Seriously. What is a virtual good? A poem? A news article from Reuters? A short fiction story?
Not even. All of the above items have a real-world value: you buy books of short stories and poetry, and you likewise buy newspapers that run Reuters stories. The newspapers, in turn, pay Reuters for the right to run the stories in the first place.
A "virtual good," as best I understand it, is something that has no real-world counterpart. If I view a poem online, I can print it and have a real poem. If my WOW character has a longsword, I can print a screenshot, but I won't have a real longsword.
This reminds me of an anecdote... a gentleman was talking to a young lady and asked her if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. After she thought about it for a moment, she said yes. Then he asked her if she would have sex with him for $50.
"What do I look like, some kind of hooker?" she demanded.
"We've already established that," he said. "Now we're just haggling over your price."
Goodmail has established who the hookers are among the ISP community.
Tsk, tsk! You should never use a GOTO! Here's a better method:
int x = 1;
while (x == 1) {
1: Organize and put out press releases about how baaaad M$ is;
2: Sue M$ for anti-competitive behavior in federal court;
3: Settle with M$ as a group or individually for some insignificant (to M$) amount of money;
4: Put out more press releases about how M$ has changed its ways thanks to your heroic efforts;
5: Spend the M$ money on useless stuff in your state;
6: Tell Google (or whoever the 'victim dujour' is') to carry on as usual;
7: Tell Microsoft to carry on as usual;
}
I have an open relationship. Each of us get to play with most anyone we want to. There are a few rules, but not many. In my world there isn't a lot of difference between "lying" and "cheating" in a relationship. They are both a violation of trust.
I agree. Polyamory introduces a third dimension of complication, but the basics -- trust and communication -- are equally essential for any poly relationship as for any monogamous relationship. Maybe more so, because there's a lot of communication required from the very beginning insofar as explaining what polyamory is (at least to non-poly folks), what it means in the context of a relationship, what the ground rules are for relationships, etc.
On the other hand, I think poly folks have a leg up on most monogamous folks because they know they can't take any of this stuff for granted. Whenever people don't communicate (because of assumptions), they leave themselves open to being hurt.
I believe a person's right to privacy ends when they're breaking the law -- adultery is still illegal last I checked, at least insofar as it's a violation of a marriage contract -- or when their actions are causing harm to an innocent third party.
And as others have already stated, a privately owned Web site doesn't have to respect your right to privacy. You signed up for their service; within their terms of service, they can do whatever they damn well like with your user information.
The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion.
Really? Because it seems about 10,000 or so people in Iraq are doing exactly that.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. What is a virtual good? A poem? A news article from Reuters? A short fiction story?
Not even. All of the above items have a real-world value: you buy books of short stories and poetry, and you likewise buy newspapers that run Reuters stories. The newspapers, in turn, pay Reuters for the right to run the stories in the first place.
A "virtual good," as best I understand it, is something that has no real-world counterpart. If I view a poem online, I can print it and have a real poem. If my WOW character has a longsword, I can print a screenshot, but I won't have a real longsword.
I'm not complaining. For once, the editors are following an established writing style.
Better question (from someone who doesn't know): What makes DX10 hot shit?
I believe Czar is a Native American word meaning destined for failure.
Y'know, based on my knowledge of history, I'd have to guess it means the same thing in Russian.
So you think George Bernard Shaw was a gentleman?
By his own definition, yes: "A gentleman is one who puts more into the world than he takes out."
If you can't tell dumb physics jokes on Slashdot, then I guess you really can't tell them anywhere.
If you don't want serious responses, you should try to make your dumb physics jokes actually funny. :)
"But officer, the light looked green!"
I tried that and got a citation for speeding instead. Do you have any idea what the fine is for going 201,184,560 mph in a 35-mph zone?
This reminds me of an anecdote ... a gentleman was talking to a young lady and asked her if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. After she thought about it for a moment, she said yes. Then he asked her if she would have sex with him for $50.
"What do I look like, some kind of hooker?" she demanded.
"We've already established that," he said. "Now we're just haggling over your price."
Goodmail has established who the hookers are among the ISP community.
Tsk, tsk! You should never use a GOTO! Here's a better method:
int x = 1;
while (x == 1) {
1: Organize and put out press releases about how baaaad M$ is;
2: Sue M$ for anti-competitive behavior in federal court;
3: Settle with M$ as a group or individually for some insignificant (to M$) amount of money;
4: Put out more press releases about how M$ has changed its ways thanks to your heroic efforts;
5: Spend the M$ money on useless stuff in your state;
6: Tell Google (or whoever the 'victim dujour' is') to carry on as usual;
7: Tell Microsoft to carry on as usual;
}
I don't think you can blame the technical issues you quoted on bad marketing... just poor programming.
A marketer who thinks technical issues are bad programming rather than bad marketing? Color me shocked. :)
Seriously, you may be right on this one; but I couldn't let such an ironic statement go without some sort of comment.
Are the people who run Slashdot really this dumb? Or are they simply FUDing for ad impressions?
You'll notice the editor who ran the story. 'Nuff said?
That's what I mean -- if you're an elected official, you can get away with it.
That depends on whether you're serving as an elected official.
From the statement, I guessed that you were female.
Wow. Fifty percent chance of getting it right and you screwed the pooch.
Pagans are generally more open-minded, yes ... but the same rules of communication and trust apply no matter what sort of relationship you're in.
I have an open relationship. Each of us get to play with most anyone we want to. There are a few rules, but not many. In my world there isn't a lot of difference between "lying" and "cheating" in a relationship. They are both a violation of trust.
I agree. Polyamory introduces a third dimension of complication, but the basics -- trust and communication -- are equally essential for any poly relationship as for any monogamous relationship. Maybe more so, because there's a lot of communication required from the very beginning insofar as explaining what polyamory is (at least to non-poly folks), what it means in the context of a relationship, what the ground rules are for relationships, etc.
On the other hand, I think poly folks have a leg up on most monogamous folks because they know they can't take any of this stuff for granted. Whenever people don't communicate (because of assumptions), they leave themselves open to being hurt.
Wow, if "causing harm to an innocent third party" (assuming non-physical) is illegal, then can I put Rush Limbaugh in jail because he pisses me off?
No, you have to get him for abusing prescription drug medications.
I didn't mean to imply that causing harm to an innocent third party is illegal, but it is clearly wrong, at least IMO.
Especially because in the USofA, there is no right to privacy. We have that expectation, but there is no constitutional right to it.
Actually, that falls under Amendment 9. The government doesn't explicitly get to regulate it, therefore it belongs to the people.
For squirting spoilers into the text of his post. Jackass.
I believe a person's right to privacy ends when they're breaking the law -- adultery is still illegal last I checked, at least insofar as it's a violation of a marriage contract -- or when their actions are causing harm to an innocent third party.
And as others have already stated, a privately owned Web site doesn't have to respect your right to privacy. You signed up for their service; within their terms of service, they can do whatever they damn well like with your user information.
If I wanted people to determine what I'm thinking in the first place, I'd fscking say it.
Does it matter for life?
That depends on whether, when you transmit the tissue, the consciousness automatically goes with it.
"I'm reading this and I'm a 47-year-old woman!"
As a 48-year-old grandmother, I'm offended that you called me 47!
Actually ... I don't think that Slashdot-ism works here. Go figure. :)
You forgot: E) Condemn "activist judges" to keep favor with the zealots.
The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion.
Really? Because it seems about 10,000 or so people in Iraq are doing exactly that.
All the terrain, units and record keeping are kept for you as you play on a largish surface. Could be pretty cool.
And Monopoly would finally be bearable.