Just because it is widely done does not make it right. I can not see why the outcomes of such actions are pareto-efficient, and I think the overall economy would be better if we banned such activities.
There are inefficiencies, but it is the most natural state. Perfect competition is an ideal - Barriers for entry will always exist, and suppliers will distinguish between their goods and those of others (Even commodity goods).
"It's not much different than General Mills signing an exclusive deal to put plastic Star Wars toys in their cereal boxes."
That should not be allowed either.
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?
Which only highlights the fundamental lie of the modern "economics": resources are (temporarily -- barring space exploration and/or lack of nanotechnology) limited, but individual wants of sane, sentient beings are NOT unlimited.
Unlimited does not mean people want everything now; what it means is no matter what needs and wants are fulfilled, people continue to want marginally more. I think the topic of the article and discussion demonstrates this. There are people in the world worried about fundamental needs like food, water, and safety; yet people are arguing over the cost and carrier lock-in for the iPhone. For somebody struggling with survival such petty squabbling over a luxury would amount to the insanity of uncontrolled greed.
Wholly different perspectives. And may I add, I see the one in which humanity grows up as being the only long-term viable one.
I would disagree. The unlimited wants of people is a key driver for human progress; without it most of what we have in modern societies wouldn't exist. If people stopped wanting more civilization would have pretty much stopped with the domestication of plants and animals.
Certain types of actions, such as carrier lock-in, creating Monopoly power, and exclusivity contracts, are very often the most profitable courses of action for a company
It's not a monopoly if there is an acceptable substitute. What you describe are tactics used in monopolistic competition, which occurs in almost all markets for non-commodity products. It's not much different than General Mills signing an exclusive deal to put plastic Star Wars toys in their cereal boxes.
The holy grail of science of economics would be a system that can never become Pareto-efficient, and thus gains are possible to individuals without others losing anything.
That is in direct contradiction to the basis of economics - resources are limited, but wants are unlimited. "Holy Grail" implies an achievable ideal, what you describe is not achievable since the gain of any individual will naturally cause the wants of another individual to not be fulfilled (basic human jealousy).
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for..." groups.
The "Friends of..." is people expressing their freedom of speech, rather than the direct campaign donations which could be seen as outright bribery.
If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?
Less trustworthy and inspiring than what? Politics hasn't changed much, though I think political duels (with guns) would be nice to bring back:)
Armistead Thomson Mason (1787-1819)... As a result of a bitter election campaign, was killed in a duel with Col. John Mason McCarty, at Bladensburg Robert Brank Vance (1793-1827)... Mortally wounded in a duel with Samuel P. Carson, who had defeated him for Congress; Spencer Darwin Pettis (1802-1831)... The fierce campaign of 1830 led to a quarrel and ultimately a duel with Maj. Thomas Biddle, in which both fell mortally wounded;
Just imagine the TV ratings bonanza that a Gore vs. Bush duel would be.
There are many people who would have disagreed (before NGE)
It was buggy, laggy (the commercial database that kept track of everything couldn't handle the 8 gazzilion read and writes a second their poor design called for. shocking!), the classes were boring, the progression repetitive, the rewards non-existant. You were asked to play as Background_Character_01 in a world where you wanted to be Luke or Darth. At least fantasy MMO's let you kill the occasional rare spawn, or eventually dragons and the like.
Not everybody wants to play as Luke or Darth. After the bugs were ironed out, there was definately a hardcore RP audience that loved the game. Some people like to explore what it would be like to be as that "alien in the corner of the cantina"
A good game is a good game. And that's no different for an MMO. WoW was a good game, that's why it did well.
WoW is a good "one-trick pony." What makes it popular is the one-trick is what most people want (PvE combat), and it does it better than anybody else. Other MMOs do things like crafting, PvP combat, character customization and a number of other features far better than WoW; but those things are not what the majority of players want. SWG ended up being a good game for a specific audience (before NGE), WoW was a great game for a different (but larger) audience.
The only thing better would be...Baldurs Gate Online.
You mean D&D Online, just set in Forgotten Realms? It would suffer between the ruleset, and the fact that it would have so many potential continuity issues like SWG
We need to educate the investor that making $1 this quarter by selling vital assets, screwing customers, and weaseling out of agreed to pensions is no match for the $10,000 you could make in 10 years by treating customers like customers, standing behind your employees and keeping equipment well-maintained.
Most institutional investors know this. That's why often you will see stocks drop after record quarterly profits because of the price of oil/labor markets, or institutional investors condemning a company for having too much cash on hand. The people who care about quarter-to-quarter results are the uneducated day-traders who think they are smarter than they are, and sit at home constantly turning over stock.
The trouble is, without a solid basis in real property, created by manufacturing physical objects, that fiat dwindles to nothing.
What gives property value is the investment of "imaginary" ideas. What is the difference between a heap of metal and an automobile? 10% sweat, 90% know-how. Automation has long served to dwindle the importance of labor in the assembly of a product. Most of what we pay for is the idea of how to make something, not the actual raw material or physical assembly.
Of all the current issues that are "critical to the nation's health", I find it interesting that there are those that believe protecting the property rights of the richest and most powerful among us is at the top of the list.
The fundamental nature of the US economy has been shifting towards intellectual property; problems in that area has reprocussions across the entire economy. It's like saying "why should we care that poor people can't pay back the money loaned to them by multi-billion dollar corporations," as we watch the housing reprocussions of the housing bubble burst.
If portal was all about the gameplay and not the story then why is everyone talking about the story?
Because most people are commenting that the original assertion of the importance of the story in the article is wrong.
There is no depth to the discussion because it is not a discussion. Do you discuss things with your TV? A sculpture? A painting? No. It's a one way street. You discuss things with other people after experiencing them. This is what portal has done.
What I mean by discussion is the general philosophical dialoge that occurs in society. As you point out a well written movie, book, video game, etc. will encourage dialogue between people on the subject. What a great piece of art will do is add a new viewpoints to long existing discussions which will provoke further thought. Portal does not offer anything particularly new or thought-provoking on a deeper level. Everybody I have talked to has finished portal and felt excited and entertained, nobody I have talked to has found any new insight into the nature of AI, science, etc.
The entire "non tutorial" part of the game has you running away from a mad AI with a God complex who killed off the entire company. How is this subtle?
Superman 3 had a machine that was so intelligent it became self-aware, and powerful enough the kill Superman... doesn't mean the movie had any meaningful commentary on the nature of computers, intelligence, life, etc.
Be always aware of the possible consequences to your actions. Not only is that the social commentary but it is also reinforced in the game play itself! It requires thinking ahead.
That's like the argument that Pac-Man was about the unrelenting consumption of capitalism. Though the game contained glimpses of social commentary, there was no depth to the discussion to provoke thought in the player.
In comparison, Bioshock had deep commentary on the nature of freedom and how a utopia can collapse under the weight of its own philosophy. Though the Rapture intro video contained social commentary, it would have merely been cursory without the continuous reinforcement throughout the game. Portal was all about the gameplay, not the story.
Can the system predict governmental trends? I'm thinking of something like when a somewhat peaceful, balanced budget democratic republic passes some multidimensional cusp and becomes enamored of gross deficit spending, preemptive military strikes, illegal detainment, torture, and fascism in general? It sure would be nice to see this coming a few years in advance
Given the first state never existed it isn't really a meaningful thing to predict.
Perhaps you missed the commentary about doing science for science's sake? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should
It was so subtle, and seemed to be more as a joke in the song that it really evoke deep reflection. The song also contained allusions to fatal human experiments to help "those who are still alive," but that does not make for a meaningful social commentary.
. I take there is little difference between German and US highways in order to make 150 Mph not save in US.
There is a huge difference, and that is the people behind the wheel. People in Germany know how to drive when they are sharing the road with vehicles going at high velocity, just as drivers in Philippines know how to drive when they share the road with people who don't follow any sort of traffic laws. US drivers put in those situations will do "stupid" things (eg get surprised by the car flying towards them and slam on the brakes) because they are not prepared to handle the situation. Add to that all the distractions the driver allow because they feel they know what is happening on the road, and there is a higher risk of traffic accidents.
So it get to the end and i see the cake and then it dumps me in a pile of fire (so i understand the "lie" now).
Well you were told "you will be baked and there will be cake." The cake was no lie, mmmm, it's so delicious and moist. I'm sorry I've already had two pieces, but you're taking too long to come to the party.
A lot of people get a culture shock when they are served a non-huge amount of food, but I challenge you to tell a guest at Chez Panisse they're not getting their money's worth.
And that is the challenge of a reviewer, how to balance volume and quality for your audience and boil it down to some arbitrary number. Most gaming reviews are written for average gamers; just like I would expect a newspaper food review catering to an average audience to dock a few points for a fine restaurant that serves very small portions.
But hey, if you like boring 40-hour games with identical, uninteresting levels and the same 5 entities repeated ad infinitum, or one and a half-pound hamburgers with tasteless meat, white bread, iceberg lettuce, mild onion and mealy tomatoes, don't let me impinge upon you "enjoyment".
I thought Portal was just the right length, any longer and the innovative gameplay would have gotten stale. Just as I think a relatively short (but great game) Bioshock was still a little bit too long, and was starting to lose me towards the end. Of course, there is the $10 All-you-can-eat chinese food crowd who subscribe to the thought of quantity over quality for the money.
Portal standalone is $19.99 from Steam. Given it's length I would argue it's more of a $12.99-$14.99 category game. Yes it's splitting hairs, but when compared to other games for the money, the volume of content just doesn't add up; though the quality of the content is far beyond that of most $20 games. Personally I think with the amount of additional levels that no doubt will come from the community, Portal would be worth it @ $50. Heck, I would pay $10 for the soundtrack alone. Unfortunately people expect different things, and so there will be many who are upset because the $20 they spent didn't provide them with the number of hours of entertainment they were expecting. The type of person who buys a game strictly on the arbitrary review score, would likely fall into that category.
Slashdot Mirror
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?
I think the topic of the article and discussion demonstrates this. There are people in the world worried about fundamental needs like food, water, and safety; yet people are arguing over the cost and carrier lock-in for the iPhone. For somebody struggling with survival such petty squabbling over a luxury would amount to the insanity of uncontrolled greed.
I would disagree. The unlimited wants of people is a key driver for human progress; without it most of what we have in modern societies wouldn't exist. If people stopped wanting more civilization would have pretty much stopped with the domestication of plants and animals.
It's not much different than General Mills signing an exclusive deal to put plastic Star Wars toys in their cereal boxes.
"Holy Grail" implies an achievable ideal, what you describe is not achievable since the gain of any individual will naturally cause the wants of another individual to not be fulfilled (basic human jealousy).
Less trustworthy and inspiring than what? Politics hasn't changed much, though I think political duels (with guns) would be nice to bring back
Armistead Thomson Mason (1787-1819)
Robert Brank Vance (1793-1827)
Spencer Darwin Pettis (1802-1831)
Just imagine the TV ratings bonanza that a Gore vs. Bush duel would be.
Not everybody wants to play as Luke or Darth. After the bugs were ironed out, there was definately a hardcore RP audience that loved the game. Some people like to explore what it would be like to be as that "alien in the corner of the cantina"
WoW is a good "one-trick pony." What makes it popular is the one-trick is what most people want (PvE combat), and it does it better than anybody else. Other MMOs do things like crafting, PvP combat, character customization and a number of other features far better than WoW; but those things are not what the majority of players want.
SWG ended up being a good game for a specific audience (before NGE), WoW was a great game for a different (but larger) audience.
The people who care about quarter-to-quarter results are the uneducated day-traders who think they are smarter than they are, and sit at home constantly turning over stock.
you forgot to mention "increase the speed of light"
What I mean by discussion is the general philosophical dialoge that occurs in society. As you point out a well written movie, book, video game, etc. will encourage dialogue between people on the subject. What a great piece of art will do is add a new viewpoints to long existing discussions which will provoke further thought. Portal does not offer anything particularly new or thought-provoking on a deeper level. Everybody I have talked to has finished portal and felt excited and entertained, nobody I have talked to has found any new insight into the nature of AI, science, etc.
That's like the argument that Pac-Man was about the unrelenting consumption of capitalism.
Though the game contained glimpses of social commentary, there was no depth to the discussion to provoke thought in the player.
In comparison, Bioshock had deep commentary on the nature of freedom and how a utopia can collapse under the weight of its own philosophy. Though the Rapture intro video contained social commentary, it would have merely been cursory without the continuous reinforcement throughout the game.
Portal was all about the gameplay, not the story.
just wait till basketball season you can't spell Arizona State without N.I.T. :D
I thought Portal was just the right length, any longer and the innovative gameplay would have gotten stale. Just as I think a relatively short (but great game) Bioshock was still a little bit too long, and was starting to lose me towards the end. Of course, there is the $10 All-you-can-eat chinese food crowd who subscribe to the thought of quantity over quality for the money.
Portal standalone is $19.99 from Steam. Given it's length I would argue it's more of a $12.99-$14.99 category game. Yes it's splitting hairs, but when compared to other games for the money, the volume of content just doesn't add up; though the quality of the content is far beyond that of most $20 games.
Personally I think with the amount of additional levels that no doubt will come from the community, Portal would be worth it @ $50. Heck, I would pay $10 for the soundtrack alone. Unfortunately people expect different things, and so there will be many who are upset because the $20 they spent didn't provide them with the number of hours of entertainment they were expecting. The type of person who buys a game strictly on the arbitrary review score, would likely fall into that category.