I bet most of the people here that are all up in arms at the whole Intelligent Design in public schools thing, at least here in the US, are also many of the same people responsible that make this possible. These people are clamoring for ways to make democracy easier through increased ways to register to vote ('motor-voter',welfare office provided voter registration,etc) as well as increase the reach and scope of government sponsored school systems. Indeed, these people aren't upset that the schools are used to indoctrinate kids at all. What they're really upset about is that the kids in this case just aren't being indoctrinated with the correct social agenda.
If you want majority rule to broadly define governments and their policies and you want those same governments to oversee the delivery of education, you shouldn't be surprised that your tax dollars may be spent on someone's agenda for society; be that Intelligent Design, GLBT acceptance, or some other agenda.
For the record I do not accept Intelligent Design as scientifically valid and I wouldn't want my kids wasting their time with it; it's religious dogma. But more to the point I don't believe in an educational system which allows majority groups to control education such that they aren't schools, but centers of of mass indoctrination. I believe in private education systems that allow me to know what they teach the kids and make sure that my kids are being taught according to those principles I believe they need to think, survive and to become the intellectual superiors of their peers. I firmly believe that if you want your kids in a religious schools, Marxist schools, whatever, that's your prerogative; but that right ends with your own children and stops well short of mine.
First your premise is flawed. Free choice does not mean absolute choice or that every set of choices includes rainbows and unicorns. Free market choice does boil down, ultimately, to one single decision: is the product or service that I desire worth more than that which I would have to give up to obtain it? If the answer is 'yes' then I proceed and make the buy, if 'no' then I don't. That is the only choice a truly free market offers you and you must use your own mind and morals to determine the answer.
That is the one choice a government bureaucrat does not offer you. They can subvert that choice through what are ultimately immoral and coercive means. So it's not bad enough that they are inept or 'corrupt' in ways such as the NASA handouts... but their very premise allows them to deny you the ability to apply your mind in how best to allocate the products of your labors for your own best interest.
...Further, the "free market" actually rewards corrupt businessmen, as does a system that allows non-person entities like corporations to spend unlimited funds on elections.
Oh.. you mean like Unions?
How much do you really think corporations or unions would want spend in campaigns if it weren't for the fact that politicians have power to subvert the free market through law, regulation and ultimately force? I bet not much.
In truth a free market only rewards those businessmen that provide something that someone else is willing to purchase. Politicians reward corrupt businessmen by ensuring that upstarts and competitors don't win on their merits in the marketplace.
DoE: You're right and they have managed it for decades... and what was their mission? Oh yeah.. oversee the end of U.S. dependence on foreign oil in the wake of OPEC embargo of the 70's. They've done a stunning job, so now we want to given them greater influence in energy policy and to do it with greater power and money than before. I'm only sure you want them to be as successful in their future as they have been in their past.
The Fed: Yes, to a large degree you're right there, too. They have been managing the banking system for decades. And over the years they have been incredibly destructive. The Fed's cheap money monetary policy of the 90's helped inflate the.com asset bubble... which popped as soon as the Fed began tightening. They brought the rates back down, of course, and in conjunction with stimulus (in the form of the Bush tax breaks, without spending cuts) they helped to change the risk picture of real estate investing. Indeed, I'll have to dig up the quote, but Greenspan himself was urging the use of ARMs to finance housing... never mind the other financial regulatory policies from other areas of the Government (my favorite was Barney Frank's desire to "roll the dice" with looser Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae standards... I guess he crapped out). Boy that worked out real good. And Bernanke can't figure out why Gold is up? HA! But we're content to give more over to the Fed. I'm sure you want them to keep up their stellar track record worked out so well for us up to now.
See, I'd take 1000 corrupt businessmen over a corrupt politician any day of the week. There is nothing a corrupt businessman, by himself, can do to force me to do business with him. But a corrupt politician... he can force me to under threat of force, to do his will.
Just wait till this same sensible decision making acumen of the political class is more powerfully governing our banking system, our health care system and our energy policy.
Yes, I think there is something to this research. One only needs to read the posts on this thread, from the asinine top level post to the many equally asinine refutations, to conclude that entrenchment in one's beliefs... especially in the face of facts... leads to deeper entrenchment in those beliefs regardless of the verdict of the facts.
Of course, I think this is more likely to be a problem on Slashdot, where zealotry and entrenched ideologies are more deeply embraced than in the general populous. But demonstrative nonetheless...
I am not a Libertarian, though I do hold many similar political philosophical beliefs and have studied their philosophy as well as some of the others. I would urge you to not call yourself a libertarian at all... based on your message you're not one (big L or little l). I'm not saying that as an indictment, merely as an observation. I'll explain why, at risk of over generalizing... there are many flavors of 'Libertarian Philosophy' and they don't all agree, and there are many more philosophies that draw similar political conclusions but have differing roots.
The one thing that really all of the libertarian philosophies that I know tend to agree on is the right of the individual over collective rights. Under these philosophies, you are the only person with the right to determine how to live your life: whether that's to take drugs, to become a stock broker or to determine the disposition of the property. You have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property/Pursuit of Happiness (a la Locke/a la Jefferson). These rights are not grants from Government but irrevocable rights of natural law. The only limitations on your power of action is that you may not infringe on another's rights. With these rights do come responsibilities... you are solely responsible for making your living, for the consequences of your actions (i.e. take drugs and fry your brain: your problem). Etc.... there are no societal obligations to you.
Now consider the basic premise of your comment. You state that the Government must do what is best for the Nation... and imply that it can do so at the expense of individual choice in the matter. In essence your argument is that there are no natural rights as understood by the libertarian philosophers, but rather what they would call rights are really revocable privileges granted by Government. If you own property (cash/land/whatever) then the Government may morally revoke that privilege when it deems fit for a given purpose when it decides that "it's in the nation's best interest". Your position is a complete repudiation of libertarian philosophical ideals; you emphasize supremacy of collective rights over individual rights. Practical outcomes have no bearing on the philosophical conclusions: you either believe that collective rights outweigh individual rights or the other way around.
And by the way... the problem with collective rights is that they are always exercised by individuals on behalf of society... though these individuals have their own self-interests and motivations. I have never heard any tyrant saying what their actions are intended to harm their subjects... they all claim that what they do is in their nation's interest. You might claim democracy is a safeguard by allowing the majority to claim what is national self interest? Remember that lynchings back in the day had such a degree of popular support that fair juries could often times not be found to try the murderers... as such mobs, too, can have a funny sense of communal or national interest.
So rather than address the arguments I've raised you'd rather just spout dogma as the mainstream position?
Just how is it good that people raising, in calm voices might I add, serious objections to a point and then taking the time to explain those objections merits marginalization? Do you simply have no convincing answer?
Before I go on, I will address the only point of relevance that you made. Regarding the investments being discussed... are you conceding then than they are risky and will likely need on-going subsidies to keep viable? Seems if there was a clear market need and demand for this stuff that these loans, grants, etc wouldn't be needed. Investors take a risk every time they invest.... and in fact are subsidizing this very program through the purchase in Government bonds (as it stands now). And if fact this type of lending being so much 'safer' than, say, green tech is one of the leading reasons why green tech companies can't get investment any other way. Yes, government demand for capital from the market is using capital that would have otherwise been put into other projects.
The problem with the mob, of which you're evidently a part, is that so little of their position is laid out rationally. As for me, I prefer to look at the broader picture, including facts rather than biases and ideological bigotry, and draw my own conclusions.
Remember that whether its loans or grants that there are negative effects of this program.
A Government itself is not concerned with wealth generation, as such it can only supply capital for any purpose in only a few different ways:
1) It can redirect capital by taking it from those that are producers in society (taxes). 2) It can borrow capital from those that have it to lend. 3) In a fiat money system it can print it.
All three methods of government capital acquisition have negative impacts on the broader economy. In case 1 you reduce the money that individuals and business can spend on their own needs, in case 2 you do the same thing with the exception of delay the consequences of case 1 but at greater cost (an effective savings/investment penalty) and in case 3 you penalize spending and encourage consumption... which in turns leaves less money over time for investment into productive purposes.
You might object that the money is being paid back since these are government loans. But because that money was obtained in one of the ways listed above, there is real short term damage as described. So all that's happened is that the Government has substituted its investment priorities (which are not predicated on market needs) for those of the market and displacing market needs/wants in the process.
Since the expansion of productive capacity isn't even the goal, this (and other programs like it) will likely lead to a net loss of employment and personal wealth over what would have been without it.
Speaking as someone with only a high school diploma, I find your reasoning pure silliness. Of course, as I advanced in my technical career, and later in my managerial career, I met people that believed as you do. Many of them applied such 'rules of thumb' in the most inappropriate ways and I fired a lot of them along the way. Some I saw coming and just never hired.
Then again, as I keep up with my career through many resources, including the resources that my ACM & ACM SIGMIS memberships give me access to, I find that even on the merely theoretical and academic computing topics that I am consistently better informed in the field than most of my peers with CS degrees.... and have the benefit of having earned my stripes in the field with real world scenarios and issues.
Many of my 'degreed' colleagues were merely playing by the rules and checking off the boxes we are all suppose to check off. They lacked passion, they lacked professional dedication... they were simply trying to be sure they could get a job... any job.
Don't get me wrong there were some good degree holding people, too, many of them. But I have no doubt they would have been great without the degree. Their character, which made them successful in school and career, would have made them successful in career alone or any other endeavor for that matter.
Respectfully, what actually I assumed was different than what you contest.
The ignorance or knowledge of the any of the participants is completely irrelevant to the end result in the absolute sense and my assumption was only related to the absolute end result in this case. I assumed that the implementation was slapped together based on an extensive reading of the forums: I made no other assumption. If 404 pages are appearing in addition to other problems, regardless of privacy issues and the like (which I was not addressing in the statement), then it is poorly implemented. If an industry standard is that fly-by-night quality is acceptable, then the industry norm is to have poor quality, but not a factor in my argument, and irrelevant to my being a customer of this specific company in this specific case.
Having said that, there are a couple of counter-criticisms I can make. Regarding the law suits. There are many, many lawsuits filed that have no justification. The fact that someone else is suing/has been sued is irrelevant until, at the very least, the case is decided. Sometimes even then courts decide poorly or with external interests in mind. Details do need to be rationally considered before law suits or their outcomes can be relied upon in argument.
I actually suspect what you were trying to address by bringing up the suit was actually embodied my statement about 'competent partners'. The word 'they' in that sentence refers only to Turbine. I have little doubt that SuperRewards knew exactly what they were doing and yes, they would have collaborated with Turbine on the implementation. Having said that, Turbine isn't in that line of business and there is every reason to believe that they wouldn't know what the issues, standards, and practices are of that market. In order to believe that mere collaboration would have made Turbine completely savvy in this area, you would also have to believe that it was in SuperRewards's self-interest to tell Turbine the full story, warts and all.... and until I hear something different, I just don't believe that to be likely. Should Turbine have been more diligent and been more inquistive and thoughtful about the ramifications? Sure. But I said that:
They clearly didn't understand the 'rewards marketing' industry they chose to rely on enough to find a competent partner (if they existed) [clip]
Naiveté and desire can make one want to believe the great story a trading partner tells. When one falls for that traps inevitably one pays the price.
...and now that I have your attention let me explain that.
Look, Turbine is a company. They exist to make profit and along the way they incur costs (taxes, hardware, bandwidth, employees). Finding new ways to monetize their product is the right and proper thing for them to do and, as a customer of their products, I wish them all the success in the world in that endeavor.
The Offer Wall wasn't actually all that bad of an idea on the face of it... they offered a way for F2P players to get something that many, in these hard economic times, may not have even been able to do on their own... get some quick item store points with out laying out RL coin and doing so in a way that they didn't have to toy with game mechanics. Having said that... they were pretty stupid in the implementation.
They clearly didn't understand the 'rewards marketing' industry they chose to rely on enough to find a competent partner (if they existed), they didn't put much time or effort into the solution... based on a complete read of the forums it looks very slapped together (an assumption on my part, not having seen it first hand), and they didn't give their customers much credit for thinking very deeply about these sorts of things (and given the complexity of the game, they clearly misunderstand their customers).
As for me and my wife... we came to DDO because we are short on funds now-a-days and they provide a cheap way to be entertained without resorting to something like TV. We really like their game and the implementation (I'm an old AD&D player... so had to get use to it). We've even bought adventure packs from them. We'll give them a pass on this... that doesn't mean they will get a pass forever if they keep doing stupid stuff or if it's dramatic enough (as I'm sure some takers of their offer might feel). If they continue to fail to respect their customer base repeatedly they will fail themselves.... as well they should.
In the meantime, I hope they've learned their lesson from this fiasco... and continue to provide a great game.
OK... I buy a disk containing Windows 7 Professional for my company (@$179 or whatever the price is for a single copy). The purpose of that disk is to install Windows 7 Professional on computers. I install it onto 500 computers without buying an individual license for each machine... if I read you correctly I don't need more than one since that is the intended purpose of the disk, which I now own. I don't see that holding up in court, neither in the old days or today.
I think the idea that copying a program into RAM for it to run and not needing a explicit license to do so, since there is an implicit license to do so, is a materially different idea than the central issue here. While I may have an implied license to read the book that I bought, I don't assume ownership of the content of the book. That is still held by the publishing house, author, etc. Nor can I use that content in any way that I chose. I may be able to legally read the book that I bought, but I can't make and publish a derivative work such as a screenplay adaptation or a book on tape. All of this predates consumer software and the related copyright law that has evolved over the years. In this case, you may well have the implied license to install and use the content on the disk, but even under the most liberal reading of what you are suggesting to be the case I would need an additional license for the small bit of code that is downloaded and enables the DLC to be used in the game and you do not have the legal right to bypass that mechanism.
It sounds like you are trying to mix in some of the Libertarian philosophy which basically maintains that intellectual property really isn't property at all since it's not a tangible, scarce resource. In other words, the book is property since it's made out of paper, ink and binding materials. The game (in a retail package) is property in that is is made of plastic, metallic films and the like. The content in either case is not property and there are no restrictions on your use of that. Of course, this is philosophy and not anything at all like the law.
Your complaint is valid. Like I said in an earlier post up the chain, this probably wasn't a consumer friendly decision. Regardless of legal realities, there is the visceral feeling that you've bought some 'thing' and that it's yours to do with as you please, in its entirety and regardless of what you really were buying: a software license in which no actual ownership of anything changes hands. The company, by treating the game as what it is, a license agreement, broke trust with it's customers by failing to recognize their perception of what they were buying: a product. They also built up bad will by appearing to nickel and dime their customers, as one poster commented.
My original point though is that a violation of trust isn't necessarily an ethical violation. When people get pissed off rightfully/wrongfully they like to throw around statements like, 'it is unethical' or 'a violation of rights'.... ethics and natural rights are very important concepts and I don't like to see them treated casually.
Is it? Aren't you really licensing the software and it's content?
Consider these two examples: Windows & Linux.
I buy a copy of Windows server on CD/DVD/whatever. The disc is mine, with all it's content as the same sense as your game... but I bet I don't have the legal right to do with it as I please. That was the term of sale that I agreed to when I purchased it.
And it's not just Microsoft products... if I buy an Ubuntu disk, I still don't have the right to do with it as I please. For instance if I want to make a closed source derivative of the Linux Kernel... I bought the disk, it's mine... but I don't have the legal right to do with the content as I please. That was a term of its being released to me that I agreed to when I took the software.
Trust me: like it or not the hotel room analogy is much closer to the game than is the car analogy. Only fair use gives you any flexibility to use the content outside of the licensing terms.
As for my other examples. You're making a bad assumption. You buy the machines of my client and you buy the servers that I'm talking about. They simply store extra parts and such in a more convenient location for when you need them: at your location or in the chassis. When you need them, you buy them. And in truth the customers like it as much (and more, since the vendors are at risk) as the vendors since it's more convenient.
Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay. If I use it and then not pay, that's stealing and it is illegal.
Some other industries do this sort of thing, too. I'm working with a client right now that makes big machines that make stuff; they keep spare parts on the premises of their customers that pay for them as they use them. Some larger servers have things like unused disk or CPU capacity installed in them that sits idle; when you need to expand capacity all you do is call the vendor and they turn on the existing hardware... it's all there but you don't get to use it until you pay for it.
Referring to your original post, I don't think any of this is unethical... including what the game maker did (and, no, I haven't played the game, nor will I). Now is it consumer friendly? Different question and I probably wouldn't have made the same decision the game maker did if I were in their place; maybe sold the game as standard and premium editions or something like that. But there is no moral imperative that's being violated unless they said you bought everything on the disk and then failed to honor that.
Based on the rest of your post: pot calling kettle black.
For the record I'll take the "knee-jerk libertarian craziness" any day over "overzealous control freaks that can neither make their own choices without a bureaucrat in tow and can't seem to mind their own damn business in all other matters" such as yourself.
As for the "libertarian kook", keep it coming here on Slashdot. Don't ever allow someone to tell you how to live your life, what you should and should not say, or presume they speak for others when in fact they only look down on others.
Slashdot Mirror
As the old song says... ..."meet the new boss; same as the old boss"
I bet most of the people here that are all up in arms at the whole Intelligent Design in public schools thing, at least here in the US, are also many of the same people responsible that make this possible. These people are clamoring for ways to make democracy easier through increased ways to register to vote ('motor-voter',welfare office provided voter registration,etc) as well as increase the reach and scope of government sponsored school systems. Indeed, these people aren't upset that the schools are used to indoctrinate kids at all. What they're really upset about is that the kids in this case just aren't being indoctrinated with the correct social agenda.
If you want majority rule to broadly define governments and their policies and you want those same governments to oversee the delivery of education, you shouldn't be surprised that your tax dollars may be spent on someone's agenda for society; be that Intelligent Design, GLBT acceptance, or some other agenda.
For the record I do not accept Intelligent Design as scientifically valid and I wouldn't want my kids wasting their time with it; it's religious dogma. But more to the point I don't believe in an educational system which allows majority groups to control education such that they aren't schools, but centers of of mass indoctrination. I believe in private education systems that allow me to know what they teach the kids and make sure that my kids are being taught according to those principles I believe they need to think, survive and to become the intellectual superiors of their peers. I firmly believe that if you want your kids in a religious schools, Marxist schools, whatever, that's your prerogative; but that right ends with your own children and stops well short of mine.
First your premise is flawed. Free choice does not mean absolute choice or that every set of choices includes rainbows and unicorns. Free market choice does boil down, ultimately, to one single decision: is the product or service that I desire worth more than that which I would have to give up to obtain it? If the answer is 'yes' then I proceed and make the buy, if 'no' then I don't. That is the only choice a truly free market offers you and you must use your own mind and morals to determine the answer.
That is the one choice a government bureaucrat does not offer you. They can subvert that choice through what are ultimately immoral and coercive means. So it's not bad enough that they are inept or 'corrupt' in ways such as the NASA handouts... but their very premise allows them to deny you the ability to apply your mind in how best to allocate the products of your labors for your own best interest.
...Further, the "free market" actually rewards corrupt businessmen, as does a system that allows non-person entities like corporations to spend unlimited funds on elections.
Oh.. you mean like Unions?
How much do you really think corporations or unions would want spend in campaigns if it weren't for the fact that politicians have power to subvert the free market through law, regulation and ultimately force? I bet not much.
In truth a free market only rewards those businessmen that provide something that someone else is willing to purchase. Politicians reward corrupt businessmen by ensuring that upstarts and competitors don't win on their merits in the marketplace.
Lets see...
DoE: You're right and they have managed it for decades... and what was their mission? Oh yeah.. oversee the end of U.S. dependence on foreign oil in the wake of OPEC embargo of the 70's. They've done a stunning job, so now we want to given them greater influence in energy policy and to do it with greater power and money than before. I'm only sure you want them to be as successful in their future as they have been in their past.
The Fed: Yes, to a large degree you're right there, too. They have been managing the banking system for decades. And over the years they have been incredibly destructive. The Fed's cheap money monetary policy of the 90's helped inflate the .com asset bubble... which popped as soon as the Fed began tightening. They brought the rates back down, of course, and in conjunction with stimulus (in the form of the Bush tax breaks, without spending cuts) they helped to change the risk picture of real estate investing. Indeed, I'll have to dig up the quote, but Greenspan himself was urging the use of ARMs to finance housing... never mind the other financial regulatory policies from other areas of the Government (my favorite was Barney Frank's desire to "roll the dice" with looser Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae standards... I guess he crapped out). Boy that worked out real good. And Bernanke can't figure out why Gold is up? HA! But we're content to give more over to the Fed. I'm sure you want them to keep up their stellar track record worked out so well for us up to now.
See, I'd take 1000 corrupt businessmen over a corrupt politician any day of the week. There is nothing a corrupt businessman, by himself, can do to force me to do business with him. But a corrupt politician... he can force me to under threat of force, to do his will.
Just wait till this same sensible decision making acumen of the political class is more powerfully governing our banking system, our health care system and our energy policy.
Yes, I think there is something to this research. One only needs to read the posts on this thread, from the asinine top level post to the many equally asinine refutations, to conclude that entrenchment in one's beliefs... especially in the face of facts... leads to deeper entrenchment in those beliefs regardless of the verdict of the facts.
Of course, I think this is more likely to be a problem on Slashdot, where zealotry and entrenched ideologies are more deeply embraced than in the general populous. But demonstrative nonetheless...
I am not a Libertarian, though I do hold many similar political philosophical beliefs and have studied their philosophy as well as some of the others. I would urge you to not call yourself a libertarian at all... based on your message you're not one (big L or little l). I'm not saying that as an indictment, merely as an observation. I'll explain why, at risk of over generalizing... there are many flavors of 'Libertarian Philosophy' and they don't all agree, and there are many more philosophies that draw similar political conclusions but have differing roots.
The one thing that really all of the libertarian philosophies that I know tend to agree on is the right of the individual over collective rights. Under these philosophies, you are the only person with the right to determine how to live your life: whether that's to take drugs, to become a stock broker or to determine the disposition of the property. You have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property/Pursuit of Happiness (a la Locke/a la Jefferson). These rights are not grants from Government but irrevocable rights of natural law. The only limitations on your power of action is that you may not infringe on another's rights. With these rights do come responsibilities... you are solely responsible for making your living, for the consequences of your actions (i.e. take drugs and fry your brain: your problem). Etc.... there are no societal obligations to you.
Now consider the basic premise of your comment. You state that the Government must do what is best for the Nation... and imply that it can do so at the expense of individual choice in the matter. In essence your argument is that there are no natural rights as understood by the libertarian philosophers, but rather what they would call rights are really revocable privileges granted by Government. If you own property (cash/land/whatever) then the Government may morally revoke that privilege when it deems fit for a given purpose when it decides that "it's in the nation's best interest". Your position is a complete repudiation of libertarian philosophical ideals; you emphasize supremacy of collective rights over individual rights. Practical outcomes have no bearing on the philosophical conclusions: you either believe that collective rights outweigh individual rights or the other way around.
And by the way... the problem with collective rights is that they are always exercised by individuals on behalf of society... though these individuals have their own self-interests and motivations. I have never heard any tyrant saying what their actions are intended to harm their subjects... they all claim that what they do is in their nation's interest. You might claim democracy is a safeguard by allowing the majority to claim what is national self interest? Remember that lynchings back in the day had such a degree of popular support that fair juries could often times not be found to try the murderers... as such mobs, too, can have a funny sense of communal or national interest.
So rather than address the arguments I've raised you'd rather just spout dogma as the mainstream position?
Just how is it good that people raising, in calm voices might I add, serious objections to a point and then taking the time to explain those objections merits marginalization? Do you simply have no convincing answer?
Before I go on, I will address the only point of relevance that you made. Regarding the investments being discussed... are you conceding then than they are risky and will likely need on-going subsidies to keep viable? Seems if there was a clear market need and demand for this stuff that these loans, grants, etc wouldn't be needed. Investors take a risk every time they invest.... and in fact are subsidizing this very program through the purchase in Government bonds (as it stands now). And if fact this type of lending being so much 'safer' than, say, green tech is one of the leading reasons why green tech companies can't get investment any other way. Yes, government demand for capital from the market is using capital that would have otherwise been put into other projects.
The problem with the mob, of which you're evidently a part, is that so little of their position is laid out rationally. As for me, I prefer to look at the broader picture, including facts rather than biases and ideological bigotry, and draw my own conclusions.
Oops...
"and in case 3 you penalize spending and encourage consumption"
should read:
and in case 3 you penalize savings and encourage consumption
Remember that whether its loans or grants that there are negative effects of this program.
A Government itself is not concerned with wealth generation, as such it can only supply capital for any purpose in only a few different ways:
1) It can redirect capital by taking it from those that are producers in society (taxes).
2) It can borrow capital from those that have it to lend.
3) In a fiat money system it can print it.
All three methods of government capital acquisition have negative impacts on the broader economy. In case 1 you reduce the money that individuals and business can spend on their own needs, in case 2 you do the same thing with the exception of delay the consequences of case 1 but at greater cost (an effective savings/investment penalty) and in case 3 you penalize spending and encourage consumption... which in turns leaves less money over time for investment into productive purposes.
You might object that the money is being paid back since these are government loans. But because that money was obtained in one of the ways listed above, there is real short term damage as described. So all that's happened is that the Government has substituted its investment priorities (which are not predicated on market needs) for those of the market and displacing market needs/wants in the process.
Since the expansion of productive capacity isn't even the goal, this (and other programs like it) will likely lead to a net loss of employment and personal wealth over what would have been without it.
Speaking as someone with only a high school diploma, I find your reasoning pure silliness. Of course, as I advanced in my technical career, and later in my managerial career, I met people that believed as you do. Many of them applied such 'rules of thumb' in the most inappropriate ways and I fired a lot of them along the way. Some I saw coming and just never hired.
Then again, as I keep up with my career through many resources, including the resources that my ACM & ACM SIGMIS memberships give me access to, I find that even on the merely theoretical and academic computing topics that I am consistently better informed in the field than most of my peers with CS degrees.... and have the benefit of having earned my stripes in the field with real world scenarios and issues.
Many of my 'degreed' colleagues were merely playing by the rules and checking off the boxes we are all suppose to check off. They lacked passion, they lacked professional dedication... they were simply trying to be sure they could get a job... any job.
Don't get me wrong there were some good degree holding people, too, many of them. But I have no doubt they would have been great without the degree. Their character, which made them successful in school and career, would have made them successful in career alone or any other endeavor for that matter.
Cheers,
SCB
I admit it I didn't RTFA... but it sounds like the Willow Garage stuff... http://www.ros.org/wiki/ ?
(http://www.willowgarage.com/ for the record is their main site).
Respectfully, what actually I assumed was different than what you contest.
The ignorance or knowledge of the any of the participants is completely irrelevant to the end result in the absolute sense and my assumption was only related to the absolute end result in this case. I assumed that the implementation was slapped together based on an extensive reading of the forums: I made no other assumption. If 404 pages are appearing in addition to other problems, regardless of privacy issues and the like (which I was not addressing in the statement), then it is poorly implemented. If an industry standard is that fly-by-night quality is acceptable, then the industry norm is to have poor quality, but not a factor in my argument, and irrelevant to my being a customer of this specific company in this specific case.
Having said that, there are a couple of counter-criticisms I can make. Regarding the law suits. There are many, many lawsuits filed that have no justification. The fact that someone else is suing/has been sued is irrelevant until, at the very least, the case is decided. Sometimes even then courts decide poorly or with external interests in mind. Details do need to be rationally considered before law suits or their outcomes can be relied upon in argument.
I actually suspect what you were trying to address by bringing up the suit was actually embodied my statement about 'competent partners'. The word 'they' in that sentence refers only to Turbine. I have little doubt that SuperRewards knew exactly what they were doing and yes, they would have collaborated with Turbine on the implementation. Having said that, Turbine isn't in that line of business and there is every reason to believe that they wouldn't know what the issues, standards, and practices are of that market. In order to believe that mere collaboration would have made Turbine completely savvy in this area, you would also have to believe that it was in SuperRewards's self-interest to tell Turbine the full story, warts and all.... and until I hear something different, I just don't believe that to be likely. Should Turbine have been more diligent and been more inquistive and thoughtful about the ramifications? Sure. But I said that:
They clearly didn't understand the 'rewards marketing' industry they chose to rely on enough to find a competent partner (if they existed) [clip]
Naiveté and desire can make one want to believe the great story a trading partner tells. When one falls for that traps inevitably one pays the price.
...and now that I have your attention let me explain that.
Look, Turbine is a company. They exist to make profit and along the way they incur costs (taxes, hardware, bandwidth, employees). Finding new ways to monetize their product is the right and proper thing for them to do and, as a customer of their products, I wish them all the success in the world in that endeavor.
The Offer Wall wasn't actually all that bad of an idea on the face of it... they offered a way for F2P players to get something that many, in these hard economic times, may not have even been able to do on their own... get some quick item store points with out laying out RL coin and doing so in a way that they didn't have to toy with game mechanics. Having said that... they were pretty stupid in the implementation.
They clearly didn't understand the 'rewards marketing' industry they chose to rely on enough to find a competent partner (if they existed), they didn't put much time or effort into the solution... based on a complete read of the forums it looks very slapped together (an assumption on my part, not having seen it first hand), and they didn't give their customers much credit for thinking very deeply about these sorts of things (and given the complexity of the game, they clearly misunderstand their customers).
As for me and my wife... we came to DDO because we are short on funds now-a-days and they provide a cheap way to be entertained without resorting to something like TV. We really like their game and the implementation (I'm an old AD&D player... so had to get use to it). We've even bought adventure packs from them. We'll give them a pass on this... that doesn't mean they will get a pass forever if they keep doing stupid stuff or if it's dramatic enough (as I'm sure some takers of their offer might feel). If they continue to fail to respect their customer base repeatedly they will fail themselves.... as well they should.
In the meantime, I hope they've learned their lesson from this fiasco... and continue to provide a great game.
Well said.
OK... I buy a disk containing Windows 7 Professional for my company (@$179 or whatever the price is for a single copy). The purpose of that disk is to install Windows 7 Professional on computers. I install it onto 500 computers without buying an individual license for each machine... if I read you correctly I don't need more than one since that is the intended purpose of the disk, which I now own. I don't see that holding up in court, neither in the old days or today.
I think the idea that copying a program into RAM for it to run and not needing a explicit license to do so, since there is an implicit license to do so, is a materially different idea than the central issue here. While I may have an implied license to read the book that I bought, I don't assume ownership of the content of the book. That is still held by the publishing house, author, etc. Nor can I use that content in any way that I chose. I may be able to legally read the book that I bought, but I can't make and publish a derivative work such as a screenplay adaptation or a book on tape. All of this predates consumer software and the related copyright law that has evolved over the years. In this case, you may well have the implied license to install and use the content on the disk, but even under the most liberal reading of what you are suggesting to be the case I would need an additional license for the small bit of code that is downloaded and enables the DLC to be used in the game and you do not have the legal right to bypass that mechanism.
It sounds like you are trying to mix in some of the Libertarian philosophy which basically maintains that intellectual property really isn't property at all since it's not a tangible, scarce resource. In other words, the book is property since it's made out of paper, ink and binding materials. The game (in a retail package) is property in that is is made of plastic, metallic films and the like. The content in either case is not property and there are no restrictions on your use of that. Of course, this is philosophy and not anything at all like the law.
Your complaint is valid. Like I said in an earlier post up the chain, this probably wasn't a consumer friendly decision. Regardless of legal realities, there is the visceral feeling that you've bought some 'thing' and that it's yours to do with as you please, in its entirety and regardless of what you really were buying: a software license in which no actual ownership of anything changes hands. The company, by treating the game as what it is, a license agreement, broke trust with it's customers by failing to recognize their perception of what they were buying: a product. They also built up bad will by appearing to nickel and dime their customers, as one poster commented.
My original point though is that a violation of trust isn't necessarily an ethical violation. When people get pissed off rightfully/wrongfully they like to throw around statements like, 'it is unethical' or 'a violation of rights'.... ethics and natural rights are very important concepts and I don't like to see them treated casually.
See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583644&cid=31487918
for response.
I suppose no more so than it installs a cup holder with a lock on it.
Is it? Aren't you really licensing the software and it's content?
Consider these two examples: Windows & Linux.
I buy a copy of Windows server on CD/DVD/whatever. The disc is mine, with all it's content as the same sense as your game... but I bet I don't have the legal right to do with it as I please. That was the term of sale that I agreed to when I purchased it.
And it's not just Microsoft products... if I buy an Ubuntu disk, I still don't have the right to do with it as I please. For instance if I want to make a closed source derivative of the Linux Kernel... I bought the disk, it's mine... but I don't have the legal right to do with the content as I please. That was a term of its being released to me that I agreed to when I took the software.
Trust me: like it or not the hotel room analogy is much closer to the game than is the car analogy. Only fair use gives you any flexibility to use the content outside of the licensing terms.
As for my other examples. You're making a bad assumption. You buy the machines of my client and you buy the servers that I'm talking about. They simply store extra parts and such in a more convenient location for when you need them: at your location or in the chassis. When you need them, you buy them. And in truth the customers like it as much (and more, since the vendors are at risk) as the vendors since it's more convenient.
Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay. If I use it and then not pay, that's stealing and it is illegal.
Some other industries do this sort of thing, too. I'm working with a client right now that makes big machines that make stuff; they keep spare parts on the premises of their customers that pay for them as they use them. Some larger servers have things like unused disk or CPU capacity installed in them that sits idle; when you need to expand capacity all you do is call the vendor and they turn on the existing hardware... it's all there but you don't get to use it until you pay for it.
Referring to your original post, I don't think any of this is unethical... including what the game maker did (and, no, I haven't played the game, nor will I). Now is it consumer friendly? Different question and I probably wouldn't have made the same decision the game maker did if I were in their place; maybe sold the game as standard and premium editions or something like that. But there is no moral imperative that's being violated unless they said you bought everything on the disk and then failed to honor that.
Regards,
SCB
"...you kook..."
Based on the rest of your post: pot calling kettle black.
For the record I'll take the "knee-jerk libertarian craziness" any day over "overzealous control freaks that can neither make their own choices without a bureaucrat in tow and can't seem to mind their own damn business in all other matters" such as yourself.
As for the "libertarian kook", keep it coming here on Slashdot. Don't ever allow someone to tell you how to live your life, what you should and should not say, or presume they speak for others when in fact they only look down on others.
I'm old enough to remember when 100 Billion dollars use to be a lot of money.
I have to ask... is the period at the end of your post there for irony's sake?
(Note to self: never post comments on Slashdot while on methamphetamines.)