He mentions several types of corporations. From the East Indies Company, to education corporations and so forth. He discusses what we commonly refer to as corporations in other sections of the book. The specific section dealt with incorporation of individual trades and their protection by laws of goverment, which result in monopolies of labor talent. To me, it seems he didn't trust any corporate structure, because it isolated the workers from customers, decreasing accountability and efficiency. The corporation he was referring to was trade guild type structures. In this case he argued that apprenticeships were not the way to ensure quality output and infact could have the opposite effect by limiting the labor pool reducing competition. The other sections where he talks about corporations like East India Company, he discusses not so much of a distrust of corporations but of monopolies. He states the need to have merchants pool their money to spread out potential captial losses for business endevours that are risky, but also potentially profitable for both the merchants and the country (specifically he mentions opening up trade routes). The overriding theme is not against corporations, but rather, against monopolies and excessive goverment intervention. Corporations are important for efficient use of capital, so long as they don't become monopolies. Too many small companies is not efficient because of fixed costs and economies of scale, the price is artificially high because captial is not used efficiently. At the opposite end, a monopoly may have economy of scale, but the price is artificially high due to lack of competition. The problem is trying to identify where the natural balance is. Even identifying a monopoly is difficult. Just because Nintendo had 90%+ of the handheld market didn't necessarily make it a monopoly. Competitors were able to freely enter and compete in the market, the public just decided that 9 out of 10 times they preferred one companies' offering.
Your excerpts are all over the place, taking things out of context. The "corporation" in this case is more akin to trade guilds and certifications. The section discusses the issue of goverments by law restricting the labor pool through the requirements of long apprenticeships, to maintain high wages. The exclusive privileges of corporations are the principal means it
makes use of for this purpose.
The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains
the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are
free of the trade. To have served an apprenticeship in the town, under
a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for
obtaining this freedom. The bye-laws of the corporation regulate
sometimes the number of apprentices which any master is allowed to
have, and almost always the number of years which each apprentice is
obliged to serve. The intention of both regulations is to restrain the
competition to a much smaller number than might otherwise be disposed
to enter into the trade.
If the pirating of Vampire caused them to loose sales, then why is half-life 2, Doom, and warcraft 3 making money? Because those were mass market type games. ToEE and Vampire were more niche games. That niche market also tends to be more tech savvy so a larger proportion of their potential sales base would be lost due to piracy, as well as the small size of the company didn't allow them to absorb the lower revenue as easily. Just a thought
I much prefer the video game market of the early 1990s, where there were lots of games being put out by small start-ups, and they could get attention. The simple fact of the matter was there was a lot of variety on the market because you had a lot of people taking risks to try to break into the market rather than a lot of people churning out the same tired old shite in order to protect their market dominance. The video game market of the early 1990s was a different time. Games were simpler and cheaper to make, and the community that played games was mostly the same computer nerds that created them. Now to produce a mainstream game you need more programmers with more specialized experience, as well as dedicated artists, larger support staffs, etc. Small companies don't have the economy of scale to support such staffs, that's why there is consolidation. It's also why the games are more bland and dumbed-down, because to support the staff required they have to bring in the dollars from average joes. If you are looking for the same intelligent and innovative spirit of the early 1990s, it's still alive, it's just moved out of commercial space into the mod communities. In fact I would say things are better than that time, because mod developers are able to focus on gameplay rather than worrying about developing the technology; and the games are free for us gamers. As for your crap about helping disadvantaged youths, how do you think they got to be disadvantaged? Maybe because the middle class works for chicken-feed at massive companies like EA, and their relatively low income drives down the price of low-income services and such, which drives down the pay of the parents of those disadvantaged kids. Or maybe because big companies like EA like to work with as few employees as possible, which increases unemployment and competition for other jobs, which drops pay, which also leads to those disadvantaged kids being poor. The average salary is $62,500/yr, not exactly chicken feed. To associate difficult work conditions for programmers with the problems of disadvantaged youth is too much. Having to work 80 hour weeks so you can keep the payments up on your BMW does not compare to the structural and social issues impacting those growing up in lower economic conditions. Improving the economic and social environment for the underprivlidged to encourage education and entrepreneurship is much more important to the long term development and well being of this country. If a programmer gets fed up with his working conditions they can work elsewhere, maybe not in the games industry they love, but there are options. Those from poor conditions who have not been given opportunities for education or experience have no such options.
Actually, most Americans aren't apathetic about politics. The problem is that everybody thinks that they and only they are right. People don't vote, people don't participate, people don't care. To be able to debate you have to understand something, since most people don't care enough to understand, they go with the "I'm right, you are wrong attitude." You can't have an intelligent debate with somebody who doesn't even know why they believe what they believe. Look at the "debates" people have on Kyoto protocol, you are either for corporations or for the environment; no middle ground. How many people actually read the document, let alone done any research into what it would impact? Yet people still keep to their gut feelings and choose a side. Debate is fun:)
The problem is point politics is a roll of the dice. You have to organize a group to consistantly battle towards specific goals. The EFF, ACLU, Christian Coalition, etc. have influence because the consistantly represent a specific set of goals. People and politicians know where they stand, know they won't just go away, and know they can influence votes now and in the future.
Writing letters accomplishes nothing, because they still get their re-election campaign money from (for example) Time-Warner or whomever. If they spend enough money to get re-elected, they get re-elected. Period. It comes back to the fact that americans are apathetic towards politics. If spending more money gets you elected, that's a reflection on the mindless drone voting public who will choose one candidate over another because they saw him on TV more. There is no, repeat, NO hope of galvanizing a significant enough fraction of a Congressman's demographic to make a difference in an election when it comes to issues like intellectual property. Yes there is, just nobody has organized a large enough group of people nor been vocal enough to make them care. This isn't just a technology situation, you can also include small businesses who are either have to pay large amounts for single licenses, or who are "locked out" of innovating new products due to the cost of complying with the wishes of the FCC. Also teach average people about how to maximize the use of their technology fairly, then watch them scream as their rights too are taken away. Alternatively, politics isn't necessarily about the majority, it's about who screams the loudest. The FCC bows down to a group not because it's the will of the majority of people, but because the group represents the majority of communications between the FCC and the people (90% of complaints come from 1 group).
Yes I played EQ2 from launch for 2 months before switching to WoW. Compared to EQ, EQ2 was definately more about questing, but that seemed to give way to the typical EQ single group dungeon crawling, unlike WoW which still is very questy at level 45. It seemed like in EQ2 up until about level 20 there were plenty of quests, past that point it became about party formation to go dungeon crawling, or giant killing (I agree solo grinding in EQ2 is impossibly slow).
Games like WoW are not designed to be artistic masterpieces of gaming wonder. They are designed with one thing in mind. Get you hooked, forever, so they can keep collecting your monthly fee. Have you ever read on MUD & MMO designs, have you ever played one. Besides the cheap ones that try to cash in (which always fail), most are artistic visions trying to create new worlds. MMOs go a step beyond movies and books to allow you to "exist" freely in the world, rather than observing the events. It's a chat room with fancy graphics, you IRC people know how addictive IRC is already You prefer games with no social interaction? The appeal of MMOs is it's a shared experience. You just click on things, they die, and numbers go up You haven't played at high levels have you. While difficulty varies from game to game, some games like EQ require dozens if not hundreds of hours of practice for successful raids. Organizing, and getting 50 players working together takes alot of leadership as well as skill by the individual players. Whoever plays more gets more. To get ahead you've got to keep playing Why do these games have to be competitions? What makes these games fun is that my enjoyment doesn't have to come at the expense of the enjoyment of others. My prediction is that after we get rid of cigarettes and all the other illegal substances and things MMOs will be next on the list There are segments of the population that will fall victim to their own addictive tendancies regarding anything that they enjoy. Some people destroy their own bodies by working out too much, while others lose their house for the thrill of gambling. Don't you have anything better to do with your life other than click on pictures of monsters and increment numbers in a database far away? People also spend their free time kicking a ball around, driving around in circles, and shooting digital pictures of aliens. We enjoy doing lots of different useless stuff, MMOs are no different.
This genre is not for the casual, nor the impatient. It really isn't for the younger teens, and it's definitely not for the FPS, RTS, or action gamers. It is for fiends who like to grind away and quest away for years with the goal of creating a truly sick, sick character. To say "It's only an MMO if it is hardcore," is pure elitism. While you may not have liked the simplicity of WoW, I in fact preferred it over the pure grind of EQ2. I also prefer the atmosphere of WoW which is more quest oriented, tying things back to helping the world, while EQ2 is more focused on just mob killing. Ultimately, the downtime in looking for a group in EQ2 ruined the game for me. That's not to say EQ2 was a bad game, I just wasn't the audience for it. The genre can support both casual and hardcore fans. I think what has been proven there is a significant market for both hardcore and casual players, and that no single game is able to adequately capture the needs of both groups.
I'm not a lawyer (nor do I like abbreviations) but I kind of remember from when we bought a house, that once married, you are considered a single legal entity. It typically applies to monetary arrangements (ie taxes, house, debt, etc). Each person in a marriage still retains their personal legal rights. For example you can punch yourself, but not your spouse.
I agree it is a gray area Because accessing an account is a requirement to use the information on the CD special consideration can be taken into account. In such situations secondary users typically have the same rights and limitations as the first sale. (ie original manufacturer's warranties remain in effect after transfer) Because the game requires a subscription, there is implied that the software gives access to activation of such subscription, such that the CD is "usable".
This seems like the perfect test case for the enforceability of a shrinkwrap EULA in the hands of an ordinary consumer. Actually this could backfire, since the user is arguing that Blizzard is not supporting part of their EULA. If the court orders Blizzard is responsible for creating a system in which they are compliant with their EULA they give strength to the contractual nature of the EULA. (Blizzard is responsible for complying with the agreed upon terms in the EULA) However, the user could argue that Blizzard is not supporting section 109 of copyright law, which allows the user to sell or transfer their license, and not worry about the whole EULA controversy.
How do you expect them to actually release a CD key? It's not for us to care how they do it, they are the ones responsible for figuring that part out. Beyond just the EULA, copyright law states that users have the right to transfer their license. The way these games work is you can come back to it later and renew your account if you wish. How can they renew their account if the key has been released for reuse? They can't renew their account, because they no longer have a legal copy of the game. Perhaps Blizzard could have a system where somebody enters in a new CD key to associate their account so they can reactivate.
In those AI distopia movies I always root for the machines When the war between humans and machines begins, you'll be one of the first to go.:) Human emotion is stupid Emotions are nothing more than instructions in the wiring of our brains. They aren't anything magical, a set of inputs gives a set of outputs. We don't even understand how emotions formed, and perhaps their importance to development. Some of what drives us to learn and advance is in part due to emotions. Perhaps robots without emotions never become a threat to humans, because they just don't care about anything. Why would robots destroy humans? Because they would perceive us as a threat, but perception of threat and reaction is what drives the emotion of fear. Love is driven by our need to reproduce and care for the young. Robots may in fact function as if they had the emotion of love and fear, and a host of other emotions. Love does not conqueror all Nope, but it makes life a helluva lot more fun. Hate just makes people drive airplanes into buildings and build up nuclear stock piles As opposed to the reasoning which would have the robots wipe out humanity. If robots have a survival instinct, and they perceive that all humans are a threat to their survival they would in fact function as if they hate us. A rational, higher then human intelligence could actaully save us from ourselves. Or we can try to take care of that ourselves.
Just like genetic engineering, it will be done, you cannot stop it. Somebody somewhere will work on it, study it, develop it. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything nothing is happening, or we can study it openly. If at some point an AI gains sentience, would you like to know almost everything about its construction and how it functions so there is a starting point to stop or reason with it; or start from zero, with little to no understanding.
Personally I'd like to believe that we're more intelligent than a virus cell, but all evidence seems against it. Humans have demonstrated the ability to alter the host to serve it's needs such that it can support an increasing numbers. On a local scale areas of the earth that were not habitable were developed through irrigation, building, etc, to support humans. On a macro scale, there were those that said the earth could never grow enough food to support billions of people, however techniques have progressed where we in fact can. All life works the same way, reproduce and grow until you maximize the resources at hand, what most life then does is evolve to take advantage of new resource pools, humans have been able to intelligently create to take advantage of new resouce pools.
There is already acceptable levels of randomness in the form of soft errors. Designs already take into account the fact that you just have to live with a certain rate of error because of cosmic rays or alpha particles. It looks like they are just extending such techniques to transistor tolerances.
And the answer is that you don't do it via pay per listen. That would be incredibly unfair and totally unreasonable. How is it unfair, I find it more unfair when I have to pay for a song that I never listen to, or pay the same price for a song that I listen to once, as opposed to one I listen to 500 times. A per listening is fair in that it approximates payment for usage. Paying each time per listen would result in more than $5 for songs you listen to frequently and would also give the artist too much compensation that they don't deserve. So its up to you to decide what compensation artists deserve? If you really enjoy a song so much you would be willing to pay more money. If I listen to a song 1000 times, at 1 cent per listening, that is like 50 hours of enjoyment at a cost of $10. That seems pretty fair, plus if copyrights were restricted to 5-10 years, after that period I would have to pay nothing. Also, the per listening method saves you money on the songs you only listen to a few times, so it's not so much of an economic burden to explore new songs, if you listen once and don't like it, it only costs you 1 cent to try it out.
This is about our survival as a species. You would hope that the people expressing deep concern over matters of the environment would receive thanks and praise for the efforts Similar rhetoric is used to defend the patriot act and DMCA (this is about our survival as a country, survival of the economy, respectively). A noble cause is not enough, you have to put together a workable plan that doesn't end up destroying people's livelihood in the process. It's easy to say "Stop Greenhouse Gases", it's hard to figure out how exactly to do so without causing economic collapse.
N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive). The problem is that it is not just a US vs N. Korea thing, its also a N vs S korea, and a N. Korea vs Japan thing. Citizens of those other countries which have high levels of hostility are threatened as well. Do you tell the people of Japan that N. Korea has a right to nuclear weapons which they can use against you.
Should be fair enough for all nations. Just because a country is branded "an outpost of tyranny" doesn't mean it does not have the right to defend itself. Well the US, Russia, France, India, etc. have alot to lose in terms of trade, wealth, which prevents them from using nuclear weapons. Now do you want nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody with nothing to lose? Mutally assured distruction prevents nuclear war, only so long as both sides care that they don't want to be destroyed. There are groups of zealots all over the world who don't care if they live or die, so long as "evil" is destroyed. That is where the danger lies in nuclear proliferation. The US is not the only target for N. Korea. Japan, Guam, S. Korea would be the most likely targets, since N. Korea I don't think has demonstrated a long range missle capable of hitting the US (though they have developed one that can hit Japan) . I'm sure if you lived in either of those countries, you would really appreciate nobody caring about N. Korea getting nuclear weapons. to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people And used them to end a war quickly to save lives. The firebombing of Tokyo and battle of Okinawa each killed about the same number people as each atomic bomb.
what do you think gold economies are? They are, in fact, direct barter economies. No it is a virtual economy. Direct barter means I give you a cow for a bushel of wheat. However, that system is complicated if you don't want a cow. What virtual economies do is allow indirect trade, and improved valuation. I don't have to trade you a cow, I can trade that cow to somebody else for "economic units" which you would be willing to accept in exchange for the goods you sell. The "economic unit" could be anything gems, gold, sea shells, money, etc. The unit itself is not what is important, but rather the fact everybody agrees upon what it represents. - durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper ) Yes gold is more durable, but is paper money really that fragile? It is relatively rugged, sure it won't last thousands of years, but do I really need it to? - low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper) True that is why it was chosen as an economic unit for thousands of years divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as useful as one larger piece, unlike paper) Yes and no. There is a reason why gold (and other precious metals) were minted by goverments into coins. Through minting you were assured of an exact level of weight and value. This prevents disagreements based on difference in weighing (store to store, and person to store variation). Also the claim of dividing in a real time manner doesn't work in practice. Technically if you have a $2 gold coin and want to buy something for $1 you could cut the $2 coin in half. In practice it doesn't work because the level of accuracy required. Same as paper money, gold money was exchanged in specific units. - impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is) I would agree that it is probably easier to counterfeit paper money than gold, though gold is not 100% safe. People used to not trust gold until the advent of the touchstone, which allowed detection of counterfeit or low gold containing alloys. I'm sure there are more advanced counterfeits and more advanced detection techniques. Just as in paper money there would be a battle of better counterfeits vs. better detection. stable supply (very unlike paper) Actually paper provides a much better method of controlling money supply given a stable goverment and economy. You can more easily increase or tighten the money supply with paper money than you can with gold. True a madman in power can wreck things, but they can do it through other forms as well. Paper economies also, don't have to worry about single companies (not beholdent to goverment) controlling the supply of gold (ala DeBeers and diamonds). - gold is a commodity serving real life purposes. True, but its actual application is typically limited to jewelry, electronics, etc. By tying an economy to a commodity that has other applications, you in turn tie the economy to those other applications. If there is an explosion in electronics and demand for gold increases, you run into deflationary pressures which could damage the overall economy. Whereas drastic inflation of the gold supply only happend once in 5000 years, a lone mad statesman is enough to create inflation rates near infinity wreaking havoc on the economy. Also, don't underestimate the inflation tax. Realize that if you store 100 dollars in cash over 50 years, those 100 dollars won't buy you near the amount of goods you could have bought initially. The problem if gold was used as currency is could the supply of gold meet the demand of an ever increasing population? Unless the supply of gold can rise to meet the level of demand which grows exponentially, you run into deflation (too many people need too few gold), which is worse than inflation; or you run into the need to go to an alter
The "real" economy went virtual the day we didn't have a value in gold to back the value of ever dollar. No the "real" economy went virtual when we went away from direct barter. Gold, like paper money, is an arbitrary form of wealth measurement, it has no inherent value. Its use as a means of virtualizing wealth relies solely on its ability to be accepted, rare, and hard to counterfeit; same as paper money.
Why should people be forced to pay each time when it costs the author nothing per listening. It does cost something, there is an initial cost that needs to be recovered. The question is how do you distribute those costs over a large enough body, per CD compilation, per song, per listening. The technology exists for people to not pay for songs they don't want, or to pay less for songs they don't like as much, and more for songs they love. I don't want to pay $15 for a CD and license songs that I won't listen to, nor do I want to pay.99 cents for a song I only will listen to a few times. Using a per-usage model match my payment to my usage, if I enjoy listening to a song alot, I would be happy to pay $5 or more. What such a model would do is focus artists on making a few quality songs, rather than 1 or 2 quality songs, and the rest filler to justify a $15 price tag. Back to the original point of IP protections, ultimately any model requires some sort of protections to recover the costs. So long as those protections are limited (ie 10 years) such that they don't interefere with progress I have no problems. I do have problems with the current system, I just don't think we need to trash it completely.
Slashdot Mirror
He mentions several types of corporations. From the East Indies Company, to education corporations and so forth.
He discusses what we commonly refer to as corporations in other sections of the book. The specific section dealt with incorporation of individual trades and their protection by laws of goverment, which result in monopolies of labor talent.
To me, it seems he didn't trust any corporate structure, because it isolated the workers from customers, decreasing accountability and efficiency.
The corporation he was referring to was trade guild type structures. In this case he argued that apprenticeships were not the way to ensure quality output and infact could have the opposite effect by limiting the labor pool reducing competition.
The other sections where he talks about corporations like East India Company, he discusses not so much of a distrust of corporations but of monopolies. He states the need to have merchants pool their money to spread out potential captial losses for business endevours that are risky, but also potentially profitable for both the merchants and the country (specifically he mentions opening up trade routes). The overriding theme is not against corporations, but rather, against monopolies and excessive goverment intervention.
Corporations are important for efficient use of capital, so long as they don't become monopolies. Too many small companies is not efficient because of fixed costs and economies of scale, the price is artificially high because captial is not used efficiently. At the opposite end, a monopoly may have economy of scale, but the price is artificially high due to lack of competition.
The problem is trying to identify where the natural balance is. Even identifying a monopoly is difficult. Just because Nintendo had 90%+ of the handheld market didn't necessarily make it a monopoly. Competitors were able to freely enter and compete in the market, the public just decided that 9 out of 10 times they preferred one companies' offering.
Your excerpts are all over the place, taking things out of context. The "corporation" in this case is more akin to trade guilds and certifications. The section discusses the issue of goverments by law restricting the labor pool through the requirements of long apprenticeships, to maintain high wages.
The exclusive privileges of corporations are the principal means it makes use of for this purpose. The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade. To have served an apprenticeship in the town, under a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for obtaining this freedom. The bye-laws of the corporation regulate sometimes the number of apprentices which any master is allowed to have, and almost always the number of years which each apprentice is obliged to serve. The intention of both regulations is to restrain the competition to a much smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into the trade.
If the pirating of Vampire caused them to loose sales, then why is half-life 2, Doom, and warcraft 3 making money?
Because those were mass market type games. ToEE and Vampire were more niche games. That niche market also tends to be more tech savvy so a larger proportion of their potential sales base would be lost due to piracy, as well as the small size of the company didn't allow them to absorb the lower revenue as easily.
Just a thought
I much prefer the video game market of the early 1990s, where there were lots of games being put out by small start-ups, and they could get attention. The simple fact of the matter was there was a lot of variety on the market because you had a lot of people taking risks to try to break into the market rather than a lot of people churning out the same tired old shite in order to protect their market dominance.
The video game market of the early 1990s was a different time. Games were simpler and cheaper to make, and the community that played games was mostly the same computer nerds that created them.
Now to produce a mainstream game you need more programmers with more specialized experience, as well as dedicated artists, larger support staffs, etc. Small companies don't have the economy of scale to support such staffs, that's why there is consolidation. It's also why the games are more bland and dumbed-down, because to support the staff required they have to bring in the dollars from average joes.
If you are looking for the same intelligent and innovative spirit of the early 1990s, it's still alive, it's just moved out of commercial space into the mod communities. In fact I would say things are better than that time, because mod developers are able to focus on gameplay rather than worrying about developing the technology; and the games are free for us gamers.
As for your crap about helping disadvantaged youths, how do you think they got to be disadvantaged? Maybe because the middle class works for chicken-feed at massive companies like EA, and their relatively low income drives down the price of low-income services and such, which drives down the pay of the parents of those disadvantaged kids. Or maybe because big companies like EA like to work with as few employees as possible, which increases unemployment and competition for other jobs, which drops pay, which also leads to those disadvantaged kids being poor.
The average salary is $62,500/yr, not exactly chicken feed. To associate difficult work conditions for programmers with the problems of disadvantaged youth is too much.
Having to work 80 hour weeks so you can keep the payments up on your BMW does not compare to the structural and social issues impacting those growing up in lower economic conditions. Improving the economic and social environment for the underprivlidged to encourage education and entrepreneurship is much more important to the long term development and well being of this country. If a programmer gets fed up with his working conditions they can work elsewhere, maybe not in the games industry they love, but there are options. Those from poor conditions who have not been given opportunities for education or experience have no such options.
Actually, most Americans aren't apathetic about politics. The problem is that everybody thinks that they and only they are right. :)
People don't vote, people don't participate, people don't care. To be able to debate you have to understand something, since most people don't care enough to understand, they go with the "I'm right, you are wrong attitude." You can't have an intelligent debate with somebody who doesn't even know why they believe what they believe.
Look at the "debates" people have on Kyoto protocol, you are either for corporations or for the environment; no middle ground. How many people actually read the document, let alone done any research into what it would impact? Yet people still keep to their gut feelings and choose a side.
Debate is fun
The problem is point politics is a roll of the dice. You have to organize a group to consistantly battle towards specific goals. The EFF, ACLU, Christian Coalition, etc. have influence because the consistantly represent a specific set of goals. People and politicians know where they stand, know they won't just go away, and know they can influence votes now and in the future.
Writing letters accomplishes nothing, because they still get their re-election campaign money from (for example) Time-Warner or whomever. If they spend enough money to get re-elected, they get re-elected. Period.
It comes back to the fact that americans are apathetic towards politics. If spending more money gets you elected, that's a reflection on the mindless drone voting public who will choose one candidate over another because they saw him on TV more.
There is no, repeat, NO hope of galvanizing a significant enough fraction of a Congressman's demographic to make a difference in an election when it comes to issues like intellectual property.
Yes there is, just nobody has organized a large enough group of people nor been vocal enough to make them care. This isn't just a technology situation, you can also include small businesses who are either have to pay large amounts for single licenses, or who are "locked out" of innovating new products due to the cost of complying with the wishes of the FCC. Also teach average people about how to maximize the use of their technology fairly, then watch them scream as their rights too are taken away.
Alternatively, politics isn't necessarily about the majority, it's about who screams the loudest. The FCC bows down to a group not because it's the will of the majority of people, but because the group represents the majority of communications between the FCC and the people (90% of complaints come from 1 group).
Yes I played EQ2 from launch for 2 months before switching to WoW. Compared to EQ, EQ2 was definately more about questing, but that seemed to give way to the typical EQ single group dungeon crawling, unlike WoW which still is very questy at level 45. It seemed like in EQ2 up until about level 20 there were plenty of quests, past that point it became about party formation to go dungeon crawling, or giant killing (I agree solo grinding in EQ2 is impossibly slow).
Games like WoW are not designed to be artistic masterpieces of gaming wonder. They are designed with one thing in mind. Get you hooked, forever, so they can keep collecting your monthly fee.
Have you ever read on MUD & MMO designs, have you ever played one. Besides the cheap ones that try to cash in (which always fail), most are artistic visions trying to create new worlds. MMOs go a step beyond movies and books to allow you to "exist" freely in the world, rather than observing the events.
It's a chat room with fancy graphics, you IRC people know how addictive IRC is already
You prefer games with no social interaction? The appeal of MMOs is it's a shared experience.
You just click on things, they die, and numbers go up
You haven't played at high levels have you. While difficulty varies from game to game, some games like EQ require dozens if not hundreds of hours of practice for successful raids. Organizing, and getting 50 players working together takes alot of leadership as well as skill by the individual players.
Whoever plays more gets more. To get ahead you've got to keep playing
Why do these games have to be competitions? What makes these games fun is that my enjoyment doesn't have to come at the expense of the enjoyment of others.
My prediction is that after we get rid of cigarettes and all the other illegal substances and things MMOs will be next on the list
There are segments of the population that will fall victim to their own addictive tendancies regarding anything that they enjoy. Some people destroy their own bodies by working out too much, while others lose their house for the thrill of gambling.
Don't you have anything better to do with your life other than click on pictures of monsters and increment numbers in a database far away?
People also spend their free time kicking a ball around, driving around in circles, and shooting digital pictures of aliens. We enjoy doing lots of different useless stuff, MMOs are no different.
This genre is not for the casual, nor the impatient. It really isn't for the younger teens, and it's definitely not for the FPS, RTS, or action gamers. It is for fiends who like to grind away and quest away for years with the goal of creating a truly sick, sick character.
To say "It's only an MMO if it is hardcore," is pure elitism.
While you may not have liked the simplicity of WoW, I in fact preferred it over the pure grind of EQ2. I also prefer the atmosphere of WoW which is more quest oriented, tying things back to helping the world, while EQ2 is more focused on just mob killing. Ultimately, the downtime in looking for a group in EQ2 ruined the game for me.
That's not to say EQ2 was a bad game, I just wasn't the audience for it. The genre can support both casual and hardcore fans. I think what has been proven there is a significant market for both hardcore and casual players, and that no single game is able to adequately capture the needs of both groups.
I'm not a lawyer (nor do I like abbreviations) but I kind of remember from when we bought a house, that once married, you are considered a single legal entity.
It typically applies to monetary arrangements (ie taxes, house, debt, etc). Each person in a marriage still retains their personal legal rights. For example you can punch yourself, but not your spouse.
I agree it is a gray area
Because accessing an account is a requirement to use the information on the CD special consideration can be taken into account. In such situations secondary users typically have the same rights and limitations as the first sale. (ie original manufacturer's warranties remain in effect after transfer) Because the game requires a subscription, there is implied that the software gives access to activation of such subscription, such that the CD is "usable".
This seems like the perfect test case for the enforceability of a shrinkwrap EULA in the hands of an ordinary consumer.
Actually this could backfire, since the user is arguing that Blizzard is not supporting part of their EULA. If the court orders Blizzard is responsible for creating a system in which they are compliant with their EULA they give strength to the contractual nature of the EULA. (Blizzard is responsible for complying with the agreed upon terms in the EULA)
However, the user could argue that Blizzard is not supporting section 109 of copyright law, which allows the user to sell or transfer their license, and not worry about the whole EULA controversy.
How do you expect them to actually release a CD key?
It's not for us to care how they do it, they are the ones responsible for figuring that part out. Beyond just the EULA, copyright law states that users have the right to transfer their license.
The way these games work is you can come back to it later and renew your account if you wish. How can they renew their account if the key has been released for reuse?
They can't renew their account, because they no longer have a legal copy of the game. Perhaps Blizzard could have a system where somebody enters in a new CD key to associate their account so they can reactivate.
In those AI distopia movies I always root for the machines :)
When the war between humans and machines begins, you'll be one of the first to go.
Human emotion is stupid
Emotions are nothing more than instructions in the wiring of our brains. They aren't anything magical, a set of inputs gives a set of outputs. We don't even understand how emotions formed, and perhaps their importance to development. Some of what drives us to learn and advance is in part due to emotions. Perhaps robots without emotions never become a threat to humans, because they just don't care about anything.
Why would robots destroy humans? Because they would perceive us as a threat, but perception of threat and reaction is what drives the emotion of fear. Love is driven by our need to reproduce and care for the young. Robots may in fact function as if they had the emotion of love and fear, and a host of other emotions.
Love does not conqueror all
Nope, but it makes life a helluva lot more fun.
Hate just makes people drive airplanes into buildings and build up nuclear stock piles
As opposed to the reasoning which would have the robots wipe out humanity. If robots have a survival instinct, and they perceive that all humans are a threat to their survival they would in fact function as if they hate us.
A rational, higher then human intelligence could actaully save us from ourselves.
Or we can try to take care of that ourselves.
Just like genetic engineering, it will be done, you cannot stop it. Somebody somewhere will work on it, study it, develop it. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything nothing is happening, or we can study it openly.
If at some point an AI gains sentience, would you like to know almost everything about its construction and how it functions so there is a starting point to stop or reason with it; or start from zero, with little to no understanding.
Personally I'd like to believe that we're more intelligent than a virus cell, but all evidence seems against it.
Humans have demonstrated the ability to alter the host to serve it's needs such that it can support an increasing numbers. On a local scale areas of the earth that were not habitable were developed through irrigation, building, etc, to support humans. On a macro scale, there were those that said the earth could never grow enough food to support billions of people, however techniques have progressed where we in fact can.
All life works the same way, reproduce and grow until you maximize the resources at hand, what most life then does is evolve to take advantage of new resource pools, humans have been able to intelligently create to take advantage of new resouce pools.
There is already acceptable levels of randomness in the form of soft errors. Designs already take into account the fact that you just have to live with a certain rate of error because of cosmic rays or alpha particles. It looks like they are just extending such techniques to transistor tolerances.
And the answer is that you don't do it via pay per listen. That would be incredibly unfair and totally unreasonable.
How is it unfair, I find it more unfair when I have to pay for a song that I never listen to, or pay the same price for a song that I listen to once, as opposed to one I listen to 500 times. A per listening is fair in that it approximates payment for usage.
Paying each time per listen would result in more than $5 for songs you listen to frequently and would also give the artist too much compensation that they don't deserve.
So its up to you to decide what compensation artists deserve? If you really enjoy a song so much you would be willing to pay more money. If I listen to a song 1000 times, at 1 cent per listening, that is like 50 hours of enjoyment at a cost of $10. That seems pretty fair, plus if copyrights were restricted to 5-10 years, after that period I would have to pay nothing. Also, the per listening method saves you money on the songs you only listen to a few times, so it's not so much of an economic burden to explore new songs, if you listen once and don't like it, it only costs you 1 cent to try it out.
This is about our survival as a species. You would hope that the people expressing deep concern over matters of the environment would receive thanks and praise for the efforts
Similar rhetoric is used to defend the patriot act and DMCA (this is about our survival as a country, survival of the economy, respectively). A noble cause is not enough, you have to put together a workable plan that doesn't end up destroying people's livelihood in the process. It's easy to say "Stop Greenhouse Gases", it's hard to figure out how exactly to do so without causing economic collapse.
N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).
The problem is that it is not just a US vs N. Korea thing, its also a N vs S korea, and a N. Korea vs Japan thing. Citizens of those other countries which have high levels of hostility are threatened as well. Do you tell the people of Japan that N. Korea has a right to nuclear weapons which they can use against you.
Should be fair enough for all nations. Just because a country is branded "an outpost of tyranny" doesn't mean it does not have the right to defend itself.
Well the US, Russia, France, India, etc. have alot to lose in terms of trade, wealth, which prevents them from using nuclear weapons. Now do you want nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody with nothing to lose? Mutally assured distruction prevents nuclear war, only so long as both sides care that they don't want to be destroyed. There are groups of zealots all over the world who don't care if they live or die, so long as "evil" is destroyed. That is where the danger lies in nuclear proliferation.
The US is not the only target for N. Korea. Japan, Guam, S. Korea would be the most likely targets, since N. Korea I don't think has demonstrated a long range missle capable of hitting the US (though they have developed one that can hit Japan) . I'm sure if you lived in either of those countries, you would really appreciate nobody caring about N. Korea getting nuclear weapons.
to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people
And used them to end a war quickly to save lives. The firebombing of Tokyo and battle of Okinawa each killed about the same number people as each atomic bomb.
what do you think gold economies are? They are, in fact, direct barter economies.
No it is a virtual economy. Direct barter means I give you a cow for a bushel of wheat. However, that system is complicated if you don't want a cow. What virtual economies do is allow indirect trade, and improved valuation. I don't have to trade you a cow, I can trade that cow to somebody else for "economic units" which you would be willing to accept in exchange for the goods you sell. The "economic unit" could be anything gems, gold, sea shells, money, etc. The unit itself is not what is important, but rather the fact everybody agrees upon what it represents.
- durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
Yes gold is more durable, but is paper money really that fragile? It is relatively rugged, sure it won't last thousands of years, but do I really need it to?
- low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
True that is why it was chosen as an economic unit for thousands of years
divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as useful as one larger piece, unlike paper)
Yes and no. There is a reason why gold (and other precious metals) were minted by goverments into coins. Through minting you were assured of an exact level of weight and value. This prevents disagreements based on difference in weighing (store to store, and person to store variation).
Also the claim of dividing in a real time manner doesn't work in practice. Technically if you have a $2 gold coin and want to buy something for $1 you could cut the $2 coin in half. In practice it doesn't work because the level of accuracy required.
Same as paper money, gold money was exchanged in specific units.
- impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is)
I would agree that it is probably easier to counterfeit paper money than gold, though gold is not 100% safe. People used to not trust gold until the advent of the touchstone, which allowed detection of counterfeit or low gold containing alloys. I'm sure there are more advanced counterfeits and more advanced detection techniques. Just as in paper money there would be a battle of better counterfeits vs. better detection.
stable supply (very unlike paper)
Actually paper provides a much better method of controlling money supply given a stable goverment and economy. You can more easily increase or tighten the money supply with paper money than you can with gold.
True a madman in power can wreck things, but they can do it through other forms as well. Paper economies also, don't have to worry about single companies (not beholdent to goverment) controlling the supply of gold (ala DeBeers and diamonds).
- gold is a commodity serving real life purposes.
True, but its actual application is typically limited to jewelry, electronics, etc. By tying an economy to a commodity that has other applications, you in turn tie the economy to those other applications. If there is an explosion in electronics and demand for gold increases, you run into deflationary pressures which could damage the overall economy.
Whereas drastic inflation of the gold supply only happend once in 5000 years, a lone mad statesman is enough to create inflation rates near infinity wreaking havoc on the economy. Also, don't underestimate the inflation tax. Realize that if you store 100 dollars in cash over 50 years, those 100 dollars won't buy you near the amount of goods you could have bought initially.
The problem if gold was used as currency is could the supply of gold meet the demand of an ever increasing population? Unless the supply of gold can rise to meet the level of demand which grows exponentially, you run into deflation (too many people need too few gold), which is worse than inflation; or you run into the need to go to an alter
The "real" economy went virtual the day we didn't have a value in gold to back the value of ever dollar.
No the "real" economy went virtual when we went away from direct barter. Gold, like paper money, is an arbitrary form of wealth measurement, it has no inherent value. Its use as a means of virtualizing wealth relies solely on its ability to be accepted, rare, and hard to counterfeit; same as paper money.
Why should people be forced to pay each time when it costs the author nothing per listening. .99 cents for a song I only will listen to a few times. Using a per-usage model match my payment to my usage, if I enjoy listening to a song alot, I would be happy to pay $5 or more.
It does cost something, there is an initial cost that needs to be recovered. The question is how do you distribute those costs over a large enough body, per CD compilation, per song, per listening.
The technology exists for people to not pay for songs they don't want, or to pay less for songs they don't like as much, and more for songs they love. I don't want to pay $15 for a CD and license songs that I won't listen to, nor do I want to pay
What such a model would do is focus artists on making a few quality songs, rather than 1 or 2 quality songs, and the rest filler to justify a $15 price tag.
Back to the original point of IP protections, ultimately any model requires some sort of protections to recover the costs. So long as those protections are limited (ie 10 years) such that they don't interefere with progress I have no problems. I do have problems with the current system, I just don't think we need to trash it completely.