According to the Fortune 500, Sony has revenues in excess of $60.6 billion per year. So Everquest's annual $60 million accounts for 1/1000th of Sony's revenue. It is probably a notably high margin portion of Sony's revenue, however.
In Singapore, you rarely wait more than 5 minutes. The high population density requires bus circuits with a 5-15 minute interval. (Probability dictates that you will wait half-or-less-than that, most of the time). As well, in Singapore, the cost of cars is several magnitudes higher than America; a $20,000 car can cost over $120,000 with taxes in. If everyone over there had a car, the city would be nothing but a huge parking lot, and you would have no choice but to walk anyway.:)
In America, I have spent more time waiting at stop lights than I ever have waited standing around for a bus. I am burning gas (and generating pollution), increasing traffic flow, and living in a personal bubble when in my own vehicle. Public transportation is less so, of these; the inconvenience of waiting is merely relegated to stop lights, rather than bus stops. As well, I have spent over an hour looking for good parking spots in more than one downtown metro, a problem of environment, convenience, and availability that does not exist with public transportation.
Timing convenience and high availability are functions of dense public transportation circuits. This does not happen with suburbs, or even any American-ish Cities, given their tradition of exploiting vast amounts of relatively cheap land versus dense vertical buildup and subsidization.
Traffic engineering is fluid dynamics, water works the same way as traffic. The question of whether people will use it is a social engineering question, not traffic engineering, and is subject to a much more inaccurate statistical model. But availability, lack of cost effective alternatives (like Singapore), and convenience, certainly will lead to greater usage. Even in Singapore, though, there isn't ubiquitous usage. But it makes sense to use public transportation, so people do.
The benefits of public transportation are generally functions of population density. 1000 lbs of air pollution from coal generators (where most US energy still comes from), is probably worse than 1000 lbs of air pollution from cars -- but I am speculating there. The problem comes when the density is low enough that the cost of deploying public devices on service routes on equitable and fair schedules costs (in terms of both $ and pollution) more to operate than personal vehicles.
In say Singapore, where the population density is mostly crammed into high-rises due to their limited land mass and political boundaries, public transportation is not only good, but necessary. In contrast, suburbs really kill the benefits of public transportation, by adding more-than a squared area to the service route.
If you really want high availability and quality public transportation, and with the benefit of better air quality, people have to live in closer proximity. Personally, I like the outdoors and the country, but I can also see the benefits of having a close-knit city like Singapore, in terms of the environment. If everyone lived like so many New Hampshire people do:), there wouldn't be much room left on the planet, and public transportation would cost more than the benefits it provides.
Here we see the incentives and punishment versus the morality of the corporate boardroom. On the one hand, he is a national hero for standing up for morality, on the other he is going against the personal incentives that drive capitalism in the first place.
yes, i was thinking of poking fun at the Rolls Royce & IBM Mainframe type deals. Windows would be more in the Chevrolet Cavalier / Dodge Neon class of mass production. With hoods welded shut.
There's a good (abbreviated, here) Rolls story about a (big) chopper full of engineers going out into the desert because a fellow broke his axle out there. So the engineers flew out and fixed it on the spot. When the fellow got back and called to ask how much is was for the repairs, Rolls asked "What broke?" The man said "The axle". The Rolls rep said "Oh, I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. The axle on a Rolls Royce would never break." >click
Cavaliers do not have the same level of service, IMHO.:)
That analogy does not work quite so well with software. We have neither warranty nor access to the engine of most commercial software.
Open Source provides access to the engine for you, but also a boatload of mechanics who would be more than happy to fix your problem for due remuneration.
Commercial software is buying a car with a welded hood and no source of solutions save the dealer. And I believe we all know how much we can trust most car dealers. (see any buyers guide for vehicles)
The warranty should read something like: By using this product you certify yourself as an authoritative source of warranty for this product. Should you encounter problems, you are required to fix them in accordance with your expectations of the warranty.
Can we click-wrap the Linux/FreeBSD/OS distribution as a whole, with essentially "you implicitly agree to make yourself aware of all licenses of their respective owners and agree to the terms of that license agreement"?
Which in the case of Debian essentially means, "you agree to the GPL/LGPL license that applies to all our non-non-free software". An interesting precedent.
I would like their code, excluding things for which they might have DMCA'ish liability, placed into escrow. This is a wish, and I have no way to enforce that wish. But it is a good one.;)
I would like to know how you feel about the integration of artificial intelligence into our society. Do you believe that, like electricity to many of us now, we will someday require artificial intelligence in our everyday lives (save a few exceptional groups), and do you believe this is a good thing?
Cheers! Brian ps. bonus question, food for thought: "who" gets the libel for AI decisions?
Who would dare a call master chess player anything but a genius? Indeed, few "video games" require such in depth and coordinated multidimensional thinking, but certainly some do. Take Master of Orion (1,2, & soon 3), Civilization, Warcraft, Sim City, and Railroad Tycoon. Although not chess, they hone skills of perception, opportunism, cause and effect, and forethought that would otherwise have no stimuli in our oh-so-great non-video game world.;)
I suggest you look up "Will to Power", by Nietzsche. Power is knowledge, and you are saying that you would rather be without knowledge, without power.
It is one thing to have the knowledge, be aware of the options. Another to not know your options at all. I prefer the option to be happy and poor, but I do admit I like the option to consumer endlessly, too.
You might want to look up "How Much is Enough", by Alan Durning.
You seem to be asserting that the only alternative to consumerism is self-annihilation, ergo consuming is not just for happiness (no matter how shallow) but survival. I suggest you look into alternatives such as biocentricity, stewardship, and Durning's espoused middle class.
I believe that the difference between a consumer and the middle class is desire versus need. You don't need a $50,000 vehicle, but most would like one. And not because it is practical. Perhaps instead of looking outwards for completion, we should look inwards; consuming will not bring happiness, and I would argue (given more time) that it forces us to redefine "existence", otherwise half the "civilized" planet would cease to qualify.
Earth's natural resources may run out in 50 years, but there's years left of resources for those willing to "consume" humans themselves... When it's do or die, immorality is a selective advantage.
On another note, I do take issue with the concerns for "overpopulation". The 1st world populations are not growing - it's the 3rd world that has the population problems; they are already existing beyond sustainability. The problem the 1st world encounters is consumerism, not overpopulation. One consumer in the 1st world can use more resources than hundreds of human beings in the 3rd need to survive.
Also, coming from Newfoundland (just off the Grand Banks), the cod fishery was the life-blood of the economy there, which they use as an example of devasted Earth resources. There is now a moratorium on cod fishing, which also devastated that economy. Since the moratorium was instantiated, it is widely believed that the cod stock has partly recovered, and will continue to. So I am not so sure I buy their verdict, given this choice of example with contrary information they conveniently omitted. This is a little salt to their bitter assessment.
Certainly, though, they are outlining important trends in the environment as a result of human presence.
Have a look-see at Enterprise Java, in particular the access rights model of EJB's. It reminds me very much of this patent, in providing function access rights. Data is similarly encapsulated through function access.
It is perhaps more commonly known as "precedent law", wherein once a precedent has been set for an interpretation of legislation, a judge is obliged to honor said precedent.
I bought the Codeweaver Crossover Plugin the other day and am glad to have done so, even so much that I shamelessly pitch my happiness here.:) I like being able to watch the trailer at home, rather than having to wait for a Windows desktop at work tomorrow.
Java apps are not easy to install usually for any OS because they require a Virtual Machine, why not just use C and develop cross platform?
s/Java/Perl/
Is this the only / real problem you have with Java?
I disagree with the "better support and better code"; C is more diagonal than Java, and diagonality leads to obfuscation. (Perl being the most diagonal language I know; I love that feature of Perl, but it is not this that I am disagreeing with;) ). Java is exceptionally orthogonal, hence there is, more-often than in diagonally inclined languages, a "best way" to do something. Best ways imply easier support and better code. On the other hand, it is oft faster, and more artistic, to implement diagonal code. YMMV.
I did mean anthropophobic. I didn't mean to coin the word, so much as express the idea: importance in things other than humans. In the Buddhist case it is more extreme: I may believe it to be almost a reverent nihilsim of things "human".
You have said that it is *sufficient* that morality comes from belief in a divine Creator. Certainly you did not say it was *necessary* to believe in a Creator for morality, because that is as noted elsewhere "patently absurd".
However, you might note that humans murder in the name of their colloquial deity more oft than any other reason. Certainly we mistreat our animals in the name of capitalism, and certainly slaughtering pigs is prevented in Jewish cultures because of an arbitrary stigma.
Are these arbitrary stigmas, overwhelmingly selfish motivations, and immoral justifications not the direct result of blind faith in a divine Creator establishment?
Does that clarify by interjecting thought, or did I completely miss your point?;)
The most anthropophobic and justifably moral of religions, in my humble but correct opinion, Buddhism, makes a joke of the divine Creator, and rightly so - it has always been a desire of the Buddhist to answer what one can, live with what one cannot answer, and to know the difference. The divine Creator notion, then, certainly is not intrinsic morality - belief in such a beast is more a source of death and abuse and immorality than a moderator; at best they are independent variables in the morality equation.
Is there a legal guarantee that you can do whatever you want please hardware you purchase? Or another legal recourse of equivalent purpose and weight?
If not, then there may be no reason why the EULA wouldn't have grounds for civil cases. Perhaps not criminal cases, but then again, perhaps - if your laws guarantee EULA's legal authority like the proposed American SSSCA (or it's brethren).
For what the general public wants, at some point, someone must answer to the public authority (ie. ye whom is accountable to you, me, Joe Q. Doe). Otherwise it is a closed loop of accountability where morality is decided by an authority other than the "greatest good".
(Be careful about the "greater good" part, though. That deserves more attention, which I don't have at the moment.)
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Fortune 500, Sony has revenues in excess of $60.6 billion per year. So Everquest's annual $60 million accounts for 1/1000th of Sony's revenue. It is probably a notably high margin portion of Sony's revenue, however.
In Singapore, you rarely wait more than 5 minutes. The high population density requires bus circuits with a 5-15 minute interval. (Probability dictates that you will wait half-or-less-than that, most of the time). As well, in Singapore, the cost of cars is several magnitudes higher than America; a $20,000 car can cost over $120,000 with taxes in. If everyone over there had a car, the city would be nothing but a huge parking lot, and you would have no choice but to walk anyway. :)
In America, I have spent more time waiting at stop lights than I ever have waited standing around for a bus. I am burning gas (and generating pollution), increasing traffic flow, and living in a personal bubble when in my own vehicle. Public transportation is less so, of these; the inconvenience of waiting is merely relegated to stop lights, rather than bus stops. As well, I have spent over an hour looking for good parking spots in more than one downtown metro, a problem of environment, convenience, and availability that does not exist with public transportation.
Timing convenience and high availability are functions of dense public transportation circuits. This does not happen with suburbs, or even any American-ish Cities, given their tradition of exploiting vast amounts of relatively cheap land versus dense vertical buildup and subsidization.
Traffic engineering is fluid dynamics, water works the same way as traffic. The question of whether people will use it is a social engineering question, not traffic engineering, and is subject to a much more inaccurate statistical model. But availability, lack of cost effective alternatives (like Singapore), and convenience, certainly will lead to greater usage. Even in Singapore, though, there isn't ubiquitous usage. But it makes sense to use public transportation, so people do.
Public transportation is a wonderful thing.
:), there wouldn't be much room left on the planet, and public transportation would cost more than the benefits it provides.
The benefits of public transportation are generally functions of population density. 1000 lbs of air pollution from coal generators (where most US energy still comes from), is probably worse than 1000 lbs of air pollution from cars -- but I am speculating there. The problem comes when the density is low enough that the cost of deploying public devices on service routes on equitable and fair schedules costs (in terms of both $ and pollution) more to operate than personal vehicles.
In say Singapore, where the population density is mostly crammed into high-rises due to their limited land mass and political boundaries, public transportation is not only good, but necessary. In contrast, suburbs really kill the benefits of public transportation, by adding more-than a squared area to the service route.
If you really want high availability and quality public transportation, and with the benefit of better air quality, people have to live in closer proximity. Personally, I like the outdoors and the country, but I can also see the benefits of having a close-knit city like Singapore, in terms of the environment. If everyone lived like so many New Hampshire people do
Here we see the incentives and punishment versus the morality of the corporate boardroom. On the one hand, he is a national hero for standing up for morality, on the other he is going against the personal incentives that drive capitalism in the first place.
yes, i was thinking of poking fun at the Rolls Royce & IBM Mainframe type deals. Windows would be more in the Chevrolet Cavalier / Dodge Neon class of mass production. With hoods welded shut.
:)
There's a good (abbreviated, here) Rolls story about a (big) chopper full of engineers going out into the desert because a fellow broke his axle out there. So the engineers flew out and fixed it on the spot. When the fellow got back and called to ask how much is was for the repairs, Rolls asked "What broke?" The man said "The axle". The Rolls rep said "Oh, I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. The axle on a Rolls Royce would never break." >click
Cavaliers do not have the same level of service, IMHO.
That analogy does not work quite so well with software. We have neither warranty nor access to the engine of most commercial software.
Open Source provides access to the engine for you, but also a boatload of mechanics who would be more than happy to fix your problem for due remuneration.
Commercial software is buying a car with a welded hood and no source of solutions save the dealer. And I believe we all know how much we can trust most car dealers. (see any buyers guide for vehicles)
Yes, really though, eh?
The warranty should read something like:
By using this product you certify yourself as an authoritative source of warranty for this product. Should you encounter problems, you are required to fix them in accordance with your expectations of the warranty.
Help people help themselves.
Can we click-wrap the Linux/FreeBSD/OS distribution as a whole, with essentially "you implicitly agree to make yourself aware of all licenses of their respective owners and agree to the terms of that license agreement"?
Which in the case of Debian essentially means, "you agree to the GPL/LGPL license that applies to all our non-non-free software". An interesting precedent.
I would like their code, excluding things for which they might have DMCA'ish liability, placed into escrow. This is a wish, and I have no way to enforce that wish. But it is a good one. ;)
They call it "Pascal's Gamble" in one of the articles. It is a breakthrough technology; revolutionary. Revolutions require faith and gambles.
I would like to know how you feel about the integration of artificial intelligence into our society. Do you believe that, like electricity to many of us now, we will someday require artificial intelligence in our everyday lives (save a few exceptional groups), and do you believe this is a good thing?
Cheers!
Brian
ps. bonus question, food for thought: "who" gets the libel for AI decisions?
Java's token regex is, iirc, [_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z1-9]+
Who would dare a call master chess player anything but a genius? Indeed, few "video games" require such in depth and coordinated multidimensional thinking, but certainly some do. Take Master of Orion (1,2, & soon 3), Civilization, Warcraft, Sim City, and Railroad Tycoon. Although not chess, they hone skills of perception, opportunism, cause and effect, and forethought that would otherwise have no stimuli in our oh-so-great non-video game world. ;)
I suggest you look up "Will to Power", by Nietzsche. Power is knowledge, and you are saying that you would rather be without knowledge, without power.
It is one thing to have the knowledge, be aware of the options. Another to not know your options at all. I prefer the option to be happy and poor, but I do admit I like the option to consumer endlessly, too.
There is a happy medium.
I beg to differ, on at least one point.
You might want to look up "How Much is Enough", by Alan Durning.
You seem to be asserting that the only alternative to consumerism is self-annihilation, ergo consuming is not just for happiness (no matter how shallow) but survival. I suggest you look into alternatives such as biocentricity, stewardship, and Durning's espoused middle class.
I believe that the difference between a consumer and the middle class is desire versus need. You don't need a $50,000 vehicle, but most would like one. And not because it is practical. Perhaps instead of looking outwards for completion, we should look inwards; consuming will not bring happiness, and I would argue (given more time) that it forces us to redefine "existence", otherwise half the "civilized" planet would cease to qualify.
Earth's natural resources may run out in 50 years, but there's years left of resources for those willing to "consume" humans themselves ... When it's do or die, immorality is a selective advantage.
On another note, I do take issue with the concerns for "overpopulation". The 1st world populations are not growing - it's the 3rd world that has the population problems; they are already existing beyond sustainability. The problem the 1st world encounters is consumerism, not overpopulation. One consumer in the 1st world can use more resources than hundreds of human beings in the 3rd need to survive.
Also, coming from Newfoundland (just off the Grand Banks), the cod fishery was the life-blood of the economy there, which they use as an example of devasted Earth resources. There is now a moratorium on cod fishing, which also devastated that economy. Since the moratorium was instantiated, it is widely believed that the cod stock has partly recovered, and will continue to. So I am not so sure I buy their verdict, given this choice of example with contrary information they conveniently omitted. This is a little salt to their bitter assessment.
Certainly, though, they are outlining important trends in the environment as a result of human presence.
Have a look-see at Enterprise Java, in particular the access rights model of EJB's. It reminds me very much of this patent, in providing function access rights. Data is similarly encapsulated through function access.
It is perhaps more commonly known as "precedent law", wherein once a precedent has been set for an interpretation of legislation, a judge is obliged to honor said precedent.
I bought the Codeweaver Crossover Plugin the other day and am glad to have done so, even so much that I shamelessly pitch my happiness here. :) I like being able to watch the trailer at home, rather than having to wait for a Windows desktop at work tomorrow.
s/Java/Perl/
Is this the only / real problem you have with Java?
I disagree with the "better support and better code"; C is more diagonal than Java, and diagonality leads to obfuscation. (Perl being the most diagonal language I know; I love that feature of Perl, but it is not this that I am disagreeing with
Cheers
I did mean anthropophobic. I didn't mean to coin the word, so much as express the idea: importance in things other than humans. In the Buddhist case it is more extreme: I may believe it to be almost a reverent nihilsim of things "human".
Thanks for the compliment & cheers
You have said that it is *sufficient* that morality comes from belief in a divine Creator. Certainly you did not say it was *necessary* to believe in a Creator for morality, because that is as noted elsewhere "patently absurd".
;)
However, you might note that humans murder in the name of their colloquial deity more oft than any other reason. Certainly we mistreat our animals in the name of capitalism, and certainly slaughtering pigs is prevented in Jewish cultures because of an arbitrary stigma.
Are these arbitrary stigmas, overwhelmingly selfish motivations, and immoral justifications not the direct result of blind faith in a divine Creator establishment?
Does that clarify by interjecting thought, or did I completely miss your point?
The most anthropophobic and justifably moral of religions, in my humble but correct opinion, Buddhism, makes a joke of the divine Creator, and rightly so - it has always been a desire of the Buddhist to answer what one can, live with what one cannot answer, and to know the difference. The divine Creator notion, then, certainly is not intrinsic morality - belief in such a beast is more a source of death and abuse and immorality than a moderator; at best they are independent variables in the morality equation.
You are missing a step:
Is there a legal guarantee that you can do whatever you want please hardware you purchase? Or another legal recourse of equivalent purpose and weight?
If not, then there may be no reason why the EULA wouldn't have grounds for civil cases. Perhaps not criminal cases, but then again, perhaps - if your laws guarantee EULA's legal authority like the proposed American SSSCA (or it's brethren).
For what the general public wants, at some point, someone must answer to the public authority (ie. ye whom is accountable to you, me, Joe Q. Doe). Otherwise it is a closed loop of accountability where morality is decided by an authority other than the "greatest good".
(Be careful about the "greater good" part, though. That deserves more attention, which I don't have at the moment.)
Cheers.