Nothing; however, it would not be unexpected if someone did something massively, completely wrong like went on a murdering spree of homosexuals or something.
Anyway, with a democracy it's still worse because you could be essentially forced to not help someone, instead of individuals choosing not to associate with someone.
Democracy also validates conformity and the bigotries of the masses. There's no real solution to anything, though; I mostly go through life knowing that people are shit and try to keep a low profile.
I would, however, say that "democratic control" is mass subjugation. After going through elementary school and seeing how children gang up on individuals that are different I can't say I support democracy. Though, I suppose you might see things differently if you're one of the alpha males.
She was a bit against personal altruism as well. If you remember from Atlas Shrugged, John Galt's... "commune", if you will... basically rejected doing things for free.
Someone mod parent up. This is the must succinct and informed view of the left/right anarchism split I've -ever- seen on the internet. Although, I wouldn't use the term "subjugate" like he did (and he reveals his own bias doing so).
I would ask you, how is your "democratic control" any different from government? It seems more like mob rule to me.
Love games? Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me? I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot Oh come on now Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me? I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot Oh come on now Moving too fast, this isn't a race ooh Baby back off and lower the pace now Slow it down, and give me some space, mmmh Moving too fast, this isn't a race. ah ah *funky music insert* Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me? I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot Oh come on now Moving too fast this isn't a race ooooh Will you back off and lower the pace now? Slow it down, and give me some place. Moving too fast this isn't a race. I'm Old Gregg I know I think you said Come on don't make me beg now 'cause I'm not your regular guy don't be shy do you love me.
It's not a problem, it's people who think it's a problem and are whining about things not going their way or having shit luck. Again, deal with the company that is making this "virtual property", not the government.
People have killed each other over games of football, too; Football, however, is still a game. People also kill and commit violent acts over girls, stupid pride, and people's driving habits. And the answer is what, government regulation of MMOs? I can't believe I'm seeing people here throw around labor theory of value for World of Warcraft.
No, the question of entitlement is not a red herring. In these cases, it's the game company's job to mediate scams and cases of theft, and so on. They won't do anything? Tough, it's a fucking game.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these overseas jobs would not employ there if they couldn't get away with that practice. I assume you'd be OK with the locals starving instead, because at least there would be no "unfair" employment practices in play. Am I correct?
I knew the left-wing philosophy would pop in here.
Ownership is less clear-cut than you are making it, because virtual worlds introduce the idea of virtual labor. In some ways, it is as if you were being paid in factory scrip. Virtual worlds have introduced a new category of activity: play-labor, which acts a lot like regular labor, even though it occurs in the context of leisure. That's why there's markets for virtual-world currency.
China has generally decided that you have first dibs on the rights of the product of your labor, even if its virtual labor in a virtual world....So? Doesn't mean it makes sense, or that it's right. Never thought I'd see "argumentum ad China" but here it is.
There are limits to the rights you can give up even in a contractual setting: you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't legally work for less than minimum wage. Blizzard wants the Chinese markets, so they, too, have to agree to the terms to "play" there.
Again, so? Doesn't make it right; doesn't mean it makes sense. You state simple facts but that's beside the greater point of whether the Chinese government should actually do that. China also forces, I believe, play time restrictions on these games, is that right, are you going to stand up for that ridiculous imposition too?
I find this talk of "labor" and such silly in an online game. Just as with what job you get, so too do you choose what games to play based on your own benefit. Your concern isn't with the success of the company you play for just like their concern isn't immediately or necessarily your fun, but for their own profit--the two, however, are linked, obviously.
Even doing away with the simple economical self-interest labor is based on.... IT'S A FRIGGIN' GAME! A game that would not exist had Blizzard not decided to make it and run it under their rules!
What next? Are people going to be advocating communism in MMOs next as well? We going to have MMO welfare where Blizzard will be forced to give a monthly stipend of gold to MMO players somehow physically (or mentally) incapable of making as much gold as other players...?
In Second Life I believe Linden Labs specifically gives you the rights to your in-game property, to sell and do with as you please (with certain limitations). I did not forget about SL.
Actually, I have browsed the WoW forums; I used to play the game. People whined constantly there but no one has actually sued--the statement I made was actually based on the whining and all the tears I saw there.
Anyway, no, there is no middle ground, at least not legally, and probably shouldn't be. You choose to play in the first place. It's a game.
Ownership of online content of this is not clear-cut, like ownership of your chair or computer might be. You don't really own your character; the game company does--your character is subject to the alterations and whims of the company as needed, and access is even based upon whether they let you or not. They can kick you off if you are selling gold, selling your account, being a jerk, or because they simply don't like you.
Some of you may have an entitlement complex going on--"But it's mine! I am paying for it!" No, you are paying to RENT it, to have access based on their terms. Remember, they're the one making the game, without the company you couldn't have a game in the first place.
I think user agreement on MMOs are particularly important. If you don't like the terms of ownership or the rules, then don't play. They make no real guarantees. They make no guarantees that the in-game economy will remain just as stable, that they won't nerf rogues in a future patch, or that your character won't receive a huge revamp for balance.
Too often, I think, consumers fist-pound over their rights when they are the ones who signed the contract conceding the terms in the first place.
Can you imagine people suing Blizzard for devaluing their online property because Blizzard nerfed a certain set piece, or introduced better items?
People seriously want to bring the government into this? If you don't like the terms, don't play. You aren't owed. You do not have a special right; you agreed to the transaction upon signing up. You pay to play a game, and nothing beyond that unless you agree otherwise.
You could go less that route, and more in a technological one.
For example, one way modern selection could be occurring would be those that are more capable of driving safely, survive. Those with slower reaction times or more dangerous habits may be more prone to getting themselves killed, particularly in the teenage years.
Of course, environmental effects may overshadow any genetic component here...
Psychologically, you don't need schizophrenics, and their paranoid delusions are probably too far out there to be what you're looking for. Just stop with someone with delusional disorder.
1. You have no clue what you are talking about. The DRM servers being kept up means the shitty DRM music still plays instead of customers being locked out. Not continuing DRM. Wal-mart might not be able to get rid of the DRM even if they wanted to because of contractual obligations...
2. Wal-mart was made to make people money, not to operate as a charity, especially a music charity. They don't have to give a rat's ass about the customers any more than you have to give a rat's ass about the guy that picks up your garbage each and every day (and maybe he you for the sheer bulk of it!).
SOURCEFORGE, INC. UNITED STATES/EUROPEAN UNION SAFE HARBOR PRIVACY STATEMENT (âoePRIVACY STATEMENTâ)
(Last Updated May 23, 2008)
(Effective Date May 24, 2008)
SourceForge, Inc. (âoeSourceForgeâ), comprised of the Internet sites SourceForge.com, SourceForge.net, Slashdot.org, freshmeat.net, ITmanagersJournal.com, Linux.com, ThinkGeek.com (the âoeSitesâ), is committed to protecting the privacy of users of the Sites. SourceForge intends to give users as much control as possible over userâ(TM)s personally identifiable information, including registration data. This Privacy Statement applies to each of the Sites and describes the information SourceForge collects about users and how that information may be used.
SourceForge reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If SourceForge makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.
SourceForge complies with the United States (âoeUSâ)/European Union (âoeEUâ) Safe Harbor framework as set forth by the US Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of data from the EU. Individuals who wish to file a complaint or who take issue with SourceForge's EU Safe Harbor policies should direct such communication to SourceForge Legal Services - Privacy via written communication at the contact information provided below. Filing a complaint in English will expedite the process. SourceForge will investigate and attempt to resolve complaints regarding use and disclosure of personal information in accordance with the principles contained in this Privacy Statement. For complaints that cannot be resolved between SourceForge and the complainant, SourceForge participates in the dispute resolution procedures of the panel established by the EU data protection authorities to resolve disputes pursuant to the Safe Harbor framework.
SourceForge agrees to notify users of the following privacy principles: Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Security, Data Integrity, Access, and Enforcement.
NOTICE
SourceForge provides this Privacy Statement to make users aware of SourceForge privacy practices, and of the choices a user may make about the way the userâ(TM)s information is collected and used.
Children
Users represent they are of legal age to create binding and financial obligations for any liability users may incur as a result of their use of the Sites. The Sites are not directed to children under the age of 13, and SourceForge will never request personally identifiable information from anyone whom it knows to be under the age of 13 without verifiable parental or guardian consent. SourceForge does not knowingly collect, or wish to obtain, personally identifiable information from children. If SourceForge becomes aware that a user is under the age of 13 and has provided personally identifiable information without prior verifiable parental or guardian consent, it will remove userâ(TM)s personally identifiable information from its files.
What information SourceForge collects
SourceForge may collect two types of information from users of Sites: "personally identifiable information" (such as name, email address, postal address, telephone, birth date) and "aggregate information" (such as frequency of visits to Sites, IP address, Site pages most frequently accessed, browser type). Personally identifiable information is any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a user of the Sites. Aggregate information is non-personally identifiable/anonymous information about users of the Sites. Aggreg
Anyway, a lot of the reasons these privacy policies are so long is to cover their asses legally in the first place! Jesus fucking christ, what can the federal government do?
You must not know very much about Lincoln if that's why you think so many people think he was a tyrant. I'd recommend picking up a history book on the Lincoln presidency to see what he did. Here's a hint: Not even Bush has jailed journalists critical of him.
Of course, people always make excuses for the great "Dear Leaders".
Oh yeah, and our "great" FDR also put a whole bunch of Japanese in concentration... er, I mean "internment", that sounds less worse, right, right... he put many Japanese in internment camps, ruining many lives. Such a swell, progressive man!
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing; however, it would not be unexpected if someone did something massively, completely wrong like went on a murdering spree of homosexuals or something.
Anyway, with a democracy it's still worse because you could be essentially forced to not help someone, instead of individuals choosing not to associate with someone.
Democracy also validates conformity and the bigotries of the masses. There's no real solution to anything, though; I mostly go through life knowing that people are shit and try to keep a low profile.
I would, however, say that "democratic control" is mass subjugation. After going through elementary school and seeing how children gang up on individuals that are different I can't say I support democracy. Though, I suppose you might see things differently if you're one of the alpha males.
She was a bit against personal altruism as well. If you remember from Atlas Shrugged, John Galt's... "commune", if you will... basically rejected doing things for free.
Someone mod parent up. This is the must succinct and informed view of the left/right anarchism split I've -ever- seen on the internet. Although, I wouldn't use the term "subjugate" like he did (and he reveals his own bias doing so).
I would ask you, how is your "democratic control" any different from government? It seems more like mob rule to me.
Love games?
Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot
Oh come on now
Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot
Oh come on now
Moving too fast, this isn't a race ooh
Baby back off and lower the pace now
Slow it down, and give me some space, mmmh
Moving too fast, this isn't a race. ah ah
*funky music insert*
Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot
Oh come on now
Moving too fast this isn't a race ooooh
Will you back off and lower the pace now?
Slow it down, and give me some place.
Moving too fast this isn't a race.
I'm Old Gregg
I know I think you said
Come on don't make me beg now
'cause I'm not your regular guy
don't be shy
do you love me.
It's not a problem, it's people who think it's a problem and are whining about things not going their way or having shit luck. Again, deal with the company that is making this "virtual property", not the government.
People have killed each other over games of football, too; Football, however, is still a game. People also kill and commit violent acts over girls, stupid pride, and people's driving habits. And the answer is what, government regulation of MMOs? I can't believe I'm seeing people here throw around labor theory of value for World of Warcraft.
I meant in the U.S; it's not inconceivable that some where, some court ordered any given stupid thing.
No, the question of entitlement is not a red herring. In these cases, it's the game company's job to mediate scams and cases of theft, and so on. They won't do anything? Tough, it's a fucking game.
And the person running the game, there, is the mediator. If someone steals my money while playing Monopoly, do I go directly to the police?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these overseas jobs would not employ there if they couldn't get away with that practice. I assume you'd be OK with the locals starving instead, because at least there would be no "unfair" employment practices in play. Am I correct?
I knew the left-wing philosophy would pop in here.
Ownership is less clear-cut than you are making it, because virtual worlds introduce the idea of virtual labor. In some ways, it is as if you were being paid in factory scrip. Virtual worlds have introduced a new category of activity: play-labor, which acts a lot like regular labor, even though it occurs in the context of leisure. That's why there's markets for virtual-world currency.
China has generally decided that you have first dibs on the rights of the product of your labor, even if its virtual labor in a virtual world. ...So? Doesn't mean it makes sense, or that it's right. Never thought I'd see "argumentum ad China" but here it is.
There are limits to the rights you can give up even in a contractual setting: you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't legally work for less than minimum wage. Blizzard wants the Chinese markets, so they, too, have to agree to the terms to "play" there.
Again, so? Doesn't make it right; doesn't mean it makes sense. You state simple facts but that's beside the greater point of whether the Chinese government should actually do that. China also forces, I believe, play time restrictions on these games, is that right, are you going to stand up for that ridiculous imposition too?
I find this talk of "labor" and such silly in an online game. Just as with what job you get, so too do you choose what games to play based on your own benefit. Your concern isn't with the success of the company you play for just like their concern isn't immediately or necessarily your fun, but for their own profit--the two, however, are linked, obviously.
Even doing away with the simple economical self-interest labor is based on.... IT'S A FRIGGIN' GAME! A game that would not exist had Blizzard not decided to make it and run it under their rules!
What next? Are people going to be advocating communism in MMOs next as well? We going to have MMO welfare where Blizzard will be forced to give a monthly stipend of gold to MMO players somehow physically (or mentally) incapable of making as much gold as other players...?
In Second Life I believe Linden Labs specifically gives you the rights to your in-game property, to sell and do with as you please (with certain limitations). I did not forget about SL.
Actually, I have browsed the WoW forums; I used to play the game. People whined constantly there but no one has actually sued--the statement I made was actually based on the whining and all the tears I saw there.
Anyway, no, there is no middle ground, at least not legally, and probably shouldn't be. You choose to play in the first place. It's a game.
Ownership of online content of this is not clear-cut, like ownership of your chair or computer might be. You don't really own your character; the game company does--your character is subject to the alterations and whims of the company as needed, and access is even based upon whether they let you or not. They can kick you off if you are selling gold, selling your account, being a jerk, or because they simply don't like you.
Some of you may have an entitlement complex going on--"But it's mine! I am paying for it!" No, you are paying to RENT it, to have access based on their terms. Remember, they're the one making the game, without the company you couldn't have a game in the first place.
I think user agreement on MMOs are particularly important. If you don't like the terms of ownership or the rules, then don't play. They make no real guarantees. They make no guarantees that the in-game economy will remain just as stable, that they won't nerf rogues in a future patch, or that your character won't receive a huge revamp for balance.
Too often, I think, consumers fist-pound over their rights when they are the ones who signed the contract conceding the terms in the first place.
Can you imagine people suing Blizzard for devaluing their online property because Blizzard nerfed a certain set piece, or introduced better items?
People seriously want to bring the government into this? If you don't like the terms, don't play. You aren't owed. You do not have a special right; you agreed to the transaction upon signing up. You pay to play a game, and nothing beyond that unless you agree otherwise.
Don't worry you can always beat off to plastic women with fake boobs from the porn you get off bittorrent, like the rest of us slashdotters.
You could go less that route, and more in a technological one.
For example, one way modern selection could be occurring would be those that are more capable of driving safely, survive. Those with slower reaction times or more dangerous habits may be more prone to getting themselves killed, particularly in the teenage years.
Of course, environmental effects may overshadow any genetic component here...
Psychologically, you don't need schizophrenics, and their paranoid delusions are probably too far out there to be what you're looking for. Just stop with someone with delusional disorder.
1. You have no clue what you are talking about. The DRM servers being kept up means the shitty DRM music still plays instead of customers being locked out. Not continuing DRM. Wal-mart might not be able to get rid of the DRM even if they wanted to because of contractual obligations...
2. Wal-mart was made to make people money, not to operate as a charity, especially a music charity. They don't have to give a rat's ass about the customers any more than you have to give a rat's ass about the guy that picks up your garbage each and every day (and maybe he you for the sheer bulk of it!).
Privacy Statement
SOURCEFORGE, INC. UNITED STATES/EUROPEAN UNION SAFE HARBOR PRIVACY STATEMENT (âoePRIVACY STATEMENTâ)
(Last Updated May 23, 2008)
(Effective Date May 24, 2008)
SourceForge, Inc. (âoeSourceForgeâ), comprised of the Internet sites SourceForge.com, SourceForge.net, Slashdot.org, freshmeat.net, ITmanagersJournal.com, Linux.com, ThinkGeek.com (the âoeSitesâ), is committed to protecting the privacy of users of the Sites. SourceForge intends to give users as much control as possible over userâ(TM)s personally identifiable information, including registration data. This Privacy Statement applies to each of the Sites and describes the information SourceForge collects about users and how that information may be used.
SourceForge reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If SourceForge makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.
SourceForge complies with the United States (âoeUSâ)/European Union (âoeEUâ) Safe Harbor framework as set forth by the US Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of data from the EU. Individuals who wish to file a complaint or who take issue with SourceForge's EU Safe Harbor policies should direct such communication to SourceForge Legal Services - Privacy via written communication at the contact information provided below. Filing a complaint in English will expedite the process. SourceForge will investigate and attempt to resolve complaints regarding use and disclosure of personal information in accordance with the principles contained in this Privacy Statement. For complaints that cannot be resolved between SourceForge and the complainant, SourceForge participates in the dispute resolution procedures of the panel established by the EU data protection authorities to resolve disputes pursuant to the Safe Harbor framework.
SourceForge agrees to notify users of the following privacy principles: Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Security, Data Integrity, Access, and Enforcement.
NOTICE
SourceForge provides this Privacy Statement to make users aware of SourceForge privacy practices, and of the choices a user may make about the way the userâ(TM)s information is collected and used.
Children
Users represent they are of legal age to create binding and financial obligations for any liability users may incur as a result of their use of the Sites. The Sites are not directed to children under the age of 13, and SourceForge will never request personally identifiable information from anyone whom it knows to be under the age of 13 without verifiable parental or guardian consent. SourceForge does not knowingly collect, or wish to obtain, personally identifiable information from children. If SourceForge becomes aware that a user is under the age of 13 and has provided personally identifiable information without prior verifiable parental or guardian consent, it will remove userâ(TM)s personally identifiable information from its files.
What information SourceForge collects
SourceForge may collect two types of information from users of Sites: "personally identifiable information" (such as name, email address, postal address, telephone, birth date) and "aggregate information" (such as frequency of visits to Sites, IP address, Site pages most frequently accessed, browser type). Personally identifiable information is any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a user of the Sites. Aggregate information is non-personally identifiable/anonymous information about users of the Sites. Aggreg
Welcome to our brave new world!
Anyway, a lot of the reasons these privacy policies are so long is to cover their asses legally in the first place! Jesus fucking christ, what can the federal government do?
Jailing journalists, suspending habeas corpus, and worse... I suppose you come from the Dick Cheney school of "good things"?
You must not know very much about Lincoln if that's why you think so many people think he was a tyrant. I'd recommend picking up a history book on the Lincoln presidency to see what he did. Here's a hint: Not even Bush has jailed journalists critical of him.
Of course, people always make excuses for the great "Dear Leaders".
Oh yeah, and our "great" FDR also put a whole bunch of Japanese in concentration... er, I mean "internment", that sounds less worse, right, right... he put many Japanese in internment camps, ruining many lives. Such a swell, progressive man!
Because the astrological community is too busy hoodwinking people with talk of Jupiter in the Second House, and horoscopes, and other nonsense.
They did crucify Jesus. That's always a big plus.
government sponsored theft of your property. fuck that.
Taxes?