active consumers, should (or at least, could) do anything socialists want as an emergent byproduct of consumer collective action, without the "might-makes-right" and "I'm morally superior to you" leftist chestbeating.
If large groups of individuals cannot collectively gather and mutually agree to provide each other with healthcare, protection, etc, then they do not, as a group, deserve it.
Maybe people are too stupid to be informed and active consumers--I'd agree--but then again, if they're stupid stupid to mutually and collectively leverage their own bargaining power, they're in no position to vote for the people that tax them and can stick them in jail...!
That's a completely subjective judgment and the whole point of a capitalist system is that worker/employer come to a mutual agreement. Fair is whatever both sides agree is fair.
The real problem is consumer (and worker) complacency.
What?! The poverty line is (usually) a relative estimate. If you want to see "true" poverty, like in Africa, you'll be much harder pressed to find it.
You say you are not one to advocate socialism but your rhetoric is pretty similar to the standard arguments for socialism. The whole point of a capitalist exchange is both sides benefit, otherwise, said exchange would not take place. Gigantic profits are not a problem. How they are acquiring it, however, may be.
What did you learn? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.