I suppose if we actually manufactured as many things in the US as are in China, we'd have the same frequency of incidents.
China is going through the same growing pains the US did when it industrialized... Poor worker conditions, unsafe products, deceptive practices, shooting protesters
always remember the law of supply and demand. the situation nowadays is partly because our own companies loved to take advantages of foreign cheap labor and cheap goods.
And US consumers love to take advantage of cheap foreign made goods.
just take a look and see many us companies outsources to foreign countries and the good old quality service has virtually vanished? without the incentive of high demand, I doubt the chinese want to produce stupid toys.
The Chinese don't just produce toys and wait for somebody to buy them. US companies contract Chinese companies to make goods we designed.
Have you had a look at the actual math of the acquisition? Do you know what the Return in ROI has to be in order for the ROI to be positive? Any idea? Let me give you a hint - it's tied to the investment, and in an ugly fashion.
Lets see what EA bought for their $860M From just a unit sales perspectvie 1) Two soon to be released 1M+ unit titles with most development costs already paid - Mass Effect & Mecenaries 2 2) IP for games that would expect to sell 1M+ units based on name recognition - Full Spectrum Warrior, Destroy all Humans, Star Wars Battlefront, Baldur's Gate, Sonic RPG 3) An MMO which if rumors are correct and it's Star Wars based would be another 1M+ unit seller, plus if it is any good could reap a significant steady revenue stream. 4) Other unnamed titles including a Lucas Arts project (you can sell a million copies of a spreadsheet program if you attach Star Wars to it)
On the more intangible side: 1) A development presence in the RPG space they currently lack 2) Name brands they can leverage to publish, license, etc (Mass Effect Novels) 3) Talented programers, artists, developers
From an asset perspective: 1)A number of high profile trademarks and IP they can sell off 2) Game engines Whatever other IP (eg unfinished games) they have in the pipeline
Short-term it may not seem like a great investment, but long term there are plenty of things to leverage to make a great return.
As for your comment on building yourself up to be an exec... I suspect I'm way ahead of you in that area. Will that make it ok when my mistakes cause you to be laid off, while I make a cool couple of million in the process? Didn't think so. Greed's a funny thing.
Why not? Is it fair the executive whose desicions made the company millions should get the same seperation pacakge as the guy who just filed papers all day? The fairness of life is a funny thing, it isn't black and white.
The architect designs something, the engineer tells the architect what theoretically can and can't be done, and the contractor tells the engineer what physically can and can't be done. Art->Theory->Reality
Unfortunately like many artists architects are so full of themselves they can't take rejection of their inspirational design. I saw a documentary on the building of a stadium in Phoenix, and the architect was complaining that some support pillars weren't lined up exactly the way he wanted, and the contractor was telling him that they'd have to rip out the stadium walls and build it completely different to meet the architect's vision so the architect just walked away in a huff. Also interesting was when he was inspecting the restrooms the architect just said something to the effect, "I don't really care too much, I won't be here." What's sad is the restrooms of a stadium are one of the more important areas from a functionality standpoint. Beer consumption = major use, and it is a place where if it is poorly designed things can get messy. But for the "artist," function is something beneath them.
Can I ask? What the fuck is going on at EA? Do they even have a clue what they want?
Do you have a clue about business? It's clear EA wants more money so they are investing where they expect a greater return and cutting losses in other areas.
The grunts - the devs, testers and other peons who slave in countless death marches - will get fired, while the execs will get millions in severance packages.
What's sad is when the restaurant next door can't maintain profitability, the waitresses and chefs who slave away during the the EA lunchtime rush will lose their job, while the EA programmers get relocation packages so they can remain employed. If you are a peon, build yourself towards becoming an executive so you can get a nice cushy severance package, or better yet start your own studio and sell it to EA for hundreds of millions.
Not profit. In order to break even on the deal, EA has to get $860M in PROFIT from these two companies. That's not gonna happen, even if we wait 20 years.
The companies they purchased have assets that can be sold off in the future. For example if EA decides to sell off the Baldur's Gate trademark, Aurora engine, or if they just decided to sell off the studios to somebody else in the future they can make profit on the deal in other ways than selling games.
Probably disgustingly accurate. This is definitely the best way for the artists to distribute their content.
The best way for some artists to distribute their content. A completely unknown band wouldn't make the same kind of numbers as Radiohead. It's like my friend who is a contract worker bragging about how he makes six figures. He makes more pay, but loses out on benefits such as life insurance, medical coverage, matching 401k contributions, whcich can add up to a significant amount. When you're young and single it's better to contract out as a consulatant, as you age and start a family it might make more sense to be an employee for the benefits and security.
So you finally did catch on! Better late then never!
Yes, I caught on, sorry I'm a little slow (whole just evolved monkey thing). I live in reality and want to deal with people as they are now, while you prefer to sit with a holier-than-thou attitude and wait for evolution to fix the problems of humanity.
No, I only took your assertions to their logical conclusion. You want to propose something but then you try to pretend that it does not have consequences because you do not like them. So you call them "an interpretation" or "a conjecture" etc. It is actually a quite common failing amongst various religious/political/economic ideologues.
No you took moderate assertions to an extreme conclusion, which is a quite common failing amongst zealots.
"Feeling bad" is not a criterion by which to judge the validity of societal rules, "causing harm to others" is. Of course this immediately translates into yet another canard of Greed Apologists: that starving or being forced to live a ghetto because some jerks have built "mansions" at your expense is not "harming" you, according to them. Only physical violence is, or that is at least their rather amusingly self-serving "definition" of the thing.
This is a false cause and effect relationship. Just because I build a mansion doesn't place you in the ghetto or cause you to starve. I don't deny there are negative externalities that should be addressed, such as ensuring environmental friendliness, but that is a seperate issue from social inequity.
You are on a roll! The false choice is between building a "mansion" (which sounds reasonable until one realizes that we were discussing 5000 room ones, with a staff of 1000) and having 10 kids, which, if one was not paying attention, would sound actually more unreasonable at the first glance. In fact they are both examples of animal, unreasoning, insane behaviour. Both your choices are insane!
Neither is insane. Agrarian societies had much larger families because it put more heads in the field, pumping out kids was a reasonable way to ensure survival. Ultimately we are all faced with the choice of how to use the resources at our disposal, and we can disagree on how to use them. Some people value family, some people value comfort, and there are as many other value sets as there are people in this world.
Strawman. You were claiming a set of infinite wants. Traveling to France and attempting to own the Universe are somewhat apart on the scale.
You keep missing the point of how wants are infinite - it's not about wanting the universe, it's about always wanting more.
I would not be complaining about the prevailing lunacy of the thing so much if the reward was "equal". I do realise that the current human society is not composed of reasonable, truly sentient, intelligent beings. Therefore any advanced societal structures will not work, as they would get sabotaged and subverted by the jerks in a flash. So we are stuck with cleverly disguised dog-collars, muzzles and leashes for the rabidly insane, like for example Capitalism, because that is the best one can do under the circumstances.
Yes, since we can't control everybody we need flexible social strucutres such as "democracy" to deal with crazy philosophies like "freedom" I'm sure someday humanity will meet your idea of perfection. So please enlighten me on your advanced social structures that would be befitting a society of refined, intelligent creatures.
Even to other industrialized societies this disparity is jarringly obvious. A typical Japanese CEO earns around 10-20 times the salary of an average employee in his firm. In the USA, this ratio recently exceeded 500. Next thing you are going to tell me that GM makes products 50 times superior to Toyota.
All salaries are the result of agreement between the employer and employee. If I hire you for a service we settle on a price agreeable to both of us. Comparing a CEO salary to an employee salary is apples & oranges. The employee is hired by the company to perform a specific service and their pay is driven by the market for that service. The CEO is hired by the stockholders to perform a di
So to follow you "logic", all environmental regulation should be abolished because it slows down the "enterpreneurs".
You made up your own interpretation, I merely advocate not holding people back because others will feel bad. If I decide to spend my resources building a mansion instead of having 10 kids and living in a trailer, don't complain that I'm living an "insane" lifestyle.
It only looks like that in the insane asylum you inabit. Your social circle is likely composed nearly exclusively of the insane, infintely-greedy fucks. It also explains your desperate attempts at "justifying" yourself.
How sad that working hard to be able to afford things (not just physical, but also things like vacations around the world to experience other cultures, meet other people) is considered insanity. Personally I think contributing to society and reaping an equal reward isn't something that should punished because somebody else feels bad they can't get the same reward for contributing less.
If person A wants a cube of sugar, then, according to your "logic", everyone else must want the whole Universe!
So you prefer the *IAA defintion of limited, every 20 years they lobby Congress to extend copyrights another 20 years. If person A wants a cube of sugar, and you give it to them, do they not want anything else? I guess they live the rest of their life not wanting anything because they got their sugar cube. The only case I see this possible is if I get my Weighted Companion Cube, after that it's love is all I need.
Furthermore, there is no conceivable way in which the results of your "sweat" would warrant such rewards.
So what does the "sweat" of the average person warrant. A car? That would be a luxury in most places. A Television, air conditioning, a newspaper? Hell, toilet paper is a luxury item in many parts of the world.
Everything you do is based upon work of countless other people, countless generations of them in fact, to whom you gave nothing back for using their achievments, and yet you demand, for your infinitesimally small "contribution" to civilization, the rewards which would equal the lifetime earnings of millions of others.
So I just demand things from people and they give it to me, that's like an X-man superpower! Life isn't about what you do, it's about the value somebody else places on it. I can work 20 hours a day 7 days a week on a statue of myself made out of sugar cubes, does that good is valuable to anybody? Shouldn't I be rewarded for all my hard work? There is a proportional reward for the value society places on contributions. As an individual I might value the performance of a singer more than somebody cleaning my lawn. Both are hard working people offering me a service for a similar amount of time, but I will reward the singer more because as an individual I value their performance more. Mulitply that individual micro-disparity million times, and that why you have such large disparities.
Irrelevant. Desire for personal recogniton is not greed. Research priorities must be measured in some way, this is one of them. Another non sequitur. Nowhere did I demand that everyone starves. Sicentists only need reasonably comfortable living to be productive. Very few of them desire opulence
First the desire for recognition is the same driver to build a 5000 room house. Nobody builds a 5000 room house because they need it, they build it so people see it and say "wow look it's that guy's 5000 room house" Second, grants are a free market approach to funding science. Limited resources must be allocated, the person who controls the resources decides what they think will provide the best return. Scientists are after money and maniplative just as everybody else - hint: the only real impact of Pluto being declassified as a planet is a change in fun
People reading those reviews could decide what value they wanted to assign to each modifier and so would be able to translate the scores from the reviewer's scale to their own.
Great idea. It's especially helpful when you are talking about games that don't fit into a traditional category. For example "Portal" which is often lumped in as an FPS would actually score negative points as a traditional FPS, but positive points as a puzzler.
On the Iron Law of Oligarchy, one could theoretically prevent this decline by respecting the principle of states rights and rule from the bottom, which reduces the massive organization of the government into at least 50 smaller ones, hopefully with those state governments passing a significant amount of power down to the municipality or district level. If we would return to this basic principle, we would see a new blossoming of freedom in this country.
Of course states rights also prevents some rule from the bottom (election of senators by the state legislatures) as well as increasing disparity between states increasing the chance for internal conflict. Too much power in the hands of the states was the reason the government under the Aritcles of Confederation failed.
It's not illegal to have a connection thru which child porn, or fraud, or anything, passes--it's illegal to be the one VIEWING the porn or DEFRAUDING the websites...
So what happens is the FBI shows up, takes you away to interview you, and hold all your computer equipment for a few years while they are investigating until they can determine it wasn't you who was the end user.
Keep simple access logs, and viola, you're protected
Are you aware of all the privacy laws that relate to being an ISP? If you are seeking the ISP type protections, you should also make sure you are in compliance with the other laws that pertain to data tracking and retention.
Modern war is impersonal, and it makes the dehumanization of our enemies that much worse, since we tend to be able to do far more damage, far more easily, than we ever have before.
This has been offset by modern media coverage. Today a bomb goes off target and hits civilians, or a few soldiers are hit by a roadside bomb and CNN is there showing you the "human cost" of the war.
SWG wasn't anymore flawed then anyother MMO I seen
SWG had one fatal design flaw, the HAM system. Most of the combat problems were the result of kludgy fixes to try and deal with a poor design. Doc buffs to allow heavy armor were a kludge to accomodate the fact that armor reduced your HAM. By shoving the effects of armor, weapons, special abilities, and the damage you abosrb all into the same pools of points, it made the game a nightmare to balance. Raph Koster overthought how combat should work. For decades "hit point" based systems have worked and been refined in all sorts of RPG settings (table top, CRPG, MMO, P&P, etc). Why then would you scrap the tried and true and instead create a system that makes absolutely no logical sense? I get hurt more concentrating on a shot than by getting hit by a rifle blast!
What is frustrating is all the other aspects of the game were great. I haven't found another MMO that offers as much variety in role playing, everything else is kill->level->kill and the NGE just decided to clone that.
I wouldn't put it beyond BioWare to make something on the level of WoW, or perhaps even better. They've shown that they can make in-depth, gripping, epic RPGs in the Baldur's Gate series and NWN.
WoW demonstrates that most people aren't looking for an "in-depth, gripping, epic RPG;" players are looking for a fun and engaging action RPG experience.
Before NGE Star Wars Galaxies was a good MMORPG. It was probably the best mainstream MMO in terms of role playing; the problem was the action combat most players look for was horrible
Considering how anti-Apple NBC is right now, I'm shocked that that little bit of product placement didn't get nixxed.
I know this is a spoiler. At the end of the season a new hero will emerge "Star Eye Eh-Eh." She will discover to the ability to create money everytime somebody watches her, even on video. So not only does that one character learn by watching the videos, Star will have a fortune to buy things to battle the bad guys.
without NBC Universal, who's going to make the next Battlestar Galactica/insert other random special-effects-laden show here?
Great point! But it's not just the budget to pull off a special effects laden shows. The big media companies also have the contact network to pull together the people for writing, acting, and production. A good amateur creation usually can pull off one of those things, but very rarely all three. With computers people have made shorts with good special effects, but the set work is terrible; or talented writing is wasted on a community theater reject.
Both rapid explosions of greed and slow paced growth will eventually reach the same equalibrium state.
But with very different societal costs along the way!
That's the "no child left behind" argument, hold back anybody who may excel so that others don't feel bad about themselves.
Some people have unlimited wants, which as I already explained is the very definition of being an insane animal.
Most everybody has unlimited wants. It reminds me of the story where in India a guy had bought an old plane fusilage and was selling tickets to people to enjoy a similuated plane flight. Many people who take flying for granted chuckle, but then I realize those same people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to experience simulated space flight. No matter what you have, you'll want a little more.
In reality the equilibrium is when sane, sentient beings decide on their own that getting a 5,000 room "house" is not a reasonable thing to want to do.
Why? If I work hard and take risk, should I not reap the rewards of my sweat? Does the man who decides to spend his free time making a fishing net instead of slacking off be forced to give up the extra food he catches?
LOL! If that were so, every scientist would jealously guard "his" discoveries, locking them up in a safe in his basement, to go there at night to count them by candle-light while giggling to himself! Instead they share them with everyone with an access to a library in scientific journals! A positive bunch of heretic Commies!
Yes, scientists always publish anonymously. They never compete for grant money. They all work for minimum wage and only care that the wealth of human knowledge has expanded. One of the reasons scientists share their discoveries is because they must to get the resources they need. Society gives scientists resources and expects the product of them to be shared with society.
See above. You've already completely conceeded the wholly indefensible point of "Science is Greed Motivated", now you've only got free-loaders-cum "enterpreneurs" left to ineffectively try to prop-up your lost arguments.
Yes entrepreneurs are all just free-loaders. All they do is profit, without ever taking a single risk. No venture capitalist lost money on the dot-com bubble; none ever had a company that failed to capitalize on a scientific discovery.
And that on top of the fact that these "wants" are satisfiable without anyone else having to part with anything, and their results are also freely shared with everyone, in exchange for nothing physical.
You mean scientists do all their work as a hobby in their free time, not expecting to be paid? Science like every other aspect of society has to deal with the fact that resources are limited. An electon microscope doesn't appear magically, it takes resources to make, resources that could be used for something else. It's economics that determines how resources are allocated.
Information, just in case you are confused about it, is not subject to any kind of trade, simply due to its properties.
Information itself no. Being able to apply that information in a meaningful way, yes; that is why education is one of the best predictors of economic earnings.
You remind me of a salesman I once knew, who claimed that everything in life, from family, friends to school to work to marriage is... making sales!
There are many perspectives on modeling how a society works. If there was one perfect model, human behavior would be predictable.
Which in a sane society would be very easy to achieve because it is the giant disparities and rapid explosions of greed which are unsustainable, not modest, slow paced growth of the whole.
Both rapid explosions of greed and slow paced growth will eventually reach the same equalibrium state. It still does not change the underlying fact that people have unlimited wants.
And he would be absolutely right. The present system is cetifiably insane. And so are its appologists who seem to think that the whole Universe is propped up by the two pillars of their "phillosphy": boundless avarice and out-of control breeding.
In other words, the philosophy of individual freedom is fundamentally flawed, and people should be controlled.
Absolutely incorrect. This is one of the key falsehoods of the Capitalist Religion and easily demonstrable to be so: scientists, the core force behind technological progress, do not pursue science out of personal greed but from an intrinsic desire to understand and discover the mysteries of the Universe. The knowledge itself (and peer recognition) is their reward and it is what drives science, not greed.
What you describe is intellectual greed. People want to know more and more with an insatiable thirst for knowledge. Further, the realization of any knowledge into a good or service is driven by greed. Maybe Einstein didn't profit by developing his theories, but contractors who make particle accelerators, or other tools to test the theories do.
Then there is of course art, which is created out of another intrinsic desire: that of an artist to share his insights with others, as opposed to kitsch which is a pretense of art created for profit...
Again you describe an individual want. Greed does not need to be material, it can include mental, or emotional profit for an individual. How many artists or scientists create anonymously? Fame can also be a primal desire, to gain standing in society. People will always rationally work to maximize their individual profit, for many that is money, fame, ensuring their children live a better life, and for very few it is the good feeling they get with the betterment of society.
More civilization? As far as I can tell you are advocating "more greed", not civilization. Your entire premise is based on not only retaining the most base and unreasoning aspects of the animalistic parts of human psyche, but worshipping them as an engine of all that is good! And thus your desire seems to be for less "civilization", not more!
I'm not advocating anything, I'm pointing out that greed is a key driver for progress. The lack of desire is a characteristic of more primitive societies, since there is no drive for more. They would question why one wants a car, a cellphone, a painting. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as those people are happier, with their needs and wants met.
"What about a company offering to pay you a large bonus to sign a 1 year exclusive deal for your services, should that be banned also?"
Yes.
So as a service provider you should be forced to support anybody who pays the "going rate." Differentiation, should also be banned as it moves away from a perfectly competitive state, so all labor should be paid at the same rate. Essentially you are arguing all markets should just be a bunch of interchangable parts with no economic profit.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chinese don't just produce toys and wait for somebody to buy them. US companies contract Chinese companies to make goods we designed.
From just a unit sales perspectvie
1) Two soon to be released 1M+ unit titles with most development costs already paid - Mass Effect & Mecenaries 2
2) IP for games that would expect to sell 1M+ units based on name recognition - Full Spectrum Warrior, Destroy all Humans, Star Wars Battlefront, Baldur's Gate, Sonic RPG
3) An MMO which if rumors are correct and it's Star Wars based would be another 1M+ unit seller, plus if it is any good could reap a significant steady revenue stream.
4) Other unnamed titles including a Lucas Arts project (you can sell a million copies of a spreadsheet program if you attach Star Wars to it)
On the more intangible side:
1) A development presence in the RPG space they currently lack
2) Name brands they can leverage to publish, license, etc (Mass Effect Novels)
3) Talented programers, artists, developers
From an asset perspective:
1)A number of high profile trademarks and IP they can sell off
2) Game engines
Whatever other IP (eg unfinished games) they have in the pipeline
Short-term it may not seem like a great investment, but long term there are plenty of things to leverage to make a great return.
Why not? Is it fair the executive whose desicions made the company millions should get the same seperation pacakge as the guy who just filed papers all day? The fairness of life is a funny thing, it isn't black and white.
The architect designs something, the engineer tells the architect what theoretically can and can't be done, and the contractor tells the engineer what physically can and can't be done.
Art->Theory->Reality
Unfortunately like many artists architects are so full of themselves they can't take rejection of their inspirational design. I saw a documentary on the building of a stadium in Phoenix, and the architect was complaining that some support pillars weren't lined up exactly the way he wanted, and the contractor was telling him that they'd have to rip out the stadium walls and build it completely different to meet the architect's vision so the architect just walked away in a huff. Also interesting was when he was inspecting the restrooms the architect just said something to the effect, "I don't really care too much, I won't be here." What's sad is the restrooms of a stadium are one of the more important areas from a functionality standpoint. Beer consumption = major use, and it is a place where if it is poorly designed things can get messy. But for the "artist," function is something beneath them.
It's clear EA wants more money so they are investing where they expect a greater return and cutting losses in other areas.
What's sad is when the restaurant next door can't maintain profitability, the waitresses and chefs who slave away during the the EA lunchtime rush will lose their job, while the EA programmers get relocation packages so they can remain employed.
If you are a peon, build yourself towards becoming an executive so you can get a nice cushy severance package, or better yet start your own studio and sell it to EA for hundreds of millions.
It's like my friend who is a contract worker bragging about how he makes six figures. He makes more pay, but loses out on benefits such as life insurance, medical coverage, matching 401k contributions, whcich can add up to a significant amount. When you're young and single it's better to contract out as a consulatant, as you age and start a family it might make more sense to be an employee for the benefits and security.
I live in reality and want to deal with people as they are now, while you prefer to sit with a holier-than-thou attitude and wait for evolution to fix the problems of humanity.
No you took moderate assertions to an extreme conclusion, which is a quite common failing amongst zealots.
This is a false cause and effect relationship. Just because I build a mansion doesn't place you in the ghetto or cause you to starve. I don't deny there are negative externalities that should be addressed, such as ensuring environmental friendliness, but that is a seperate issue from social inequity.
Neither is insane. Agrarian societies had much larger families because it put more heads in the field, pumping out kids was a reasonable way to ensure survival. Ultimately we are all faced with the choice of how to use the resources at our disposal, and we can disagree on how to use them. Some people value family, some people value comfort, and there are as many other value sets as there are people in this world.
You keep missing the point of how wants are infinite - it's not about wanting the universe, it's about always wanting more.
Yes, since we can't control everybody we need flexible social strucutres such as "democracy" to deal with crazy philosophies like "freedom"
I'm sure someday humanity will meet your idea of perfection. So please enlighten me on your advanced social structures that would be befitting a society of refined, intelligent creatures.
All salaries are the result of agreement between the employer and employee. If I hire you for a service we settle on a price agreeable to both of us. Comparing a CEO salary to an employee salary is apples & oranges.
The employee is hired by the company to perform a specific service and their pay is driven by the market for that service. The CEO is hired by the stockholders to perform a di
You made up your own interpretation, I merely advocate not holding people back because others will feel bad. If I decide to spend my resources building a mansion instead of having 10 kids and living in a trailer, don't complain that I'm living an "insane" lifestyle.
How sad that working hard to be able to afford things (not just physical, but also things like vacations around the world to experience other cultures, meet other people) is considered insanity. Personally I think contributing to society and reaping an equal reward isn't something that should punished because somebody else feels bad they can't get the same reward for contributing less.
So you prefer the *IAA defintion of limited, every 20 years they lobby Congress to extend copyrights another 20 years. If person A wants a cube of sugar, and you give it to them, do they not want anything else? I guess they live the rest of their life not wanting anything because they got their sugar cube. The only case I see this possible is if I get my Weighted Companion Cube, after that it's love is all I need.
So what does the "sweat" of the average person warrant. A car? That would be a luxury in most places. A Television, air conditioning, a newspaper? Hell, toilet paper is a luxury item in many parts of the world.
So I just demand things from people and they give it to me, that's like an X-man superpower!
Life isn't about what you do, it's about the value somebody else places on it. I can work 20 hours a day 7 days a week on a statue of myself made out of sugar cubes, does that good is valuable to anybody? Shouldn't I be rewarded for all my hard work?
There is a proportional reward for the value society places on contributions. As an individual I might value the performance of a singer more than somebody cleaning my lawn. Both are hard working people offering me a service for a similar amount of time, but I will reward the singer more because as an individual I value their performance more. Mulitply that individual micro-disparity million times, and that why you have such large disparities.
First the desire for recognition is the same driver to build a 5000 room house. Nobody builds a 5000 room house because they need it, they build it so people see it and say "wow look it's that guy's 5000 room house"
Second, grants are a free market approach to funding science. Limited resources must be allocated, the person who controls the resources decides what they think will provide the best return. Scientists are after money and maniplative just as everybody else - hint: the only real impact of Pluto being declassified as a planet is a change in fun
Are you aware of all the privacy laws that relate to being an ISP? If you are seeking the ISP type protections, you should also make sure you are in compliance with the other laws that pertain to data tracking and retention.
What is frustrating is all the other aspects of the game were great. I haven't found another MMO that offers as much variety in role playing, everything else is kill->level->kill and the NGE just decided to clone that.
So not only does that one character learn by watching the videos, Star will have a fortune to buy things to battle the bad guys.
But it's not just the budget to pull off a special effects laden shows. The big media companies also have the contact network to pull together the people for writing, acting, and production.
A good amateur creation usually can pull off one of those things, but very rarely all three. With computers people have made shorts with good special effects, but the set work is terrible; or talented writing is wasted on a community theater reject.
That's the "no child left behind" argument, hold back anybody who may excel so that others don't feel bad about themselves.
Most everybody has unlimited wants. It reminds me of the story where in India a guy had bought an old plane fusilage and was selling tickets to people to enjoy a similuated plane flight. Many people who take flying for granted chuckle, but then I realize those same people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to experience simulated space flight. No matter what you have, you'll want a little more.
Why? If I work hard and take risk, should I not reap the rewards of my sweat? Does the man who decides to spend his free time making a fishing net instead of slacking off be forced to give up the extra food he catches?
Yes, scientists always publish anonymously. They never compete for grant money. They all work for minimum wage and only care that the wealth of human knowledge has expanded. One of the reasons scientists share their discoveries is because they must to get the resources they need. Society gives scientists resources and expects the product of them to be shared with society.
Yes entrepreneurs are all just free-loaders. All they do is profit, without ever taking a single risk. No venture capitalist lost money on the dot-com bubble; none ever had a company that failed to capitalize on a scientific discovery.
You mean scientists do all their work as a hobby in their free time, not expecting to be paid? Science like every other aspect of society has to deal with the fact that resources are limited. An electon microscope doesn't appear magically, it takes resources to make, resources that could be used for something else. It's economics that determines how resources are allocated.
Information itself no. Being able to apply that information in a meaningful way, yes; that is why education is one of the best predictors of economic earnings.
There are many perspectives on modeling how a society works. If there was one perfect model, human behavior would be predictable.
In other words, the philosophy of individual freedom is fundamentally flawed, and people should be controlled.
What you describe is intellectual greed. People want to know more and more with an insatiable thirst for knowledge. Further, the realization of any knowledge into a good or service is driven by greed. Maybe Einstein didn't profit by developing his theories, but contractors who make particle accelerators, or other tools to test the theories do.
Again you describe an individual want. Greed does not need to be material, it can include mental, or emotional profit for an individual. How many artists or scientists create anonymously? Fame can also be a primal desire, to gain standing in society. People will always rationally work to maximize their individual profit, for many that is money, fame, ensuring their children live a better life, and for very few it is the good feeling they get with the betterment of society.
I'm not advocating anything, I'm pointing out that greed is a key driver for progress. The lack of desire is a characteristic of more primitive societies, since there is no drive for more. They would question why one wants a car, a cellphone, a painting.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, as those people are happier, with their needs and wants met.
Essentially you are arguing all markets should just be a bunch of interchangable parts with no economic profit.