Yeah, because past and current prohibitions have worked out so well for the public.
Anytime you create a prohibition you create a black market. Black markets create violence. Or do you think the violence heavily associated with the illegal drug trade is just a coincidence?
My simple answer is no, games were not better. If they were I'd simply play them with an emulator and leave today's offerings behind.
A while back I downloaded some Atari 2600 emulator with something like 870 games. I thought this was going to be fantastic. My experience with it was lukewarm at best. While I did get into playing some old classics I loved I came to realize that it was more me being 10 or 12 years old that made the game good. Not that they sucked but it just wasn't as good.
Now the big thrill was playing all the games I never owned but use to ogle over in the catalogs that came with games. Stuff I begged my parents to get me. After spending a few hours going through some of these "classics" I wanted to go an apologize for ever bothering them about it. Again, if I was 10 again and had just gotten BurgerTime it would have surely kicked ass but as a 30-something it was pretty lame.
Who knows, maybe I'll feel the same about CounterStrike when I'm 50 or 60.
I don't think their ideas, once implemented, will transform society into a wondrous capitalist utopia.
No one else seems to have a working plan either. How long do you stick with a losing record before you call a new player up to bat?
We can either stick with the current grind that is getting us nowhere or we can work to create a little competition up on capital hill to force politicians to do a bit of the people's work.
It is as simple. 1000 USD is worth 1000 USD no matter where in the world you are. Some uberloot has an assessable value and you'd probably have to show that you had a buyer willing to pay for it at such a cost or it would be worthless.
To put it another, more tangible, way: If I paint a painting and my house burns to the ground I probably won't make anything back in the way of insurance aside from (maybe) the cost of materials. But if I have a buyer who is willing to pay 1000 USD for the painting and it is destroyed in transit I have a real value associated with it. If my assessed Picasso is worth 10000 USD and my house burns I'd have a leg to stand on.
Also, the raid is a question of taking risks. If I engage in dangerous activity and destroy my Picasso because of this activity insurance is less likely to pay and I highly doubt I can write it off as a catastrophic loss.
The only thing I would find not to be simple is if Blizzard, Sony or whomever lost your data. While it's against their EULA to sell their virtual goods for real cash would you still be able to point at a gold seller online and say "Hey, I just lost 1000 plat, www.eq2gold.com said it was worth 250 USD". Somehow I think compensation at that point would be a bit harder.
I also had this same debate with the same exact user. Why am I not surprised to find that this has gone from a rational discussion of the article into a rantfest? Oh, it's because this is slashdot.
No, she's saying that there are (mostly administrative) reasons it's not practical and that taxation should be applied when virtual assets are turned into real cash.
If you take the pains of reading the sentence after your quote: "From a policy perspective, my view is that drops and purely in-game trades should not bear income tax."
I know it seems like she contradicts herself in several ways and I have to admit I think the article is poorly written. I think a rewriting of this article would clear up the controversy.
In any case, we are debating over a blog. It's not like this is going anywhere aside from the delete bin eventually.
That's not the way I'm reading it: FTA "I argue that players of games like WoW should be taxed if and when they cash out--that is, on real market trades. That approach would allow those playing for entertainment not be taxed on their game play (beyond the tax they already paid on the money spent on the game), while catching most profit-seeking activity."
If you're not cashing out she's saying there is no problem. I agree.
So if you make real money from virtual goods you'd have to pay taxes?
Am I missing something here? So you make real money for selling a virtual product. I don't see this any different from paying real taxes on other virtual products in the past such as profits gained from 1-900 numbers. Why is there even a question as to the taxation of these funds?
It's more of a question of when do you let the innocence go by the wayside. Sure, when they're young it's your obligation to protect your children from certain aspects of life but at what point do you stop grabbing their hands and let them find out on their own the "the fire burns" after you've just told them for the millionth time?
Being over protective is a sad state where, as a parent, you did your job but you also did some harm when a young adult who should be able to stand up to some of life's challenges with no backing from a parent has problems with independence. These are the kinds of people who'll end up exploited and their meek existence will hardly be considered living by most.
I'm not saying that a 6 year old should be playing CounterStrike or Hitman but a 13 year old shouldn't be stuck with nothing more violent than checkers either.
Not to make fun but it's easy to tell that you're new to the "scene".
Cracking, for the most part, is the illegal aspects of hacking.
Hacking, among the geeks, is normally a term for tinkering or modding, regardless if it's software or hardware. It doesn't imply a state of legality since crackers are hackers in their own right.
People are put off buying digital music because of the restrictions; remove those and everyone will enjoy digital music like they enjoy CDs.
LOL!!!!1111!!!11 When are slashdotters going to understand this very simple FACT: Joe Sixpack does not give a damn about DRM. It hasn't stopped him from getting what he wants in the fashion he wants it in. Sure, it's all the rage around slashdot but that 0.001% of the marketshare is neither break the bank nor is it buttering their bread. While I see the value in the "DRM boycott" the fact is that it makes no real difference.
If the current digital music industry disappeared overnight, hardly anyone would notice.
You're probably right but if the current P2P "music industry" disappeared you'd be hearing an earful about it tomorrow. Joe knows there is free music to be gotten. he may throw in a few bucks here and there but for the most part iTunes, eMusic or whatever the hell MS has going on as far as digital music goes can't beat the price of P2P.
You'll find that most people use iPods with their own ripped CDs because DRM is just so much hassle and hence all the negative coverage.
Most people with their iPods don't give a damn about DRM either. iTunes purchases work just as advertised and iTunes software can rip the CD. So where is the DRM hassle you're talking about? Where's the negative coverage that your whole argument is based on? Please, don't bother me with some geeks blog. I want a substantial source that is out there saying that Apple is failing in the internet music business model. n00bs to the iPod are in love with it and still shelling out bucks for it. I've even bought iTunes music considering my large CD collection. Then again, I believe in supporting the artist. There isn't a lot of that sentiment in the larger circles of the P2P pirates.
If the threat of the RIAA were to go away the internet will turn into a free-for-all (excuse the pun) music swap-meet.
I hope everyone that was complaining about DRM will now got out and use iTunes and the new non-DRM format and make it a huge success.
Why use iTunes? If the new format is truely DRM-free we can just use eMule instead.
Seriously, do you think the people who were unwilling to buy CDs and convert them to MP3 and thus started to pirate music instead are really going to goto iTunes?
Do you really think that the people who shouted "8 USD an album" are now going to go running to iTunes since they've found a free music outlet? Please.
The vast majority of people who are "boycotting" iTunes are "boycotting" the music industry by making the music industries "inflated prices" as the reason that pirating music is legitimate.
Simply put: it's not going to happen. And this isn't even taking into consideration Apples higher price for the DRM-free music. Sure, you can say it's a better quality format/bit rate but do you think that's going to phase the guys who've been downloading 128-bit MP3s from the net like there is no tomorrow?
If DRM was really the concern all along emusic.com would be an industry giant today.
Isn't this similar to L0pht Heavy Industries' business model, just without the scum and villainy that's associated with malware?
Re:Lots slam OSS for being useless and buggy
on
Thailand Bans YouTube
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In my day, we called that kind of stuff flamebait
Does this mean that Zonk is going to lose some karma over this?
Seriously, I agree with you. To include that Thailand (or whomever) is not real OSS friendly on an article about YouTube makes about as much sense as including a budget revision for the VA on a gun ban bill.
My understanding is that the planes were not at normal cruising heights. I'm not sure about this. And also consider that it was a handful of users, imagine this at a large terminal where there is the potential to have hundreds or even thousands of users switching in and out of local cell towers on a regular basis.
Just some thoughts, I honestly don't know what the answers are.
Maybe they consider it a given that the products are supported by other technologies. After all, if they didn't take some tech "for granted" (in the eyes of some slashdot users) we'd have to fill up 49 slots with other underlying technologies just to get the StarTAC on the list. Even at that point some cell-geek would be screaming that they fumbled the ball and left out a lot of stuff.
So show an ounce of forgiveness here, top list the product and the associated technologies would become an exercise in tedium. This list is more of a leisurely approach.
Bloated? My VT100 terminal software on my C=64 and Amiga was bloated? CompuServe was one hell of a service at a point in time. Granted, it's a shell of what it use to be but let's not forget the past just because they're no longer the front runners in present.
Or don't you know of the past where CompuServe was as close as some people got to the internet without being students and such?
It's odd to look back now and realize that I'm dealing with the up and coming generation who never knew BBSs, user groups and CompuServe.
In all honesty, who cares what CNet (or anyone else) has to say about these new sites? Does this mean that everyone who put up a website for any reason after the first one went up should have been labeled "My Website Too"?
Once again we're going to see a catfight over technology being brought down to the same level as fashion.
My advice for real geeks: shrug it off. Or do you want to be part of what is slightly above a Montel Williams show?
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Or you could outlaw firearms altogether.
Yeah, because past and current prohibitions have worked out so well for the public.
Anytime you create a prohibition you create a black market. Black markets create violence. Or do you think the violence heavily associated with the illegal drug trade is just a coincidence?
"If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music"
I take it you've never been to a rave?
It seems this comes up every 3 weeks or so but...
My simple answer is no, games were not better. If they were I'd simply play them with an emulator and leave today's offerings behind.
A while back I downloaded some Atari 2600 emulator with something like 870 games. I thought this was going to be fantastic. My experience with it was lukewarm at best. While I did get into playing some old classics I loved I came to realize that it was more me being 10 or 12 years old that made the game good. Not that they sucked but it just wasn't as good.
Now the big thrill was playing all the games I never owned but use to ogle over in the catalogs that came with games. Stuff I begged my parents to get me. After spending a few hours going through some of these "classics" I wanted to go an apologize for ever bothering them about it. Again, if I was 10 again and had just gotten BurgerTime it would have surely kicked ass but as a 30-something it was pretty lame.
Who knows, maybe I'll feel the same about CounterStrike when I'm 50 or 60.
I don't think their ideas, once implemented, will transform society into a wondrous capitalist utopia.
No one else seems to have a working plan either. How long do you stick with a losing record before you call a new player up to bat?
We can either stick with the current grind that is getting us nowhere or we can work to create a little competition up on capital hill to force politicians to do a bit of the people's work.
The summary is a direct quote from the article. This isn't to say that he is or is not an employee of CW but he didn't write the summary.
In any case, maybe he is an employee or just a sad, sad man with no other URL to point to.
Yeah, just don't use them in a 52x CD reader or the CD will fracture and the spikes will fly off and take off everybody's kneecaps.
Would you consider that "defective by design" or a hidden "feature" of the disc?
I would think it very useful in the right situation. Is anyone filming a new James Bomd film?
It is as simple. 1000 USD is worth 1000 USD no matter where in the world you are. Some uberloot has an assessable value and you'd probably have to show that you had a buyer willing to pay for it at such a cost or it would be worthless.
To put it another, more tangible, way: If I paint a painting and my house burns to the ground I probably won't make anything back in the way of insurance aside from (maybe) the cost of materials. But if I have a buyer who is willing to pay 1000 USD for the painting and it is destroyed in transit I have a real value associated with it. If my assessed Picasso is worth 10000 USD and my house burns I'd have a leg to stand on.
Also, the raid is a question of taking risks. If I engage in dangerous activity and destroy my Picasso because of this activity insurance is less likely to pay and I highly doubt I can write it off as a catastrophic loss.
The only thing I would find not to be simple is if Blizzard, Sony or whomever lost your data. While it's against their EULA to sell their virtual goods for real cash would you still be able to point at a gold seller online and say "Hey, I just lost 1000 plat, www.eq2gold.com said it was worth 250 USD". Somehow I think compensation at that point would be a bit harder.
I also had this same debate with the same exact user. Why am I not surprised to find that this has gone from a rational discussion of the article into a rantfest? Oh, it's because this is slashdot.
No, she's saying that there are (mostly administrative) reasons it's not practical and that taxation should be applied when virtual assets are turned into real cash.
If you take the pains of reading the sentence after your quote: "From a policy perspective, my view is that drops and purely in-game trades should not bear income tax."
I know it seems like she contradicts herself in several ways and I have to admit I think the article is poorly written. I think a rewriting of this article would clear up the controversy.
In any case, we are debating over a blog. It's not like this is going anywhere aside from the delete bin eventually.
That's not the way I'm reading it: FTA "I argue that players of games like WoW should be taxed if and when they cash out--that is, on real market trades. That approach would allow those playing for entertainment not be taxed on their game play (beyond the tax they already paid on the money spent on the game), while catching most profit-seeking activity."
If you're not cashing out she's saying there is no problem. I agree.
So if you make real money from virtual goods you'd have to pay taxes?
Am I missing something here? So you make real money for selling a virtual product. I don't see this any different from paying real taxes on other virtual products in the past such as profits gained from 1-900 numbers. Why is there even a question as to the taxation of these funds?
It's more of a question of when do you let the innocence go by the wayside. Sure, when they're young it's your obligation to protect your children from certain aspects of life but at what point do you stop grabbing their hands and let them find out on their own the "the fire burns" after you've just told them for the millionth time?
Being over protective is a sad state where, as a parent, you did your job but you also did some harm when a young adult who should be able to stand up to some of life's challenges with no backing from a parent has problems with independence. These are the kinds of people who'll end up exploited and their meek existence will hardly be considered living by most.
I'm not saying that a 6 year old should be playing CounterStrike or Hitman but a 13 year old shouldn't be stuck with nothing more violent than checkers either.
Do you mean like this?
Not to make fun but it's easy to tell that you're new to the "scene".
Cracking, for the most part, is the illegal aspects of hacking.
Hacking, among the geeks, is normally a term for tinkering or modding, regardless if it's software or hardware. It doesn't imply a state of legality since crackers are hackers in their own right.
Probably not more productive but twice the pr0n viewing pleasure.
That's what I'm talking about!
People are put off buying digital music because of the restrictions; remove those and everyone will enjoy digital music like they enjoy CDs.
LOL!!!!1111!!!11 When are slashdotters going to understand this very simple FACT: Joe Sixpack does not give a damn about DRM. It hasn't stopped him from getting what he wants in the fashion he wants it in. Sure, it's all the rage around slashdot but that 0.001% of the marketshare is neither break the bank nor is it buttering their bread. While I see the value in the "DRM boycott" the fact is that it makes no real difference.
If the current digital music industry disappeared overnight, hardly anyone would notice.
You're probably right but if the current P2P "music industry" disappeared you'd be hearing an earful about it tomorrow. Joe knows there is free music to be gotten. he may throw in a few bucks here and there but for the most part iTunes, eMusic or whatever the hell MS has going on as far as digital music goes can't beat the price of P2P.
You'll find that most people use iPods with their own ripped CDs because DRM is just so much hassle and hence all the negative coverage.
Most people with their iPods don't give a damn about DRM either. iTunes purchases work just as advertised and iTunes software can rip the CD. So where is the DRM hassle you're talking about? Where's the negative coverage that your whole argument is based on? Please, don't bother me with some geeks blog. I want a substantial source that is out there saying that Apple is failing in the internet music business model. n00bs to the iPod are in love with it and still shelling out bucks for it. I've even bought iTunes music considering my large CD collection. Then again, I believe in supporting the artist. There isn't a lot of that sentiment in the larger circles of the P2P pirates.
If the threat of the RIAA were to go away the internet will turn into a free-for-all (excuse the pun) music swap-meet.
I hope everyone that was complaining about DRM will now got out and use iTunes and the new non-DRM format and make it a huge success.
Why use iTunes? If the new format is truely DRM-free we can just use eMule instead.
Seriously, do you think the people who were unwilling to buy CDs and convert them to MP3 and thus started to pirate music instead are really going to goto iTunes?
Do you really think that the people who shouted "8 USD an album" are now going to go running to iTunes since they've found a free music outlet? Please.
The vast majority of people who are "boycotting" iTunes are "boycotting" the music industry by making the music industries "inflated prices" as the reason that pirating music is legitimate.
Simply put: it's not going to happen. And this isn't even taking into consideration Apples higher price for the DRM-free music. Sure, you can say it's a better quality format/bit rate but do you think that's going to phase the guys who've been downloading 128-bit MP3s from the net like there is no tomorrow?
If DRM was really the concern all along emusic.com would be an industry giant today.
Isn't this similar to L0pht Heavy Industries' business model, just without the scum and villainy that's associated with malware?
In my day, we called that kind of stuff flamebait
Does this mean that Zonk is going to lose some karma over this?
Seriously, I agree with you. To include that Thailand (or whomever) is not real OSS friendly on an article about YouTube makes about as much sense as including a budget revision for the VA on a gun ban bill.
Opps! Did I say that out loud?
My understanding is that the planes were not at normal cruising heights. I'm not sure about this. And also consider that it was a handful of users, imagine this at a large terminal where there is the potential to have hundreds or even thousands of users switching in and out of local cell towers on a regular basis.
Just some thoughts, I honestly don't know what the answers are.
So it's not going to happen in the US. Have other countries let flyers use their phones on a plane? Have there been marked results for this?
Maybe they consider it a given that the products are supported by other technologies. After all, if they didn't take some tech "for granted" (in the eyes of some slashdot users) we'd have to fill up 49 slots with other underlying technologies just to get the StarTAC on the list. Even at that point some cell-geek would be screaming that they fumbled the ball and left out a lot of stuff.
So show an ounce of forgiveness here, top list the product and the associated technologies would become an exercise in tedium. This list is more of a leisurely approach.
Bloated? My VT100 terminal software on my C=64 and Amiga was bloated? CompuServe was one hell of a service at a point in time. Granted, it's a shell of what it use to be but let's not forget the past just because they're no longer the front runners in present.
Or don't you know of the past where CompuServe was as close as some people got to the internet without being students and such?
It's odd to look back now and realize that I'm dealing with the up and coming generation who never knew BBSs, user groups and CompuServe.
In all honesty, who cares what CNet (or anyone else) has to say about these new sites? Does this mean that everyone who put up a website for any reason after the first one went up should have been labeled "My Website Too"?
Once again we're going to see a catfight over technology being brought down to the same level as fashion.
My advice for real geeks: shrug it off. Or do you want to be part of what is slightly above a Montel Williams show?
Have you ever seen the odd gate that the Ts have on CounterStrike? They'd be easy to identify with this system.
Thank God! Another fine technological breakthrough!