Yeah, unfortunately it isn't integrated with the game, and is therefore not part of the culture. Unless you can talk in the world and hear things at different volumes depending on how far you are away from the person talking you are just using the telephone while you play a game.
MMORPGs are about role playing with other players (a massive number of them, online). As such, you can't possibly learn what the game is "like" by playing it for a couple of hours, no matter how advanced the character is. If you really want to know what the game is like, go over to a friend's place and sit behind them as they play. Tell them to save all comments to after the game session. Then get them to debrief the session to you. We could do this online I suppose, by having players create videos of their experiences and provide commentary. Just one thing I wouldn't do: provide voiceovers. That would give a false impression of the game as almost all MMORPGs contain no form of voice chat support. Although, for some of them, they really should (e.g., MxO).
Wow, thanks to linking to a french document. Back in my day we used the term "carding" to mean credit card fraud. Now I hear the kids use the term "codes" for that.
See, that's where you're wrong. Trying to replace unskilled labor with robots isn't the way to go. What you want to do is promote robots as an alternative to unskilled labor for those people who don't want to hire unskilled laborers. i.e., in southern california it might be considered common place to have a mexican slave^H^H^H^H^H^H^H housekeeper, but in other parts of the US (and yes, the world) it isn't. That's why you want to sell your robots to. People who want slaves but don't have a ready supply.
Or the "not turn off when I say so" hack. Or the "more responsiblity than I wanted" hack. Or the "government agents invading my home because some busibody neighbour said I was being cruel to my pet" hack. Real dogs may be great for some people, but some of us want a toy not a responsibility.
I gotta get me one of them robots to vacuum the floor. They're not that expensive, but I'm cheap, and there's not enough marketting to remind me that I need one. Yesterday I had to carry two weeks worth of groceries from the car up to my unit. That's like 2 flights of stairs. It's not a hard job, but I'm lazy. Where's my grocery carrying robot? You could do it with a stair climbing trolly, but what do you do with that trolly when you're done with it? Who has space to store a trolly? Maybe them autoreconfigurable robots are the way to go. Ya know, the 4 million bricks that talk to each other and can form any shape.
So after all that fussing and fighting we've basically come to agree with each other. My position hasn't changed and it seems that yours hasn't either. It just goes to show that geeks don't know how to communicate:)
So you would be in favour of a patent system that was sufficiently reformed to prevent obvious patents. Like, for example, the reforms that Microsoft has proposed that allows interested parties to present evidence that a granted patent is obvious or has prior art without needing to be on the receiving end of a patent infringement claim?
You're just forever hung up on this obvious patent problem aint ya? Stop thinking about obvious patents for 5 seconds and consider if there is any benefit to the industry for creating an incentive to make new, non-trivial algorithms. Cause, at the moment, the only incentive anyone has to sit down for 12 months and work on a single problem is in academia.
No, because absolutely zero of them came from funding astronomy. Each and every one of the things you mention could have just as easily been developed by inventors following their own self interest.
I dunno, what exactly is the benefit to society of funding astronomy? Oh, you were talking about some other space program? Ok, fine, what is the benefit to society of funding whatever it is you're talking about? Seriously, we're paying a whole lot of money here. I personally think astronomy is fascinating but I can't think of a single good reason to stand on a street corner and demand that people buy me a telescope (or for that matter, shove a gun in their face and demand it). Building a hospital or funding some other form of medical research, that I can justify, but astronomy? Really, where's the benefit?
Even if you think there is some benefit to society in funding the space program, isn't there the same benefit in funding other disciplines of science? Where's the National Mathematics and Computation Administration? Does it get the same amount of funding as NASA?
You're the kind of person who looks at a sick patient and says that obviously the patient wouldn't be any better off if he had the use of his eyes because his ears clearly work.
This is what it boils down to. Either you think the software industry is a-ok and doesn't need a change in legislation to mature or you think that the software industry is fucked up and anything will help (or you think something in the middle). If you think everything is a-ok with the software industry then let's just stop talking right now. Cause if you think everything is honkie dorrie in the software industry we really have nothing to talk about.
Assuming you don't think the software industry is on the right track and you do think some form of legislation change would help, what would it be? I'm suggesting that dumping copyright (or scaling it right back) and going with a more patent-like approach would be beneficial, because I think the differientiating value lies in the actual inventions, not in how well the software is written.
My point is, why is NASA funded by our taxes? Why can't it be funded by a voluntary organisation? The space race is over. It kinda reminds me of tolls on roads and bridges. They fund the construction by charging a toll for 20 years and then they say, heck, people are used to paying the toll, we'll just leave it on.
So umm, why can't all space research be paid for this way? Or at least, why don't US citizens have the option to pay some percentage of their tax to NASA when they file their tax returns?
Yeah, but this is a bullshit hippy argument. People believe that any form of property is theft. People believe that money isn't all that great an idea. We're not discussing the coming revolution and the great socialist republic we're all soon to be living in, we're discussing whether or not patents, which our society already grants for inventions in other industries should cover inventions in the software industry. Please do not make the argument that all software patents to date are too obvious. For a start, it's wrong, but more importantly, why do some people have so much trouble accepting that some software inventions are worthy of patenting? Don't we want people making these inventions? Are they supposed to do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
JESUS H. CHRIST. If you don't produce software then why the hell are you talking to me about writing software? Thanks for wasting my time you asshole. I'm gunna track you down and find out what you do for a living and then argue with you for hours about the best way to do it. See how you like it.
Fair enough. If you look at my other posts you'll see that I don't think too favourably about small software companies. I use the term fly-by-night and I think it is valid. Of course, I'm also against "obvious" patents. If you're a small software company you simply should not "accidently" infringe someone's patent. If you do the algorithm is too obvious. Of course, if you create an algorithm of value you should do a patent search and be aware of the happenings in your industry. Plenty of other industries get by being regulated by patents.
Copyright clearly doesn't work because the software industry is populated by fly-by-night companies that don't produce anything new, they just pump out the same old crap, brand it and play marketting games to get consumers to buy it. As a consumer of software you have a choice between crap and more crap. There's little to nothing new and gradual improvement is shunned for marketing tricks.
Yeah, there ya go, you've basically labelled yourself as an ignorant nut. The software industry is not innovative. We don't come up with new algorithms. We just package up the discoveries of 20 years ago and sell them to an unwitting public.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, unfortunately it isn't integrated with the game, and is therefore not part of the culture. Unless you can talk in the world and hear things at different volumes depending on how far you are away from the person talking you are just using the telephone while you play a game.
And when they fire you for demanding it in writing sue them for wrongful dismissal.
MMORPGs are about role playing with other players (a massive number of them, online). As such, you can't possibly learn what the game is "like" by playing it for a couple of hours, no matter how advanced the character is. If you really want to know what the game is like, go over to a friend's place and sit behind them as they play. Tell them to save all comments to after the game session. Then get them to debrief the session to you. We could do this online I suppose, by having players create videos of their experiences and provide commentary. Just one thing I wouldn't do: provide voiceovers. That would give a false impression of the game as almost all MMORPGs contain no form of voice chat support. Although, for some of them, they really should (e.g., MxO).
So what? Propaganda that is 236 years old is no better than propaganda that is 5 years old. It's still propaganda.
I would have put the money on the counter and left with the game, but hey, I'm not 17.
Wow, thanks to linking to a french document. Back in my day we used the term "carding" to mean credit card fraud. Now I hear the kids use the term "codes" for that.
See, that's where you're wrong. Trying to replace unskilled labor with robots isn't the way to go. What you want to do is promote robots as an alternative to unskilled labor for those people who don't want to hire unskilled laborers. i.e., in southern california it might be considered common place to have a mexican slave^H^H^H^H^H^H^H housekeeper, but in other parts of the US (and yes, the world) it isn't. That's why you want to sell your robots to. People who want slaves but don't have a ready supply.
Or the "not turn off when I say so" hack. Or the "more responsiblity than I wanted" hack. Or the "government agents invading my home because some busibody neighbour said I was being cruel to my pet" hack. Real dogs may be great for some people, but some of us want a toy not a responsibility.
I gotta get me one of them robots to vacuum the floor. They're not that expensive, but I'm cheap, and there's not enough marketting to remind me that I need one. Yesterday I had to carry two weeks worth of groceries from the car up to my unit. That's like 2 flights of stairs. It's not a hard job, but I'm lazy. Where's my grocery carrying robot? You could do it with a stair climbing trolly, but what do you do with that trolly when you're done with it? Who has space to store a trolly? Maybe them autoreconfigurable robots are the way to go. Ya know, the 4 million bricks that talk to each other and can form any shape.
So after all that fussing and fighting we've basically come to agree with each other. My position hasn't changed and it seems that yours hasn't either. It just goes to show that geeks don't know how to communicate :)
So you would be in favour of a patent system that was sufficiently reformed to prevent obvious patents. Like, for example, the reforms that Microsoft has proposed that allows interested parties to present evidence that a granted patent is obvious or has prior art without needing to be on the receiving end of a patent infringement claim?
You're just forever hung up on this obvious patent problem aint ya? Stop thinking about obvious patents for 5 seconds and consider if there is any benefit to the industry for creating an incentive to make new, non-trivial algorithms. Cause, at the moment, the only incentive anyone has to sit down for 12 months and work on a single problem is in academia.
No, because absolutely zero of them came from funding astronomy. Each and every one of the things you mention could have just as easily been developed by inventors following their own self interest.
Even if you think there is some benefit to society in funding the space program, isn't there the same benefit in funding other disciplines of science? Where's the National Mathematics and Computation Administration? Does it get the same amount of funding as NASA?
You're the kind of person who looks at a sick patient and says that obviously the patient wouldn't be any better off if he had the use of his eyes because his ears clearly work.
This is what it boils down to. Either you think the software industry is a-ok and doesn't need a change in legislation to mature or you think that the software industry is fucked up and anything will help (or you think something in the middle). If you think everything is a-ok with the software industry then let's just stop talking right now. Cause if you think everything is honkie dorrie in the software industry we really have nothing to talk about.
Assuming you don't think the software industry is on the right track and you do think some form of legislation change would help, what would it be? I'm suggesting that dumping copyright (or scaling it right back) and going with a more patent-like approach would be beneficial, because I think the differientiating value lies in the actual inventions, not in how well the software is written.
My point is, why is NASA funded by our taxes? Why can't it be funded by a voluntary organisation? The space race is over. It kinda reminds me of tolls on roads and bridges. They fund the construction by charging a toll for 20 years and then they say, heck, people are used to paying the toll, we'll just leave it on.
So umm, why can't all space research be paid for this way? Or at least, why don't US citizens have the option to pay some percentage of their tax to NASA when they file their tax returns?
Yeah, but this is a bullshit hippy argument. People believe that any form of property is theft. People believe that money isn't all that great an idea. We're not discussing the coming revolution and the great socialist republic we're all soon to be living in, we're discussing whether or not patents, which our society already grants for inventions in other industries should cover inventions in the software industry. Please do not make the argument that all software patents to date are too obvious. For a start, it's wrong, but more importantly, why do some people have so much trouble accepting that some software inventions are worthy of patenting? Don't we want people making these inventions? Are they supposed to do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
JESUS H. CHRIST. If you don't produce software then why the hell are you talking to me about writing software? Thanks for wasting my time you asshole. I'm gunna track you down and find out what you do for a living and then argue with you for hours about the best way to do it. See how you like it.
Fair enough. If you look at my other posts you'll see that I don't think too favourably about small software companies. I use the term fly-by-night and I think it is valid. Of course, I'm also against "obvious" patents. If you're a small software company you simply should not "accidently" infringe someone's patent. If you do the algorithm is too obvious. Of course, if you create an algorithm of value you should do a patent search and be aware of the happenings in your industry. Plenty of other industries get by being regulated by patents.
I'm sorry, how does reproducing Unix, 40 year old technology, justify your claim that the software industry is innovative?
Copyright clearly doesn't work because the software industry is populated by fly-by-night companies that don't produce anything new, they just pump out the same old crap, brand it and play marketting games to get consumers to buy it. As a consumer of software you have a choice between crap and more crap. There's little to nothing new and gradual improvement is shunned for marketing tricks.
Yeah, there ya go, you've basically labelled yourself as an ignorant nut. The software industry is not innovative. We don't come up with new algorithms. We just package up the discoveries of 20 years ago and sell them to an unwitting public.
I'm sorry, I'm I supposed to think you noble for wanting to continue the great software tradition of ripping people off and producing crap?
Blah, so fix the patent system, don't go throwing the baby out with the bath water.