Re:not prosecuted for defacement
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I thought the marketplace was supposed to determine the numbers. If there is a demand for their goods and services, there will be more street vendors. If there is less demand at that location, there will be less vendors. The excess vendors will go elsewhere.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I see at least two types of territory marking in my neighborhood. There's the bored teenager tagging, and there's the gangster tagging.
Maybe the bored teenager tagging is just a wannabee thing, wanting to be big and bad like the gangsters, but I think it's much more about feeling lost in society and needing to scream, "I'm here!"
The gang tagging, on the other hand, is about warfare. Knowledgable cops can read gang tagging and get an idea of who is trying to kill who.
My neighborhood sees very little of the "Art tagging".
Well, if we get back to Derrida and those other annoying french intellectuals. ..
They were moving past de Sausure's model of signifier/signified, claiming a Nietzchean absence of the signified. Instead of underlying meaning, we have the text as a thing itself, that might suggest a deeper meaning (which is illusory), but really only "contains" "meaning" in the inter-relationships of it's components, in the concatenations.
Further, from a semiotic point of view, music or anything else created or even observed by man is a language of sorts.
Anyway, if I think about this crap any further, my little brain will have a big hurt.
Why not simply produce a better product and instead of bitching about OSS - STOP USING IT in your company's software. Oh that's right, you did - brilliant move on making your software even LESS attractive...
But SCO is still using OSS, even if they are no longer openly distributing Linux. For instance, they are still distributing SAMBA.
Actually, John Draper is scheduled to give a talk on spam, of all things. His presentation is entitled "Where'd All That Spam Come From?" and it's on Friday.
Check the speaker list. It's second from the bottom of the list.
At the risk of destroying your joke, could you explain? I'm racking my brain trying to think of what other "H" you could mean. Is this a PKD reference?
Hmmmm, OK. Maybe I got it. A club for school age hi tech farmers? Man, that's obscure!
Illegally copying the newest Britney Spear's CD isn't justified. Even under the most progressive copyright schemes, that would still be illegal.
It's illegal because it's illegal. Unless it's legal, in which case it IS justified, right? Right?
I hope that they are extremely successful, since this could make them lose steam over trying to shove some crippled devices and broken CD's down consumer throats.
Don't want it shoved down your throat, huh? Let me guess which orfice you prefer.
See, the thing is, this isn't about copyrights so much as it is about propping up an out-moded business model and maintaining a stranglehold on the music business. Look at the media landscape. Who is in control? Something like 5 companies?
Be careful wishing legal problems on others. You might be the recepient of some karma of the non-/. variety.
You're right, I apologize. It's rude to make a perfectly innocent stranger into a strawman like that. You are innocent, right? =) I was rude.
Anyway, my point is that there is a larger system with it's own rules that trumps the rules of the game. Let's use the poker analogy. The sort of cheating you are talking about is akin to actual game hacks and loophole exploits. What I'm talking about is bringing more chips to the table. The house has no problem with a player buying more chips and bringing them to the table. The house is trying to profit, and anything that will bring more profit is going to be OK with the house.
Someone else mentioned steroids and bat corking in sports. It is against the economic interests of those that control sports to allow such aids. If it was in their economic interest (or if they discover in the future it is in their interest) they would (or will) allow it, either explicitly, by making a rule change or implicitly, by looking the other way. Tournament poker is the same thing. Each player is given an equal amount of chips for the tournament, and are not allowed to bring in more chips, because it's in the economic interest of the casino and organizers of the event.
Now, let's look at command economies, such as was seen under Soviet socialism. (I'm avoiding making a Yakov Smirnoff type joke here.) In Soviet Russia there was a thriving blackmarket economy that pervaded all levels of society, despite (or because of) control of the economy by the government and the party. The rules of capitalism trumped the rules of socialism in the country that was the very bastion of socialism.
Now back to the games. If it was in the economic interests of the gaming companies to enforce the rules, then they would. Because the opposite is true, they implicitly support this "blackmarket" activity by looking the other way in the great majority of cases. I wouldn't even be suprised if the blackmarket activity extended into the companies themselves.
The fact of the matter is that there are explicit rules and implicit rules and the Golden Rule. Whoever has the gold, rules. Part of the rationale behind not openly allowing trading in most of these games is that the companies must maintain the illusion of egalitarianism. That's what keeps people coming on board. That's why people invest in pyramid schemes, for that matter. Eventually, the game will not be fun anymore because of the abuse, but guess what? The company is ready to roll out a new game, and people sign up hoping it will be different this time, or that they'll get in early enough to become rich and powerful themselves. The company has recouped it's investment many times over, and could give a shit.
Supply and demand is like water seeking it's own level. Where there is a supply of something and a demand for it, you'll have some form of capitalism. Economic interests will trump just about anything else out there.
(And now for my special karma whoring: And this is why FOSS is truly revolutionary.)
Except if you push, the platform is going to move to an even higher orbit. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, remember?
It's interesting that they note a comment from one of Eisenhower's science advisors:
A better scheme is to give the weapon to be launched from the satellite a small push, after which it will spiral in gradually. But that means launching it from a moving platform halfway around the world, with every disadvantage compared to a missile base on the ground. In short, the earth would appear to be, after all, the best weapons carrier. (Killian, 1977, p. 297.)
From my reading of the document, they don't adequately overcome this objection. Further, the document does not really deal with the issue of accuracy, other than to point out that certain deorbit angles will not be accurate. What is the point of these weapons if they are not accurate?
Ken Brown was full of shit and was quickly debunked by most of those he interviewed and the guy he hired to compare the code. The only controversy exists in his delusional mind and in the minds of other nutjobs. Even MS has distanced themselves from this FUD project, as Ken Brown is so clearly a fool.
No, it's not cheating, it's market forces at work. As much as you'd like you MMORG to be seperate from RL, it's not. The very foundations of commercial MMORGs are based on the market. That's why you're paying a subscription fee, that's why the developers get paid, etc., etc.
"Time is money" is a cliche of capitalism, but it's still true. Right now, I have some guys doing yardwork for $8/hour, because my time is more valuable than $8/hour. Sure, I could do the work myself; it's probably great for character building and would give me a real sense of accomplishment.
I think part of your problem is that you've fallen for the fantasy that these virtual worlds are somehow egalitarian, that everyone starts out on a level playing field. Sadly, it's not so. Obviously, those that join the game early, and play steadily will be more powerful and wealthy than someone joining much later. And what are these powerful characters to do with their surplus goods? Trade or barter or give them away. (Even those that give them away might in effect be bartering for allies, no? Or even creating good will? Remember, good will has a cash value in the real world.)
The external market for virtual property is a natural extension of the capitalist underpinings of the commercial game. Capitalism and competition aren't infecting the game, they are the basis of the game, the reason why a company chose this means of creating wealth to begin with.
That's just the way it is. If you don't like it, I'd suggest finding a noncommercial game to play or creating your own. However, since we all live under capitalism one way or another, and time still equals money, I doubt a noncommercial game can stay "pure" forever.
I'm an old style liberal, and I agree with you. If you can absolutely kick anyone's ass, especially if you can kick two or three or more asses in different parts of the world, then it's highly doubtful that any other nation-state is going to attack you or your friends. Thus, peace, if you are a peace loving nation.
However, if you are not a peace loving nation, or if your peace loving nation is in the hands of war mongers, you're not going to have peace, obviously. Instead, you will have "pre-emptive" war in the name of peace, since wars of conquest are considered bad manners these days.
Lastly, there is asymetric warfare, which some will remember was put to great use in Viet Nam by the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong). Without getting into the underlying causes, today you have non-nation-state groups who use many of the same principles of asymetric warfare.
As I said, I agree with your basic concept, but there is more to it than simply peace through might.
As I understand it a whole lot of people do, some of whom, judging by Tyco and Gabe's comments about their email, I would likely consider to be arrogant, snot nosed, ignorant savages unlikely ever to acquire enough culture to reach the pottery making stage.
This is where you were supposed to notice that it's pretty much the same readership as/.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the marketplace was supposed to determine the numbers. If there is a demand for their goods and services, there will be more street vendors. If there is less demand at that location, there will be less vendors. The excess vendors will go elsewhere.
I see at least two types of territory marking in my neighborhood. There's the bored teenager tagging, and there's the gangster tagging.
Maybe the bored teenager tagging is just a wannabee thing, wanting to be big and bad like the gangsters, but I think it's much more about feeling lost in society and needing to scream, "I'm here!"
The gang tagging, on the other hand, is about warfare. Knowledgable cops can read gang tagging and get an idea of who is trying to kill who.
My neighborhood sees very little of the "Art tagging".
Well, if we get back to Derrida and those other annoying french intellectuals. . .
They were moving past de Sausure's model of signifier/signified, claiming a Nietzchean absence of the signified. Instead of underlying meaning, we have the text as a thing itself, that might suggest a deeper meaning (which is illusory), but really only "contains" "meaning" in the inter-relationships of it's components, in the concatenations.
Further, from a semiotic point of view, music or anything else created or even observed by man is a language of sorts.
Anyway, if I think about this crap any further, my little brain will have a big hurt.
But SCO is still using OSS, even if they are no longer openly distributing Linux. For instance, they are still distributing SAMBA.
Quixotic also implies a certain amount of romanticism, sentimentality, and nobility. Darl is in it for the money, the basest of motivations.
Wait a minute! You went to school?
Actually, John Draper is scheduled to give a talk on spam, of all things. His presentation is entitled "Where'd All That Spam Come From?" and it's on Friday.
Check the speaker list. It's second from the bottom of the list.
At the risk of destroying your joke, could you explain? I'm racking my brain trying to think of what other "H" you could mean. Is this a PKD reference?
Hmmmm, OK. Maybe I got it. A club for school age hi tech farmers? Man, that's obscure!
Mit
Mitnick
Nick
Mit
Nick
Mit
Nik
Mitnick
Mitnick
Mitnick
Mitnick
Mitnick
Mit
Nick
(The postercomment compression filter sucks, by the way.)
You're thinking Goth or Glam.
I think that says more about you/your buusiess than it says about employees.
It's illegal because it's illegal. Unless it's legal, in which case it IS justified, right? Right?
Don't want it shoved down your throat, huh? Let me guess which orfice you prefer.
See, the thing is, this isn't about copyrights so much as it is about propping up an out-moded business model and maintaining a stranglehold on the music business. Look at the media landscape. Who is in control? Something like 5 companies?
Be careful wishing legal problems on others. You might be the recepient of some karma of the non-/. variety.
You're right, I apologize. It's rude to make a perfectly innocent stranger into a strawman like that. You are innocent, right? =) I was rude.
Anyway, my point is that there is a larger system with it's own rules that trumps the rules of the game. Let's use the poker analogy. The sort of cheating you are talking about is akin to actual game hacks and loophole exploits. What I'm talking about is bringing more chips to the table. The house has no problem with a player buying more chips and bringing them to the table. The house is trying to profit, and anything that will bring more profit is going to be OK with the house.
Someone else mentioned steroids and bat corking in sports. It is against the economic interests of those that control sports to allow such aids. If it was in their economic interest (or if they discover in the future it is in their interest) they would (or will) allow it, either explicitly, by making a rule change or implicitly, by looking the other way. Tournament poker is the same thing. Each player is given an equal amount of chips for the tournament, and are not allowed to bring in more chips, because it's in the economic interest of the casino and organizers of the event.
Now, let's look at command economies, such as was seen under Soviet socialism. (I'm avoiding making a Yakov Smirnoff type joke here.) In Soviet Russia there was a thriving blackmarket economy that pervaded all levels of society, despite (or because of) control of the economy by the government and the party. The rules of capitalism trumped the rules of socialism in the country that was the very bastion of socialism.
Now back to the games. If it was in the economic interests of the gaming companies to enforce the rules, then they would. Because the opposite is true, they implicitly support this "blackmarket" activity by looking the other way in the great majority of cases. I wouldn't even be suprised if the blackmarket activity extended into the companies themselves.
The fact of the matter is that there are explicit rules and implicit rules and the Golden Rule. Whoever has the gold, rules. Part of the rationale behind not openly allowing trading in most of these games is that the companies must maintain the illusion of egalitarianism. That's what keeps people coming on board. That's why people invest in pyramid schemes, for that matter. Eventually, the game will not be fun anymore because of the abuse, but guess what? The company is ready to roll out a new game, and people sign up hoping it will be different this time, or that they'll get in early enough to become rich and powerful themselves. The company has recouped it's investment many times over, and could give a shit.
Supply and demand is like water seeking it's own level. Where there is a supply of something and a demand for it, you'll have some form of capitalism. Economic interests will trump just about anything else out there.
(And now for my special karma whoring: And this is why FOSS is truly revolutionary.)
It's interesting that they note a comment from one of Eisenhower's science advisors:
From my reading of the document, they don't adequately overcome this objection. Further, the document does not really deal with the issue of accuracy, other than to point out that certain deorbit angles will not be accurate. What is the point of these weapons if they are not accurate?
Invented? Does Tannenbaum claim to have invented it or written it? Look out, here comes Ken Brown!
No, no, no! He obviously means for us to wear only one shoe.
Ken Brown was full of shit and was quickly debunked by most of those he interviewed and the guy he hired to compare the code. The only controversy exists in his delusional mind and in the minds of other nutjobs. Even MS has distanced themselves from this FUD project, as Ken Brown is so clearly a fool.
With a weapon liike this, we should be able to reason with anyone.
If you drop lawn darts from orbit, they will stay in orbit (unless the orbit decays of course.)
No, this is a very old joke from well before 1989. Sorry to burst your bubble with high speed projectiles.
No, it's not cheating, it's market forces at work. As much as you'd like you MMORG to be seperate from RL, it's not. The very foundations of commercial MMORGs are based on the market. That's why you're paying a subscription fee, that's why the developers get paid, etc., etc.
"Time is money" is a cliche of capitalism, but it's still true. Right now, I have some guys doing yardwork for $8/hour, because my time is more valuable than $8/hour. Sure, I could do the work myself; it's probably great for character building and would give me a real sense of accomplishment.
I think part of your problem is that you've fallen for the fantasy that these virtual worlds are somehow egalitarian, that everyone starts out on a level playing field. Sadly, it's not so. Obviously, those that join the game early, and play steadily will be more powerful and wealthy than someone joining much later. And what are these powerful characters to do with their surplus goods? Trade or barter or give them away. (Even those that give them away might in effect be bartering for allies, no? Or even creating good will? Remember, good will has a cash value in the real world.)
The external market for virtual property is a natural extension of the capitalist underpinings of the commercial game. Capitalism and competition aren't infecting the game, they are the basis of the game, the reason why a company chose this means of creating wealth to begin with.
That's just the way it is. If you don't like it, I'd suggest finding a noncommercial game to play or creating your own. However, since we all live under capitalism one way or another, and time still equals money, I doubt a noncommercial game can stay "pure" forever.
Let's just hope that the Army's version of firewire doesn't fall into the hands of a madman, or we'll have a serial killer on our hands.
I'm an old style liberal, and I agree with you. If you can absolutely kick anyone's ass, especially if you can kick two or three or more asses in different parts of the world, then it's highly doubtful that any other nation-state is going to attack you or your friends. Thus, peace, if you are a peace loving nation.
However, if you are not a peace loving nation, or if your peace loving nation is in the hands of war mongers, you're not going to have peace, obviously. Instead, you will have "pre-emptive" war in the name of peace, since wars of conquest are considered bad manners these days.
Lastly, there is asymetric warfare, which some will remember was put to great use in Viet Nam by the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong). Without getting into the underlying causes, today you have non-nation-state groups who use many of the same principles of asymetric warfare.
As I said, I agree with your basic concept, but there is more to it than simply peace through might.
Why? Is the Army also going to hire Jonathon Ives to design the look of the hypersonic misiles? That's just great. The iBomb!