Re:The problem with the idea of a casual MMO
on
Tabula Rasa Goes Live
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's because RPG's in the video game sense are based around the mindless statistics management of the pen and paper variety.
Video games are an in-between medium. The computer can handle all the stats for you. The play experience should be a balance between interacting with the play world and "rewards" for doing so. That's the CORE of even a pen and paper RPG. Action A x 2 = Prize A, Action B x 4 = Prize B, etc etc. Game makers tend to fall back on translating PnP straight to the video game realm. It's easier and helps you meet deadlines.
How do you make an MMO, with a premise that keeps people plunking their "quarter into the machine" in return for a base level amount of amusement? That's a tricky one, because everyone's "base level" varies. There is the casuals who just need to "take a break from the world" for a few and the "hardcores" who probably have no life outside their basement (jk).
The lure of the MMO for the casual can be summed up somewhat by "consistency". For a nominal fee per month, they can fall back on a reliable piece of entertainment that will usually offer a diverse enough experience to justify the expense. Sure there have been online games that have been free for decades that would satisfy that itch... but it can be a pain to find a good server, cool people to play with, yada yada, MMO's offer somewhat of a fix to those headaches by offering a "one stop shop".
You run the risk that casuals will get bored if you don't add enough things over time (which could be a few days, weeks, months, can't please everyone of them though. I'd stick with a weeks to months demographic, usually you can sprinkle a little in here and there to keep enough of them interested). WoW does this pretty well and I think it's what mainly attributes to it's success.
Hardcores (there's a couple obvious sub-divisions in hardcore too, the one's in it for bragging rights and the RP type) blow through the casual stuff and need new ways to feel they have a "place" in the game world. The problem with servicing hardcores is they also tend to be the segment of your game population that is hardest to please. If you introduce more "casual" play content they will bitch you're pandering to lamers with no dedication. If you give 'em what they want, they take it and bitch about it not being enough.
The only one who struck a balance that seems to work well "enough" is Blizzard. The "problem" with WoW is they are kind of a one-trick pony. Their strength is how they handled class advancement (and within that, the ability to have relatively diverse skill sets). The early missions get you enough levels to feel enough satisfaction to keep going (this is important to casual players). The pacing slows in the middle levels, but you have enough access to diverse areas, gear, activities to keep enough people interested.
The end game is where WoW turns into nothing but a matter of looting and bragging rights, basically an online penis flailing session. This can turn off casual players who get bored and those RP types who want more of a "world" to live and breath in. WoW's implementation of crafting and "social" activities specifically impacts, IMO, the RP type of players (at the base level, they pretty much want a graphical chat room + sandbox. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these people would like to escape reality as a whole, but i digress)
A combination of methods would be required to make an MMO that would dwarf WoW's numbers (not to mention huge adjustments in social trends, which strangely may be easier than some of the technical hurdles, based on today's methods anyway.) You need advancement to come fast enough (not just through leveling) for casuals to stay interested, but not too fast for hardcores to burn out without reaching the top echelon.
"End Game" content I think requires the next large paradigm shift in MMO's. It tends to not pay out enough and you'll get people that bail halfway up the ladder, or some that get to the top and go "That's it?" right before clicking the unsubscr
And sony miscalculated. That line right there speaks to pretty much Sony's entire handling of that game. Yes the profession system was interesting, but horribly unrefined, as was just about every other system. And they took a "fix it on the fly" approach, which would unbalance the game in an entirely new direction.
It really did need a fairly extensive over haul like was implemented in the first CU, minus perhaps some of the more intriguing mechanics being yanked.
But it wasn't just balance that screwed that game over. It was performance problems as well (I'm told the rubber banding can still be a huge issue.)
Mediocre (at times almost completely broken) gameplay + Shoddy performance and stability = Increasingly unpopular game
the thing about SWG is that, it's a shitty game even w/o the jedi. make a good game where Jedi are designed as an integral component from the ground up and then you might have a chance.
plus it wouldnt be such a big deal if jedi hadn't been turned into super heroes over the years
perhaps they werent depicted as so over powering in the OT because of fx limitations, but a Jedi to me doesnt mean everyone being able to blow sparks out their ass, or single handedly save the galaxy. i like to think of them more as sage old samurai type warriors in a sci fi world. yes they are gifted fighters and scholars and such, and SOME can shoot sparks, but the prequel trilogy reduced them to action figures (in fairness this representation was somewhat precipitated by EU content over the preceding years as well)
i don't think the jedi need to be playable as a uber class. they simply need to be different than a soldier class. Bioware did a damn good job with balancing them against the other team members (granted you could turn almost anyone into a Jedi) Sure a Jedi should be feared but come on they got owned by foot soldiers according to canon, all depictions to the contrary are nothing but marketing an image.
I worked at a CompUSA while goin to school. We had a guy buy an expensive camera and come back later saying there was a pair of 6 volt batteries in it (the big brickish ones with the coil contacts).
Our front end supe exchanged it. I dunno how, but the operations manager found out and somehow found the guy selling the same camera on eBay (I think he filled out the credit card app and his e-mail addy matched his eBay userID, not sure though). When she called the cops, it turns out they'd had already been lookin' at him for doin' the same thing at Circuit City and Best Buy across town.
I remember the ops manager saying she had follow up calls from the police to get her statement for evidence, so I'm assuming he got busted.
Why buy a Wii, a DS or PSP is cheaper and plays games. Why buy a DS or PSP, buy a PS2 even cheaper and have a catalog of games going back 7 years. Why buy a new console or fast gaming rig at all, there is over 2 decades worth of PC games out there you can play.
But if you would like to play the hottest when at it's highest settings, buy this card. If you just want to play some games, pick from the options above.
Sure, socially things may be bad, but until things in the U.S. get like Burma, there isn't a NEED for violence. Ironic as it may sound, at that point, violence becomes justified to necessitate survival.
Ah, wait, my last statement. The tax would be on the consumer, not the business providing it, right? Hm. But still my earlier part is unanswered. Taxing certain services would drive people away from those business ventures. Ah, so you could suppose it's to keep people from them and they remain well entrenched in the status quo. Streaming audio too pricey now? Here, the RIAA will sell you a CD! VoIP bill got you feeling the pinch in the pocket book? How about a good ol' fashioned landline?
So I guess I still get to hate this. Cool I felt conflicted for a moment.
Basically they're operating on a sort of "sell you the printer/razor for cheap, then nickle & dime you for the cartridges/blades" model.
Here is my question, I thought there were rules or guidelines, if not actual laws, that required the government to tax businesses entities equally (with rates, not dollar values). For example, let's say you have small biz owners A and B who are competitors. Now, and this is over simplified, they would have to tax both guys the same rate. That way A can't get his buddy in Congress to help his business succeed by unfairly lowering his tax burden (ya I know this happens, but simple thought experiement time), thereby having an operating advantage over B.
How can they then tax streaming video/audio, VoIP, etc and not other online services. On the simplest level, ALL of them use the same methods to deliver their goods (protocols, equipment). As "online" service providers, aren't they then put at a disadvantage compared to other online service providers who are not taxed? Because one business employs an extra protocol another may not (VoIP for example), that means VoIP carriers have an extra burden simply to exist. Why would you want to be a VoIP carrier?
Oh wait. Taxing streaming video/audio, VoIP. Who has interest in those? The MAFIAA, Bells... Are they trying to keep the lil guy out? Fuckin' A. Raise the barrier to entry and only the big guys with deep pockets can succeed. God I hate this country even more now.
If you're playing on Xbox Live, you're simply supporting another companies idea of a locked-in, content distribution system.
The purchase alone, despite the platform, directly supported Valve, who won't be shutting Steam down any time soon, particularly if they're in business.
Disclaimer: My comments mostly point at occurrences under Bush. I feel Dems and Reps are equally shady, under handed parties. Other than cut/paste the list, I didn't dig around for anything other than what I came up with off the top of my head.
Fascist Warning Sign #1: Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
If you're not with "U.S." you're a terrorist. Bills named the "Patriot Act" so sheeple feel warm and fuzzy.
Fascist Warning Sign #2: Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Suspension of Habeus corpus, illegal phone taps, "enemy combatants", black bag kidnappings, Patriot Act...
Fascist Warning Sign #3: Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
"Axis of Evil"
Fascist Warning Sign #4: The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Bush has had the military deployed in combat for 6 years. His administration continues to suggest they will attack other countries if they don't follow our ultimatums.
Fascist Warning Sign #5: Rampant sexism.
This one maybe not so much. Our international talking head (Condoleeza) counts against #5 I would say.
Fascist Warning Sign #6: A controlled mass media.
Maybe not directly, but the networks kowtow in order to not be left out and really don't question much.
Fascist Warning Sign #7: Obsession with national security.
This one should be pretty obvious.
Fascist Warning Sign #8: Religion and ruling elite tied together.
In God We Trust.
Fascist Warning Sign #9: Power of corporations protected.
This one isn't just a Bush thing. This goes back decades.
Fascist Warning Sign #10: Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
See #9
Fascist Warning Sign #11: Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Suppression of global warming research, laws/court rulings protecting IP while minimizing fair use.
Fascist Warning Sign #12: Obsession with crime and punishment.
Bush governed Texas, the state with a record for most executions. Before his time began the war on drugs. Even individual states are guilty of this.
Fascist Warning Sign #13: Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Abrahmoff, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc etc
Fascist Warning Sign #14: Fraudulent elections.
Who can tell. Maybe not directly, but supporters running local campaigns have passed out false information pamphlets in attempts to keep.
So that's what, 2 of 14 I can't come up with something right off the top of my head. Viva Liberty!
They still sell wireless data cards specifically for your laptop. So the argument still remains: Download TV shows or movies or software you purchase and you'll hit that barrier fast then *yoink* "We rule you!"
Perhaps you're not a pessimist NOR an optimist but a realist, I use the word here to mean "middle of the road". Moderation is key in all things, right? I know people that would consider themselves incredibly optimistic who are ill equipped to deal with misfortune and dismay in a stable fashion (my ex being a recent example).
Likewise I've known pessimists who stay in most of the time and avoid the world because they're too afraid of bad shit happening.
I trend towards more pessimist than optimist, but I'm workin' on finding a balance. I don't want to ignore the possibility of failure to the point I can't handle it if it happens, but I tend to let that possibility keep me from things or alter my ability to accomplish tasks I set out on. Like you mentioned, trying to gauge probabilities has actually helped me start to find a balance.
Life is hard work some times, but the benefits are typically worth it.
At work, I can't just easily interface with our Active Directory(yes its MS, but its what we use). That's like saying "The alternator on my Ford Focus didn't work on my Honda Civic. WTF Ford!?"
Also as a gamer I'm also unable to permanently switch to Linux. Technically not also a "fault" of Linux. I'm sure that game devs would make Linux native games if the market really existed.
When Linux has a dominant share of the market place, and games are put out strictly for Linux, then I'll switch. How will it become dominant if people don't use it? Why would a game company dev native Linux games if there is no market?
I haven't read the article yet, but I have a feeling your comments would echo my own. I'd add too that, it's not that your average user can't grasp the concepts, but they haven't been "conditioned" to. We fall back on what we know and Windows, as the OS with the most penetration, has worked for over a decade without requiring gramps and auntie em to jump through hoops.
Trying to change the mindset of millions of users is not something that will happen over night.
computers operate in a way completely unimagined by those who drafted the Constitution. Logically? Which is the opposite of how humans typically operate.
Consider the Constitution being written in a time before guns. Suddenly guns come along. Do you write up new laws saying "Don't kill someone with a gun?" One would assume killing in general to be wrong.
What usually happens is legislating computers and their use is less about serving the public good and instead about propping up a businesses bottom line. Outside that, I see little to "legislate" computer use. Computer fraud is fraud, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. I have a hard time seeing a distinction between using a computer to facilitate it or not, thus I see computer centric laws ridiculous.
It is impossible to stop a communications medium for being used for advertizing by any technological means. Junk mail has a significant cost for the sender, so it has a natural limit on the amount of crap sent; e-mail, however, has no such natural limit.
There is no technological method to eliminate spam, nor natural limit to the amount of e-mail that can be spread? First off, cost of doing business then. If you're going to establish a presence online, you're going to get spammed. Second, if the systems can handle an unlimited amount of e-mail, spammers should be free to send as much as they please right? Oh wait, there is one. The push to eliminate spam, seen from the technological end is to reduce operational costs. From a social perspective, to minimize sheeple from exploitation. Neither of those should be the governments job, IMO.
It can be mitigated technologically, if not outright eliminated. Sure it would cost money to develop or implement those solutions. Far better that option than wittling down the stick to the point where, whenever a businesses profits are impacted, we throw someone in jail.
On the second point, it's up to people to protect themselves rather than relying on a nanny state.
I guess mob bosses who don't dirty their own hands don't belong there then, eh ?
Bit of a stretch to go from a spammer's crimes to those of your average mob boss, who in many cases may order that death/harm come to an actual person.
Yes. "Spam" is using the communication medium (in this case e-mail) to send an endless stream of advertizements. It clogs up said communication channels, reducing signal to noise ratio, and increasing the chances of a legitimate message being lost. Since it is the communication between individuals which forms the society, spam directly attacks the very foundations of society, and is a very real threat.
There is another, long-term threat: cynicism. The advertizing we are being bombarded with at all times is making us adapt by becoming less and less receptive and likely to believe anything anyone tells us, which could have some extremely nasty implications down the road, since it weakens our ability to cooperate.
Clogs communication channels? Fix the system. When something is overburdened, I'd much rather a "better" version be implemented rather than "I don't like how you're using it, so I shall quest to have you imprisoned so you can't do it anymore." Again, it lowers the bar for the future on what you can tossed in the clink for. That is not a good thing.
Bombarded by advertising? Shut off the TV/radio, don't go online. I don't feel there is an intrinsic right that you not be offended or otherwise "put out" by others. If you can't deal with, find a shrink. I'm sure they have ads somewhere. And if people desensitize to it and are more likely to become potential victims, that's their problem. I'd rather not have Big Brother trying to protect everyone.
Social Darwinism went out of fashion, as bad ideas often do.
It would be my opinion that we raise the less fortunate/educated/wise to the level of the upper crust, rather than say "Ok instead, we'll shield you from it and let you continue to simmer and stew in your insecure, uncertain, oblivious view." Especially when you put the power of carrying out that doctrine in the hands of a government.
What makes you think that a spammer, who is running his operation with total disregard for the trouble and damage he is causing, isn't a psychopath ? Just because you're a psychopath doesn't make you too stupid to control your violent impulses when doing so is beneficent to you, you know.
Actually the definition of psychopath is typically defined as someone with real mental instability who CAN'T control impulses to cause harm. Thanks for trying.
The world is fucked up. I get it. What's more fucked up is the "lock em up! that will solve the problem!" attitude. The effort exerted on locking up sp
They still produced a lot of completely original and very inspiring tracks. For certain. I'm not knocking Zep. In general I'm a minimalist fan, particularly with music (3 chords is enough for everyone!:)). I was being a lil pedantic over the wording of the GGP post.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because RPG's in the video game sense are based around the mindless statistics management of the pen and paper variety.
Video games are an in-between medium. The computer can handle all the stats for you. The play experience should be a balance between interacting with the play world and "rewards" for doing so. That's the CORE of even a pen and paper RPG. Action A x 2 = Prize A, Action B x 4 = Prize B, etc etc. Game makers tend to fall back on translating PnP straight to the video game realm. It's easier and helps you meet deadlines.
How do you make an MMO, with a premise that keeps people plunking their "quarter into the machine" in return for a base level amount of amusement? That's a tricky one, because everyone's "base level" varies. There is the casuals who just need to "take a break from the world" for a few and the "hardcores" who probably have no life outside their basement (jk).
The lure of the MMO for the casual can be summed up somewhat by "consistency". For a nominal fee per month, they can fall back on a reliable piece of entertainment that will usually offer a diverse enough experience to justify the expense. Sure there have been online games that have been free for decades that would satisfy that itch... but it can be a pain to find a good server, cool people to play with, yada yada, MMO's offer somewhat of a fix to those headaches by offering a "one stop shop".
You run the risk that casuals will get bored if you don't add enough things over time (which could be a few days, weeks, months, can't please everyone of them though. I'd stick with a weeks to months demographic, usually you can sprinkle a little in here and there to keep enough of them interested). WoW does this pretty well and I think it's what mainly attributes to it's success.
Hardcores (there's a couple obvious sub-divisions in hardcore too, the one's in it for bragging rights and the RP type) blow through the casual stuff and need new ways to feel they have a "place" in the game world. The problem with servicing hardcores is they also tend to be the segment of your game population that is hardest to please. If you introduce more "casual" play content they will bitch you're pandering to lamers with no dedication. If you give 'em what they want, they take it and bitch about it not being enough.
The only one who struck a balance that seems to work well "enough" is Blizzard. The "problem" with WoW is they are kind of a one-trick pony. Their strength is how they handled class advancement (and within that, the ability to have relatively diverse skill sets). The early missions get you enough levels to feel enough satisfaction to keep going (this is important to casual players). The pacing slows in the middle levels, but you have enough access to diverse areas, gear, activities to keep enough people interested.
The end game is where WoW turns into nothing but a matter of looting and bragging rights, basically an online penis flailing session. This can turn off casual players who get bored and those RP types who want more of a "world" to live and breath in. WoW's implementation of crafting and "social" activities specifically impacts, IMO, the RP type of players (at the base level, they pretty much want a graphical chat room + sandbox. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these people would like to escape reality as a whole, but i digress)
A combination of methods would be required to make an MMO that would dwarf WoW's numbers (not to mention huge adjustments in social trends, which strangely may be easier than some of the technical hurdles, based on today's methods anyway.) You need advancement to come fast enough (not just through leveling) for casuals to stay interested, but not too fast for hardcores to burn out without reaching the top echelon.
"End Game" content I think requires the next large paradigm shift in MMO's. It tends to not pay out enough and you'll get people that bail halfway up the ladder, or some that get to the top and go "That's it?" right before clicking the unsubscr
I think you're nuts. I offer no possible evidence or further opinion on the subject, I just wanted to chime in.
It really did need a fairly extensive over haul like was implemented in the first CU, minus perhaps some of the more intriguing mechanics being yanked.
But it wasn't just balance that screwed that game over. It was performance problems as well (I'm told the rubber banding can still be a huge issue.)
Mediocre (at times almost completely broken) gameplay + Shoddy performance and stability = Increasingly unpopular game
the thing about SWG is that, it's a shitty game even w/o the jedi. make a good game where Jedi are designed as an integral component from the ground up and then you might have a chance.
plus it wouldnt be such a big deal if jedi hadn't been turned into super heroes over the years
perhaps they werent depicted as so over powering in the OT because of fx limitations, but a Jedi to me doesnt mean everyone being able to blow sparks out their ass, or single handedly save the galaxy. i like to think of them more as sage old samurai type warriors in a sci fi world. yes they are gifted fighters and scholars and such, and SOME can shoot sparks, but the prequel trilogy reduced them to action figures (in fairness this representation was somewhat precipitated by EU content over the preceding years as well)
i don't think the jedi need to be playable as a uber class. they simply need to be different than a soldier class. Bioware did a damn good job with balancing them against the other team members (granted you could turn almost anyone into a Jedi) Sure a Jedi should be feared but come on they got owned by foot soldiers according to canon, all depictions to the contrary are nothing but marketing an image.
I worked at a CompUSA while goin to school. We had a guy buy an expensive camera and come back later saying there was a pair of 6 volt batteries in it (the big brickish ones with the coil contacts).
Our front end supe exchanged it. I dunno how, but the operations manager found out and somehow found the guy selling the same camera on eBay (I think he filled out the credit card app and his e-mail addy matched his eBay userID, not sure though). When she called the cops, it turns out they'd had already been lookin' at him for doin' the same thing at Circuit City and Best Buy across town.
I remember the ops manager saying she had follow up calls from the police to get her statement for evidence, so I'm assuming he got busted.
Why buy a Wii, a DS or PSP is cheaper and plays games. Why buy a DS or PSP, buy a PS2 even cheaper and have a catalog of games going back 7 years. Why buy a new console or fast gaming rig at all, there is over 2 decades worth of PC games out there you can play.
But if you would like to play the hottest when at it's highest settings, buy this card. If you just want to play some games, pick from the options above.
Sure, socially things may be bad, but until things in the U.S. get like Burma, there isn't a NEED for violence. Ironic as it may sound, at that point, violence becomes justified to necessitate survival.
Ah, wait, my last statement. The tax would be on the consumer, not the business providing it, right? Hm. But still my earlier part is unanswered. Taxing certain services would drive people away from those business ventures. Ah, so you could suppose it's to keep people from them and they remain well entrenched in the status quo. Streaming audio too pricey now? Here, the RIAA will sell you a CD! VoIP bill got you feeling the pinch in the pocket book? How about a good ol' fashioned landline?
So I guess I still get to hate this. Cool I felt conflicted for a moment.
When this was brought up weeks ago. Not that I'm trying to say I'm that smart, but I have my moments.
Basically they're operating on a sort of "sell you the printer/razor for cheap, then nickle & dime you for the cartridges/blades" model.
Here is my question, I thought there were rules or guidelines, if not actual laws, that required the government to tax businesses entities equally (with rates, not dollar values). For example, let's say you have small biz owners A and B who are competitors. Now, and this is over simplified, they would have to tax both guys the same rate. That way A can't get his buddy in Congress to help his business succeed by unfairly lowering his tax burden (ya I know this happens, but simple thought experiement time), thereby having an operating advantage over B.
How can they then tax streaming video/audio, VoIP, etc and not other online services. On the simplest level, ALL of them use the same methods to deliver their goods (protocols, equipment). As "online" service providers, aren't they then put at a disadvantage compared to other online service providers who are not taxed? Because one business employs an extra protocol another may not (VoIP for example), that means VoIP carriers have an extra burden simply to exist. Why would you want to be a VoIP carrier?
Oh wait. Taxing streaming video/audio, VoIP. Who has interest in those? The MAFIAA, Bells... Are they trying to keep the lil guy out? Fuckin' A. Raise the barrier to entry and only the big guys with deep pockets can succeed. God I hate this country even more now.
If you're playing on Xbox Live, you're simply supporting another companies idea of a locked-in, content distribution system.
The purchase alone, despite the platform, directly supported Valve, who won't be shutting Steam down any time soon, particularly if they're in business.
So what did you really rally against?
Disclaimer: My comments mostly point at occurrences under Bush. I feel Dems and Reps are equally shady, under handed parties. Other than cut/paste the list, I didn't dig around for anything other than what I came up with off the top of my head.
Fascist Warning Sign #1: Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
If you're not with "U.S." you're a terrorist. Bills named the "Patriot Act" so sheeple feel warm and fuzzy.
Fascist Warning Sign #2: Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Suspension of Habeus corpus, illegal phone taps, "enemy combatants", black bag kidnappings, Patriot Act...
Fascist Warning Sign #3: Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
"Axis of Evil"
Fascist Warning Sign #4: The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Bush has had the military deployed in combat for 6 years. His administration continues to suggest they will attack other countries if they don't follow our ultimatums.
Fascist Warning Sign #5: Rampant sexism.
This one maybe not so much. Our international talking head (Condoleeza) counts against #5 I would say.
Fascist Warning Sign #6: A controlled mass media.
Maybe not directly, but the networks kowtow in order to not be left out and really don't question much.
Fascist Warning Sign #7: Obsession with national security.
This one should be pretty obvious.
Fascist Warning Sign #8: Religion and ruling elite tied together.
In God We Trust.
Fascist Warning Sign #9: Power of corporations protected.
This one isn't just a Bush thing. This goes back decades.
Fascist Warning Sign #10: Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
See #9
Fascist Warning Sign #11: Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Suppression of global warming research, laws/court rulings protecting IP while minimizing fair use.
Fascist Warning Sign #12: Obsession with crime and punishment.
Bush governed Texas, the state with a record for most executions. Before his time began the war on drugs. Even individual states are guilty of this.
Fascist Warning Sign #13: Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Abrahmoff, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc etc
Fascist Warning Sign #14: Fraudulent elections.
Who can tell. Maybe not directly, but supporters running local campaigns have passed out false information pamphlets in attempts to keep.
So that's what, 2 of 14 I can't come up with something right off the top of my head. Viva Liberty!
They still sell wireless data cards specifically for your laptop. So the argument still remains: Download TV shows or movies or software you purchase and you'll hit that barrier fast then *yoink* "We rule you!"
Perhaps you're not a pessimist NOR an optimist but a realist, I use the word here to mean "middle of the road". Moderation is key in all things, right? I know people that would consider themselves incredibly optimistic who are ill equipped to deal with misfortune and dismay in a stable fashion (my ex being a recent example).
Likewise I've known pessimists who stay in most of the time and avoid the world because they're too afraid of bad shit happening.
I trend towards more pessimist than optimist, but I'm workin' on finding a balance. I don't want to ignore the possibility of failure to the point I can't handle it if it happens, but I tend to let that possibility keep me from things or alter my ability to accomplish tasks I set out on. Like you mentioned, trying to gauge probabilities has actually helped me start to find a balance.
Life is hard work some times, but the benefits are typically worth it.
I haven't read the article yet, but I have a feeling your comments would echo my own. I'd add too that, it's not that your average user can't grasp the concepts, but they haven't been "conditioned" to. We fall back on what we know and Windows, as the OS with the most penetration, has worked for over a decade without requiring gramps and auntie em to jump through hoops.
Trying to change the mindset of millions of users is not something that will happen over night.
"Criminals try to hide their involvement in a crime. Steganographed film @ 11!"
Minesweeper and Solitaire?
Kind of like "I love you"? I mean that shit gets old quick.
If you want Fair and Balanced, you shouldn't be reading /.
:)
I hear Fox News is the place for that.
Only one of those statements is intended as sarcasm, but I'll let the reader decide which
Consider the Constitution being written in a time before guns. Suddenly guns come along. Do you write up new laws saying "Don't kill someone with a gun?" One would assume killing in general to be wrong.
What usually happens is legislating computers and their use is less about serving the public good and instead about propping up a businesses bottom line. Outside that, I see little to "legislate" computer use. Computer fraud is fraud, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. I have a hard time seeing a distinction between using a computer to facilitate it or not, thus I see computer centric laws ridiculous.
It is impossible to stop a communications medium for being used for advertizing by any technological means. Junk mail has a significant cost for the sender, so it has a natural limit on the amount of crap sent; e-mail, however, has no such natural limit.
There is no technological method to eliminate spam, nor natural limit to the amount of e-mail that can be spread? First off, cost of doing business then. If you're going to establish a presence online, you're going to get spammed. Second, if the systems can handle an unlimited amount of e-mail, spammers should be free to send as much as they please right? Oh wait, there is one. The push to eliminate spam, seen from the technological end is to reduce operational costs. From a social perspective, to minimize sheeple from exploitation. Neither of those should be the governments job, IMO.
It can be mitigated technologically, if not outright eliminated. Sure it would cost money to develop or implement those solutions. Far better that option than wittling down the stick to the point where, whenever a businesses profits are impacted, we throw someone in jail.
On the second point, it's up to people to protect themselves rather than relying on a nanny state.
I guess mob bosses who don't dirty their own hands don't belong there then, eh ?
Bit of a stretch to go from a spammer's crimes to those of your average mob boss, who in many cases may order that death/harm come to an actual person.
Yes. "Spam" is using the communication medium (in this case e-mail) to send an endless stream of advertizements. It clogs up said communication channels, reducing signal to noise ratio, and increasing the chances of a legitimate message being lost. Since it is the communication between individuals which forms the society, spam directly attacks the very foundations of society, and is a very real threat.
There is another, long-term threat: cynicism. The advertizing we are being bombarded with at all times is making us adapt by becoming less and less receptive and likely to believe anything anyone tells us, which could have some extremely nasty implications down the road, since it weakens our ability to cooperate.
Clogs communication channels? Fix the system. When something is overburdened, I'd much rather a "better" version be implemented rather than "I don't like how you're using it, so I shall quest to have you imprisoned so you can't do it anymore." Again, it lowers the bar for the future on what you can tossed in the clink for. That is not a good thing.
Bombarded by advertising? Shut off the TV/radio, don't go online. I don't feel there is an intrinsic right that you not be offended or otherwise "put out" by others. If you can't deal with, find a shrink. I'm sure they have ads somewhere. And if people desensitize to it and are more likely to become potential victims, that's their problem. I'd rather not have Big Brother trying to protect everyone.
Social Darwinism went out of fashion, as bad ideas often do.
It would be my opinion that we raise the less fortunate/educated/wise to the level of the upper crust, rather than say "Ok instead, we'll shield you from it and let you continue to simmer and stew in your insecure, uncertain, oblivious view." Especially when you put the power of carrying out that doctrine in the hands of a government.
What makes you think that a spammer, who is running his operation with total disregard for the trouble and damage he is causing, isn't a psychopath ? Just because you're a psychopath doesn't make you too stupid to control your violent impulses when doing so is beneficent to you, you know.
Actually the definition of psychopath is typically defined as someone with real mental instability who CAN'T control impulses to cause harm. Thanks for trying.
The world is fucked up. I get it. What's more fucked up is the "lock em up! that will solve the problem!" attitude. The effort exerted on locking up sp
But torrents work on ALL OS's! >:)
What's funny too is he linked to the wrong article. See