Thanks for finally killing the old music industry.
Sincerely, Everyone.
People have been talking for years about how online sales could revolutionize the music industry. Itunes got it partly right, but had to cut deals with the existing music giants to get off the ground and it had no mechanism where musicians could get in without an existing record deal. Working through Itunes AND Amazon (people who bought this ALSO bought...) and giving a fair shake to the artists on sales sounds like the magic combination needed to reduce the old model to irrelevancy. Best of luck.
They will not access the data without having reason to. The legal position of keeping data on somebody and actually looking up the data is completely different, the former is not spying, the latter is; therefore doing it without due cause is against the law.
They can and will abuse the data. You're missing my point; why do we trust the people running these systems? Law might technically forbid misuse, but as an example look at the number of times people's medical records have been illegally accessed or hacked in celebrity cases. I'm not talking about official use but about abuse by people with both access and an agenda. And what if the government decides it's ok to start using those systems and the information in ways not originally intended? The Bush administration torture documents show how easy it is to change the rules of the game. You can certainly expect that technology WILL advance to the point where a networked system of high definition cameras with facial recognition technology could track a person anywhere automatically. I'm reasoning from the perspective that a person has a basic right to privacy in his daily actions and that government LACKS the authority to invade that privacy without just cause, particularly because some of the very people operating those systems can and will abuse their power. Think of the worst, most oppressive governments in history, or even in existence now. These technologies provide unprecedented access to people's daily lives. Does the government regard you as responsible and trustworthy or as someone who needs to be watched, shepherded and nannied? What's the difference between being in prison and everyday life? Who holds basic responsibility for your life?
I used train stations as a pragamatic example because cameras can allow a limited amount of security personnel to cover a larger amount of ground - it doesn't mean I like it or even believe it's effective at protecting me and certainly doesn't mean I want more surveillance. Stop blindly trusting government because government is only as good as the people running it.
The thing nobody is talking about is the massive increase in governmental power with the advent of remotely accessible computerized databases. Having information on file in paper form is one thing; someone has to physically pull out the paper to see it. Placing that information in a database that the government can access at will is quite another. There used to be physical limitations to how much they could track people. Now they can pull your bank card records, cell phone records, virtually anything if they want it. Now we all leave a much longer paper trail, except it's all digital. When I think of all the instances I've heard about police and government officials abusing power, it gives me pause to think these same people could leverage all that data. Government is only as good as the people running it and unless there's some serious need, the cameras bother me. I can understand cameras limited to busy public areas like train stations, but surveillance for surveillance's sake is a solution to what problem?
Everything that's been said in this entire thread, whether about Nazi Germany or Iraq points toward one thing: the need to limit the power of the government. People are the same everywhere. Some are smart, some stupid, some selfish and some selfless. You simply can not blindly trust "government". People run the government, people are flawed and hence government is flawed. The US has extremists, both fascists and communists, in the government right now although they don't call themselves by those names. Instead we have a two party system representing two faces of the same corporate coin, governmental secrecy and a dying newspaper industry being supplanted by corporate media. The need for free elections, checks and balances and a free press have never been more obvious.
I installed win7 when it was first released. Didn't play nice with existing xp networks and really gave no real functional reason to switch from xp. Once we can easily and seamlessly install any windows based software on linux windows will die. Frankly I'd guess part of the reason for win7 is simply to make that goal more difficult.
One of the biggest challenges in diagnosis and treatment of these diseases is defining the terms accurately in a clinically relevant manner. You got the depression part sort of correct, but bipolar disorders encompass a wide variety of symptom presentations. The "classic" manic depressive who might behave as you describe is called "type 1 bipolar disorder", but with type 2 bipolar disorder people are generally depressed with moods cycling downward toward more severe depression, although moods may swing upward toward hypomania. There's also a wide variety in the duration of the cycling, to the point where it may not be apparently different from normal mood changes.
Ultimately what we are talking about is the behavioral presentation of differences in brain structure and chemistry. On the surface what clinicians try to do is balance neurotransmitters using medications, but in practice what often happens is they merely try a series of medications until they hit on something that works. The effects of lithium are specific enough that it can almost be used diagnostically.
The interesting question raised here is when a naturally occurring substance becomes a drug. This question has been raging for years around fluoride. As a public health measure fluoridation is measurably effective but people question whether dental health is a sufficiently important reason to add a substance to drinking water. Iodized salt prevents an actual medical problem and goiter is now virtually unknown. Is the iodine a nutrient or a drug? What about fluoride? It seems to me that addition of lithium to the water supply would clearly fall under the definition of a drug. Even if it reduces the rate of suicide and mental illness the precedent set for "drugging the public" is far too serious and impinges on the rights of people who do not have a mental illness or chemical imbalances.
Treatment of mental illness must remain between a doctor and patient. The main benefit of this study is to increase public awareness of mental health issues, especially in a culture where mental illness is stigmatized.
We could end the war on drugs, undermine the narcotics cartels, fund interdiction of truly bad drugs like meth and heroin as well as fund rehab for anyone who wants it with one simple action: tax weed. The government could control production and distribution and police could stop wasting everyone's time on the victimless pseudo-crime of pot possession. Prohibition showed us that outlawing alcohol merely forced it underground, fueled organized crime and turned virtually everyone into a criminal. The current situation with pot is essentially no different.
I don't like drug use; I've seen too many people destroy themselves and waste their lives getting high, but making it illegal does nothing to stop them. We need to recognize the practical realities regarding drug use in order to get a handle on it.
To an extent, but the grandparent post has it about right. The way it works is the repubs manipulate the anti-abortion crowd, the religious right and the gun nuts, while the dems use the do-gooders, greens and pro-choicers. Anything to preserve the illusion of choice. Both sides pass laws to satisfy their "constituents" regardless of whether they'll pass constitutional muster. They don't care if it does: the laws don't affect the power elite! (just look at all the tax-dodgers Obama picked-the repubs are no better). Ban guns, institute school prayer, whatever so long as the sheep are happy.
Once in office, their real constituents-the corporations funding them-get everything they want. Then it's time to play "Wave the red herring" - Sex scandals! Global warming! Iraq is SO gonna attack us! Anything to distract you from the real issues as your rights are eroded!
Worse yet, it's international. The same crap happens everywhere, with the issues moved by the same corporate players. If there doesn't happen to be a pesky democratic government to manipulate, the elite have another tactic: the good old fashioned suitcase full of cash! That 3rd world strong man is for sale, too.
The main thing the framers of the constitution got right is the notion that the government needs to be restrained in the interest of the people. Too bad the constitution is practically irrelevant at this point.
The point is that there isn't any CO2 produced from generating electricity. I have to think that although the designs of coal plants are probably a lot simpler than nuke plants, the construction materials are sort of similar in type and quantitity. Coal also must be mined, etc.. The big hidden cost of coal plants is the amount of heavy metals and radioactive isotopes spewed into the atmosphere - far more radioactive material is released into the atmosphere by coal plants than ever by nuclear power plants including TMI and Chernobyl. Regarding waste disposal - at least the mess is all in one place instead of released into the atmosphere or dumped as waste ash.
I also strongly favor conservation as the ideal first step in reducing energy use and CO2 production. It's easy, attainable and could be done NOW.
It continually amazes me how the greenies consistently fail to account for the manufacturing byproducts and evaluate based on CO2 alone. It's a noble goal, but we really need to keep our eyes open about this stuff, as the law of unintended consequences is always in effect. That being said, the time is right for a push toward the next generation nuke plants. Wind and solar generated power are great, but we still need more conventional generation to fill in the gaps - gaps which are currently being filled by coal fired plants. At least with nukes, we keep the mess all in one place as opposed to spewing the mess into the air.
I should say that I quit playing WoW right around the time flasks were introduced about 2 years ago(?), so my experiences are somewhat dated. Our guild focused on progression through the 40 man raids, which were the norm at the time. For that raiding scenario, potions, etc., were considered standard equipment. At the time, raids often cost more than they yielded with the exception of unique BOP drops, which couldn't be sold. You raided for drops and ground out gold for repairs and buffs. We were probably one of the top 5 raiding guilds on the server at the time and as a tank I probably had higher repair bills than average. It's likely Blizzard tweaked the newer content to reduce this sort of thing, since nobody really *liked* grinding for gold. As I said, it killed it for me.
Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying the new, easier 25 man "raids", noob. Bliz obviously had no choice but to dumb it down.;P
I agree that there are problems, but this is about dealing with an issue that already exists. You can always boot a loser from a group and bound items can't be transferred anyway. Most people would tend to buy "legal" gold rather than risk accounts buying black market gold. Undercutting the farmers would be a HUGE boost to the game because it would eliminate them at a stroke.
The mere existence of an aftermarket for game gold is clear indication of the desire among many (and perhaps most players) to avoid the entire gold-making portion of the game. Raiding is fun, grinding and auctioneering are not - for a significant percentage of players. The amount of daily effort required to grind out gold for basic raiding necessities certainly killed it for me.
Blizzard, etc., fail to acknowledge this and people simply take matters into their own hands via the black market. Real world governments that over-tax their people do the same thing-they force the market underground.
Blizzard could completely eliminate the farmer problem overnight simply by the creation of an official pay-for-gold market. This would undercut and eliminate the professional farmers by allowing a "legal" place to buy gold. Normal market forces would apply and resource prices would accommodate - if resource prices rise resource farming becomes more profitable, too. Blizzard, rather than anonymous farmers, would profit and everyone stays happy. Problem solved.
The problem of energy linkage is simple: If we run out of energy, we lose our technology. Without technology, most people will die.
We are not anywhere near to running out of energy. The recent gas price spike spawned interest in a plethora of alternative energy technologies. Unfortunately the price of oil crashed again, but those technologies still exist. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear are all available. When the price of energy makes them economically viable they'll come into use. Energy prices follow the law of supply and demand like everything else. Stating that everyone is going to die soon because we're running out of energy is a gross alarmist simplification. There's plenty of energy sources.
The problem of labor is that automation is becoming increasingly intelligent. Cars that park themselves are already on the market. Semi-automated grocery store checkouts have begun to appear. Etc. Each such advance eliminate categories of jobs.
So every technological advance throws millions out of work? Purest nonsense. Tech increases productivity and reduces costs for goods and services. Tech also creates new jobs that didn't previously exist. Most people in the developed world no longer have to spend their lives subsistence farming. Are you lamenting the loss of good-paying glass blowing jobs because machinery exists to mass produce glass bottles? The jobs lost are in many cases truly menial and new jobs are created. Don't like it? Go start your own business doing something you like.
It think it has the potential to produce a dystopia. It also has potentials in the other direction. It all depends whether the ownership of wealth is centralized or distributed. Under such conditions it becomes increasingly difficult for significant wealth to be "earned".
Please explain how a forced distribution of wealth could possibly be sustained without creating a complete disincentive for anyone to do anything. Under the soviet system people used to joke "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us". Has history taught you nothing? The only wealthy countries in the world today are either capitalist democracies or have, through dumb luck, large exportable natural resources like oil. The key question is whether people have some incentive toward entrepreneurship. Personal ambition is not a vice.
P.S.: Value? People disagree on the value of things, both between people, and, over time, with themselves. The classic example is that to a starving man, a loaf of bread can be worth risking loss of a hand. It sure isn't worth that to me, now.
Isn't that the function of a free market? Something anyone can get or do has low value - it's called supply and demand. You stated previously that the value of labor is decreasing and perhaps it is - for unskilled labor. Fortunately we have an educational system upon which people may avail themselves to acquire valuable skills. Go to school, start and grow a business - I don't see the problem. Or does "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" sound better to you?
Communism? Regardless of it's antecedents it's Marx & Lenin we inevitably have to deal with in this day. I've read Marx and found it entirely lacking any connection to basic human motivations. Any parent of a two year old knows the concept of personal property starts early. As you say, communism fails at any scale larger than the family.
I agree that any economic system presents problems when applied in large scale. The key for capitalism is the existence of healthy free market competition. It's obvious that unrestricted capitalism is unworkable and nobody is advocating removal of all regulation. The recent market meltdown clearly illustrates the need for oversight. Unregulated capitalism tends toward monopoly and a problem with large organizations is that they act as inverted funnels, directing the wealth generated by the activities of the organization mainly to those at the top. However, so long as participation is voluntary it's impossible to dictate how a privately owned (as opposed to government owned) organization distributes the wealth without disrupting the basic rewards for hard work and entrepreneurship. One is free to pursue his own self interest and organize his own corporation. I would point out that this occurs on a daily basis.
You seem to lack understanding of the basic concept of "value" - it's an inherently human thing. Regarding the value of labor, it's not clear why you are linking the value of labor and the problem of energy production, or why you are predicting imminent catastrophe. The value of labor depends upon the labor performed. Manufacturing labor is cheap because China has successfully tapped into it's hundreds of millions of rural people, so it's currently cheaper to make things there and ship them here. The price of Chinese labor is already beginning to rise - a very good thing for the average Chinese peasant, no? Plenty of alternative energy sources exist, it's just that they aren't as cheap as what we use now - relative values. Automation reduces the production cost of goods, placing downward pressure on the market price of goods. So long as healthy free market competition exists, this is a good thing. Are you saying that factories are bad? You should read Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" - the scenario he describes is very similar to what you seem to be implying. Consider that it was written in the early 1950's, yet none of his dire predictions have come true. People are productive, smart and adaptable - and a free market is nothing more than the collective efforts of people.
For some reason you also seem to think that corporations and automation will produces some sort of unholy, machine controlled dystopia. This is where you truly disconnect from reality - how does regulated capitalism in a democratic nation inevitably lead to this scenario? Aren't these political issues? Aren't people still involved in decision making? How would machines somehow wrest ultimate control from people? What value is wealth to a machine? Pay less attention to "Terminator" and more to Economics.
As I said - I don't. The shame of it is that some of them are decent people that deserve help, but the system is just so broken and abused. So, I'm not quite broke, only a little bitter and genocidal only on bad days. At least I was able to exercise some choice in the matter. Now I'm merely stuck listening to adolescent idiots that think everything should be free and that taxing away half my income is a good idea.
Anti-social? Let me paint you a picture: I'm a dentist. I took out very large student loans to become a dentist and I'll be paying them back for decades. I worked extremely hard to get through school and work extremely hard now. I'm proud to provide high quality care for my patients. I've had occasion to work in offices where the majority of patients are on welfare. Very often they're wearing nicer clothes and driving much nicer cars than I do, meaning they're lying to the state to stay on welfare. They pay nothing out of pocket for their dental care, while they state reimburses me very little for working on them. As a group, they're far less likely to take care of themselve - most dental issues are preventable - and far more likely to blame me if something goes wrong. They often fail to show for scheduled appointments and are statistically far more likely to sue for damages regardless of cause.
Basically my taxes fund these losers and because it's so galling that I no longer accept the welfare insurance. If this makes me anti-social I'm glad to wear the label, but I strongly suspect you lack the real life experience to understand why.
And I'm quite sure you're a fucking moron. I'm sure you know it too, or you wouldn't have posted as an A/C.
How you concocted the fantasy that others support me is beyond my understanding. You may come up with some bizarre geopolitical reasons, but the fact is if I didn't work by ass off every day I'd be homeless. This is exactly how it should be.
You have to be kidding me. I'm certainly not advocating people take self-interest to an extreme. There's obvious benefits to cooperation and healthy market competition helps keep the excesses in check, but consider this: one guy goes out and works his ass off and hustles every day of his life while another guy sits on his ass all day. Why should we have a system where the busy guy supports the lazy guy? I don't mind paying into a system that provides support for those that can't help themselves, but when did you become my problem?
Capitalism is not necessarily harmful for society, nor is communism; in practice both are indeed deleterious due to the fact that they are always co-opted into some form of oligarchy.
To group capitalism with communism is naive in the extreme.
Uncontrolled capitalism may have deleterious aspects, but it's nothing compared to a system which essentially denies the right to personal property. Capitalism in it's simplest form, in which an entrepreneur using his profits to expand is business, harnesses an individual's self interest and ambitions and rewards initiative and effort. Communism has no such mechanism.
Communism has never been used as anything but a cover for dictatorship, and completely ignores human nature. The communist manifesto is nothing but a collection of misguided dreaming.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Pete,
Thanks for finally killing the old music industry.
Sincerely, Everyone.
People have been talking for years about how online sales could revolutionize the music industry. Itunes got it partly right, but had to cut deals with the existing music giants to get off the ground and it had no mechanism where musicians could get in without an existing record deal. Working through Itunes AND Amazon (people who bought this ALSO bought...) and giving a fair shake to the artists on sales sounds like the magic combination needed to reduce the old model to irrelevancy. Best of luck.
They will not access the data without having reason to. The legal position of keeping data on somebody and actually looking up the data is completely different, the former is not spying, the latter is; therefore doing it without due cause is against the law.
They can and will abuse the data. You're missing my point; why do we trust the people running these systems? Law might technically forbid misuse, but as an example look at the number of times people's medical records have been illegally accessed or hacked in celebrity cases. I'm not talking about official use but about abuse by people with both access and an agenda. And what if the government decides it's ok to start using those systems and the information in ways not originally intended? The Bush administration torture documents show how easy it is to change the rules of the game. You can certainly expect that technology WILL advance to the point where a networked system of high definition cameras with facial recognition technology could track a person anywhere automatically. I'm reasoning from the perspective that a person has a basic right to privacy in his daily actions and that government LACKS the authority to invade that privacy without just cause, particularly because some of the very people operating those systems can and will abuse their power. Think of the worst, most oppressive governments in history, or even in existence now. These technologies provide unprecedented access to people's daily lives. Does the government regard you as responsible and trustworthy or as someone who needs to be watched, shepherded and nannied? What's the difference between being in prison and everyday life? Who holds basic responsibility for your life?
I used train stations as a pragamatic example because cameras can allow a limited amount of security personnel to cover a larger amount of ground - it doesn't mean I like it or even believe it's effective at protecting me and certainly doesn't mean I want more surveillance. Stop blindly trusting government because government is only as good as the people running it.
The thing nobody is talking about is the massive increase in governmental power with the advent of remotely accessible computerized databases. Having information on file in paper form is one thing; someone has to physically pull out the paper to see it. Placing that information in a database that the government can access at will is quite another. There used to be physical limitations to how much they could track people. Now they can pull your bank card records, cell phone records, virtually anything if they want it. Now we all leave a much longer paper trail, except it's all digital. When I think of all the instances I've heard about police and government officials abusing power, it gives me pause to think these same people could leverage all that data. Government is only as good as the people running it and unless there's some serious need, the cameras bother me. I can understand cameras limited to busy public areas like train stations, but surveillance for surveillance's sake is a solution to what problem?
Everything that's been said in this entire thread, whether about Nazi Germany or Iraq points toward one thing: the need to limit the power of the government. People are the same everywhere. Some are smart, some stupid, some selfish and some selfless. You simply can not blindly trust "government". People run the government, people are flawed and hence government is flawed. The US has extremists, both fascists and communists, in the government right now although they don't call themselves by those names. Instead we have a two party system representing two faces of the same corporate coin, governmental secrecy and a dying newspaper industry being supplanted by corporate media. The need for free elections, checks and balances and a free press have never been more obvious.
Really? Study after study has shown that CCTV does nothing to affect the crime rate. Cameras are security theater.
I installed win7 when it was first released. Didn't play nice with existing xp networks and really gave no real functional reason to switch from xp. Once we can easily and seamlessly install any windows based software on linux windows will die. Frankly I'd guess part of the reason for win7 is simply to make that goal more difficult.
Actually I do, not that I'd proselytize. Honestly, why DON'T you care? BTW lack of empathy is also considered a sign of mental illness.
...and you believe anything people tell you. Conspiracy theories are really boring...
One of the biggest challenges in diagnosis and treatment of these diseases is defining the terms accurately in a clinically relevant manner. You got the depression part sort of correct, but bipolar disorders encompass a wide variety of symptom presentations. The "classic" manic depressive who might behave as you describe is called "type 1 bipolar disorder", but with type 2 bipolar disorder people are generally depressed with moods cycling downward toward more severe depression, although moods may swing upward toward hypomania. There's also a wide variety in the duration of the cycling, to the point where it may not be apparently different from normal mood changes.
Ultimately what we are talking about is the behavioral presentation of differences in brain structure and chemistry. On the surface what clinicians try to do is balance neurotransmitters using medications, but in practice what often happens is they merely try a series of medications until they hit on something that works. The effects of lithium are specific enough that it can almost be used diagnostically.
The interesting question raised here is when a naturally occurring substance becomes a drug. This question has been raging for years around fluoride. As a public health measure fluoridation is measurably effective but people question whether dental health is a sufficiently important reason to add a substance to drinking water. Iodized salt prevents an actual medical problem and goiter is now virtually unknown. Is the iodine a nutrient or a drug? What about fluoride? It seems to me that addition of lithium to the water supply would clearly fall under the definition of a drug. Even if it reduces the rate of suicide and mental illness the precedent set for "drugging the public" is far too serious and impinges on the rights of people who do not have a mental illness or chemical imbalances.
Treatment of mental illness must remain between a doctor and patient. The main benefit of this study is to increase public awareness of mental health issues, especially in a culture where mental illness is stigmatized.
We could end the war on drugs, undermine the narcotics cartels, fund interdiction of truly bad drugs like meth and heroin as well as fund rehab for anyone who wants it with one simple action: tax weed. The government could control production and distribution and police could stop wasting everyone's time on the victimless pseudo-crime of pot possession. Prohibition showed us that outlawing alcohol merely forced it underground, fueled organized crime and turned virtually everyone into a criminal. The current situation with pot is essentially no different.
I don't like drug use; I've seen too many people destroy themselves and waste their lives getting high, but making it illegal does nothing to stop them. We need to recognize the practical realities regarding drug use in order to get a handle on it.
To an extent, but the grandparent post has it about right. The way it works is the repubs manipulate the anti-abortion crowd, the religious right and the gun nuts, while the dems use the do-gooders, greens and pro-choicers. Anything to preserve the illusion of choice. Both sides pass laws to satisfy their "constituents" regardless of whether they'll pass constitutional muster. They don't care if it does: the laws don't affect the power elite! (just look at all the tax-dodgers Obama picked-the repubs are no better). Ban guns, institute school prayer, whatever so long as the sheep are happy.
Once in office, their real constituents-the corporations funding them-get everything they want. Then it's time to play "Wave the red herring" - Sex scandals! Global warming! Iraq is SO gonna attack us! Anything to distract you from the real issues as your rights are eroded!
Worse yet, it's international. The same crap happens everywhere, with the issues moved by the same corporate players. If there doesn't happen to be a pesky democratic government to manipulate, the elite have another tactic: the good old fashioned suitcase full of cash! That 3rd world strong man is for sale, too.
The main thing the framers of the constitution got right is the notion that the government needs to be restrained in the interest of the people. Too bad the constitution is practically irrelevant at this point.
Sorry, since you *didn't* get FP you have to die a miserable and eternally frustrated like the rest of us.
The point is that there isn't any CO2 produced from generating electricity. I have to think that although the designs of coal plants are probably a lot simpler than nuke plants, the construction materials are sort of similar in type and quantitity. Coal also must be mined, etc.. The big hidden cost of coal plants is the amount of heavy metals and radioactive isotopes spewed into the atmosphere - far more radioactive material is released into the atmosphere by coal plants than ever by nuclear power plants including TMI and Chernobyl. Regarding waste disposal - at least the mess is all in one place instead of released into the atmosphere or dumped as waste ash.
I also strongly favor conservation as the ideal first step in reducing energy use and CO2 production. It's easy, attainable and could be done NOW.
It continually amazes me how the greenies consistently fail to account for the manufacturing byproducts and evaluate based on CO2 alone. It's a noble goal, but we really need to keep our eyes open about this stuff, as the law of unintended consequences is always in effect. That being said, the time is right for a push toward the next generation nuke plants. Wind and solar generated power are great, but we still need more conventional generation to fill in the gaps - gaps which are currently being filled by coal fired plants. At least with nukes, we keep the mess all in one place as opposed to spewing the mess into the air.
I should say that I quit playing WoW right around the time flasks were introduced about 2 years ago(?), so my experiences are somewhat dated. Our guild focused on progression through the 40 man raids, which were the norm at the time. For that raiding scenario, potions, etc., were considered standard equipment. At the time, raids often cost more than they yielded with the exception of unique BOP drops, which couldn't be sold. You raided for drops and ground out gold for repairs and buffs. We were probably one of the top 5 raiding guilds on the server at the time and as a tank I probably had higher repair bills than average. It's likely Blizzard tweaked the newer content to reduce this sort of thing, since nobody really *liked* grinding for gold. As I said, it killed it for me.
Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying the new, easier 25 man "raids", noob. Bliz obviously had no choice but to dumb it down. ;P
I agree that there are problems, but this is about dealing with an issue that already exists. You can always boot a loser from a group and bound items can't be transferred anyway. Most people would tend to buy "legal" gold rather than risk accounts buying black market gold. Undercutting the farmers would be a HUGE boost to the game because it would eliminate them at a stroke.
The mere existence of an aftermarket for game gold is clear indication of the desire among many (and perhaps most players) to avoid the entire gold-making portion of the game. Raiding is fun, grinding and auctioneering are not - for a significant percentage of players. The amount of daily effort required to grind out gold for basic raiding necessities certainly killed it for me.
Blizzard, etc., fail to acknowledge this and people simply take matters into their own hands via the black market. Real world governments that over-tax their people do the same thing-they force the market underground.
Blizzard could completely eliminate the farmer problem overnight simply by the creation of an official pay-for-gold market. This would undercut and eliminate the professional farmers by allowing a "legal" place to buy gold. Normal market forces would apply and resource prices would accommodate - if resource prices rise resource farming becomes more profitable, too. Blizzard, rather than anonymous farmers, would profit and everyone stays happy. Problem solved.
Time for the miracle of mass production and economies of scale.
The problem of energy linkage is simple: If we run out of energy, we lose our technology. Without technology, most people will die.
We are not anywhere near to running out of energy. The recent gas price spike spawned interest in a plethora of alternative energy technologies. Unfortunately the price of oil crashed again, but those technologies still exist. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear are all available. When the price of energy makes them economically viable they'll come into use. Energy prices follow the law of supply and demand like everything else. Stating that everyone is going to die soon because we're running out of energy is a gross alarmist simplification. There's plenty of energy sources.
The problem of labor is that automation is becoming increasingly intelligent. Cars that park themselves are already on the market. Semi-automated grocery store checkouts have begun to appear. Etc. Each such advance eliminate categories of jobs.
So every technological advance throws millions out of work? Purest nonsense. Tech increases productivity and reduces costs for goods and services. Tech also creates new jobs that didn't previously exist. Most people in the developed world no longer have to spend their lives subsistence farming. Are you lamenting the loss of good-paying glass blowing jobs because machinery exists to mass produce glass bottles? The jobs lost are in many cases truly menial and new jobs are created. Don't like it? Go start your own business doing something you like.
It think it has the potential to produce a dystopia. It also has potentials in the other direction. It all depends whether the ownership of wealth is centralized or distributed. Under such conditions it becomes increasingly difficult for significant wealth to be "earned".
Please explain how a forced distribution of wealth could possibly be sustained without creating a complete disincentive for anyone to do anything. Under the soviet system people used to joke "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us". Has history taught you nothing? The only wealthy countries in the world today are either capitalist democracies or have, through dumb luck, large exportable natural resources like oil. The key question is whether people have some incentive toward entrepreneurship. Personal ambition is not a vice.
P.S.: Value? People disagree on the value of things, both between people, and, over time, with themselves. The classic example is that to a starving man, a loaf of bread can be worth risking loss of a hand. It sure isn't worth that to me, now.
Isn't that the function of a free market? Something anyone can get or do has low value - it's called supply and demand. You stated previously that the value of labor is decreasing and perhaps it is - for unskilled labor. Fortunately we have an educational system upon which people may avail themselves to acquire valuable skills. Go to school, start and grow a business - I don't see the problem. Or does "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" sound better to you?
Communism? Regardless of it's antecedents it's Marx & Lenin we inevitably have to deal with in this day. I've read Marx and found it entirely lacking any connection to basic human motivations. Any parent of a two year old knows the concept of personal property starts early. As you say, communism fails at any scale larger than the family.
I agree that any economic system presents problems when applied in large scale. The key for capitalism is the existence of healthy free market competition. It's obvious that unrestricted capitalism is unworkable and nobody is advocating removal of all regulation. The recent market meltdown clearly illustrates the need for oversight. Unregulated capitalism tends toward monopoly and a problem with large organizations is that they act as inverted funnels, directing the wealth generated by the activities of the organization mainly to those at the top. However, so long as participation is voluntary it's impossible to dictate how a privately owned (as opposed to government owned) organization distributes the wealth without disrupting the basic rewards for hard work and entrepreneurship. One is free to pursue his own self interest and organize his own corporation. I would point out that this occurs on a daily basis.
You seem to lack understanding of the basic concept of "value" - it's an inherently human thing. Regarding the value of labor, it's not clear why you are linking the value of labor and the problem of energy production, or why you are predicting imminent catastrophe. The value of labor depends upon the labor performed. Manufacturing labor is cheap because China has successfully tapped into it's hundreds of millions of rural people, so it's currently cheaper to make things there and ship them here. The price of Chinese labor is already beginning to rise - a very good thing for the average Chinese peasant, no? Plenty of alternative energy sources exist, it's just that they aren't as cheap as what we use now - relative values. Automation reduces the production cost of goods, placing downward pressure on the market price of goods. So long as healthy free market competition exists, this is a good thing. Are you saying that factories are bad? You should read Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" - the scenario he describes is very similar to what you seem to be implying. Consider that it was written in the early 1950's, yet none of his dire predictions have come true. People are productive, smart and adaptable - and a free market is nothing more than the collective efforts of people.
For some reason you also seem to think that corporations and automation will produces some sort of unholy, machine controlled dystopia. This is where you truly disconnect from reality - how does regulated capitalism in a democratic nation inevitably lead to this scenario? Aren't these political issues? Aren't people still involved in decision making? How would machines somehow wrest ultimate control from people? What value is wealth to a machine? Pay less attention to "Terminator" and more to Economics.
As I said - I don't. The shame of it is that some of them are decent people that deserve help, but the system is just so broken and abused. So, I'm not quite broke, only a little bitter and genocidal only on bad days. At least I was able to exercise some choice in the matter. Now I'm merely stuck listening to adolescent idiots that think everything should be free and that taxing away half my income is a good idea.
Anti-social? Let me paint you a picture: I'm a dentist. I took out very large student loans to become a dentist and I'll be paying them back for decades. I worked extremely hard to get through school and work extremely hard now. I'm proud to provide high quality care for my patients. I've had occasion to work in offices where the majority of patients are on welfare. Very often they're wearing nicer clothes and driving much nicer cars than I do, meaning they're lying to the state to stay on welfare. They pay nothing out of pocket for their dental care, while they state reimburses me very little for working on them. As a group, they're far less likely to take care of themselve - most dental issues are preventable - and far more likely to blame me if something goes wrong. They often fail to show for scheduled appointments and are statistically far more likely to sue for damages regardless of cause.
Basically my taxes fund these losers and because it's so galling that I no longer accept the welfare insurance. If this makes me anti-social I'm glad to wear the label, but I strongly suspect you lack the real life experience to understand why.
And I'm quite sure you're a fucking moron. I'm sure you know it too, or you wouldn't have posted as an A/C.
How you concocted the fantasy that others support me is beyond my understanding. You may come up with some bizarre geopolitical reasons, but the fact is if I didn't work by ass off every day I'd be homeless. This is exactly how it should be.
Did I mention that you're a fucking moron?
You have to be kidding me. I'm certainly not advocating people take self-interest to an extreme. There's obvious benefits to cooperation and healthy market competition helps keep the excesses in check, but consider this: one guy goes out and works his ass off and hustles every day of his life while another guy sits on his ass all day. Why should we have a system where the busy guy supports the lazy guy? I don't mind paying into a system that provides support for those that can't help themselves, but when did you become my problem?
Capitalism is not necessarily harmful for society, nor is communism; in practice both are indeed deleterious due to the fact that they are always co-opted into some form of oligarchy.
To group capitalism with communism is naive in the extreme.
Uncontrolled capitalism may have deleterious aspects, but it's nothing compared to a system which essentially denies the right to personal property. Capitalism in it's simplest form, in which an entrepreneur using his profits to expand is business, harnesses an individual's self interest and ambitions and rewards initiative and effort. Communism has no such mechanism.
Communism has never been used as anything but a cover for dictatorship, and completely ignores human nature. The communist manifesto is nothing but a collection of misguided dreaming.