"How adaptable nature really is. Other than things that really destroy an environment, all human interaction and structure isn't harmful. Who knows what type of new eco system could be in the works!"
Nature is adaptable. Only things that are harmful are harmful. Something interesting might happen.
When addressing environmental impacts, this viewpoint makes things look downright spiffy.
Consider, however:
The effects of the amount of raw metals/etc required to build a space elevator. The effects of the amount of fossil fuels used in the construction of the elevator. The effects of the fossil fuels and resources used in the transportation of the other fossil fuels & resources, and The effects of an entirely new system of transportation/infrastructure that would be required to get everything there in the first place.
Doesn't look so spiffy any more, does it?
Also: It's hard to care about a new ecosystem that's being created when we haven't even explored all of the NATURAL options yet.
Warning. Your joke has been deemed too sophisticated/intelligent for/. Given your high karma, would you like to:
1) Insert a less complicated insult about the French, perhaps belittling their manliness? 2) Boringly clarify your remark with a link to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line)? 3) EXCITINGLY clarify your remark with a link to Uncyclopedia (http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line)? 4) Ignore?
I'd like to add that, in many cases, these students don't even have a choice - they are required by law to attend high school, and this high school is the only that's available/affordable/etc.
This is totally different from employment where you (presumably) have options, aren't legally obligated to work, and can quit if you disagree with the policies.
Maybe, but you can be sure as hell that they're not going to do any sort of support whatsoever after that date. At that point, sure, you're running a free OS, but you're stuck with an unsupported version that you can't get updates for.
The problem is that the search engines aren't TRYING to be publishers. The entire point of the search engines is to direct you to the content that you want. Aggregation, caching, and content creation are means to further this end. On the other hand, creation and caching of content is the whole point of the publishers. That IS their end.
Saying that search engines are becoming publishers because they create, aggregate, and cache content to help users FIND content from publishers seems to be just a little off the mark.
The problem with traditional CSS gameplay is that all too often it ends up with a bunch of people buying M4's against a bunch of people buying AK's. This system could potentially force players to use different types of weapons.
Also, I'm SURE that there will be a server variable to turn this change off. I dobut that valve would cast off the old fixed-price weapon system for everything, especially since it's crucial for match play.
Alternatively, the value that he got for $750 mil might not have offered him the amount of autonomy he wanted; if, for example, they wanted to buy him out and shut him out of the loop, he might have wanted 2000 mil for that. Now, if yahoo is going to buy him but still allow him to do his own thing, he might consider a lot less - in this case, 900 mil.
Heck, look at Shakespeare! He was writing to make a living too - in no way was he writing for posterity. This is evidenced by the fact that he didn't even release printed copies of his work (only until after his death were such copies made, which is why we've lost several of his plays), because that wasn't profitable.
They can be rather inspiring - if I see that my candidate is behind in the polls, I might be inspired to run down to the local campaign office and help with mailings, or canvassing, or something, or at least show up to vote on election day.
It works the other way, too. If my candidate is ahead in the polls, I might want to help out to assure victory.
Besides, they're simply INFORMING the voters. Surely you can't have a problem with that?
I'd recommend The Physics of Star Trek (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence- Krauss/dp/B000GG4ZEK/sr=8-1/qid=1157747883/ref=pd_ bbs_1/102-8999321-9911351?ie=UTF8&s=books)
It's required reading for anyone who ever wondered "Hey, how does THAT work?"
No, because you can go out and buy the picture that the thing is based on and it's basically the same thing. There is no such equivalent online.
The equivalent, if want to look at it that way, would be putting together the only known set of a puzzle of a really great piece that only existed in jigsaw form.
I don't know if I fully understand the concept, but when you're a wage labourer, they're paying you in cash, which is VERY CLEARLY your property. Here, they're paying you in items, which may or may not be.
In most games, however, this isn't standard practice, and with EVE it's a moot point, because you know what's allowed in the game by the time you have enough resources to make them worthwhile.
The stack of $500's in monopoly has no very little intrinsic value based on labor, because it only takes a couple of bucks to get a whole new stack. Therefore, someone calling the police about a stolen stack of monopoly money is doing it for only sentimental reasons, or no good reasons at all. The amount of labor it takes to get the item outside of the game is much, MUCH, less than it is inside the game.
HOWEVER, these items in online games have MASSIVE intrinisic value based on labor. If there's only one of such item known in existence, and I've put 400 hours into obtaining said item, I can't simply go and pick up another one at the dollar store. There is no equivalent conversion in the real world, and if someone steals the item, they're essentially stealing 400 hours from my life. Those 400 hours of my life have massive value, both to me, and in the real world, where it could easily translate to $5000 or more dollars.
Saying that monopoly money is analogous to a super-rare item in one of these games isn't really true.
This is simply another aspect of the question that philsophers have been struggling with for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Are the things that you have earned on an internet game your "property", per se? Obviously, property doesn't have to be tangible, and the product of your labors has netted you said item. In that sense, it is very much your property.
Of course, the game manufacturer still owns everything, but an argument could be made based on the value of the labor to you and the fact that they've effectively stolen YOUR time and YOUR labor.
Unfortunately, such an argument probably wouldn't hold up legally, even if it does philosophically. Fortunately, more and more safeguards are being put into these games, and if you can prove that someone was trying to con you or DID con you, you can usually get them in quite a bit of hot water, as well as getting anything you have lost back. Also, the community can make their life hell, even if there isn't enough proof that the actual game company will believe you - no item is worth never being able to get in a good group.
It's been around for a while, and it's called the Better Business Bureau. You can view ongoing complaints for not only things in your physical location, but they also have an online component (http://www.bbbonline.org/).
Now, it doesn't support all sorts of businesses, but it's easy to see if one company has bad customer service.
Well, it's true that I live in a small town. I searched google calendar for events happening in my town, and I got zero results... I mean, I'm by no means out in the boonies (40K person college town, approximately), so there's plenty of tech here.
But you're right. I hadn't fully considered the implications for large cities.
Don't forget Google Checkout, which (afaik) can be used for donations and is actually cheaper for small donations than PayPal. PayPal isn't the only big kid on the block anymore.
More true than you'd know, actually. Using the google suite of checkout (which, afaik, can be used for donations) and adsense can completely replace HTML for these people. Heck, they're even getting more bang for the donation buck if they use the google service.
PayPal needs to realize that they're no longer the only service avaiable - instead of instituting a boycott based on their personal morality, they're simply driving people to a competing service.
I would think that this also opens up an entirely new can of worms - although I'm sure that paypal has the right to do whatever the hell they want short of taking all your cash, if they keep making moves like this, THEY may end up liable for what their service is used for. They can't really have it both ways - either they're a common, undescriminating service, or they're suddenly accountable for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically what you're saying is:
/infrastructure that would be required to get everything there in the first place.
"How adaptable nature really is. Other than things that really destroy an environment, all human interaction and structure isn't harmful. Who knows what type of new eco system could be in the works!"
Nature is adaptable. Only things that are harmful are harmful. Something interesting might happen.
When addressing environmental impacts, this viewpoint makes things look downright spiffy.
Consider, however:
The effects of the amount of raw metals/etc required to build a space elevator.
The effects of the amount of fossil fuels used in the construction of the elevator.
The effects of the fossil fuels and resources used in the transportation of the other fossil fuels & resources, and
The effects of an entirely new system of transportation
Doesn't look so spiffy any more, does it?
Also: It's hard to care about a new ecosystem that's being created when we haven't even explored all of the NATURAL options yet.
Warning. Your joke has been deemed too sophisticated/intelligent for /. Given your high karma, would you like to:
1) Insert a less complicated insult about the French, perhaps belittling their manliness?
2) Boringly clarify your remark with a link to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line)?
3) EXCITINGLY clarify your remark with a link to Uncyclopedia (http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line)?
4) Ignore?
I'd like to add that, in many cases, these students don't even have a choice - they are required by law to attend high school, and this high school is the only that's available/affordable/etc.
This is totally different from employment where you (presumably) have options, aren't legally obligated to work, and can quit if you disagree with the policies.
Maybe, but you can be sure as hell that they're not going to do any sort of support whatsoever after that date. At that point, sure, you're running a free OS, but you're stuck with an unsupported version that you can't get updates for.
The problem is that the search engines aren't TRYING to be publishers. The entire point of the search engines is to direct you to the content that you want. Aggregation, caching, and content creation are means to further this end. On the other hand, creation and caching of content is the whole point of the publishers. That IS their end.
Saying that search engines are becoming publishers because they create, aggregate, and cache content to help users FIND content from publishers seems to be just a little off the mark.
The problem with traditional CSS gameplay is that all too often it ends up with a bunch of people buying M4's against a bunch of people buying AK's. This system could potentially force players to use different types of weapons.
Also, I'm SURE that there will be a server variable to turn this change off. I dobut that valve would cast off the old fixed-price weapon system for everything, especially since it's crucial for match play.
Alternatively, the value that he got for $750 mil might not have offered him the amount of autonomy he wanted; if, for example, they wanted to buy him out and shut him out of the loop, he might have wanted 2000 mil for that. Now, if yahoo is going to buy him but still allow him to do his own thing, he might consider a lot less - in this case, 900 mil.
I recently bought a motherboard from an australian retailer. It was still cheaper, even with super long shipping.
This is /.
The hats are welded to our skulls with a lead-based agent.
That's why we have commenters and an excellent moderation system.
Heck, look at Shakespeare! He was writing to make a living too - in no way was he writing for posterity. This is evidenced by the fact that he didn't even release printed copies of his work (only until after his death were such copies made, which is why we've lost several of his plays), because that wasn't profitable.
They can be rather inspiring - if I see that my candidate is behind in the polls, I might be inspired to run down to the local campaign office and help with mailings, or canvassing, or something, or at least show up to vote on election day.
It works the other way, too. If my candidate is ahead in the polls, I might want to help out to assure victory.
Besides, they're simply INFORMING the voters. Surely you can't have a problem with that?
I'd recommend The Physics of Star Trek (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence- Krauss/dp/B000GG4ZEK/sr=8-1/qid=1157747883/ref=pd_ bbs_1/102-8999321-9911351?ie=UTF8&s=books)
It's required reading for anyone who ever wondered "Hey, how does THAT work?"
No, because you can go out and buy the picture that the thing is based on and it's basically the same thing. There is no such equivalent online.
The equivalent, if want to look at it that way, would be putting together the only known set of a puzzle of a really great piece that only existed in jigsaw form.
I don't know if I fully understand the concept, but when you're a wage labourer, they're paying you in cash, which is VERY CLEARLY your property. Here, they're paying you in items, which may or may not be.
Interesting. Well, I stand corrected.
In most games, however, this isn't standard practice, and with EVE it's a moot point, because you know what's allowed in the game by the time you have enough resources to make them worthwhile.
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking paypals on this motherfucking 'net!
We're about to open some fucking adsense accounts! All praises to the google!
The stack of $500's in monopoly has no very little intrinsic value based on labor, because it only takes a couple of bucks to get a whole new stack. Therefore, someone calling the police about a stolen stack of monopoly money is doing it for only sentimental reasons, or no good reasons at all. The amount of labor it takes to get the item outside of the game is much, MUCH, less than it is inside the game.
HOWEVER, these items in online games have MASSIVE intrinisic value based on labor. If there's only one of such item known in existence, and I've put 400 hours into obtaining said item, I can't simply go and pick up another one at the dollar store. There is no equivalent conversion in the real world, and if someone steals the item, they're essentially stealing 400 hours from my life. Those 400 hours of my life have massive value, both to me, and in the real world, where it could easily translate to $5000 or more dollars.
Saying that monopoly money is analogous to a super-rare item in one of these games isn't really true.
Conning people ISN'T legal in the game - it's not a part of it at all.
In no MMO I've ever played was it OK to exploit game mechanics, or even misinform people to get a better deal.
This is simply another aspect of the question that philsophers have been struggling with for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Are the things that you have earned on an internet game your "property", per se? Obviously, property doesn't have to be tangible, and the product of your labors has netted you said item. In that sense, it is very much your property.
Of course, the game manufacturer still owns everything, but an argument could be made based on the value of the labor to you and the fact that they've effectively stolen YOUR time and YOUR labor.
Unfortunately, such an argument probably wouldn't hold up legally, even if it does philosophically. Fortunately, more and more safeguards are being put into these games, and if you can prove that someone was trying to con you or DID con you, you can usually get them in quite a bit of hot water, as well as getting anything you have lost back. Also, the community can make their life hell, even if there isn't enough proof that the actual game company will believe you - no item is worth never being able to get in a good group.
It's been around for a while, and it's called the Better Business Bureau. You can view ongoing complaints for not only things in your physical location, but they also have an online component (http://www.bbbonline.org/).
Now, it doesn't support all sorts of businesses, but it's easy to see if one company has bad customer service.
Well, it's true that I live in a small town. I searched google calendar for events happening in my town, and I got zero results... I mean, I'm by no means out in the boonies (40K person college town, approximately), so there's plenty of tech here.
But you're right. I hadn't fully considered the implications for large cities.
Oop, sorry. I did like the bit about the pit bulls =)
Don't forget Google Checkout, which (afaik) can be used for donations and is actually cheaper for small donations than PayPal. PayPal isn't the only big kid on the block anymore.
More true than you'd know, actually. Using the google suite of checkout (which, afaik, can be used for donations) and adsense can completely replace HTML for these people. Heck, they're even getting more bang for the donation buck if they use the google service.
PayPal needs to realize that they're no longer the only service avaiable - instead of instituting a boycott based on their personal morality, they're simply driving people to a competing service.
I would think that this also opens up an entirely new can of worms - although I'm sure that paypal has the right to do whatever the hell they want short of taking all your cash, if they keep making moves like this, THEY may end up liable for what their service is used for. They can't really have it both ways - either they're a common, undescriminating service, or they're suddenly accountable for everyone.