IIRC, this isn't quite true. The Labor (left-wing) party will probably vote as a bloc against the bill, true. The sting in the tail comes from the Democrats (centrist) and other party-goers...
At least one Democrat (whose name escapes me - can anyone clear this up?) has said he'll support the bill, on the grounds that Internet gambling is draining money from the pockets of middle- and lower-class Australia and must be stopped. (I'm not going to *touch* the reasoning behind this.) Bob Brown (Australian Greens: he's IIRC pretty conservative on social issues) may well support the legislation as well. Len Harris (One Nation, hysterically right-wing) I don't know about.
Let's take a worst-case scenario (from our POV). All of the minority parties vote for the bill, and that unknown Democrat breaks party lines to vote for the bill.
Doing the math (simple majority, 76 senators)...
39 votes are needed to pass the bill.
Liberal(31), National(3), CLP(1) coalition: 35 senators
Bob Brown (Greens): 1
Len Harris (PHON): 1
Brian Harradine (Ind.): 1
Unknown Democrat: 1
That's 39 votes in the Senate. The bill passes into law.
I repeat, I don't know if this is anywhere near fact - but it's a pretty scary theory.
(Disclaimer - I played Magic from Ice Age to Urza's Legacy. I still kinda miss it...)
(reads article)... Those must really have been the days.
There seems to be a pretty consistent thread through this discussion of "M:TG became too hard to follow", and I strongly agree with this. The three-expansions-per-year release schedule was simply far, far too expensive/difficult to really keep up with. Although it was (and, AFAIK, still is) a great game, the logistics of keeping up to date are simply too much for many people.
However, this would (in theory, at least) make pretty good business sense. Keeping the release schedule packed would lead to more revenues - after all, the target audience for MTG tends to be heavy on disposable income. Ultimately, Wizards' duty was to its shareholders, so, this is the path they took.
This was exemplified better by Pokemon. The article is right when it calls Pokemon a "prefab fad" (in the context of the CCG, at least). For Wizards, snapping up the international rights was brilliant business sense, but it would have come at the cost of R&D expertise that could have gone toward other games - costing it loyalty.
Wizards was, I think, torn between maintaining old-hand gamers (M:TG, for example) and aiming for revenue (via Pokemon, and to a lesser extent, D&D). They made the best choice for shareholders, but the wrong choice in the eyes of their original customers.
Firstly, this is a great idea, and it deserves all the best. However, I see one major problem with getting it implemented - this might just be specific to.au, or smaller schools (my perspective), but I suspect not.
The PTA's and school management's techno-literacy will be a real problem. Down here, at least, it's very much a Windows world - and the people who make decisions with regard to technology aren't always the admins. People who don't understand Linux will probably prefer that their kids use Windows (and Office, and Outlook, and IE - but I digress) because that's what they know and like.
What I'd like to know is, if anyone's tried this before, have you run up against the same technophobia? And if so, any suggestions for getting around it?
That said, more power to the project - and I'm beginning to think that it could well help stop what I just described. That, and the cost savings from going to Linux are always a good thing for (generally!) cash-strapped schools.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, this isn't quite true. The Labor (left-wing) party will probably vote as a bloc against the bill, true. The sting in the tail comes from the Democrats (centrist) and other party-goers...
At least one Democrat (whose name escapes me - can anyone clear this up?) has said he'll support the bill, on the grounds that Internet gambling is draining money from the pockets of middle- and lower-class Australia and must be stopped. (I'm not going to *touch* the reasoning behind this.) Bob Brown (Australian Greens: he's IIRC pretty conservative on social issues) may well support the legislation as well. Len Harris (One Nation, hysterically right-wing) I don't know about.
Let's take a worst-case scenario (from our POV). All of the minority parties vote for the bill, and that unknown Democrat breaks party lines to vote for the bill.
Doing the math (simple majority, 76 senators)...
39 votes are needed to pass the bill.
Liberal(31), National(3), CLP(1) coalition: 35 senators
Bob Brown (Greens): 1
Len Harris (PHON): 1
Brian Harradine (Ind.): 1
Unknown Democrat: 1
That's 39 votes in the Senate. The bill passes into law.
I repeat, I don't know if this is anywhere near fact - but it's a pretty scary theory.
(Disclaimer - I played Magic from Ice Age to Urza's Legacy. I still kinda miss it...)
(reads article)... Those must really have been the days.
There seems to be a pretty consistent thread through this discussion of "M:TG became too hard to follow", and I strongly agree with this. The three-expansions-per-year release schedule was simply far, far too expensive/difficult to really keep up with. Although it was (and, AFAIK, still is) a great game, the logistics of keeping up to date are simply too much for many people.
However, this would (in theory, at least) make pretty good business sense. Keeping the release schedule packed would lead to more revenues - after all, the target audience for MTG tends to be heavy on disposable income. Ultimately, Wizards' duty was to its shareholders, so, this is the path they took.
This was exemplified better by Pokemon. The article is right when it calls Pokemon a "prefab fad" (in the context of the CCG, at least). For Wizards, snapping up the international rights was brilliant business sense, but it would have come at the cost of R&D expertise that could have gone toward other games - costing it loyalty.
Wizards was, I think, torn between maintaining old-hand gamers (M:TG, for example) and aiming for revenue (via Pokemon, and to a lesser extent, D&D). They made the best choice for shareholders, but the wrong choice in the eyes of their original customers.
I miss the old days.
Firstly, this is a great idea, and it deserves all the best. However, I see one major problem with getting it implemented - this might just be specific to .au, or smaller schools (my perspective), but I suspect not.
The PTA's and school management's techno-literacy will be a real problem. Down here, at least, it's very much a Windows world - and the people who make decisions with regard to technology aren't always the admins. People who don't understand Linux will probably prefer that their kids use Windows (and Office, and Outlook, and IE - but I digress) because that's what they know and like.
What I'd like to know is, if anyone's tried this before, have you run up against the same technophobia? And if so, any suggestions for getting around it?
That said, more power to the project - and I'm beginning to think that it could well help stop what I just described. That, and the cost savings from going to Linux are always a good thing for (generally!) cash-strapped schools.