Isn't it funny how nobody wants to actually call attention to the FACT that Bush had warning that Bin Laden was going to attack the U.S. as well as intelligence indicating the intended use of planes as weapons. And he apparently ignored this. The OP is right. There was failure which got 3000 people killed. Failure by the President and his administration and the people underneath them who disregarded critical intelligence.
And people are surprised that there's supposedly secret information publicly available?
It's not about whether or not anyone takes the claim seriously. It's a little public relations kickback from Symantec to Microsoft, that Microsoft's PR department can use when talking with big corporate clients who start to believe that IE is a security problem and might switch. "No, you don't understand! An independent study revealed that Firefox is less secure than IE."
Remember, these are corporate IT people. They don't think for themselves much. This way, if there's a total security meltdown, at least they can say well, the "figures" indicated this was the best choice. It's not about actually having a secure system. It's about covering your ass.
Since when does Symantec have any credibility relating to computer security issues?
Now when there's a report on the most efficient way to waste CPU time, memory and disk space, making computers slow down to a crawl, their commentary will be respected.
The biggest problem with spam and viruses and worms is that the federal authorities, specifically those in the United States, don't seem to give a damn about going after these criminals. They don't need to pass any new laws. Computer tampering is computer tampering and the feds are either ignorant or scared, or being told to prioritize the prosecution of these cases as low priority. If you start nailing these people, things will dramatically slow down, but the real reason spam and other attacks are increasing is because enforcement hasn't gotten off its lazy ass and started to prosecute more of these criminals. The way I figure, when Wal-Mart is interrupted by some massive bot-net, then and only then will the government suddenly recognize this is a really bad thing that needs to be dealt with.
System Administrator ($60k/yr in the states) ==> India (CHEAP) Software Engineeer ($80k/yr in the states) ==> India (CHEAP)
Data Entry ($8/hour) ==> United States Classified Ad Placer ($xxx) ==> United States
Yes, everyone benefits. Some much more than others. The rich get richer, the poor, get poorer. Some really super poor get to move into the middle class, but the middle class in the states gets shafted.
This is how the "global economy" works. As long as there's some pseudo-third-world country where the poverty-stricken populace can be exploited, there will be growth in some areas, at the expense of other areas, meanwhile the middle demographic in these countries finds less opportunity for advancement.
I've heard a lot about these new IT jobs.... You can make up to $1200/week, working from home, using a computer to place tiny classified ads on various web sites. It works!! Yes, IT is booming in the states!
I tend to believe the notion from Words of Wisdom called Wisdom's Theory of Instantaneous Outcome, which states that there is no mulling over decisions. They're always instantly made and what we consider the act of ruminating over which way to decide is really our conscious mind rationalizing the decision our subconscious mind has made already.
This isn't such a bad idea, but it really hinges on whether or not the main base of spam gangs currently operating will jump on board. If so, then it could be very beneficial, as the community would have less UCE, bandwidth and resource theft and virus/trojan/worm activity would probably decrease dramatically (because people in the industry know that most of this activity is done by spammers). Plus with a new endorsement system, ISPs could more easily filter the mail if they wish, or they could use it as a profit source.
However, if the spam gangs don't embrace this idea, then all that's going to result is a new wave of pseudo-legitimate spammers, most likely popular corporations, will add to the already substantive noise level of e-mail traffic.
At this point, I can't imagine this scheme working, but nonetheless, it will all have to do with whether or not enough major systems (Hotmail, Gmail, yahoo, etc.) jump on board. If you have enough cooperation from the large free e-mail services, it could be a practical approach.
Introduce your kid to the OUTSIDE WORLD. Don't think much about which movies and computer games you'll let him play. Encourage him to engage in physical activity that really challenges both his mind and his body and helps him develop real interpersonal skills.
Television is like suspended animation. It just distracts you and nullifies your mental capacity for the duration. You're not really taught to think or analyze things yourself. It's strictly a one-way medium. And computer games, while interactive, are nowhere near as dynamic as the real world. Children shouldn't be exposed to a lot of this media at very early ages in my opinion. It probably causes more harm than good.
The more I hear about things like this, the more it occurs to me that perhaps the only legislation we really need is a license to have children. Seriously, parents should know what is going on with their kids; they should be aware of how much of which media their children are exposed to and that is what needs the most regulating. There will always be some easily-accessible corrupting or dangerous influence. If, as a parent, you don't have the time or desire to regulate your children's activities, you shouldn't be a parent.
I agree with what you're saying as well... the next step it seems is to ask ourselves, in trying to make these social situations more productive, what is better? Becoming more political? Embracing ambiguity and the supposed benevolence of bullshitting? Or conditioning people to be more receptive to criticism?
Most engineers will definitely say the latter and have a plethora of rational arguments to back it up... however useful yet ironic that ultimately is. Maybe this explains the "nerd virgin" concept more than anything else?
Seriously, how can you work in a world so filled with finite problems that you know can be solved, and then not want to project this very successful approach elsewhere? Many of us are convince that if our girlfriends could simply understand the importance of being a little less insecure and more receptive to criticism, how much better everything would be. Ok, stop laughing! I could be serious you know?
As engineers, we tend to take a realistic approach based on the facts of the situation. This is a successful trait for the problems on which we work. However, for a marketing person, sales person, or really anyone who deals with people, an optimistic approach is actually better than a realistic one.
I agree with you.
However I think we all are aware of the misuse of optimism outside of its appropriate context, or the same thing with pessimism.
For example I have one of these types of friends and I'm probably not alone. Once a month or so he comes up to me with some grandiose plan he has that he is certain will make him rich. Some goofy invention that he has become fixated on that he's afraid to tell anybody about because they'll steal his idea. Of course, before he finishes his sentence describing his get-rich-quick scheme, I have already identified prior art or have picked apart the scheme as being a complete waste of time. Am I being pessimistic? Is he being irrationally optimistic? I don't want to shoot him down for having faith in trying to succeed but if his idea is so profoundly goofy that only he thinks it's marketable, isn't his unbridaled optimism a serious impediment?
Ultimately, it goes both ways, but I think there has been more of a reduction in progress because people fixate on optimism unrealistically, than those who fixate on pessimism as a way to justify lack of motivation. Progress is marked by what? The desire to change the status quo, which is a function of acknowledging the inadequacy things. I would not be so quick as to closely tie perserverence with optimism like the article states. Dedication and perserverence are no less associated with pessimism as they are optimism.
I run several popular classified engines for various clients. You don't have to limit postings. You can easily create a blacklist that stops most of the abusers. Most of them are repeat offenders continually adding the same ads over and over. A keyword-based blacklist would stop at least 90% of this, and you use an IP-based blacklist for the rest, and then you deal with just a tiny amount of random spam that can be addressed by the user-reporting system.
Another solution is to "deputize" more moderators and give them the ability to delete ads, or create a category where spam ads are moved into some "trash" area that is still publicly viewable.
The spam and scam postings are easily dealt with if they ramped their filter/reporting system up a few notches. Why they don't is beyond me and that's mainly why there are problems. This is a classic case of them having a technological solution to the problem and choosing a different approach, or letting the problem fester as a means of justifying changing the business model.
I find it very interesting that Italian doctors are speculating King Tut had a knee injury. Maybe he had a few outstanding debts from gambling on some camel races?
Nature is reporting that expecting the worst - emotional cushioning - does not usually make you feel any better
There is a big, huge distinction between "expecting the worst" and "preparing for the worst". The former is an excuse to quit and not try as hard along the way, and the latter is a positive, optimistic process of doing your best to succeed by developing contingent plans.
The study, published in Cognition and Emotion, suggests that a person's reaction to disappointment or failure is determined mainly by their general outlook on life. Those who expect to succeed tend to have a sunnier stance all round, the researchers say. If they fall short of their goals, they are likely to look on the bright side and still think they have done reasonably well.
This is news???? In a related story, Nature.com reported that drinking water quenches peoples' thirst. Also, depressed people tend to have a depressing outlook on life, and people who don't like animals don't usually have pets. More amazing stories coming soon!!
One thing that I've noticed is that computer programmers often come off as being "negative" but I think this is a mischaracterization. A programmer by nature, seeks to "find bugs" and this mentality manifests itself in a way where we constantly look for things that are wrong to correct them. This doesn't always work well interpersonally. I've been accused of being negative, when I consider the act of finding problems and fixing them to be a very optimistic, positive practice. The problem is, your average person has a severe aversion towards being made aware of his/her mistakes or ways in which things could be improved. At least in the business world, the value of criticism can ultimately be qualified, but interpersonally, it's a much more difficult, more complicated process that often backfires.
I think people confuse criticism with negativity too much. You can anticipate something going wrong in both a productive and non-productive way, and many don't note the distinction. In one scenario you're preparing for every contingency; in another, you're making excuses for failure. But there's a profound difference in the way people deal with these situations.
In my experience, many tech people are profoundly positive and hopeful. However, they achieve this degree of self confidence via a process of identifying and subsequently solving problems. Along the way, this appears to an outsider as being negative, but it's a very optimstic process.
Unfortunately being critical is taboo these days. Nobody wants to be told they're doing anything wrong, yet we still want everything to be perfect, so people who anticipate and adjust for potential failure are the ones that actually make things work, but nobody wants to be around during the process it seems.
I'm not conspiracy theorist, but it seems pretty obvious the real value of this information and what the government might do with it once you examine the playing field and the objectives of all parties involved.
Frist and foremost, the Internet is currently unregulated. This really bothers most governments around the world, and probably the United States most of all. They want to have more control over this medium for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is tax purposes and the ability to influence the populace. Look at what's been done with mainstream media and you can have an idea of what the powers-that-be would like to see happen to the Internet.
However, the government cannot simply arbitrarily announce they're going to start heavily regulating the Internet. That's not going to work, so the first step will be to try to use some kind of politically-correct issue, to shoe-horn their grimy hands into the issue. This is likely to be something like child pornography, which very few will have problems with. Things like COPA are good examples of regulatory laws which were passed with a minimum of opposition due to the PC-nature of the issues they addressed, but they all have the ultimate goal of setting precedents where the government(s) can tell you what you can do with your web site.
The demographic profiling done by companies like Google is a big part of the government's ability to make their case for additional regulation.
Make no mistake, this is and will continue to happen. Whether or not any of us think that it's practical to try to control/regulate what happens online, the government is sure going to try. With more and more commerce moving to the online world, and less dependence upon traditional media sources, big companies are going to want to have their piece of the pie, and they rarely play fair. We should be paying very close attention to what happens from the perspective of this plan. We should expect and anticipate a few popular scenarios to present themselves which will sway public opinion into allowing more government regulation of online activity. This may have to do with terrorism, child porn, or even spam. It's going to be an interesting time in the next decade as we watch and see how select corporate and government interests try to bully their way into having control of the Internet. Search engines are treasure troves of information they can use to prove any claim they want.
Tech, exciting and new Come Aboard. We're expecting you. Games, life's sweetest reward. Bring your PSP, in case you get bored.
The Nerd boat soon will be making another run The Nerd boat. Make sure to stay out of the sun. Slather on lots of sunblock, your pasty skin we'll mock like Windows XP
Thank's to Sony's creative "Station Pass" subscription system, they can fudge the statistics on all their MMORPGs and other games. With a station pass, you have access to SWG and EQ and EQ2, so depending upon the whims of their public relations department, they can attribute EQ2 customers as SWG subscribers. IOW, SWG subscriptions are growing in leaps-and-bounds*.
So this is the excuse that's being spread around the industry relating to the failure of SWG? That it was such a well-known franchise that customers had unrealistically high expectations and this led to its failure?
Oh yea, very high expectations of a MMORPG that wasn't fundamentally changed and nerfed every few months. It's undoubtedly because of Star Wars' fame that players such as myself had such high expectations from the game: that it WORK; that it make sense to play it.
Puleaze.
It's all about the gameplay. The big companies still haven't figured out yet that most players really don't give a shit about derivative work. Granted, if you stick "The Matrix" on some title, there is a set amount of dingleberry-brained consumers who will buy it, but a MMORPG doesn't live by those rules in the long run.
I stopped eating glass when EQ2 came out and my uber guild in EQ fall apart after I amassed enough DKP to get whatever I wanted, which then became totally useless. It was bad enough having to be at my computer for 4+ hours per night at the same time and participate in terminally boring raids over and over to get phat lewt, but the politics and the ass-kissing and the trivial drama just did me in.
At that point I stopped playing EQ and didn't mess with any of their competitors. But everything I'm hearing about WoW is that it seems almost identical to Everquest. It has all the same problems that plagued EQ. So what makes it a big deal? Is is just new and different eye candy but the same design? Same group sizes; same raid setup; instanced zones; epic weapons; everything?
I actually really enjoyed non-instanced dungeons. I'd argue whether the WoW and EQ2 standard is better. Yea, it's better if you want to live in a little sealed, unrealstic world, but the non-instanced dungeons were a lot more fun. Raids would accidently/intentionally train each other; opposing groups would help each other out; you could watch a powerful group break into a secured area and then sneak in and get some good loot... these are very real-world, realistic type scenarios. Instanced dungeons are lame. So exactly why is WoW such a hip game? From what I gather, it's totally derivative of other MMORPGS.
If you believe that removing vague, "equal time" legislation and allowing the market to deliver what the marketplace wants is destroying the debate in society, then you are deluded.
I never claimed to be objective. Nobody is objective, Mr. Einstein. That's not the point, and you're trying to create a distraction from the issue.
Exactly who is deluded here?
"What the marketplace wants" is the rallying cry of pseudo-libertarian wankers who think that money is all that matters and whoever has the most power, has the most rights? That's a crock of bullshit.
The United States was founded on the notion that there needs to be representative democracy because sometimes the people don't know what's good for them, so there needs to be am abstraction of layers of more-concerned, more knowledgable citizens who can make better-informed decisions.
Just because less people watch CSPAN than Desperate Housewives does NOT in any way imply that Desperate Housewives is more socially constructive. If we were to follow your argument why not make heroin available to everybody? Let the "marketplace and the society sort it out naturally". It is you who are deluded into sprewing a stupid, irrational argument to a very valid point.
Propaganda and History 101 dictates that he who controls the media, controls the mind of the populace. The corporations and the political parties know this, and by eradicating the Fairness Doctrine, they've removed a crticial element that creates some equality that transcends cultural and economic boundaries. So you think this doesn't matter? You sir, are the one who is blind and delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it funny how nobody wants to actually call attention to the FACT that Bush had warning that Bin Laden was going to attack the U.S. as well as intelligence indicating the intended use of planes as weapons. And he apparently ignored this. The OP is right. There was failure which got 3000 people killed. Failure by the President and his administration and the people underneath them who disregarded critical intelligence.
And people are surprised that there's supposedly secret information publicly available?
It's not about whether or not anyone takes the claim seriously. It's a little public relations kickback from Symantec to Microsoft, that Microsoft's PR department can use when talking with big corporate clients who start to believe that IE is a security problem and might switch. "No, you don't understand! An independent study revealed that Firefox is less secure than IE."
Remember, these are corporate IT people. They don't think for themselves much. This way, if there's a total security meltdown, at least they can say well, the "figures" indicated this was the best choice. It's not about actually having a secure system. It's about covering your ass.
Since when does Symantec have any credibility relating to computer security issues?
Now when there's a report on the most efficient way to waste CPU time, memory and disk space, making computers slow down to a crawl, their commentary will be respected.
The biggest problem with spam and viruses and worms is that the federal authorities, specifically those in the United States, don't seem to give a damn about going after these criminals. They don't need to pass any new laws. Computer tampering is computer tampering and the feds are either ignorant or scared, or being told to prioritize the prosecution of these cases as low priority. If you start nailing these people, things will dramatically slow down, but the real reason spam and other attacks are increasing is because enforcement hasn't gotten off its lazy ass and started to prosecute more of these criminals. The way I figure, when Wal-Mart is interrupted by some massive bot-net, then and only then will the government suddenly recognize this is a really bad thing that needs to be dealt with.
This global economy:
System Administrator ($60k/yr in the states) ==> India (CHEAP)
Software Engineeer ($80k/yr in the states) ==> India (CHEAP)
Data Entry ($8/hour) ==> United States
Classified Ad Placer ($xxx) ==> United States
Yes, everyone benefits. Some much more than others. The rich get richer, the poor, get poorer. Some really super poor get to move into the middle class, but the middle class in the states gets shafted.
This is how the "global economy" works. As long as there's some pseudo-third-world country where the poverty-stricken populace can be exploited, there will be growth in some areas, at the expense of other areas, meanwhile the middle demographic in these countries finds less opportunity for advancement.
I've heard a lot about these new IT jobs.... You can make up to $1200/week, working from home, using a computer to place tiny classified ads on various web sites. It works!! Yes, IT is booming in the states!
I tend to believe the notion from Words of Wisdom called Wisdom's Theory of Instantaneous Outcome, which states that there is no mulling over decisions. They're always instantly made and what we consider the act of ruminating over which way to decide is really our conscious mind rationalizing the decision our subconscious mind has made already.
This isn't such a bad idea, but it really hinges on whether or not the main base of spam gangs currently operating will jump on board. If so, then it could be very beneficial, as the community would have less UCE, bandwidth and resource theft and virus/trojan/worm activity would probably decrease dramatically (because people in the industry know that most of this activity is done by spammers). Plus with a new endorsement system, ISPs could more easily filter the mail if they wish, or they could use it as a profit source.
However, if the spam gangs don't embrace this idea, then all that's going to result is a new wave of pseudo-legitimate spammers, most likely popular corporations, will add to the already substantive noise level of e-mail traffic.
At this point, I can't imagine this scheme working, but nonetheless, it will all have to do with whether or not enough major systems (Hotmail, Gmail, yahoo, etc.) jump on board. If you have enough cooperation from the large free e-mail services, it could be a practical approach.
I have an idea...
Introduce your kid to the OUTSIDE WORLD. Don't think much about which movies and computer games you'll let him play. Encourage him to engage in physical activity that really challenges both his mind and his body and helps him develop real interpersonal skills.
Television is like suspended animation. It just distracts you and nullifies your mental capacity for the duration. You're not really taught to think or analyze things yourself. It's strictly a one-way medium. And computer games, while interactive, are nowhere near as dynamic as the real world. Children shouldn't be exposed to a lot of this media at very early ages in my opinion. It probably causes more harm than good.
There's one advantage to being "out of the closet" in a MMORPG. If you're smited by some god, at least you know you might have had it coming, right?
The more I hear about things like this, the more it occurs to me that perhaps the only legislation we really need is a license to have children. Seriously, parents should know what is going on with their kids; they should be aware of how much of which media their children are exposed to and that is what needs the most regulating. There will always be some easily-accessible corrupting or dangerous influence. If, as a parent, you don't have the time or desire to regulate your children's activities, you shouldn't be a parent.
I agree with what you're saying as well... the next step it seems is to ask ourselves, in trying to make these social situations more productive, what is better? Becoming more political? Embracing ambiguity and the supposed benevolence of bullshitting? Or conditioning people to be more receptive to criticism?
Most engineers will definitely say the latter and have a plethora of rational arguments to back it up... however useful yet ironic that ultimately is. Maybe this explains the "nerd virgin" concept more than anything else?
Seriously, how can you work in a world so filled with finite problems that you know can be solved, and then not want to project this very successful approach elsewhere? Many of us are convince that if our girlfriends could simply understand the importance of being a little less insecure and more receptive to criticism, how much better everything would be. Ok, stop laughing! I could be serious you know?
As engineers, we tend to take a realistic approach based on the facts of the situation. This is a successful trait for the problems on which we work. However, for a marketing person, sales person, or really anyone who deals with people, an optimistic approach is actually better than a realistic one.
I agree with you.
However I think we all are aware of the misuse of optimism outside of its appropriate context, or the same thing with pessimism.
For example I have one of these types of friends and I'm probably not alone. Once a month or so he comes up to me with some grandiose plan he has that he is certain will make him rich. Some goofy invention that he has become fixated on that he's afraid to tell anybody about because they'll steal his idea. Of course, before he finishes his sentence describing his get-rich-quick scheme, I have already identified prior art or have picked apart the scheme as being a complete waste of time. Am I being pessimistic? Is he being irrationally optimistic? I don't want to shoot him down for having faith in trying to succeed but if his idea is so profoundly goofy that only he thinks it's marketable, isn't his unbridaled optimism a serious impediment?
Ultimately, it goes both ways, but I think there has been more of a reduction in progress because people fixate on optimism unrealistically, than those who fixate on pessimism as a way to justify lack of motivation. Progress is marked by what? The desire to change the status quo, which is a function of acknowledging the inadequacy things. I would not be so quick as to closely tie perserverence with optimism like the article states. Dedication and perserverence are no less associated with pessimism as they are optimism.
It would be more impressive if, in the process of modding the whiskey bottle, it still could be used for its original purpose.
I run several popular classified engines for various clients. You don't have to limit postings. You can easily create a blacklist that stops most of the abusers. Most of them are repeat offenders continually adding the same ads over and over. A keyword-based blacklist would stop at least 90% of this, and you use an IP-based blacklist for the rest, and then you deal with just a tiny amount of random spam that can be addressed by the user-reporting system.
Another solution is to "deputize" more moderators and give them the ability to delete ads, or create a category where spam ads are moved into some "trash" area that is still publicly viewable.
The spam and scam postings are easily dealt with if they ramped their filter/reporting system up a few notches. Why they don't is beyond me and that's mainly why there are problems. This is a classic case of them having a technological solution to the problem and choosing a different approach, or letting the problem fester as a means of justifying changing the business model.
I find it very interesting that Italian doctors are speculating King Tut had a knee injury. Maybe he had a few outstanding debts from gambling on some camel races?
Nature is reporting that expecting the worst - emotional cushioning - does not usually make you feel any better
There is a big, huge distinction between "expecting the worst" and "preparing for the worst". The former is an excuse to quit and not try as hard along the way, and the latter is a positive, optimistic process of doing your best to succeed by developing contingent plans.
The study, published in Cognition and Emotion, suggests that a person's reaction to disappointment or failure is determined mainly by their general outlook on life. Those who expect to succeed tend to have a sunnier stance all round, the researchers say. If they fall short of their goals, they are likely to look on the bright side and still think they have done reasonably well.
This is news???? In a related story, Nature.com reported that drinking water quenches peoples' thirst. Also, depressed people tend to have a depressing outlook on life, and people who don't like animals don't usually have pets. More amazing stories coming soon!!
One thing that I've noticed is that computer programmers often come off as being "negative" but I think this is a mischaracterization. A programmer by nature, seeks to "find bugs" and this mentality manifests itself in a way where we constantly look for things that are wrong to correct them. This doesn't always work well interpersonally. I've been accused of being negative, when I consider the act of finding problems and fixing them to be a very optimistic, positive practice. The problem is, your average person has a severe aversion towards being made aware of his/her mistakes or ways in which things could be improved. At least in the business world, the value of criticism can ultimately be qualified, but interpersonally, it's a much more difficult, more complicated process that often backfires.
I think people confuse criticism with negativity too much. You can anticipate something going wrong in both a productive and non-productive way, and many don't note the distinction. In one scenario you're preparing for every contingency; in another, you're making excuses for failure. But there's a profound difference in the way people deal with these situations.
In my experience, many tech people are profoundly positive and hopeful. However, they achieve this degree of self confidence via a process of identifying and subsequently solving problems. Along the way, this appears to an outsider as being negative, but it's a very optimstic process.
Unfortunately being critical is taboo these days. Nobody wants to be told they're doing anything wrong, yet we still want everything to be perfect, so people who anticipate and adjust for potential failure are the ones that actually make things work, but nobody wants to be around during the process it seems.
I'm not conspiracy theorist, but it seems pretty obvious the real value of this information and what the government might do with it once you examine the playing field and the objectives of all parties involved.
Frist and foremost, the Internet is currently unregulated. This really bothers most governments around the world, and probably the United States most of all. They want to have more control over this medium for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is tax purposes and the ability to influence the populace. Look at what's been done with mainstream media and you can have an idea of what the powers-that-be would like to see happen to the Internet.
However, the government cannot simply arbitrarily announce they're going to start heavily regulating the Internet. That's not going to work, so the first step will be to try to use some kind of politically-correct issue, to shoe-horn their grimy hands into the issue. This is likely to be something like child pornography, which very few will have problems with. Things like COPA are good examples of regulatory laws which were passed with a minimum of opposition due to the PC-nature of the issues they addressed, but they all have the ultimate goal of setting precedents where the government(s) can tell you what you can do with your web site.
The demographic profiling done by companies like Google is a big part of the government's ability to make their case for additional regulation.
Make no mistake, this is and will continue to happen. Whether or not any of us think that it's practical to try to control/regulate what happens online, the government is sure going to try. With more and more commerce moving to the online world, and less dependence upon traditional media sources, big companies are going to want to have their piece of the pie, and they rarely play fair. We should be paying very close attention to what happens from the perspective of this plan. We should expect and anticipate a few popular scenarios to present themselves which will sway public opinion into allowing more government regulation of online activity. This may have to do with terrorism, child porn, or even spam. It's going to be an interesting time in the next decade as we watch and see how select corporate and government interests try to bully their way into having control of the Internet. Search engines are treasure troves of information they can use to prove any claim they want.
Tech, exciting and new
Come Aboard. We're expecting you.
Games, life's sweetest reward.
Bring your PSP, in case you get bored.
The Nerd boat soon will be making another run
The Nerd boat. Make sure to stay out of the sun.
Slather on lots of sunblock, your pasty skin we'll mock like Windows XP
Thank's to Sony's creative "Station Pass" subscription system, they can fudge the statistics on all their MMORPGs and other games. With a station pass, you have access to SWG and EQ and EQ2, so depending upon the whims of their public relations department, they can attribute EQ2 customers as SWG subscribers. IOW, SWG subscriptions are growing in leaps-and-bounds*.
So this is the excuse that's being spread around the industry relating to the failure of SWG? That it was such a well-known franchise that customers had unrealistically high expectations and this led to its failure?
Oh yea, very high expectations of a MMORPG that wasn't fundamentally changed and nerfed every few months. It's undoubtedly because of Star Wars' fame that players such as myself had such high expectations from the game: that it WORK; that it make sense to play it.
Puleaze.
It's all about the gameplay. The big companies still haven't figured out yet that most players really don't give a shit about derivative work. Granted, if you stick "The Matrix" on some title, there is a set amount of dingleberry-brained consumers who will buy it, but a MMORPG doesn't live by those rules in the long run.
I stopped eating glass when EQ2 came out and my uber guild in EQ fall apart after I amassed enough DKP to get whatever I wanted, which then became totally useless. It was bad enough having to be at my computer for 4+ hours per night at the same time and participate in terminally boring raids over and over to get phat lewt, but the politics and the ass-kissing and the trivial drama just did me in.
At that point I stopped playing EQ and didn't mess with any of their competitors. But everything I'm hearing about WoW is that it seems almost identical to Everquest. It has all the same problems that plagued EQ. So what makes it a big deal? Is is just new and different eye candy but the same design? Same group sizes; same raid setup; instanced zones; epic weapons; everything?
I actually really enjoyed non-instanced dungeons. I'd argue whether the WoW and EQ2 standard is better. Yea, it's better if you want to live in a little sealed, unrealstic world, but the non-instanced dungeons were a lot more fun. Raids would accidently/intentionally train each other; opposing groups would help each other out; you could watch a powerful group break into a secured area and then sneak in and get some good loot... these are very real-world, realistic type scenarios. Instanced dungeons are lame. So exactly why is WoW such a hip game? From what I gather, it's totally derivative of other MMORPGS.
If you believe that removing vague, "equal time" legislation and allowing the market to deliver what the marketplace wants is destroying the debate in society, then you are deluded.
I never claimed to be objective. Nobody is objective, Mr. Einstein. That's not the point, and you're trying to create a distraction from the issue.
Exactly who is deluded here?
"What the marketplace wants" is the rallying cry of pseudo-libertarian wankers who think that money is all that matters and whoever has the most power, has the most rights? That's a crock of bullshit.
The United States was founded on the notion that there needs to be representative democracy because sometimes the people don't know what's good for them, so there needs to be am abstraction of layers of more-concerned, more knowledgable citizens who can make better-informed decisions.
Just because less people watch CSPAN than Desperate Housewives does NOT in any way imply that Desperate Housewives is more socially constructive. If we were to follow your argument why not make heroin available to everybody? Let the "marketplace and the society sort it out naturally". It is you who are deluded into sprewing a stupid, irrational argument to a very valid point.
Propaganda and History 101 dictates that he who controls the media, controls the mind of the populace. The corporations and the political parties know this, and by eradicating the Fairness Doctrine, they've removed a crticial element that creates some equality that transcends cultural and economic boundaries. So you think this doesn't matter? You sir, are the one who is blind and delusional.