Sorry but we don't want our kids hearing what we jokingly call "OUT Radio" on a daily basis.
You're the one who will be sorry when your children develop their own unbiased opinions in a few years, and lose respect for you based on yours. My dad is a huge Rush Limbaugh/O'Reilly fan who I can't even talk to anymore about the real world or politics anymore. I'm not gay, but I feel my understanding of human sexuality is so much more advanced than his that it would be a waste of time to bring up anything remotely related to the topic. By the time he gave me the 'sex talk' I had already lost my virginity and read many books on the topic, so I was already years ahead of whatever pitiful information he shared in his 'chat'. Sounds like your children are headed down the same path.
Markets "fail" because demand for them decreases. That's not a failure of Capitalism, that is capitalism doing its job. And, in capitalism, nothing truly dies if there is a smidgeon of a market for it (i.e. a few people want it).
No, what you are describing is called obsolescence. Wikipedia says:
In economics, a market failure exists when the production or use of goods and services by the market is not efficient. That is, there exists another outcome where all involved can be made better off. Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient â" that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view... Market failures are often associated with non-competitive markets, externalities or public goods. The existence of a market failure is often used as a justification for government intervention in a particular market.
What libertarians don't realize is that almost nothing is perfectly competitive, everything has externalities, and almost all goods are 'public' to some extent.
The value of news is very difficult to measure and price, so a market failure here is no surprise.
They're horribly biased towards certain agendas, including banning drugs, banning guns, banning knives, socialist government, reduction of civil liberties, promotion of police power and (in the UK) populist claptrap.
With the exception of banning drugs and populist claptrap, I like all of those ideas. I'll take the BBC over Fox News any day.
How about the NPR/PBS model? If the NYT was desperate for money and sent letters begging for donations, I'm sure more than a few faithful readers would step up to the plate. Conservatives could donate to Murdoch (cuz he doesn't have enough money already) and I can donate to whoever I think is good. It would be extra cool if I had the option of donating to specific reporters that I liked (Frank Rich).
Capitalism does not always work for everything, markets fail more often than your libertarian econ profs tell you. I always enjoyed PBS more than any other broadcast TV, and I wouldn't miss a world without reality shows.
For those who didn't bother to RTFA, let me save you some time: new energy generation and distribution techniques + more internet = new cities. The money quote
The reality is that the city of the future will likely have many aspects of a contained and managed ecosystem
is just retarded, as anyone who has ever been anywhere near a city realizes that none of them are remotely resemble contained ecosystems, no matter how much solar power and internet you add.
/agree, I don't think FirePond can prove harm. If I type in a company's name, and it's the first search result I see, how does it hurt to have that company's competitors websites among the sponsored links? If I want to go to the Firepond website I will, if I'm looking for their competitors then this is actually a good thing for me.
we just might all be screwed in the fight for "freedoms", "rights", and "privileges"
And how is that any different from 50 years ago? It's not called "the struggle" for no reason. The real victory here is in the p2p software. No one can legislate away my right to encrypt data and send it over the intertubes. (At least so far.)
As a citizen of the US, may I suggest your trust and respect is misplaced? Every country is in an eternal struggle with its majority of idiots. Only trust a country when sane people are in charge.
I don't think most people would like the idea of having to commit to playing a game at X specified time. That is my (and I suspect many others') biggest problem with MMOs. How about scrap the levels altogether and just place people in arena or battleground settings with all the gear they need, go kill each other and have a good time?
That is a much better idea than the drivel in the article. They seem to want to design a WoW/Diablo combo super server. You want to play a month long game of Warcraft 3 with 30 people. As I hate Diablo and love Warcraft, your idea is clearly the better of the two. The only problem is how to pause the game.
I still don't understand why people think more people always = good. I played EQ and WoW, I liked the lower server population on EQ a lot more, I knew a larger percentage of the people online at any given time, and it was more fun chatting with them than WoW players.
And I don't get people's obsession with game economies. I want to play a GAME, not buy 3000 stacks of netherweave, then turn them into band aids. I don't care how complex the economy is, I care how fun the game is.
how long until we see a MMO that is run _entirely_ server-side - that is, a game that does all graphics and game logic calculations server-side, OnLive style, and simply streams HD-video to each client. If this considerable hurdle could be jumped, we might be able to see a lot more in the way of a dynamic MMO world, with actual physics, terrain deformation, collision detection, and a bunch of other features that are tough to do with the current client-server system.
Just.... no. There are many reasons graphics are done client side. Let me know when you figure them all out. Sure, something like this is theoretically possible, but only if you want to pay upwards of $200 per month to play that game. Since it's a lot cheaper for me to buy a really nice graphics card, why not render client side?
"since it better allows player choices to have a meaningful impact on the game world"
Am I the only one here who doesn't want the collective impulses of 1 million 15 year olds impacting my game experience? Instead of theorizing about how awesome it would be to have a server with 5 million people on it at the same time, why don't they try to design a game that would actually be fun to play with 5 million other people on your server. I can't think of any, but if they can, I'd at least be willing to listen to their ideas.
Since the authors of this worthless article don't have any new ideas other than "WoW with tons of people on the same server!!!", I don't know how this thing got out of the firehose.
Informed people don't use IE because MS's attempt to tie it into windows resulted in it becoming the least secure browser for Windows. In the old days when IE crashed Windows crashed, everyone started hating it then, and they've preferred to use anything but IE ever since.
This doesn't matter unless they make the game actually fun to play. Will Chinese people be willing to pay the few cents per hour they currently pay for WoW for a shitty Chinese knock-off? I doubt it.
Oh, and I forgot to add, Geneva Conventions only matter if you get caught.
A US veteran recalls his commander telling him to machine-gun a group of about 50 refugees. "I said, 'we can't kill all these people,' and he pulled out his handgun, a.45, and pointed it at my head, he said, 'Kill 'em, you're directly disobeying a direct order in combat'."
I do mostly blame the Military Academy, but this "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." culture seems quitepervasive in the military culture. The motto/battle cry sums up the suicide bombers' philosophy quite well.
Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.
I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.
70 Chinese characters per text message. In China, at least. Keep in mind most simple sentences are not longer than 5-7 characters because most words average 1.5 characters in length. I can text much more information in Chinese than English.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but we don't want our kids hearing what we jokingly call "OUT Radio" on a daily basis.
You're the one who will be sorry when your children develop their own unbiased opinions in a few years, and lose respect for you based on yours. My dad is a huge Rush Limbaugh/O'Reilly fan who I can't even talk to anymore about the real world or politics anymore. I'm not gay, but I feel my understanding of human sexuality is so much more advanced than his that it would be a waste of time to bring up anything remotely related to the topic. By the time he gave me the 'sex talk' I had already lost my virginity and read many books on the topic, so I was already years ahead of whatever pitiful information he shared in his 'chat'. Sounds like your children are headed down the same path.
Markets "fail" because demand for them decreases. That's not a failure of Capitalism, that is capitalism doing its job. And, in capitalism, nothing truly dies if there is a smidgeon of a market for it (i.e. a few people want it).
No, what you are describing is called obsolescence. Wikipedia says:
In economics, a market failure exists when the production or use of goods and services by the market is not efficient. That is, there exists another outcome where all involved can be made better off. Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient â" that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view... Market failures are often associated with non-competitive markets, externalities or public goods. The existence of a market failure is often used as a justification for government intervention in a particular market.
What libertarians don't realize is that almost nothing is perfectly competitive, everything has externalities, and almost all goods are 'public' to some extent.
The value of news is very difficult to measure and price, so a market failure here is no surprise.
They're horribly biased towards certain agendas, including banning drugs, banning guns, banning knives, socialist government, reduction of civil liberties, promotion of police power and (in the UK) populist claptrap.
With the exception of banning drugs and populist claptrap, I like all of those ideas. I'll take the BBC over Fox News any day.
That's capitalism for you.
How about the NPR/PBS model? If the NYT was desperate for money and sent letters begging for donations, I'm sure more than a few faithful readers would step up to the plate. Conservatives could donate to Murdoch (cuz he doesn't have enough money already) and I can donate to whoever I think is good. It would be extra cool if I had the option of donating to specific reporters that I liked (Frank Rich).
Capitalism does not always work for everything, markets fail more often than your libertarian econ profs tell you. I always enjoyed PBS more than any other broadcast TV, and I wouldn't miss a world without reality shows.
1. Move farther south
2. No need, most freight moves around cities, not through.
3. Might work in cartoons.
4. I'll care when I can afford a helicopter. If everyone owns one, where do they all park?
5. They already exist.
The reality is that the city of the future will likely have many aspects of a contained and managed ecosystem
is just retarded, as anyone who has ever been anywhere near a city realizes that none of them are remotely resemble contained ecosystems, no matter how much solar power and internet you add.
/agree, I don't think FirePond can prove harm. If I type in a company's name, and it's the first search result I see, how does it hurt to have that company's competitors websites among the sponsored links? If I want to go to the Firepond website I will, if I'm looking for their competitors then this is actually a good thing for me.
we just might all be screwed in the fight for "freedoms", "rights", and "privileges"
And how is that any different from 50 years ago? It's not called "the struggle" for no reason. The real victory here is in the p2p software. No one can legislate away my right to encrypt data and send it over the intertubes. (At least so far.)
we trust and respect the American people.
As a citizen of the US, may I suggest your trust and respect is misplaced? Every country is in an eternal struggle with its majority of idiots. Only trust a country when sane people are in charge.
Is the sequel a zombie war?
Am I missing something?
Slow news day on Slashdot. Did you look at the previous "story"?
I don't think most people would like the idea of having to commit to playing a game at X specified time. That is my (and I suspect many others') biggest problem with MMOs. How about scrap the levels altogether and just place people in arena or battleground settings with all the gear they need, go kill each other and have a good time?
That is a much better idea than the drivel in the article. They seem to want to design a WoW/Diablo combo super server. You want to play a month long game of Warcraft 3 with 30 people. As I hate Diablo and love Warcraft, your idea is clearly the better of the two. The only problem is how to pause the game.
I still don't understand why people think more people always = good. I played EQ and WoW, I liked the lower server population on EQ a lot more, I knew a larger percentage of the people online at any given time, and it was more fun chatting with them than WoW players.
And I don't get people's obsession with game economies. I want to play a GAME, not buy 3000 stacks of netherweave, then turn them into band aids. I don't care how complex the economy is, I care how fun the game is.
how long until we see a MMO that is run _entirely_ server-side - that is, a game that does all graphics and game logic calculations server-side, OnLive style, and simply streams HD-video to each client. If this considerable hurdle could be jumped, we might be able to see a lot more in the way of a dynamic MMO world, with actual physics, terrain deformation, collision detection, and a bunch of other features that are tough to do with the current client-server system.
Just.... no. There are many reasons graphics are done client side. Let me know when you figure them all out. Sure, something like this is theoretically possible, but only if you want to pay upwards of $200 per month to play that game. Since it's a lot cheaper for me to buy a really nice graphics card, why not render client side?
"since it better allows player choices to have a meaningful impact on the game world"
Am I the only one here who doesn't want the collective impulses of 1 million 15 year olds impacting my game experience? Instead of theorizing about how awesome it would be to have a server with 5 million people on it at the same time, why don't they try to design a game that would actually be fun to play with 5 million other people on your server. I can't think of any, but if they can, I'd at least be willing to listen to their ideas.
Since the authors of this worthless article don't have any new ideas other than "WoW with tons of people on the same server!!!", I don't know how this thing got out of the firehose.
Informed people don't use IE because MS's attempt to tie it into windows resulted in it becoming the least secure browser for Windows. In the old days when IE crashed Windows crashed, everyone started hating it then, and they've preferred to use anything but IE ever since.
This doesn't matter unless they make the game actually fun to play. Will Chinese people be willing to pay the few cents per hour they currently pay for WoW for a shitty Chinese knock-off? I doubt it.
You're not accounting for the benefits of lower population...
A US veteran recalls his commander telling him to machine-gun a group of about 50 refugees. "I said, 'we can't kill all these people,' and he pulled out his handgun, a .45, and pointed it at my head, he said, 'Kill 'em, you're directly disobeying a direct order in combat'."
I do mostly blame the Military Academy, but this "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." culture seems quite pervasive in the military culture. The motto/battle cry sums up the suicide bombers' philosophy quite well.
How is my post above offtopic? And the GP is overrated? Is the NSA modding this page?
Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.
But then only idiots and psychos would want to go to war. Oh, wait a sec....
Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.
I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.
70 Chinese characters per text message. In China, at least. Keep in mind most simple sentences are not longer than 5-7 characters because most words average 1.5 characters in length. I can text much more information in Chinese than English.