traffic to the rest of the world utilizes pipes belonging to 3rd parties and they don't give away the bandwidth for free. In-house traffic is virtually free, just like sending terabytes of data between computers plugged into your house LAN is.
outbound traffic costs them money while in-house traffic is virtually free. You will never equalize the costs of internal and external services. On a smaller scale the same thing happens in home LANs. People shuffle shitloads of stuff back and forth between computers, NAS boxes and what not and pay ISPs big round zero bucks for that traffic. Outbound packets are counted against non-free quota while LAN traffic is limitless. Do you want net neutrality here? How would that work?
Though i agree the game is rigged against the common trader, that's not what happened in the recent case where misconfigured HFT algo blew $440 million in 45 minutes. They had to eat their losses.
properly regulated as in ? - USians can't drive very efficient european diesel cars - the emergence of the SUV was due to govt regulation http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3308
Instead of popping corks and celebrating the possible end of the SUV boom, it would be more constructive for groups like the Sierra Club to consider the origins of the SUV boom, in which, ironically, they played an important role. Because what “people were thinking,” when they bought SUV‘s was partly the result of the unintended consequences of fuel economy standards supported by the environmentalists themselves
In the 1970s the United States began enacting “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards for new vehicles. These laws effectively applied to Canada as well, where the government harmonized Canadian efficiency standards with U.S. regulations.
The CAFE standards had a perverse effect: they made certain kinds of cars, such as the family station-wagon, uneconomic for automakers to produce within the constraints of the fuel economy standards. But many people - especially those with children- still wanted large vehicles. So they bought vans or light trucks subject to looser fuel standards. Over time, those choices led to the development of environmentalist nightmares: the minivan and the SUV. Because they were required to be very big in order to qualify as light trucks, the new minivans and SUVs generally had substantially worse mileage than the station wagons that they replaced.
- don't forget that safety and fuel economy generally stand in opposition to each other. Barebone car with a very efficient engine would drive miles on a teaspoon of gas but it won't exist because cars have to have a shitload of safety stuff and the kitchen sink installed and that shit has some serious mass. I am not saying that safety is bad, i am saying that regulation homogenized the market and reduced the available choice.
true that, never underestimate the ingenuity of the govt when it tries to justify its existence and expand its scope. What is particularly bad in the US legal framework is that these fucking ridiculous rulings filling ad hoc political need (like this one, cracking down on smartasses not playing ball with central planners during the great depression) instead of being revised, trashed, buried and forgotten become de facto laws themselves and pollute the legal system to eternity.
what a load of bullshit. The same argument could be made at the federal level - if you think that the govt formally has a power to pass patriot act or any other law of the fucking bullshit kind then by your logic you are a supporter of these laws.
He supports the people's right to create laws at the state level, be it right or wrong. Are you against the states rights when they are on the right side of history too (you know, progressive states introducing gay marriages and marijuana legalization and shit) or maybe you are just a fucking hypocrite who just judges legitimacy of the law by what he feels is good or bad?
Now we can argue if his interpretation of the legal framework is proper or not or what scope should the laws be, but your claim that he is pro-antisodomy is a fat lie.
somehow UK didn't do shit in when someone liberally sprayed bullets with submachine gun from the 1st floor of Libyan embassy at anti-libyan protesters in 1984. 1 killed policewoman, 10 wounded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher
I value people who care only about their family and friends more than the compassionate types loving everybody. The former are honest, the latter usually are easy to pin down as stinking hypocrites. People are not wired to care about the whole world. Your brain can track up to 150 people at once. If you claim you can't sleep because children in Africa are dying, you are lying. If you say are worried about the living conditions of the guy who assembled your iphone, you are lying. The only way to make sure nobody is left behind is to follow the rule 'Everyone looks after oneself = everyone is looked after'
we have a decent proxy to determine self-sufficiency score - money. If you are paid a good coin that means you are a valuable member of society. If your score is above 0, you are a net gain for society. Yeah yeah, the rich are mostly worthless but have a high score - nobody said the proxy was perfect (besides the rich were bad guys in the book) The whole point is that the healthy society you speak of doesn't necessarily mean inducing guilt trips in individuals to look after everybody and their dog. On the contrary, they should be free to excel without being bogged down by mediocrity all around them. I bet this is one of the reasons why the upward mobility is at all time low - people who are bright enough to bring value to the table are paying through the nose instead of expanding, because everybody is entitled to something and it ain't free. They also can't temporarily cut corners in their own wellbeing to bet everything they have on their ideas, because most likely the govt will say it's illegal in 10 different ways and will find 100 ways to punish them.
how is that different from majority of sports? Do you think these teen gymnasts you see on TV have any tangible skill on hand once they reach age of 18-20? Have you ever played hoops or football and wanted to be good at it? Do you earn millions as a sports star now?
Besides starcraft is not as flimsy career path as you think it is. RTS genre shares a lot of common on the metagame level (micro/macromanagement, combat tactics) and the best players can see through that. They can switch to another game and be competent players almost right off the bat, with training they are able to reach top levels of performance. Once their reflexes detoriate they can move to coaching and train next generation of players and this happens a lot in korean starcraft league. They also can try their hand at casting and use their experience and insight to draw the spectators into the game. Granted, only the best of the best have shot at the followup career, but it's the same with any other sport discipline where a significant level of physical prowess is required. Once you are too old, you are too old. Either you are famous enough to live off the fame, or you are not and you need real job.
the ideal is long dead and buried by the IOC. Olympics have been comercialized to the core and they are nothing more than a money making machine for all interested parties except the host city paying through the nose for years. Same thing with Fifa World Cup or Uefa Euro - organizations skim the cream off the top, while hosts are left with all the bills and responsibilities.
We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars.
- energy cost - replacing perfectly fine 36mpg car with brand new 60mpg one is a net loss for the environment. It is estimated that the half of total car-related energy expediture is during its production. In other words even doubling the efficiency doesn't make you break even, and that's not counting additional polution (mining for resources, junking old cars) old car: X production, X exploatation new car replacing old car: old car already produced X, X production of the new one, 0.5X exploatation 2X < X + 1.5X in short: upgrade treadmill is bad, we should use products to their fullest before replacing (unless new tech is *orders* of magnitude more efficient)
- bang for the buck - electric cars don't have one yet no matter how you slice it. That's equivalent to asking people to voluntarily take a very real hit to their standard of living.
even if safety equipment more than offset risky behavior of more confident drivers, what about survivability of pedestrians/cyclists hit by a faster car?
first flatscreen TVs were in tens of thousands range. You see what i am getting at? Games used to be a niche, a luxury, now they are a mainstream entertainment for the masses and a mature industry - economies of scale should apply, considering digital distribution, tech advances and what not... not to mention depressed economy.
no, powerful centralized government attracts sociopaths who desire power to stroke their ego. If there is influence to be bought and sold, there will be buyers and sellers. If the government is powerful enough to pick winners and losers in the market, lobbying the shit out of it is the rational economic choice, not the competition in the good ol' market... and this is what you see - lobbyists lining up to congressmen offices. Centralized government is too far from its constituents, therefore it doesn't fear their wrath and the backroom deals can run full throttle.
Most people today prefer to trust the benevolent masters in the ivory tower to make things right, so they have more time to live their happy stressless lives on facebook, but that can't work. If you want to make sure something is done well, you need to keep an eye on it yourself.
are you sure? because last time i checked the act of money creation happens at the FED, when they choose to buy treasury bonds with new money that magically materializes in their computers at that moment.
cash for clunkers? are you nuts? it was the very definition of the broken window fallacy, it had 'waste' written all over it. Thousands of perfectly good cars were destroyed (i cringed when i watched that on youtube) so a lot of money could be spent on merely replacing them, with huge environmental costs (big chunk of energy spent in case of car is its production and slightly better mpg won't offset that waste, what about shitloads of non-renewable resources?), not to mention driving up prices of 2nd hand cars and car parts - unintended consequences are a bitch.
first of all - gui is expensive, adding a single widget that is connected to the program logic is quite a few lines of code.
Besides try to describe the clicking order to a remote clueless user. Click A > B > C, switch to tab D, look for E and there is F that does what you want. If you are not clear enough in any step, the user will get lost and you can start describing the procedure from the very top. Now compare that to: please copy-paste this line: some_command -option1 -option2
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
SC2 has no lan play
it has, but you need an 'unofficial client'
Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
'actively maintaining' is an overstatement. Usually Blizzard promises some patch 'soon' and 2years later it is still nowhere in sight. I don't know if WC3 players got their promised last patch ever. In case of SC1 few patches fixing meaningless shit nobody cared about, botched the community antihack and few other useful features for no benefit whatsoever and the community had to fix the shit again instead of waiting for some blizzard intern to change 3 lines of code and get approval for release which could take months.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
the difference is that here you got almost mmo requirements - server does much more than it did in case of older titles, which was facilitate connection between players. You don't need much power to do that. Afaik in D3 the servers provide monster AI, control the amount of map data sent to the client (to fight maphacks?), manage drops and shit - the computing power required stops being trivial and the maintenance will cost some serious dough.
where are the amendments, you know, the legit way to fix problems? pretty much all of the last century was about the Supreme Court piling politically convenient shit upon more shit which led to a situation where the federal government can do anything the fuck they want, eg use interstate commerce clause to bust you for a plant that never left your house. I can't comprehend how all these ridiculous interpretations can fly considering explicit, black-on-white 'federal govt is limited' in the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
traffic to the rest of the world utilizes pipes belonging to 3rd parties and they don't give away the bandwidth for free. In-house traffic is virtually free, just like sending terabytes of data between computers plugged into your house LAN is.
outbound traffic costs them money while in-house traffic is virtually free. You will never equalize the costs of internal and external services.
On a smaller scale the same thing happens in home LANs. People shuffle shitloads of stuff back and forth between computers, NAS boxes and what not and pay ISPs big round zero bucks for that traffic. Outbound packets are counted against non-free quota while LAN traffic is limitless.
Do you want net neutrality here? How would that work?
Though i agree the game is rigged against the common trader, that's not what happened in the recent case where misconfigured HFT algo blew $440 million in 45 minutes. They had to eat their losses.
properly regulated as in ?
- USians can't drive very efficient european diesel cars
- the emergence of the SUV was due to govt regulation
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3308
Instead of popping corks and celebrating the possible end of the SUV boom, it would be more constructive for groups like the Sierra Club to consider the origins of the SUV boom, in which, ironically, they played an important role. Because what “people were thinking,” when they bought SUV‘s was partly the result of the unintended consequences of fuel economy standards supported by the environmentalists themselves
In the 1970s the United States began enacting “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards for new vehicles. These laws effectively applied to Canada as well, where the government harmonized Canadian efficiency standards with U.S. regulations.
The CAFE standards had a perverse effect: they made certain kinds of cars, such as the family station-wagon, uneconomic for automakers to produce within the constraints of the fuel economy standards. But many people - especially those with children- still wanted large vehicles. So they bought vans or light trucks subject to looser fuel standards. Over time, those choices led to the development of environmentalist nightmares: the minivan and the SUV. Because they were required to be very big in order to qualify as light trucks, the new minivans and SUVs generally had substantially worse mileage than the station wagons that they replaced.
- don't forget that safety and fuel economy generally stand in opposition to each other. Barebone car with a very efficient engine would drive miles on a teaspoon of gas but it won't exist because cars have to have a shitload of safety stuff and the kitchen sink installed and that shit has some serious mass. I am not saying that safety is bad, i am saying that regulation homogenized the market and reduced the available choice.
true that, never underestimate the ingenuity of the govt when it tries to justify its existence and expand its scope.
What is particularly bad in the US legal framework is that these fucking ridiculous rulings filling ad hoc political need (like this one, cracking down on smartasses not playing ball with central planners during the great depression) instead of being revised, trashed, buried and forgotten become de facto laws themselves and pollute the legal system to eternity.
what a load of bullshit.
The same argument could be made at the federal level - if you think that the govt formally has a power to pass patriot act or any other law of the fucking bullshit kind then by your logic you are a supporter of these laws.
He supports the people's right to create laws at the state level, be it right or wrong. Are you against the states rights when they are on the right side of history too (you know, progressive states introducing gay marriages and marijuana legalization and shit) or maybe you are just a fucking hypocrite who just judges legitimacy of the law by what he feels is good or bad?
Now we can argue if his interpretation of the legal framework is proper or not or what scope should the laws be, but your claim that he is pro-antisodomy is a fat lie.
somehow UK didn't do shit in when someone liberally sprayed bullets with submachine gun from the 1st floor of Libyan embassy at anti-libyan protesters in 1984.
1 killed policewoman, 10 wounded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher
murder vs no-rape rape - that does not compute.
I value people who care only about their family and friends more than the compassionate types loving everybody. The former are honest, the latter usually are easy to pin down as stinking hypocrites.
People are not wired to care about the whole world. Your brain can track up to 150 people at once. If you claim you can't sleep because children in Africa are dying, you are lying. If you say are worried about the living conditions of the guy who assembled your iphone, you are lying.
The only way to make sure nobody is left behind is to follow the rule 'Everyone looks after oneself = everyone is looked after'
we have a decent proxy to determine self-sufficiency score - money. If you are paid a good coin that means you are a valuable member of society. If your score is above 0, you are a net gain for society. Yeah yeah, the rich are mostly worthless but have a high score - nobody said the proxy was perfect (besides the rich were bad guys in the book)
The whole point is that the healthy society you speak of doesn't necessarily mean inducing guilt trips in individuals to look after everybody and their dog. On the contrary, they should be free to excel without being bogged down by mediocrity all around them.
I bet this is one of the reasons why the upward mobility is at all time low - people who are bright enough to bring value to the table are paying through the nose instead of expanding, because everybody is entitled to something and it ain't free. They also can't temporarily cut corners in their own wellbeing to bet everything they have on their ideas, because most likely the govt will say it's illegal in 10 different ways and will find 100 ways to punish them.
how is that different from majority of sports? Do you think these teen gymnasts you see on TV have any tangible skill on hand once they reach age of 18-20?
Have you ever played hoops or football and wanted to be good at it? Do you earn millions as a sports star now?
Besides starcraft is not as flimsy career path as you think it is. RTS genre shares a lot of common on the metagame level (micro/macromanagement, combat tactics) and the best players can see through that. They can switch to another game and be competent players almost right off the bat, with training they are able to reach top levels of performance.
Once their reflexes detoriate they can move to coaching and train next generation of players and this happens a lot in korean starcraft league. They also can try their hand at casting and use their experience and insight to draw the spectators into the game.
Granted, only the best of the best have shot at the followup career, but it's the same with any other sport discipline where a significant level of physical prowess is required. Once you are too old, you are too old. Either you are famous enough to live off the fame, or you are not and you need real job.
Subsidies make sense when you're trying to jumpstart something like this that will have an overall benefit to the country.
were the same words used to justify corn ethanol subsidies which are a net waste of money and energy?
the ideal is long dead and buried by the IOC. Olympics have been comercialized to the core and they are nothing more than a money making machine for all interested parties except the host city paying through the nose for years. Same thing with Fifa World Cup or Uefa Euro - organizations skim the cream off the top, while hosts are left with all the bills and responsibilities.
We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars.
- energy cost - replacing perfectly fine 36mpg car with brand new 60mpg one is a net loss for the environment. It is estimated that the half of total car-related energy expediture is during its production. In other words even doubling the efficiency doesn't make you break even, and that's not counting additional polution (mining for resources, junking old cars)
old car: X production, X exploatation
new car replacing old car: old car already produced X, X production of the new one, 0.5X exploatation
2X < X + 1.5X
in short: upgrade treadmill is bad, we should use products to their fullest before replacing (unless new tech is *orders* of magnitude more efficient)
- bang for the buck - electric cars don't have one yet no matter how you slice it. That's equivalent to asking people to voluntarily take a very real hit to their standard of living.
even if safety equipment more than offset risky behavior of more confident drivers, what about survivability of pedestrians/cyclists hit by a faster car?
first flatscreen TVs were in tens of thousands range. You see what i am getting at?
Games used to be a niche, a luxury, now they are a mainstream entertainment for the masses and a mature industry - economies of scale should apply, considering digital distribution, tech advances and what not... not to mention depressed economy.
in the case of turning, the radius of the turn.
... which translates to... wait for it... acceleration! (a=v^2/r)
no, powerful centralized government attracts sociopaths who desire power to stroke their ego.
If there is influence to be bought and sold, there will be buyers and sellers. If the government is powerful enough to pick winners and losers in the market, lobbying the shit out of it is the rational economic choice, not the competition in the good ol' market... and this is what you see - lobbyists lining up to congressmen offices.
Centralized government is too far from its constituents, therefore it doesn't fear their wrath and the backroom deals can run full throttle.
Most people today prefer to trust the benevolent masters in the ivory tower to make things right, so they have more time to live their happy stressless lives on facebook, but that can't work. If you want to make sure something is done well, you need to keep an eye on it yourself.
and regulatory capture and extensive lobbying are not used to squash the little ones?
are you sure? because last time i checked the act of money creation happens at the FED, when they choose to buy treasury bonds with new money that magically materializes in their computers at that moment.
cash for clunkers? are you nuts? it was the very definition of the broken window fallacy, it had 'waste' written all over it.
Thousands of perfectly good cars were destroyed (i cringed when i watched that on youtube) so a lot of money could be spent on merely replacing them, with huge environmental costs (big chunk of energy spent in case of car is its production and slightly better mpg won't offset that waste, what about shitloads of non-renewable resources?), not to mention driving up prices of 2nd hand cars and car parts - unintended consequences are a bitch.
first of all - gui is expensive, adding a single widget that is connected to the program logic is quite a few lines of code.
Besides try to describe the clicking order to a remote clueless user. Click A > B > C, switch to tab D, look for E and there is F that does what you want. If you are not clear enough in any step, the user will get lost and you can start describing the procedure from the very top.
Now compare that to: please copy-paste this line: some_command -option1 -option2
SC2 has no lan play
it has, but you need an 'unofficial client'
'actively maintaining' is an overstatement. Usually Blizzard promises some patch 'soon' and 2years later it is still nowhere in sight. I don't know if WC3 players got their promised last patch ever. In case of SC1 few patches fixing meaningless shit nobody cared about, botched the community antihack and few other useful features for no benefit whatsoever and the community had to fix the shit again instead of waiting for some blizzard intern to change 3 lines of code and get approval for release which could take months.
the difference is that here you got almost mmo requirements - server does much more than it did in case of older titles, which was facilitate connection between players. You don't need much power to do that. Afaik in D3 the servers provide monster AI, control the amount of map data sent to the client (to fight maphacks?), manage drops and shit - the computing power required stops being trivial and the maintenance will cost some serious dough.
and 90% of Congress knows that the brown towelheads hate America for her unmatched freedom and prosperity.
where are the amendments, you know, the legit way to fix problems? pretty much all of the last century was about the Supreme Court piling politically convenient shit upon more shit which led to a situation where the federal government can do anything the fuck they want, eg use interstate commerce clause to bust you for a plant that never left your house.
I can't comprehend how all these ridiculous interpretations can fly considering explicit, black-on-white 'federal govt is limited' in the constitution.