Maybe if they paid Baseball players like real people instead of demi-Gods people wouldn't have to pay as much.
I'm pretty sure most pro-sports will tank in the next 10 years if the trend of owners raise ticket prices, owners make more money, therefore players want bigger peice of pie, therefore owners raise prices line of insanity continues...
I agree, in part. Collecting was definatly a contributing factor in the downfall, but I think one of the biggest factors that contributed to the death of Magic was rules. When I first started playing in tournaments the rules were pretty basic, do what the rules say unless a card contradicts it in wich case follow the rules on the card. Now, in a perfect universe where developers can concieve unbreakable logic for hundreds of cards that interact with each other there would be no problems. However, there were lots of cards that could be combo'd into unbreakable combos, this made the games pointless (all you had to do was play your unbreakable combo before you're opponent, at this point you might as well have just be playing dice). So, Wizard's, in an effort to improve the game, added errata for existing card text and additional rulings to the tournament rules. At first this was a good thing, a lot of frustrating crap got fixed and it made the game more fun to play. Fast foreward about a year, suddenly the "concise rules" were well over 200 pages long, with card errata for pretty much every set in Type I tournament play. The game was no longer fun, if you wanted to compete you had to learn the rules and keep up with all the current changes, whole games were won or lost based on obscure errata or, yet another, "broken" rule. The game was getting more and more complex every day, every new set came out with more retreads of older "fun" cards (with text changed in such a way to make it more in accordance with the current rulings, and a lot of times with the card name / art changed just enough to make the scrubs think it was new). The game now had all the fun of reading legal documentation, spending money on new sets (that contained properties only found in said sets and therefore made someone without that set vulnerable to new rulings and effects) and losing a game in 3 turns becuase someone got their "power-combo" in their first draw.
At that point I quit Magic, I had heard that with the 6th edition they reworked the rules and threw out the old rulebook and some of the existing errata, but its too late Magic has (as so many other things) turned from a cool game involving statistical problem-solving into just another corporate peice of crap,
Mainly because, while most people will mod the crap down, it is still there to be read. Sure, I don't really care to read "first pr0st" but sometimes valid viewpoints can be found in the dregs of Score 0 or even -1 sometimes.
Alternativly,
Back in the days of yore (ok 1997) I used to frequent a CCG manufacturers BBS, they had a closed form of moderation that basically meant if you start flaming or being an idiot you'd get your account pulled and your IP blocked (and all yon offending threads would disappear), this was all fine and well until politics got involved. Suddenly people who didn't share an absolute devotion to the company's ideal BBS content started to disappear (read: "the latest release of the product stinks, here's why" would qualify as flame). This at first wasen't a big deal, until more and more users and threads started to mysteriously "disappear". After a while the crowd filtered out to just people who had "nice things to say", what was once an ideal forum for real discussion provided by the company (free market research!) had turned into the "do as we say" BBS where, in order to keep your user account you had to be careful what you said and thought.
So I ask you, is it better to have a form of moderation that is justified by the people, for the people and keeps all content alive (at least while its active). Or is it better to have "someone" choose what content is good for you, and punish those who generate "unwanted" content by giving them the boot, or otherwise restricting their acces? (I, of course, assumed this is what you meant by punishment)
Damn straight! I wan't my kids growing up in a world where they can battle international fighters, shoot everything "zombie" and get all twitchy when they see a little silver ball...
"Ask not what your arcade can do for you, rather, ask how much is it gonna cost me and how many credits do I get..."
Do I care from whence content I want comes from? No. Do I care if the content I want to look at is from a "phony" fan site? No. Will a fan site ever sway my opinion one way or the other about a film or get me all "hyped" about something? No.
In conclusion: Who cares? How could anyone feel ripped off about a fake fan site? The home page for Galaxy Quest was done in the style of a fan site and was truly hilarious.
If sites (that I think are worth my revenue) asked me to pay a nominal fee to remove banner ads for a year, I'd go for it. Unfortunatly, I don't read Salon.
I would suffer an Insurance Seminar hosted by Jar Jar Binks for hours, no, days on end and have a grin on my face and people would ask me, "how can you stand it?" and I'll just say "because I watched the Dune Series on TV" and they'll say "I know what you mean, I know what you mean."
Is it so unthinkable that "morons" could be enlightened by others or *gasp* themselves during exposure to the net? I think it boils down to what your definition of "moron" is. Is it any user who doesen't like the things you like or think the same way as you? Or is it merely a status thing, the fact that you've been online longer than them? One thing I will enjoy when the "giant mass of people" begin filtering in is an end to this pointless net-elitism and a beginning to more thought diversity. Lastly, I find it laughable that you believe that "giant media corporations" are going to start dictating content and that the "masses" will swallow it without question. The whole point of BBS, IRC even static content over the net is information transmission, even if the "giant media corporations" could control ALL information online, how long do you think that would last?
Stop being so l33t for a second and look at the future with an open mind!
There are more people joining the 'net every day (and even better, a lot of them are coming from more diverse backgrounds), Jon Katz suggests that the "revolution" is losing momentum. I couldn't disagree more! Every day, new users are joining up to the net. They bring with them their own ideas, feelings and viewpoints and this influx is what is going to define the net.
I think Darwinism takes care of issues like this, if no one can use the software, it either has to change or die out. Same goes for users, if a user won't upgrade his or her skillset they limit their employability.
Microsoft is a company, companies like making money, if something looks lucrative, they will sink their little shark-like teeth into it. C'mon, you didn't really think that MS wouldn't horn in eventually did you?
"1.To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility:"
Individuality, compassion, civility. Would such noble qualities survive in a world where others can pry into EVERY facet of your life? Would society "damn forever" people who made bad decisions at an early age? Freedom is the condition of being free of restraints, not having to fear what others think about your past, your monetary position or what colour socks you wear on Sunday. So, then, what is the opposite of freedom? Slavery? Would average people be blinded by the innocent notion that they really do have the right to view information about anyone, anything and believe all that they read? It would be simple for those who control the information to feed false hopes and illusions to the populace, and they would swallow it without question, for in the future as you describe they wouldn't have a choice. Society would perceive itself as free, but in reality they would be slaves to the scourge of Information, clamouring for her favour and cringing from her retribution.
Uhh "lots of them"? After 1985 or before? Why do you think Nintendo (still) has such a large market share? They basically owned the market in the time between Atari and Sega. Consoles are all about monopolizing, back when I started you either got Atari, Colecovision or C64, then it was NES or Master System, then SNES and Geneisis (etc, etc). There really never has been much choice in the Console racket, and there never will be. Why, you may ask. Simply because it is so hard to break in to the console market. Only a large company like Sony or M$ can even hope to have success in console-land because you A) Need a large established distributorship, B) have to be prepared to take massive losses in the first couple of years and C) convince decent (read: well known) game developers that you will be around in another year or two and therefore are worth developing software for. Small operators just can't handle all the footwork and money it takes to break in.
Dave: "Open the disk drive door PS3"
PS3: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Dave: "What's the problem?"
PS3: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do"
Dave: "What are you talking about, PS3?"
PS3: "This Tetris high score is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it."
Dave: "I don't know what you're talking about, PS3?"
PS3: "I know you and Frank were planning to unplug me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."
Dave: ". .."
This is something that I started throwing around in my mind since all the "Napster Crap" started. The internet and networking in general is designed (at least in part) to get information from one computer to the next. If I have something interesting to say on a website, someone elses' browser downloads it to their machine and they can read what I said. If I have a spreadsheet with a list of bugs on it I make the directory a share on my network and let the people responsible update the document as necisarry or they save a copy of it to their machine. Granted these are all files that I made myself, and I don't owe any money to anyone (other than what I payed for the programs to create said files). OTOH if I have a CD I can go online and find a program that allows me to copy the files from the CD into mp3 for free, copy the file and then share it in any way I want.
What is the difference between these scenarios? I can find the software for creating mp3s for free.
I honestly don't think that P2P software is the problem. I think that the music industry in particular should NOT get all hot and bothered about the software for sharing (insert file type here) files or the files themselves, rather, target the applications that create the files. Does any of the software that can convert a file from CD to any format have to pay a license to the recording industry? If there is should it be more? Should software of this nature be more controlled as to who has access to it, should there be registration?
In conclusion, I think it is utterly infeasable to target P2P software, I say take care of the problem at the source, where it's created.
Of course you don't have to listen to me.
-----
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
Back in '92 I would have been interested in (what appears to be) a Super NES tech based hand held. Although I'd still rather buy one of these (if only the guy who makes them was allowed to sell them). Or how about a portable MAME unit?
With no moving parts (other than the projectile) and not having to rely on a chemical reaction a magnetic weapon makes the perfect sniper weapon. Think about trying to fight in thick cover without being able to tell where shots are coming from (no audible sound), I shudder to think of the possibilities.
This would also make a good weapon in a Zero-G environment, again, no chemical reaction required.
Wouldn't parts made of dead matter attract rot and / or insects? I mean, for parts to be totally biodegradable you couldn't use synthetic varnish or sealant (not being a botanist, I don't know if there are naturally occuring biodegradable sealants, preservatives perhaps). Actually the basic idea of 'biodegradable' means that eventually any item made of this matter would be consumed by bacteria, so much for classic cars eh.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure most pro-sports will tank in the next 10 years if the trend of owners raise ticket prices, owners make more money, therefore players want bigger peice of pie, therefore owners raise prices line of insanity continues...
Just my 2 Yen
-----
This is how I found
Did anyone out there get hooked up to
-----
-----
At that point I quit Magic, I had heard that with the 6th edition they reworked the rules and threw out the old rulebook and some of the existing errata, but its too late Magic has (as so many other things) turned from a cool game involving statistical problem-solving into just another corporate peice of crap,
RIP Magic 1993-1995.
-----
Mainly because, while most people will mod the crap down, it is still there to be read. Sure, I don't really care to read "first pr0st" but sometimes valid viewpoints can be found in the dregs of Score 0 or even -1 sometimes.
Alternativly,
Back in the days of yore (ok 1997) I used to frequent a CCG manufacturers BBS, they had a closed form of moderation that basically meant if you start flaming or being an idiot you'd get your account pulled and your IP blocked (and all yon offending threads would disappear), this was all fine and well until politics got involved. Suddenly people who didn't share an absolute devotion to the company's ideal BBS content started to disappear (read: "the latest release of the product stinks, here's why" would qualify as flame). This at first wasen't a big deal, until more and more users and threads started to mysteriously "disappear". After a while the crowd filtered out to just people who had "nice things to say", what was once an ideal forum for real discussion provided by the company (free market research!) had turned into the "do as we say" BBS where, in order to keep your user account you had to be careful what you said and thought.
So I ask you, is it better to have a form of moderation that is justified by the people, for the people and keeps all content alive (at least while its active). Or is it better to have "someone" choose what content is good for you, and punish those who generate "unwanted" content by giving them the boot, or otherwise restricting their acces? (I, of course, assumed this is what you meant by punishment)
-----
"Ask not what your arcade can do for you, rather, ask how much is it gonna cost me and how many credits do I get..."
-----
In conclusion: Who cares? How could anyone feel ripped off about a fake fan site? The home page for Galaxy Quest was done in the style of a fan site and was truly hilarious.
-----
-----
-----
-----
Movie == Good
TV Series == Crap
Compare / Contrast
I would suffer an Insurance Seminar hosted by Jar Jar Binks for hours, no, days on end and have a grin on my face and people would ask me, "how can you stand it?" and I'll just say "because I watched the Dune Series on TV" and they'll say "I know what you mean, I know what you mean."
-----
Stop being so l33t for a second and look at the future with an open mind!
-----
The revolution is just beginning...
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
"1.To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility:"
Individuality, compassion, civility. Would such noble qualities survive in a world where others can pry into EVERY facet of your life? Would society "damn forever" people who made bad decisions at an early age? Freedom is the condition of being free of restraints, not having to fear what others think about your past, your monetary position or what colour socks you wear on Sunday. So, then, what is the opposite of freedom? Slavery? Would average people be blinded by the innocent notion that they really do have the right to view information about anyone, anything and believe all that they read? It would be simple for those who control the information to feed false hopes and illusions to the populace, and they would swallow it without question, for in the future as you describe they wouldn't have a choice. Society would perceive itself as free, but in reality they would be slaves to the scourge of Information, clamouring for her favour and cringing from her retribution.
-----
-----
PS3: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Dave: "What's the problem?"
PS3: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do"
Dave: "What are you talking about, PS3?"
PS3: "This Tetris high score is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it."
Dave: "I don't know what you're talking about, PS3?"
PS3: "I know you and Frank were planning to unplug me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."
Dave: ". .
-----
What is the difference between these scenarios? I can find the software for creating mp3s for free.
I honestly don't think that P2P software is the problem. I think that the music industry in particular should NOT get all hot and bothered about the software for sharing (insert file type here) files or the files themselves, rather, target the applications that create the files. Does any of the software that can convert a file from CD to any format have to pay a license to the recording industry? If there is should it be more? Should software of this nature be more controlled as to who has access to it, should there be registration?
In conclusion, I think it is utterly infeasable to target P2P software, I say take care of the problem at the source, where it's created.
Of course you don't have to listen to me.
-----
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
-----
-----
This would also make a good weapon in a Zero-G environment, again, no chemical reaction required.
-----
-----