Maybe they're ice seeds? Something like stalagtites. Perhaps there's regular melting/freezing phases and the ice seeds serve as particularly good formers for ice crystal formation? Each time the ice melts back into the brine, there's a new deposit left over the surface of the former, and each time it re-freezes the formers' hydrophilic surface collects a new crust of ice.
Perhaps some times the seed's initial hexagonal structure is preserved for many generations? Other times it's soon lost. Many times, erosion, erodes the surface of these spherules?
So maybe the beads aren't ice but mostly the residue from ice melting?
Has anyone else noticed the six segment radial spoke pattern on one of the spherules? Six-fold symmetry perhaps related to the same way that snowflakes form? Maybe the beads are snowflakes that gradually accrete into ice-droplets?
Forgive me for accidentally indicating that labour should equal value. I quite agree it is not a direct relationship. However, it's often correlated.
It's not easy coming up with two pieces of music, both of which involve similar labour, but are obviously poles apart in terms of price paid or market value.
With a fixed, nominal pricing of music, i.e. if there are 5 billion downloads, and an ISP levy revenue of $50 million, then every download effectively obtains 1 cent each. If you download a new aria by Jose Carreras once, he gets 1 cent. If you download a ringtone by Joe Bloggs once he gets 1 cent. Sorry, I mean their agents get 1 cent, the artist gets 2.5% of 1 cent.
Ideally, Jose Carreras would say "My market is tiny, I will sell my new aria recorded with the London Philharmonic for $10 a piece to those few people who really appreciate my voice". Joe Bloggs would say "I want to maximise my market - I'll sell each of my "500 classic tune" ring tones at 1 cent each".
To say that because of copying such a market can't exist for music, that popularity is the only measure available and therefore better than nothing is a cop out.
Think harder.
We have an artist, an audience, and a work of art. Why the flip can't they haggle over its price? And then the audience gives the artist the money, and the artist gives the audience the art.
A market may reward popularity, but rewarding popularity does not make a market.
A market involves price, and price depends upon what value the buyers and sellers place on the product.
If you remove value by fixing the price and only reward popularity, you no longer have a market. Of course, you may still have financial incentive, but not necessarily incentive to produce works of value.
So what the hell's the point in a music levy, if people who want good music are still forced to provide extra finance to the artists of their choice?
If you are any of the chart-topping artists, whether Britney or RingTones-R-Us, you'll do just fine. But, if you're the new Mozart, you still have to scrape a living? Because, despite a loyal, highly appreciative following, the popularity based revenue isn't enough pay your bills.
They're still left with the current problem: how to make money when their fans get their music for far less than it's worth?
And many of their fans may well decide (as with the tax on blank CDs) that they've already paid, so no way are they going to cough up more.
It seems to me that the EFF scheme is a very close match to the labels' current hit based system. A few stars obtaining a disproportionate amount of the total revenue.
It's not a market, it's a popularity reward system.
To say that its flaws can be solved by a separate system does not bode well.
Let's at least aspire to FAIRER compensation. Obviously, perfect fairness is unobtainable.
You are a proponent of free markets, irrespective of fairness. OK.
If the EFF scheme is a FREE market, then the market will be free to determine the price of the music, i.e. it will be able to haggle with the musician, either by choosing to buy or not buy as determined by its price, or directly, by making an offer. Unfortunately, blanket licensing does not permit the market to do this. People who listen to the music are not able to express any views as to how much they consider it worth paying for. This decision is taken out of their hands. Some central panel somewhere decides that the music industry needs X billion dollars, and it then gets divvied up according to how OFTEN each piece of music is downloaded.
The value is lost.
In a free market, punters that liked decent, albeit non-pulp, music would be free to pay a higher price for it.
If all music is valued the same and musicians are paid in terms of how often their work is downloaded. Ring tone composers will be the new billionaires, and we can say goodbye to Mozart.
The point is, if the EFF solution is good, it will create a fairer market for musicians than the one they have at present.
Do you really want to suggest that it doesn't matter how fair or unfair the EFF proposal is? That as long as someone makes money, who gives a monkey's how fair it is? That's life?
I can see you are quite happy to continue the label's interest in reward popular pulp, at the expense of poorly rewarding highly regarded and appreciated, but less popular musicians.
So, because life isn't fair, who needs fair compensation?
Nevertheless, it is possible that 100 people may be willing to commission a music score for $1,000 each - it's that valuable to them. Whereas, 100,000 people may be happy to pay $1 for a ringtone.
In a fair market, the orchestrator would look forward to $100,000 rather than a measly $100, that the xylophonist who just happens to be able to do a 20second cover version of stairway to heaven can get.
The trouble with blanket licensing is that there's no way for punters to say "I like this more than this". If everyone and their dog download a particular ditty for their phone's ring tone, does it make it more valuable than a movie soundtrack which only a few people really love, but love a lot?
Why should a quick tinkle on a xylophone be better rewarded than months of work on an orchestral masterpiece?
A better way of capturing music's artistic value is to auction it directly to the interested audience, e.g. using The Digital Art Auction
.
Any autonomous/self-replicating device, organism or other material that is to be released into the environment, must be reversible, i.e. it must be at least possible to disable it within a reasonable period, and ideally possible to remove all significant traces of it from the environment.
It is not enough to simply say "Well, we've done tests and it doesn't seem to harm anything as far as we can tell so far".
If anything people need to learn how many times such statements have proved to be false from the software industry, e.g. "Well, we've done tests and the software seems to work fine - no bugs left as far as we can tell" - yeah... unleash it baby!
This law should also apply to the Internet, i.e. release of autonomous/self-replicating software.
Every potential poison we create must have an antidote.
If anything we need to develop skills/technology at disabling these things just as much as the skills to create them in the first place.
No doubt there will be those quite happy to unleash grey-goo...
This is all about a project to create a new online company
to provide an ultra low-friction software funding facility.
This will be for reputable and established companies with
small, self-contained, but sophisticated software requirements to obtain
services from highly skilled development specialists.
Objectives
The primary objective is to make it as easy as possible
for UK based Online Coders to get work. This means making things as easy and as
low risk as possible for prospective clients to get their work done.
The current online software marketplace favours medium to
large projects (with a usable and visible application being the end result).
This pragmatic emphasis on delivery of functionality also favours Asian and
Eastern European markets. The UK's software expertise (market edge) is
primarily in sophistication and innovation.
Free for coders to browse projects.
OnlineCoders primarily obtains commission when both
client and coder are satisfied customers.
A token 100 up-front demonstration of intent from
clients. In exchange, the coder is required to match this in order to claim the
work.
Client gets to inspect source code prior to payment. In
exchange, the client must be ready to complete payment within a week from
receiving the source code.
It is suggested that as a contingency measure, the
coder should ensure that the code they produce can be republished under the
GPL. If the code they deliver contains copyrights incompatible with the GPL
then it will not be possible to publish the code for peer scrutiny in cases of
dispute.
The source code may utilise open source components.
However, the coder agrees to embargo the source code indefinitely and provide
copies solely to OnlineCoders and the client. Naturally, if the client wishes
to distribute binaries based on the code they must observe the GPL if it
applies. Alternatively, they may subsequently contract the coder to produce a
completely proprietary version.
No drawn out bidding process. The client states the
spec., price and estimated days. The moment a coder accepts, they either meet
the spec. within a reasonable time, or they lose their 100 to the client. This
makes for a fast turnaround.
Client and coder agree not to seek legal redress or
damages in the event of dispute or complaint regarding payment or quality of
the software developed, i.e. that the remedies provided by OnlineCoders are
sufficient and acceptable.
Low Risk
Low risk for clients. Rapid turnaround, i.e. short period
from work offer to delivery and payment.
Low risk for coders. Client's buy 'sold as seen' with no
comeback, but can decide not to pay if the code is poor, in exchange for
putting their reputation on the line.
How It WorksIn a Nutshell
Client and Coder agree to exchange software for money and
stump up 100 each.
1.
If all ends well, OnlineCoders keeps the 200.
2.
If the coder defaults, the client gets the 200.
3.
If the client defaults, the coder gets the 200, and if the
software has already been delivered for evaluation to the client, it is
published open source.
If there's a dispute, there's a resolution period, but
ultimately one of the three above actions must occur.
The point is, that the client has the advantage of
receiving the product prior to payment. If it is of sub-standard quality
Client
Potential client has coding work that needs doing:
The client must be able to specify the work in a
document linked to by a URL.
The client must pay OnlineCoders a security of 100.
The client must specify the price they will pay for the
completed work (not including the 100 securities which turn into a commission
fee for OnlineCoders).
The client must specify the number of working days they
believe the work involves. This must not exceed 22 days - projects approaching
this magnitude are not considered suitable for Onli
If anyone was in some doubt with their conscience concerning whether they should use P2P systems for obtaining MP3s to albums they'd already purchased, or even for auditioning artists with a view to purchasing CDs, then perhaps the decision is now clearer.
If the vast majority of CD users, who already record them for use on other devices or make security backups, are now criminals and are thus now liable for fines larger than 10x their salary, then P2P systems are obviously now available for use without compunction.
This is because the steps necessary for immunity from prosecution are now pretty untenable, i.e. to erase all MP3s and Video tapes (except wedding movies, etc.).
So if you're just as guilty by duplicating a CD for your own use, as you would be for uploading a CD to a P2P system, then there's no additional conscience or litigation cost. The law has now made it clear that they have equal legitimacy.
Therefore if you consider making format conversion copies fair use, then the law says that's as fair as sharing those copies on a P2P system, ipso facto everyone's now encouraged to use P2P systems.
Whereas before, there was some doubt as to a difference in legitimacy, e.g. "sharing is bad, copying for personal use is ok". Now it's "Sharing is bad, personal copying is bad". But, in the people's minds it will be "I see nothing wrong with personal copying, but if I'm liable for 250K fine for doing so, just as much as I would be for sharing my personal copies, then fuck it, I ain't stopping one, so I might as well have little hesitation for doing the other".
Moreover, you can extrapolate from "several companies pledging smaller amounts" until you reach "thousands to millions of end users pledging even tinier amounts".
A small mental step for you, but a giant paradigm shift for mankind.
Re:this all sounds great... but it's not a market
on
The Open Code Market
·
· Score: 1
There's nothing wrong with selling ideas as property.
The problem comes when people start thinking that they have a hope in hell of maintaining exclusive control over reproduction/dissemination of the idea (once they've released it).
That used to be just about viable in the days of printing presses and book binding.
These days, if you want to sell an idea you have to sell it when you release it. This is because it is only property in the strictest definition of the word whilst it's in your exclusive possession, i.e. in your mind.
This applies to all forms of digital art, not just ideas.
It'll work fine with software too.
1) Develop the software in a highly secure environment. 2) Provide public demos, and private inspection to select reviewers, etc. 3) Offer it for sale. 4) Get the money. 5) Release it.
It's so blindingly obvious that you can count the number of people who believe it can be done this way on the fingers of one hand.
Imagine a pair of concentric contrarotating flywheels. By engaging a couple of gears achored on the monobike you can transfer speed from one to the other and in so doing rotate the bike.
Electric motors top up the flywheels as necessary.
You can have these flywheel-pairs on another axis, e.g. to instantly tilt the bike to any angle.
With some decent flywheels inside, a monobike wouldn't really need the 'stabilisers' out front.
On braking from speed, it would throw the rider back and behind the wheel immediately prior to braking.
On stopping, it could continue to balance the rider atop.
On dismount, it would gracefully (magically) lower the rider to the ground, and probably rest in a 'laid down' position.
On mount, the flywheels would fire up, and with a nice bit of internal braking, raise the rider up into the riding position.
I'd say it'd also be neat to escape the 'motorcycle' riding position, e.g. hands free, with all control being achieved by the machine interpreting postural changes by legs and torseo, i.e. detecting the rider's intention (perhaps like well trained horses can).
Bonfire night (Samhain, Halloween, All saints' eve) was also an apposite occasion for commemorating the Protestant martyrs by burning of various papal effigies on the pyre. Until Fawkes' presumably greater calumny shifted it to the 5th.
Praise the pagans for their popular party pyromania.
If the MMOG provider doesn't guarantee the integrity of the servers running the virtual world, are they liable because they failed to prevent a hacker from undetectably switching ownership of an item that just traded for $1,000,000 on eBay?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're ice seeds? Something like stalagtites. Perhaps there's regular melting/freezing phases and the ice seeds serve as particularly good formers for ice crystal formation? Each time the ice melts back into the brine, there's a new deposit left over the surface of the former, and each time it re-freezes the formers' hydrophilic surface collects a new crust of ice.
Perhaps some times the seed's initial hexagonal structure is preserved for many generations? Other times it's soon lost. Many times, erosion, erodes the surface of these spherules?
So maybe the beads aren't ice but mostly the residue from ice melting?
Has anyone else noticed the six segment radial spoke pattern on one of the spherules? Six-fold symmetry perhaps related to the same way that snowflakes form? Maybe the beads are snowflakes that gradually accrete into ice-droplets?
Either that, or the spherules are organic...
Check it out
The artist no longer attempts to sell copies, because anyone can make a copy.
Instead, the artist sells their art, i.e. the digital master. Once they've sold the master, anyone can make copies.
Yes. A free market has no fixed price.
Forgive me for accidentally indicating that labour should equal value. I quite agree it is not a direct relationship. However, it's often correlated.
It's not easy coming up with two pieces of music, both of which involve similar labour, but are obviously poles apart in terms of price paid or market value.
With a fixed, nominal pricing of music, i.e. if there are 5 billion downloads, and an ISP levy revenue of $50 million, then every download effectively obtains 1 cent each. If you download a new aria by Jose Carreras once, he gets 1 cent. If you download a ringtone by Joe Bloggs once he gets 1 cent. Sorry, I mean their agents get 1 cent, the artist gets 2.5% of 1 cent.
Ideally, Jose Carreras would say "My market is tiny, I will sell my new aria recorded with the London Philharmonic for $10 a piece to those few people who really appreciate my voice". Joe Bloggs would say "I want to maximise my market - I'll sell each of my "500 classic tune" ring tones at 1 cent each".
To say that because of copying such a market can't exist for music, that popularity is the only measure available and therefore better than nothing is a cop out.
Think harder.
We have an artist, an audience, and a work of art. Why the flip can't they haggle over its price? And then the audience gives the artist the money, and the artist gives the audience the art.
The Digital Art Auction
A market may reward popularity,
but rewarding popularity does not make a market.
A market involves price, and price depends upon what value the buyers and sellers place on the product.
If you remove value by fixing the price and only reward popularity, you no longer have a market. Of course, you may still have financial incentive, but not necessarily incentive to produce works of value.
So what the hell's the point in a music levy, if people who want good music are still forced to provide extra finance to the artists of their choice?
If you are any of the chart-topping artists, whether Britney or RingTones-R-Us, you'll do just fine. But, if you're the new Mozart, you still have to scrape a living? Because, despite a loyal, highly appreciative following, the popularity based revenue isn't enough pay your bills.
They're still left with the current problem: how to make money when their fans get their music for far less than it's worth?
And many of their fans may well decide (as with the tax on blank CDs) that they've already paid, so no way are they going to cough up more.
It seems to me that the EFF scheme is a very close match to the labels' current hit based system. A few stars obtaining a disproportionate amount of the total revenue.
It's not a market, it's a popularity reward system.
To say that its flaws can be solved by a separate system does not bode well.
Let's at least aspire to FAIRER compensation.
Obviously, perfect fairness is unobtainable.
You are a proponent of free markets, irrespective of fairness. OK.
If the EFF scheme is a FREE market, then the market will be free to determine the price of the music, i.e. it will be able to haggle with the musician, either by choosing to buy or not buy as determined by its price, or directly, by making an offer. Unfortunately, blanket licensing does not permit the market to do this. People who listen to the music are not able to express any views as to how much they consider it worth paying for. This decision is taken out of their hands. Some central panel somewhere decides that the music industry needs X billion dollars, and it then gets divvied up according to how OFTEN each piece of music is downloaded.
The value is lost.
In a free market, punters that liked decent, albeit non-pulp, music would be free to pay a higher price for it.
If all music is valued the same and musicians are paid in terms of how often their work is downloaded. Ring tone composers will be the new billionaires, and we can say goodbye to Mozart.
The point is, if the EFF solution is good, it will create a fairer market for musicians than the one they have at present.
Do you really want to suggest that it doesn't matter how fair or unfair the EFF proposal is? That as long as someone makes money, who gives a monkey's how fair it is? That's life?
I can see you are quite happy to continue the label's interest in reward popular pulp, at the expense of poorly rewarding highly regarded and appreciated, but less popular musicians.
So, because life isn't fair, who needs fair compensation?
Right.
Nevertheless, it is possible that 100 people may be willing to commission a music score for $1,000 each - it's that valuable to them. Whereas, 100,000 people may be happy to pay $1 for a ringtone.
In a fair market, the orchestrator would look forward to $100,000 rather than a measly $100, that the xylophonist who just happens to be able to do a 20second cover version of stairway to heaven can get.
The trouble with blanket licensing is that there's no way for punters to say "I like this more than this". If everyone and their dog download a particular ditty for their phone's ring tone, does it make it more valuable than a movie soundtrack which only a few people really love, but love a lot?
Why should a quick tinkle on a xylophone be better rewarded than months of work on an orchestral masterpiece?
A better way of capturing music's artistic value is to auction it directly to the interested audience, e.g. using The Digital Art Auction .
Did someone say caps?
Plural?
Remember that melting the north polar ice cap will not raise sea level...
Needs to apply to genetic engineering too.
Any autonomous/self-replicating device, organism or other material that is to be released into the environment, must be reversible, i.e. it must be at least possible to disable it within a reasonable period, and ideally possible to remove all significant traces of it from the environment.
It is not enough to simply say "Well, we've done tests and it doesn't seem to harm anything as far as we can tell so far".
If anything people need to learn how many times such statements have proved to be false from the software industry, e.g. "Well, we've done tests and the software seems to work fine - no bugs left as far as we can tell" - yeah... unleash it baby!
This law should also apply to the Internet, i.e. release of autonomous/self-replicating software.
Every potential poison we create must have an antidote.
If anything we need to develop skills/technology at disabling these things just as much as the skills to create them in the first place.
No doubt there will be those quite happy to unleash grey-goo...
This is all about a project to create a new online company to provide an ultra low-friction software funding facility.
This will be for reputable and established companies with small, self-contained, but sophisticated software requirements to obtain services from highly skilled development specialists.
Objectives
The primary objective is to make it as easy as possible for UK based Online Coders to get work. This means making things as easy and as low risk as possible for prospective clients to get their work done.
The current online software marketplace favours medium to large projects (with a usable and visible application being the end result). This pragmatic emphasis on delivery of functionality also favours Asian and Eastern European markets. The UK's software expertise (market edge) is primarily in sophistication and innovation.
Free for coders to browse projects.
OnlineCoders primarily obtains commission when both client and coder are satisfied customers.
A token 100 up-front demonstration of intent from clients. In exchange, the coder is required to match this in order to claim the work.
Client gets to inspect source code prior to payment. In exchange, the client must be ready to complete payment within a week from receiving the source code.
It is suggested that as a contingency measure, the coder should ensure that the code they produce can be republished under the GPL. If the code they deliver contains copyrights incompatible with the GPL then it will not be possible to publish the code for peer scrutiny in cases of dispute.
The source code may utilise open source components. However, the coder agrees to embargo the source code indefinitely and provide copies solely to OnlineCoders and the client. Naturally, if the client wishes to distribute binaries based on the code they must observe the GPL if it applies. Alternatively, they may subsequently contract the coder to produce a completely proprietary version.
No drawn out bidding process. The client states the spec., price and estimated days. The moment a coder accepts, they either meet the spec. within a reasonable time, or they lose their 100 to the client. This makes for a fast turnaround.
Client and coder agree not to seek legal redress or damages in the event of dispute or complaint regarding payment or quality of the software developed, i.e. that the remedies provided by OnlineCoders are sufficient and acceptable.
Low Risk
Low risk for clients. Rapid turnaround, i.e. short period from work offer to delivery and payment.
Low risk for coders. Client's buy 'sold as seen' with no comeback, but can decide not to pay if the code is poor, in exchange for putting their reputation on the line.
How It Works In a Nutshell
Client and Coder agree to exchange software for money and stump up 100 each.
1. If all ends well, OnlineCoders keeps the 200.
2. If the coder defaults, the client gets the 200.
3. If the client defaults, the coder gets the 200, and if the software has already been delivered for evaluation to the client, it is published open source.
If there's a dispute, there's a resolution period, but ultimately one of the three above actions must occur.
The point is, that the client has the advantage of receiving the product prior to payment. If it is of sub-standard quality
Client
Potential client has coding work that needs doing:
The client must be able to specify the work in a document linked to by a URL.
The client must pay OnlineCoders a security of 100.
The client must specify the price they will pay for the completed work (not including the 100 securities which turn into a commission fee for OnlineCoders).
The client must specify the number of working days they believe the work involves. This must not exceed 22 days - projects approaching this magnitude are not considered suitable for Onli
If anyone was in some doubt with their conscience concerning whether they should use P2P systems for obtaining MP3s to albums they'd already purchased, or even for auditioning artists with a view to purchasing CDs, then perhaps the decision is now clearer.
If the vast majority of CD users, who already record them for use on other devices or make security backups, are now criminals and are thus now liable for fines larger than 10x their salary, then P2P systems are obviously now available for use without compunction.
This is because the steps necessary for immunity from prosecution are now pretty untenable, i.e. to erase all MP3s and Video tapes (except wedding movies, etc.).
So if you're just as guilty by duplicating a CD for your own use, as you would be for uploading a CD to a P2P system, then there's no additional conscience or litigation cost. The law has now made it clear that they have equal legitimacy.
Therefore if you consider making format conversion copies fair use, then the law says that's as fair as sharing those copies on a P2P system, ipso facto everyone's now encouraged to use P2P systems.
Whereas before, there was some doubt as to a difference in legitimacy, e.g. "sharing is bad, copying for personal use is ok". Now it's "Sharing is bad, personal copying is bad". But, in the people's minds it will be "I see nothing wrong with personal copying, but if I'm liable for 250K fine for doing so, just as much as I would be for sharing my personal copies, then fuck it, I ain't stopping one, so I might as well have little hesitation for doing the other".
THIS WILL ENCOURAGE P2P FILE SHARING
The law is an ass.
You are so right.
Moreover, you can extrapolate from "several companies pledging smaller amounts" until you reach "thousands to millions of end users pledging even tinier amounts".
A small mental step for you, but a giant paradigm shift for mankind.
There's nothing wrong with selling ideas as property.
The problem comes when people start thinking that they have a hope in hell of maintaining exclusive control over reproduction/dissemination of the idea (once they've released it).
That used to be just about viable in the days of printing presses and book binding.
These days, if you want to sell an idea you have to sell it when you release it. This is because it is only property in the strictest definition of the word whilst it's in your exclusive possession, i.e. in your mind.
This applies to all forms of digital art, not just ideas.
It'll work fine with software too.
1) Develop the software in a highly secure environment.
2) Provide public demos, and private inspection to select reviewers, etc.
3) Offer it for sale.
4) Get the money.
5) Release it.
It's so blindingly obvious that you can count the number of people who believe it can be done this way on the fingers of one hand.
Imagine a pair of concentric contrarotating flywheels. By engaging a couple of gears achored on the monobike you can transfer speed from one to the other and in so doing rotate the bike.
Electric motors top up the flywheels as necessary.
You can have these flywheel-pairs on another axis, e.g. to instantly tilt the bike to any angle.
With some decent flywheels inside, a monobike wouldn't really need the 'stabilisers' out front.
On braking from speed, it would throw the rider back and behind the wheel immediately prior to braking.
On stopping, it could continue to balance the rider atop.
On dismount, it would gracefully (magically) lower the rider to the ground, and probably rest in a 'laid down' position.
On mount, the flywheels would fire up, and with a nice bit of internal braking, raise the rider up into the riding position.
I'd say it'd also be neat to escape the 'motorcycle' riding position, e.g. hands free, with all control being achieved by the machine interpreting postural changes by legs and torseo, i.e. detecting the rider's intention (perhaps like well trained horses can).
Definitely.
It's already worked for Blender.
I'll have the first version ticking over by Xmas, and then I just have to hook it up to a payments system...
If that was the case, then Halloween would have moved to the 5th as well.
Bonfire Night and Halloween (Samhain) are one and the same, i.e. 31st Oct.
Guy Fawkes night is the 5th Nov.
I expect the church would have been very happy to shift the pagan fires away from Samhain.
They had slightly different windows in those days...
Stand up and be counted ye blaggard.
Bonfire night (Samhain, Halloween, All saints' eve) was also an apposite occasion for commemorating the Protestant martyrs by burning of various papal effigies on the pyre. Until Fawkes' presumably greater calumny shifted it to the 5th.
Praise the pagans for their popular party pyromania.
I'm working on it.
"By reading this Resume you indicate your acceptance of the terms of the attached NDA."
So....
If the MMOG provider doesn't guarantee the integrity of the servers running the virtual world, are they liable because they failed to prevent a hacker from undetectably switching ownership of an item that just traded for $1,000,000 on eBay?