ICANN resides within the US and is thus governed by the laws here. This is one reason the global community has called for a change in the way ICANN is run. While I think that decentralizing our DNS system is looney, I think they should be open to a larger governing body. Call me a hippie, but an OSS/community committee seems like the best answer.
I call shenanigans on this. Spamhaus' list is a voluntary addition to an admin's arsenal. It's not like Spamhaus is some sort of government agency that just put their collective foot down and said company x is now considered a spammer. From a neutral footing, I don't see what law they've broken.
Look at it another way. I don't like Circuit City. I think the people that work there are typically morons, and I encourage people to shop elsewhere. If these people take my advice, it is a voluntary decision. Am I legally actionable for expressing my opinion that Circuit City is not worth people's time and money? IANAL, but I certainly hope not. Am I in any way breaking the law if I express my opinion in a large enough forum (notice I said OPINION... in this analogy, were I to do anything else, such as spread rumors, or misinformation, it would be a misleading analogy as Spamhaus has done nothing to libel the company in question) that it affects Circuit City's bottom line? No. That would be a free speech issue. One could argue that Spamhaus' determination that this company is a spammer is nothing more than an exercise in free speech, and simple recommendation toward it's user base.
This is another classic example of a company finding out it's way of doing business is being threatened by the changing winds, and trying to find a litigation solution rather thana new business model. I understand it from their perspective; it is easier to sue somebody than change the way you do business. However, one of two conclusions can be reached: 1)The litigating company is in fact a spammer, and the system works. Their lawsuit/injunction is simply a clever way for an immoral company to win out against those that might hurt their business, and as such should be fought and hopefully won on the grounds of simply exposing them for what they truly are. Or, 2)They are a legitimate company-a dolphin caught in the tuna net. In which case, they simply need to prove their legitimacy in court, Spamhaus takes them off their list, and the problem is solved.
In either case the answer is not blind litigation, but due process. I think the fact that the company mounting the legal battle has tried these tactics suggests that there may be a mar on their legitimacy. That, or since Spamhaus didn't answer their earlier claims, this is a means to make them take notice. Hopefully that is all it is; a threat. Having their ICANN records pulled is a useful scare tactic, but if it actually happens, it sets a bad precedent for these sorts of cases. I can see the same thing happening with antivirus software. If a company whines loud enough (righteous or not) that they are legitimate, will they be able to successfully force a company like Norton to pull them off their list by sheer legal tactics? I hope not.
There is a great article in last month's Wired you should read about how Sony has effectively put all it's eggs in one basket. If the PS3 doesn't do fantastically well in worldwide sales, Sony could be in serious trouble.
I agree. In addition, the poor launch will undoubtedly bring about the use of brand recognition in-game to the next-gen consoles. When I first heard about this idea, I was strongly against it, but after giving it some thought, I'd say it benefits the consumer greatly. "The price of increasing console complexity," as you mentioned is going to be high, both in man hours and overall development cost. Adding in logos to backgrounds of cityscapes, ads on the sideline of a basketball court, or billboards on virtual roads will mean that the cost involved in harnessing all this new technology will no longer be solely shouldered by the end-consumer. Plus, as has been mentioned elsewhere, ads are a part of everyday reality. In this way, they will add that much more to modern games by adding that extra degree of immersion. I wonder what a billboard on the side of the road in the next GTA or Gran Tourismo will run? If I had a company, that's something I'd be checking into... Once it's in there, I would imagine it's going to stay in the same spot every time a kid plays that game. Repetitve advertisement is a classic strategy.
I seem to remember thinking the exact same thing about Neil Stephenson's In the Beginning there was the Command Line. Pretentious and pessimistic. Thanks for the review.
I would say you had a bad sampling. I have a logitech wireless keyboard mouse combo, the one that came out right before they went to laser optics. It has a base station for the mouse. Yes, I have to recharge the mouse every week or so, depending on use, but there's a red LED that lights up so I know I'm getting low before it craps out completely. Nothing beats being able to prop your feet up and type from a keyboard in your lap (particularly added with the peace of mind of not having to worry if you will pull the cable out of the back of your box).
With that said, there is still room for improvement. Rumor has it that the advent of wireless USB will bring about wireless monitors. Good idea. However, while keystrokes being transmitted over wireless is a mild security risk, milder still using a RF connection like the one I have, instead of a more robust Bluetooth connection, the risk is still there. So, in that vein, imagine using a wireless monitor connection, which, depending on how it is done, is potentially putting out a ton of information through what will be (I'm almost positive) a unsecured-by-default wireless connection. This way an attacker no longer has to sift through random packets to find valuable information, but can simply watch you enter your credit card dumbers in real time. I sincerely hope they have a novel approach for this problem, because I see it as being a potentially huge security risk.
I will say I am thankful for the reduction of wired under my desk. With 3 monitors and 2 CPUs, you can barely see the floor behind my desk. With my own experience as a wireless network engineer leaving me a little leary about high fidelity digital connections, (specifically the bajillion points of failure possible in such a scenario) I am looking forward to increased innovation in this area.
Are you trying to be funny, or are you not really a gamer? Eddie Gordo is one of my favorite game characters in the last 10 some-odd years. There are plenty of other (albiet not neccessarily main)black game characters that immediately come to mind, such as the coach from Mike Tyson's Punch out, or Jax from Mortal Kombat, or Balrog from Street Fighter 2.
I understand where you're going with this, but while it is a judge's right to JUDGE the criteria of something like this, it is not the right of a judge, a lawmaker, or a pissant lawyer from Miami to CENSOR. I am 24 years old, and, if this law comes to full fruition, (as in not defeated in a month by legal challenges) if I wanted to buy a violent video game in the state of Louisiana, I should have every right to do so. This law will not only make it impossible for minors to get their hands on the game, but everyone else. That is not child protection, it is thinly veiled censorship, and it is not constitutional. Furthermore, the law is useless, as other people have metioned, because children can still buy these games online. I pity the lawmakers that went along with this. They are contributing to what I feel is one of the greatest threats to Americans in this day and age: The idea that because of what is going on in the world around us, it is OK to surrender our personal freedoms, constitutional rights, and our concepts of what makes us Americans, all so that we can be safer, or keep our kids or borders safer. This sort of law would never have passed 10 years ago, because back then, PARENTS were responsible for raising their children. Not the media, not the government, and not media-whore attourneys from Miami.
I understand what you're saying, but can you be more specific? Exactly what do these countries have to fear? Even if we are war with a country, they still have access to our internet, unless they shut off access on their end. DNS assignments seem to be the only point of contention, and that comes down, as I understand it, to who gets to collect the money for things like domains and class A addresses. So, does that mean the UN sees us making money off of something that we designed and built without their help, and now wants a kickback? Still not clear on why this is happeneing.
You know, I work in IT, have a moderate grasp of how the world network operates. Why exactyl is the UN so keen on forcibly taking over the management of the internet? A. We invented it, we set up the first networks, and were only later linked with other countries B. It doesn't appear to be broken, why fix it? Can someone explain this to me?
Bah. 'Big Trouble' had a HUGE big name cast, with most everyone sharing as main characters. Pulp Fiction also had a huge cast, with main characters sectioned into vignettes. The same is true of Sin City. All were great movies, IMHO, (if you like Dave Barry anyway).
Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
Furthermore, nVidia and ATI are marketing their GPUs as capable of taking over more primary PC functions, thus, thet makes 4 HUGE opponents for this kind of stuff. Personally, I believe this is IBM's attempt at wagging the dog. They're still screwed.
I have been to jail, and it is a horrible, horrible place. But I have also studied in detail the "prison culture". However, while I do agree with you, your post seems to indicate you didn't notice that I was specifically speaking about punishment AFTER the crime. Of course I believe that deterring a crime before it can occur. But that wasn't the point of my post. Think before you type. Instead of flagging my ideas down as counterproductive, maybe you should think about what it is you are trying to say, and what I'm saying, and see if they are really that conflicting of opinions.
I'd be interested to know what part of my post you infer as sick revenge. I talk about taking away computer access and not allowing a carjacker the means to continue stealing cars, (as a general example). I know the sasser creator was a kid. That was included in my opnion to give him 5 years and no PC access. Trying an adult in the same circumstance may have a different outcome, though I think the punishment in my model would be failry similar, based on the points I already outlined. Did you even read my post?
Well, I have to say that this thread is one of the best I've seen on/. in a long time. Even the GNAA and Goatse are staying away to make room for actual rational debate.
On to your topic. I agree and disagree. First, and I love it that I can be a geek and quote a line from Batman, (or paraphrase, as I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote), "Criminals thrive on society's understanding and leniency." Or something to that effect. That hit my as a fairly powerful truth. How many criminals are not deterred or are in fact encouraged that they will most likely receieve a slap on the wrist, (depending on the nature of the crime) IF they get caught? The statement that the punishment should fit the crime works both ways. We deem the severing of limbs as a punishment for shoplifting barbaric, and I would have to agree, but we don't want to make the punishment too lenient either, or these alleged criminals will either be encouraged to commit the crime again, or will be allowed to, depending on how you look at it, because their punishment did not include any means of disabling their future attempts at the same crime, which has always been a point I have tried to speak on. Policymakers should at least spend some time considering the idea that sometimes the best way of dealing with a crime, (at least after it has already occured) is at minimum to ensure that the crime cannot be repeated. If were to rob a bank, and were caught, it could be argued that I would spend my time in jail thinking about what I did wrong to where I got caught, and how to fix that issue on my NEXT ATTEMPT. Combine that with the fact that most people who do hard time are exposed to a wealth of criminal knowledge in the form of their fellow inmates. Thus, for certain criminals, sending them to jail is a means for them to hone their criminal activities by way of mentoring and instruction by other criminals. If we were to deter these criminals somehow, depending on the crime, rather than giving them better odds at succeeding where they failed before, we would be doing a lot to lower crime rates. If someone is caught hacking, and the crime is severe enough, (I can't stress this enough, sending a net send accross all the computers in your school is not an offense worthy of criminal proceedings, dammit!) what would happen if we took away any possibility of his access to a computer? If it could be done efficiently, with a high success rate and a low maintenance cost, (a PO officer who inspects his domicile for a PC?) we could ensure a fitting punishment, with the guarantee that this particular offender would not have the ability to commit the same crime.
Many criminals are "branch specialists" meaning that, put simply, they tend to stick to a particular type of crime. A carjacker may also commit other auto related crimes like stripping cars, fencing cars, etc. More than likely he has spent some time learning the tools of the trade, and in most cases, has not committed his time to learning the particulars of other branches, such as fraud, or (organized) armed robbery. Thus, taking away his access to the means by which he could commit an automobile related crime would salve the problem very simply. These sorts of sentances could be carried out for longer terms, with shorter jailtimes accompanying them, providing just punishment without fear of repeat, as well as saving the taxpayers' dollar by reducing the already bursting jail population.
So, while I do agree that MOST crimes in this country are not met with effective, deterring means of punishemnt, I don't believe that the answer is to lock them up for a longer period of time, but rather to custom fit the punishment. Locking up the Sasser guy for life will make a teenage hacker into a hardened criminal. Locking him up for 5 years and taking away his computers, (maybe even his electricity? That would be pretty easy to do) for life would deal a horrible blow to his way of life, (taking away my access to computers would be a fate almost worse than death!) and his morale in a way that a more broad punishment may not be capable of./rant
I was always confused about that lin. (Once made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.) Isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Some super physics geek wanna confirm that for me?
***And sice WHEN do we have to enter in a text code to post on/.? I know I haven't posted in a while, but that's just rediculous. I hate those things!
Or, how about: Player wants item, wants to grind for it as originally intended, loses his interest in the game because the fanboy next to him got the same item without any effort. Player quits. -loser
Player wants to buy item in game, finds that his money, that he spent months legitimately gathering, now is practically worthless, and the item he wants now has an astronomical price tag due to the induction of more easily aquired funds. -loser
To me, MMORPGs are about the journey, not the destination. Some games, like SWGalaxies for example, make the journey boring and help define the term "grinding". Some games, like WoW, make "grinding" enjoyable, with well written quests, and enough variety to keep the interest level high enough to keep coming back. Not that they are, but if Blizzard were to roll out something like this, it would completely ruin the game for me, as the things I worked so hard for would become trivial.
Point of fact: You DO get taxed if someone gives you a birthday present, if that present is money, or has a monetary value great enough to offset your rational means of living. If I gave you a million dollars for your birthday, (not unless you were really cute, and your name was Liv Tyler... Oh, I'd FIND a way...) you bet your ass the government would be holding out their hand.
Slashdot Mirror
*sniff* *sniff*
I smell VAPORWARE!
ICANN resides within the US and is thus governed by the laws here. This is one reason the global community has called for a change in the way ICANN is run. While I think that decentralizing our DNS system is looney, I think they should be open to a larger governing body.
Call me a hippie, but an OSS/community committee seems like the best answer.
I call shenanigans on this. Spamhaus' list is a voluntary addition to an admin's arsenal. It's not like Spamhaus is some sort of government agency that just put their collective foot down and said company x is now considered a spammer. From a neutral footing, I don't see what law they've broken.
Look at it another way. I don't like Circuit City. I think the people that work there are typically morons, and I encourage people to shop elsewhere. If these people take my advice, it is a voluntary decision. Am I legally actionable for expressing my opinion that Circuit City is not worth people's time and money? IANAL, but I certainly hope not. Am I in any way breaking the law if I express my opinion in a large enough forum (notice I said OPINION... in this analogy, were I to do anything else, such as spread rumors, or misinformation, it would be a misleading analogy as Spamhaus has done nothing to libel the company in question) that it affects Circuit City's bottom line? No. That would be a free speech issue. One could argue that Spamhaus' determination that this company is a spammer is nothing more than an exercise in free speech, and simple recommendation toward it's user base.
This is another classic example of a company finding out it's way of doing business is being threatened by the changing winds, and trying to find a litigation solution rather thana new business model. I understand it from their perspective; it is easier to sue somebody than change the way you do business. However, one of two conclusions can be reached: 1)The litigating company is in fact a spammer, and the system works. Their lawsuit/injunction is simply a clever way for an immoral company to win out against those that might hurt their business, and as such should be fought and hopefully won on the grounds of simply exposing them for what they truly are. Or, 2)They are a legitimate company-a dolphin caught in the tuna net. In which case, they simply need to prove their legitimacy in court, Spamhaus takes them off their list, and the problem is solved.
In either case the answer is not blind litigation, but due process. I think the fact that the company mounting the legal battle has tried these tactics suggests that there may be a mar on their legitimacy. That, or since Spamhaus didn't answer their earlier claims, this is a means to make them take notice. Hopefully that is all it is; a threat. Having their ICANN records pulled is a useful scare tactic, but if it actually happens, it sets a bad precedent for these sorts of cases. I can see the same thing happening with antivirus software. If a company whines loud enough (righteous or not) that they are legitimate, will they be able to successfully force a company like Norton to pull them off their list by sheer legal tactics? I hope not.
There is a great article in last month's Wired you should read about how Sony has effectively put all it's eggs in one basket. If the PS3 doesn't do fantastically well in worldwide sales, Sony could be in serious trouble.
I agree. In addition, the poor launch will undoubtedly bring about the use of brand recognition in-game to the next-gen consoles. When I first heard about this idea, I was strongly against it, but after giving it some thought, I'd say it benefits the consumer greatly. "The price of increasing console complexity," as you mentioned is going to be high, both in man hours and overall development cost. Adding in logos to backgrounds of cityscapes, ads on the sideline of a basketball court, or billboards on virtual roads will mean that the cost involved in harnessing all this new technology will no longer be solely shouldered by the end-consumer. Plus, as has been mentioned elsewhere, ads are a part of everyday reality. In this way, they will add that much more to modern games by adding that extra degree of immersion. I wonder what a billboard on the side of the road in the next GTA or Gran Tourismo will run? If I had a company, that's something I'd be checking into... Once it's in there, I would imagine it's going to stay in the same spot every time a kid plays that game. Repetitve advertisement is a classic strategy.
I seem to remember thinking the exact same thing about Neil Stephenson's In the Beginning there was the Command Line. Pretentious and pessimistic. Thanks for the review.
I want my Tachikoma!
I would say you had a bad sampling. I have a logitech wireless keyboard mouse combo, the one that came out right before they went to laser optics. It has a base station for the mouse. Yes, I have to recharge the mouse every week or so, depending on use, but there's a red LED that lights up so I know I'm getting low before it craps out completely. Nothing beats being able to prop your feet up and type from a keyboard in your lap (particularly added with the peace of mind of not having to worry if you will pull the cable out of the back of your box).
With that said, there is still room for improvement. Rumor has it that the advent of wireless USB will bring about wireless monitors. Good idea. However, while keystrokes being transmitted over wireless is a mild security risk, milder still using a RF connection like the one I have, instead of a more robust Bluetooth connection, the risk is still there. So, in that vein, imagine using a wireless monitor connection, which, depending on how it is done, is potentially putting out a ton of information through what will be (I'm almost positive) a unsecured-by-default wireless connection. This way an attacker no longer has to sift through random packets to find valuable information, but can simply watch you enter your credit card dumbers in real time. I sincerely hope they have a novel approach for this problem, because I see it as being a potentially huge security risk.
I will say I am thankful for the reduction of wired under my desk. With 3 monitors and 2 CPUs, you can barely see the floor behind my desk. With my own experience as a wireless network engineer leaving me a little leary about high fidelity digital connections, (specifically the bajillion points of failure possible in such a scenario) I am looking forward to increased innovation in this area.
Yea, because it dosen't exist.
Are you trying to be funny, or are you not really a gamer? Eddie Gordo is one of my favorite game characters in the last 10 some-odd years. There are plenty of other (albiet not neccessarily main)black game characters that immediately come to mind, such as the coach from Mike Tyson's Punch out, or Jax from Mortal Kombat, or Balrog from Street Fighter 2.
I understand where you're going with this, but while it is a judge's right to JUDGE the criteria of something like this, it is not the right of a judge, a lawmaker, or a pissant lawyer from Miami to CENSOR. I am 24 years old, and, if this law comes to full fruition, (as in not defeated in a month by legal challenges) if I wanted to buy a violent video game in the state of Louisiana, I should have every right to do so. This law will not only make it impossible for minors to get their hands on the game, but everyone else. That is not child protection, it is thinly veiled censorship, and it is not constitutional. Furthermore, the law is useless, as other people have metioned, because children can still buy these games online. I pity the lawmakers that went along with this. They are contributing to what I feel is one of the greatest threats to Americans in this day and age: The idea that because of what is going on in the world around us, it is OK to surrender our personal freedoms, constitutional rights, and our concepts of what makes us Americans, all so that we can be safer, or keep our kids or borders safer. This sort of law would never have passed 10 years ago, because back then, PARENTS were responsible for raising their children. Not the media, not the government, and not media-whore attourneys from Miami.
I understand what you're saying, but can you be more specific? Exactly what do these countries have to fear? Even if we are war with a country, they still have access to our internet, unless they shut off access on their end. DNS assignments seem to be the only point of contention, and that comes down, as I understand it, to who gets to collect the money for things like domains and class A addresses. So, does that mean the UN sees us making money off of something that we designed and built without their help, and now wants a kickback? Still not clear on why this is happeneing.
You know, I work in IT, have a moderate grasp of how the world network operates. Why exactyl is the UN so keen on forcibly taking over the management of the internet? A. We invented it, we set up the first networks, and were only later linked with other countries B. It doesn't appear to be broken, why fix it? Can someone explain this to me?
Bah. 'Big Trouble' had a HUGE big name cast, with most everyone sharing as main characters. Pulp Fiction also had a huge cast, with main characters sectioned into vignettes. The same is true of Sin City. All were great movies, IMHO, (if you like Dave Barry anyway).
About the same possibility of having a laptop buring a hole in your desk.
"IBM plans to be inside these new systems."
Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
Furthermore, nVidia and ATI are marketing their GPUs as capable of taking over more primary PC functions, thus, thet makes 4 HUGE opponents for this kind of stuff. Personally, I believe this is IBM's attempt at wagging the dog. They're still screwed.
I have been to jail, and it is a horrible, horrible place. But I have also studied in detail the "prison culture". However, while I do agree with you, your post seems to indicate you didn't notice that I was specifically speaking about punishment AFTER the crime. Of course I believe that deterring a crime before it can occur. But that wasn't the point of my post. Think before you type. Instead of flagging my ideas down as counterproductive, maybe you should think about what it is you are trying to say, and what I'm saying, and see if they are really that conflicting of opinions.
I'd be interested to know what part of my post you infer as sick revenge. I talk about taking away computer access and not allowing a carjacker the means to continue stealing cars, (as a general example). I know the sasser creator was a kid. That was included in my opnion to give him 5 years and no PC access. Trying an adult in the same circumstance may have a different outcome, though I think the punishment in my model would be failry similar, based on the points I already outlined. Did you even read my post?
Thank you. Too bad I couldn't write it until after there were 3 other headlines on the front page. Now nobody will read it.
Well, I have to say that this thread is one of the best I've seen on /. in a long time. Even the GNAA and Goatse are staying away to make room for actual rational debate.
/rant
On to your topic. I agree and disagree. First, and I love it that I can be a geek and quote a line from Batman, (or paraphrase, as I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote), "Criminals thrive on society's understanding and leniency." Or something to that effect. That hit my as a fairly powerful truth. How many criminals are not deterred or are in fact encouraged that they will most likely receieve a slap on the wrist, (depending on the nature of the crime) IF they get caught? The statement that the punishment should fit the crime works both ways. We deem the severing of limbs as a punishment for shoplifting barbaric, and I would have to agree, but we don't want to make the punishment too lenient either, or these alleged criminals will either be encouraged to commit the crime again, or will be allowed to, depending on how you look at it, because their punishment did not include any means of disabling their future attempts at the same crime, which has always been a point I have tried to speak on. Policymakers should at least spend some time considering the idea that sometimes the best way of dealing with a crime, (at least after it has already occured) is at minimum to ensure that the crime cannot be repeated. If were to rob a bank, and were caught, it could be argued that I would spend my time in jail thinking about what I did wrong to where I got caught, and how to fix that issue on my NEXT ATTEMPT. Combine that with the fact that most people who do hard time are exposed to a wealth of criminal knowledge in the form of their fellow inmates. Thus, for certain criminals, sending them to jail is a means for them to hone their criminal activities by way of mentoring and instruction by other criminals. If we were to deter these criminals somehow, depending on the crime, rather than giving them better odds at succeeding where they failed before, we would be doing a lot to lower crime rates. If someone is caught hacking, and the crime is severe enough, (I can't stress this enough, sending a net send accross all the computers in your school is not an offense worthy of criminal proceedings, dammit!) what would happen if we took away any possibility of his access to a computer? If it could be done efficiently, with a high success rate and a low maintenance cost, (a PO officer who inspects his domicile for a PC?) we could ensure a fitting punishment, with the guarantee that this particular offender would not have the ability to commit the same crime.
Many criminals are "branch specialists" meaning that, put simply, they tend to stick to a particular type of crime. A carjacker may also commit other auto related crimes like stripping cars, fencing cars, etc. More than likely he has spent some time learning the tools of the trade, and in most cases, has not committed his time to learning the particulars of other branches, such as fraud, or (organized) armed robbery. Thus, taking away his access to the means by which he could commit an automobile related crime would salve the problem very simply. These sorts of sentances could be carried out for longer terms, with shorter jailtimes accompanying them, providing just punishment without fear of repeat, as well as saving the taxpayers' dollar by reducing the already bursting jail population.
So, while I do agree that MOST crimes in this country are not met with effective, deterring means of punishemnt, I don't believe that the answer is to lock them up for a longer period of time, but rather to custom fit the punishment. Locking up the Sasser guy for life will make a teenage hacker into a hardened criminal. Locking him up for 5 years and taking away his computers, (maybe even his electricity? That would be pretty easy to do) for life would deal a horrible blow to his way of life, (taking away my access to computers would be a fate almost worse than death!) and his morale in a way that a more broad punishment may not be capable of.
I was always confused about that lin. (Once made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.) Isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Some super physics geek wanna confirm that for me?
/.? I know I haven't posted in a while, but that's just rediculous. I hate those things!
***And sice WHEN do we have to enter in a text code to post on
I was always confused about that line. Isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Some super phisics geek wanna help me out here?
/.?!?
**Whoa! I know I haven't posted in a while, but since when do we have to enter in a text code to post on
Or, how about:
Player wants item, wants to grind for it as originally intended, loses his interest in the game because the fanboy next to him got the same item without any effort. Player quits. -loser
Player wants to buy item in game, finds that his money, that he spent months legitimately gathering, now is practically worthless, and the item he wants now has an astronomical price tag due to the induction of more easily aquired funds. -loser
To me, MMORPGs are about the journey, not the destination. Some games, like SWGalaxies for example, make the journey boring and help define the term "grinding". Some games, like WoW, make "grinding" enjoyable, with well written quests, and enough variety to keep the interest level high enough to keep coming back. Not that they are, but if Blizzard were to roll out something like this, it would completely ruin the game for me, as the things I worked so hard for would become trivial.
Point of fact: You DO get taxed if someone gives you a birthday present, if that present is money, or has a monetary value great enough to offset your rational means of living. If I gave you a million dollars for your birthday, (not unless you were really cute, and your name was Liv Tyler... Oh, I'd FIND a way...) you bet your ass the government would be holding out their hand.
Isn't this where Peter Wiggin joins with the Thai army and defeats the Indo-Chinese alliance?
I still think CRTs are better, ESPECIALLY for the money, and the clarity, color, etc.