The election actually moved iraq some in the desired direction. The extend of this can be debated, but hold it to be true that some progress has been made.
Now kyoto: A protocol that incurs massive costs (read: your money) and doesn't, even over 50 years, even show a messurable result, as even its advocates don't deny.
Kyoto is a massive efford and shows NO result. It's not a step in any direction except towards more poverty in the world.
meanwhile the americans will still be driving regular cars and paying next to nothing for the gas. Of course, we 'enlightened' europeans will be even more heavily burdend by taxes that subsidize the clean energy technologies while at same time paying high prices to use them. To top it all off, in 10 years climate research will show that this is the end of natural warming period with an ice age to follow. The delicious irony of seeing european greens drive their 100.000 solar cars around on the iceshelf that then will cover all of northern europe will entertain me until I die.
Not to forget that stupid users bring this on themselves when they absolutly MUST join high population servers. I still remember the hype 'the inwow server is the best'. Well, I am not so sure people still think that way. The sad truth is: There are enough servers. But as in the US, some have almost no population while others are constantly maxed out.
From my personal value standpoint, I have to say this: seeing as no game guarantees a month worths fun and indeed, many 50 games I bought didn't even last 2 weeks for me, I'd say that WoW is a pretty good deal, considering that the first month of online play is free. I just know (and have known from the beta) that I'd certainly enjoy this game longer than 4 weeks. But of course there is no argueing about such things, if the price is to high for you, you're right with not buying it.
They given you what basically amounts to a free game and now they dare trying to make some money off their talent? Shame on them! Way to go on the name calling. Don't stop the rage.
PS: What the hell would you need DC for in BF2? Seeing as BF2 spends most of its time in the desert, doing combat.
why should it matter if I work for the item ingame a set amount of time or outside the game, also for time. Its just a consideration of what is more profitable (leaving 'fun' out of the equation). Lets have an other example: The rich guy gets to play all day because he needn't work (rich parents, I assume). Poor guy wants to keep up with the rest of them and decides to drop a days wage (the labour he had to do to substain his income) on good items that help him level faster. So now the roles are reversed. Are you now going to side with the rich guy?
That being said, I do think that people that buy stuff on ebay don't get the game and probably could direct their time to more worthwhile undertakings. For me, its not just a matter of 'oh look, I got X item, I'm so cool' its more like 'in my 'secondary life' (which, of course I seperate strongly from my real life) I found item X on a particular hard to beat mob or I played the auction house sucessfully and so getting the game money I needed to buy X. I know, people scoff at considering this an 'accomplishment' but within the game it is. Buying an item on ebay carries real life accomplishments over to the game world, thereby making playing the game a mood point. It's the loss of those people and not the 'honest' folk.
you really should read the books that are lie around everywhere. There is story for you. I agree, though, WoW lacks, for technical reasons, mechanisms that actually alter the game world permanently. As one WoW forum poster put it: 'After I have completed the quest to rid the Forest of gnolls/mulochs/etc. there shouldn't be any left.'. I share this sentiment. at the same time I realize why this is impossible to implement. Basically it would require Blizzard to write all quests for everyone seperately. For starters it would be nice to have some regular (weekly, maybe) 'event' for each zone where huge amounts of players need to get together to meet a unique challenge that once vanquished would never return.
I do agree. I'd want this system extended to melee combat and production as well. Playing WoW, I do realize that the WoW kind of combat does actually take some skill but I'm at a point where I probably could write a (complex) macro to handle the task. My intellect is not greatly challenged, except when coordinating my quests so that I'll have to do the least amount of walking. Also I really like the trade aspect (remembering where resources are, the market rate etc), it really gives me a sense of accomplishment to already have earned 3 gold with my lvl 13 char (For my beta char that kinda money was way out of reach). I guess a game that allows for real player inventions would be quite a complex simulation of real life with some fantasy elements thrown in. Quite unattainable, sadly.
you can't seperate 'sentimental' value and economic value. They are identical. The mistake you make is to assume that things have value in themselves. This is not correct at all. Value must always be subjective, therefore everything that someone does value indeed has value. Saying that the in game items are not valueable to the player (with the properties they possed when he first aquired them) is absurd.
what the hell are you talking about? I haven't got any 'real' friends here, just some people I agree with. But I don't even converse with them outside of threads. Also, I haven't modded in months and then certainly didn't mod by username. Actually, if you knew me, you'd be aware that I'm far to lazy to put that much efford into pissing people off I don't even know by name.
My remark was prompted by your obvious lack of intelligence and good manners nothing else. In your case the mod system here actually worked.
what do you think gold economies are? They are, in fact, direct barter economies.
And there is nothing abitrary about gold (unlike paper money). The following properties make gold uniquely suitable as money:
- durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
- low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
- 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)
- impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is)
- stable supply (very unlike paper)
- gold is a commodity serving real life purposes.
These factors combined increase its utility to a point where it was natural for people across the globe to accept gold as a universal medium of exchange. Paper money works differently: It must and always has been forced onto the populance. So the direction is reversed; universal (forced) acceptance preceded the little utility it has now. And the problems resulting from this are not to be ignored. 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.
yes, but whereas the increase in gold supply has positive effects like lots of people being able to afford more nice shiny stuff, government inflation is the promise of higher taxes and by extension of bigger government meaning less liberty peace and prosperety.
Also, increasing the gold supply at one moment in time by 2% is actually hard work like diging lots of holes or conquering yet undiscovered continents. My point being: its not a decision. Nowadays the govenment can expand money at will and thus increase its spending power at will. Not only that but initialy the market prices are reflecting the current ration of dollars vs goods meaning that the new money actually buys more stuff than it should be. In every way, you and me always get the short end of the stick with fiat money.
The virtual goods have value attached to them regardless of the game companies recognizing them. The evidence is clear on this: ask players if he prefered to keep the items he has or loose them with no compensation. If only one of them opts to keep, the goods are actually valuable. But this is unecessary since ebay auction not only proove that people attach value to those things but also establish a price. Whenever there is a price there must be value.
The liability issues you mention probably come down to what is in the service contract. If nothing is there, the courts must decide the property status of such 'virtual' valuables.
On a side note: common property law is not a tool to preserve the market exchange rate (price) for ones possesion. Property rights only preserve the physical integrity of your property. In example: while it is valid to sue operators of a plant that opens near by because they pollute your grounds, it is futile to sue them because your estate has become worthless since no one wants to move in next to a factory.
the only way to aquire something truly is to get it yourself. Billions and Billions of dollars are pouring into the countinent each year for the pas 50 years and not a thing has improved. Forgein aid to regions with structural problems is a collosal failure in terms of not doing any good. If you add to it the negative effects there is a convincing argument to drop the endeavour, and instead open the 1st world markets so that producers in the 3rd world can actualy sell their stuff here. Do away with forgein aid together with tariffs and industry/agracultural subsidies and the 3rd world will be much better off.
Well, the problem persits. Unless your spending is totaly impeccable by your own standards (better used else where) you have no place passing judgement.
Well, I hope we both realize that no one is trying to make any kind of moral argument why you, a non enterprise fan, should donate to the cause. From the article and the link its pretty clear that they don't ask for any donations from people that don't want to watch the show. As such, they are clearly not seeing themselves as victims in need of 'help'. Basically this thing is a fund to provide capital for additional episodes. They are definatly *trying* to buy something. The question of if the money could be better spend elsewhere raises fundamental problems like 'by what standard'. For their part at least the people (donating) paying into the fund have answered that question with 'no'. It is my conviction that there is no supreme standard that can guide the spending of money outside of the individuals preference scale.
There is a fine line in compasion. A few, actually. One thing about it is about voluntarity. No one has the right to condem others for showing to little compassion sbecause 1) compassion can not be owed and 2) compassion is not messuralbe. This applies especially over the internet. Maybe the fans donating to enterprise are in the majority aid workers that labour long hours to save african kids only to find that their last retreat (enterprise;) is not available anymore. Unlikely, but you can't know if these people might not actually do more to improve the world by your standards than you yourself are.
Secondly, and this is more important, aiding people is all well and compassion serves its purpose in extraordinary cirumstances quite well. But it never requires people to fix their own problems. This is called the moral hazard. Aiding the tsunami victims was right, in my opinion, because it was a one time event, the victims themselves could have done nothing to improve their lot. They needed help to get back on their feet. Development aid on the other hand is fueling a constant catastrophy, a tsunami if you will, composed of local politics and culture that devastats the land every day anew. In addition to stabilizing the bad conditions instead of letting them deterioate until they collapse, development aid also breeds dependancy. If enough food arives at your village every month for years, why try to farm, why try to improve your methods, why try to change the status quo? This is an actual problem. You should google some.
please educate me! why should you be the one to decide who may have extra money (above what is required for living of course) and who should give theirs to the poor. Donating to saving the enterprise series is exaclty the same as you having a private broadband connection is the same as me having a TV and the same as eanyone having anything above the 3rd world living standards, seen from a 3rd world need perspective.
yeah right, because our wealth only stems from the blood of african slaves. We owe it to them? Is that it? They live in poverty so that we may be rich? Is that how the world works in your eyes? Here is an alternative history: 70 years of ethnic strive, tribal warfare, socialist dictators and mass genocide commited by authoritarian regimes or religios fanatics may have not been the best route to take. The greates obstacles to wealth in the 3rd world are structural. Politicians that to this day regulary drive white farmers from plantations shortly before harvest causing mass famine (zimbabwe ie.) and insane cultural norms and 'wisdom' (raping a virgin to get rid of aids, sewing girls vagina shut, NOT irrigating farm land because only the gods may send water etc) are keeping the whole continent down. Pouring money into it mostly benefit the wrong kind of people, the traditionalist and the power brokers and the mad army generals (because, no matter even if the whole country is burning to the ground, there is still money left to buy some AKs to go hunt people with). Before the underlying causes are not resolved, no amount of money can fix that shit hole.
It's a crass leap of logic to go from "some money is better spent on others" to "all money should be spent on others
In the context it is only a 'crass leap' if it is recognized that the money you spend on your enjoyment is not a matter of discussion, presumably because as an advocate of a seemingly noble cause you are exempt from mere wordly contributions. Otherwise its pretty simple. Compared to the living standards of the worlds poor, even processed food (as mentioned above) is a luxury. Assuming that your argument is derivied from the principle of 'greatest need', the evalutation of 'money could be better spend on X instead of Y' is also guided by that principle. Therefore, everything above african standards is eligable for redistribution from 'less needy' (west) to 'more needy' (africa). Requiring you to give up your luxuries as well is only a logical consequence from your arguments underlying ideology .
you are just circeling the core issue raised: May we (filthily rich westerners) have any spare money above what is required to survive? So, do we or don't we? Is your version of a better world that europeans and NAs donate ALL money to the third world and keep nothing for themselves? Good luck with that. People just wouldn't work more than needed to survive. Why should they.
you lack reading skills. The fanboys want to, together with other fanboys, fund enterprise out of their pockets. Original poster said: 'this is not right, nobody puts that kind of effort into more benifitial avenues'. Reply: 'yes they did, see the tsunami'. Which is true. What's your point?
Slashdot Mirror
The election actually moved iraq some in the desired direction. The extend of this can be debated, but hold it to be true that some progress has been made.
Now kyoto: A protocol that incurs massive costs (read: your money) and doesn't, even over 50 years, even show a messurable result, as even its advocates don't deny. Kyoto is a massive efford and shows NO result. It's not a step in any direction except towards more poverty in the world.
meanwhile the americans will still be driving regular cars and paying next to nothing for the gas. Of course, we 'enlightened' europeans will be even more heavily burdend by taxes that subsidize the clean energy technologies while at same time paying high prices to use them. To top it all off, in 10 years climate research will show that this is the end of natural warming period with an ice age to follow. The delicious irony of seeing european greens drive their 100.000 solar cars around on the iceshelf that then will cover all of northern europe will entertain me until I die.
Not to forget that stupid users bring this on themselves when they absolutly MUST join high population servers. I still remember the hype 'the inwow server is the best'. Well, I am not so sure people still think that way. The sad truth is: There are enough servers. But as in the US, some have almost no population while others are constantly maxed out.
From my personal value standpoint, I have to say this: seeing as no game guarantees a month worths fun and indeed, many 50 games I bought didn't even last 2 weeks for me, I'd say that WoW is a pretty good deal, considering that the first month of online play is free. I just know (and have known from the beta) that I'd certainly enjoy this game longer than 4 weeks. But of course there is no argueing about such things, if the price is to high for you, you're right with not buying it.
They given you what basically amounts to a free game and now they dare trying to make some money off their talent? Shame on them! Way to go on the name calling. Don't stop the rage. PS: What the hell would you need DC for in BF2? Seeing as BF2 spends most of its time in the desert, doing combat.
why should it matter if I work for the item ingame a set amount of time or outside the game, also for time. Its just a consideration of what is more profitable (leaving 'fun' out of the equation). Lets have an other example: The rich guy gets to play all day because he needn't work (rich parents, I assume). Poor guy wants to keep up with the rest of them and decides to drop a days wage (the labour he had to do to substain his income) on good items that help him level faster. So now the roles are reversed. Are you now going to side with the rich guy?
That being said, I do think that people that buy stuff on ebay don't get the game and probably could direct their time to more worthwhile undertakings. For me, its not just a matter of 'oh look, I got X item, I'm so cool' its more like 'in my 'secondary life' (which, of course I seperate strongly from my real life) I found item X on a particular hard to beat mob or I played the auction house sucessfully and so getting the game money I needed to buy X. I know, people scoff at considering this an 'accomplishment' but within the game it is. Buying an item on ebay carries real life accomplishments over to the game world, thereby making playing the game a mood point. It's the loss of those people and not the 'honest' folk.
you really should read the books that are lie around everywhere. There is story for you. I agree, though, WoW lacks, for technical reasons, mechanisms that actually alter the game world permanently. As one WoW forum poster put it: 'After I have completed the quest to rid the Forest of gnolls/mulochs/etc. there shouldn't be any left.'. I share this sentiment. at the same time I realize why this is impossible to implement. Basically it would require Blizzard to write all quests for everyone seperately. For starters it would be nice to have some regular (weekly, maybe) 'event' for each zone where huge amounts of players need to get together to meet a unique challenge that once vanquished would never return.
I do agree. I'd want this system extended to melee combat and production as well. Playing WoW, I do realize that the WoW kind of combat does actually take some skill but I'm at a point where I probably could write a (complex) macro to handle the task. My intellect is not greatly challenged, except when coordinating my quests so that I'll have to do the least amount of walking. Also I really like the trade aspect (remembering where resources are, the market rate etc), it really gives me a sense of accomplishment to already have earned 3 gold with my lvl 13 char (For my beta char that kinda money was way out of reach). I guess a game that allows for real player inventions would be quite a complex simulation of real life with some fantasy elements thrown in. Quite unattainable, sadly.
what? That WoW sucks and they are glad WoW came along? ;)
you can't seperate 'sentimental' value and economic value. They are identical. The mistake you make is to assume that things have value in themselves. This is not correct at all. Value must always be subjective, therefore everything that someone does value indeed has value. Saying that the in game items are not valueable to the player (with the properties they possed when he first aquired them) is absurd.
what the hell are you talking about? I haven't got any 'real' friends here, just some people I agree with. But I don't even converse with them outside of threads. Also, I haven't modded in months and then certainly didn't mod by username. Actually, if you knew me, you'd be aware that I'm far to lazy to put that much efford into pissing people off I don't even know by name.
My remark was prompted by your obvious lack of intelligence and good manners nothing else. In your case the mod system here actually worked.
what do you think gold economies are? They are, in fact, direct barter economies.
And there is nothing abitrary about gold (unlike paper money). The following properties make gold uniquely suitable as money:
- durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
- low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
- 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)
- impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is)
- stable supply (very unlike paper)
- gold is a commodity serving real life purposes.
These factors combined increase its utility to a point where it was natural for people across the globe to accept gold as a universal medium of exchange. Paper money works differently: It must and always has been forced onto the populance. So the direction is reversed; universal (forced) acceptance preceded the little utility it has now. And the problems resulting from this are not to be ignored. 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.
yes, but whereas the increase in gold supply has positive effects like lots of people being able to afford more nice shiny stuff, government inflation is the promise of higher taxes and by extension of bigger government meaning less liberty peace and prosperety.
Also, increasing the gold supply at one moment in time by 2% is actually hard work like diging lots of holes or conquering yet undiscovered continents. My point being: its not a decision. Nowadays the govenment can expand money at will and thus increase its spending power at will. Not only that but initialy the market prices are reflecting the current ration of dollars vs goods meaning that the new money actually buys more stuff than it should be. In every way, you and me always get the short end of the stick with fiat money.
The virtual goods have value attached to them regardless of the game companies recognizing them. The evidence is clear on this: ask players if he prefered to keep the items he has or loose them with no compensation. If only one of them opts to keep, the goods are actually valuable. But this is unecessary since ebay auction not only proove that people attach value to those things but also establish a price. Whenever there is a price there must be value.
The liability issues you mention probably come down to what is in the service contract. If nothing is there, the courts must decide the property status of such 'virtual' valuables.
On a side note: common property law is not a tool to preserve the market exchange rate (price) for ones possesion. Property rights only preserve the physical integrity of your property. In example: while it is valid to sue operators of a plant that opens near by because they pollute your grounds, it is futile to sue them because your estate has become worthless since no one wants to move in next to a factory.
the only way to aquire something truly is to get it yourself. Billions and Billions of dollars are pouring into the countinent each year for the pas 50 years and not a thing has improved. Forgein aid to regions with structural problems is a collosal failure in terms of not doing any good. If you add to it the negative effects there is a convincing argument to drop the endeavour, and instead open the 1st world markets so that producers in the 3rd world can actualy sell their stuff here. Do away with forgein aid together with tariffs and industry/agracultural subsidies and the 3rd world will be much better off.
I don't think the karma bank will cover futher withdraws from your account, pal.
cafeteria lady
We don't have a cafeteria where I work, so I guess I'm shit out of luck, ey?
you are funny. To bad you don't know what you are talking about ;)
Well, the problem persits. Unless your spending is totaly impeccable by your own standards (better used else where) you have no place passing judgement.
Well, I hope we both realize that no one is trying to make any kind of moral argument why you, a non enterprise fan, should donate to the cause. From the article and the link its pretty clear that they don't ask for any donations from people that don't want to watch the show. As such, they are clearly not seeing themselves as victims in need of 'help'. Basically this thing is a fund to provide capital for additional episodes. They are definatly *trying* to buy something.
The question of if the money could be better spend elsewhere raises fundamental problems like 'by what standard'. For their part at least the people (donating) paying into the fund have answered that question with 'no'. It is my conviction that there is no supreme standard that can guide the spending of money outside of the individuals preference scale.
There is a fine line in compasion. A few, actually. One thing about it is about voluntarity. No one has the right to condem others for showing to little compassion sbecause 1) compassion can not be owed and 2) compassion is not messuralbe. This applies especially over the internet. Maybe the fans donating to enterprise are in the majority aid workers that labour long hours to save african kids only to find that their last retreat (enterprise ;) is not available anymore. Unlikely, but you can't know if these people might not actually do more to improve the world by your standards than you yourself are.
Secondly, and this is more important, aiding people is all well and compassion serves its purpose in extraordinary cirumstances quite well. But it never requires people to fix their own problems. This is called the moral hazard. Aiding the tsunami victims was right, in my opinion, because it was a one time event, the victims themselves could have done nothing to improve their lot. They needed help to get back on their feet. Development aid on the other hand is fueling a constant catastrophy, a tsunami if you will, composed of local politics and culture that devastats the land every day anew. In addition to stabilizing the bad conditions instead of letting them deterioate until they collapse, development aid also breeds dependancy. If enough food arives at your village every month for years, why try to farm, why try to improve your methods, why try to change the status quo? This is an actual problem. You should google some.
please educate me! why should you be the one to decide who may have extra money (above what is required for living of course) and who should give theirs to the poor. Donating to saving the enterprise series is exaclty the same as you having a private broadband connection is the same as me having a TV and the same as eanyone having anything above the 3rd world living standards, seen from a 3rd world need perspective.
yeah right, because our wealth only stems from the blood of african slaves. We owe it to them? Is that it? They live in poverty so that we may be rich? Is that how the world works in your eyes? Here is an alternative history: 70 years of ethnic strive, tribal warfare, socialist dictators and mass genocide commited by authoritarian regimes or religios fanatics may have not been the best route to take.
The greates obstacles to wealth in the 3rd world are structural. Politicians that to this day regulary drive white farmers from plantations shortly before harvest causing mass famine (zimbabwe ie.) and insane cultural norms and 'wisdom' (raping a virgin to get rid of aids, sewing girls vagina shut, NOT irrigating farm land because only the gods may send water etc) are keeping the whole continent down. Pouring money into it mostly benefit the wrong kind of people, the traditionalist and the power brokers and the mad army generals (because, no matter even if the whole country is burning to the ground, there is still money left to buy some AKs to go hunt people with). Before the underlying causes are not resolved, no amount of money can fix that shit hole.
It's a crass leap of logic to go from "some money is better spent on others" to "all money should be spent on others
In the context it is only a 'crass leap' if it is recognized that the money you spend on your enjoyment is not a matter of discussion, presumably because as an advocate of a seemingly noble cause you are exempt from mere wordly contributions. Otherwise its pretty simple. Compared to the living standards of the worlds poor, even processed food (as mentioned above) is a luxury. Assuming that your argument is derivied from the principle of 'greatest need', the evalutation of 'money could be better spend on X instead of Y' is also guided by that principle. Therefore, everything above african standards is eligable for redistribution from 'less needy' (west) to 'more needy' (africa). Requiring you to give up your luxuries as well is only a logical consequence from your arguments underlying ideology .
you are just circeling the core issue raised: May we (filthily rich westerners) have any spare money above what is required to survive? So, do we or don't we? Is your version of a better world that europeans and NAs donate ALL money to the third world and keep nothing for themselves? Good luck with that. People just wouldn't work more than needed to survive. Why should they.
you lack reading skills. The fanboys want to, together with other fanboys, fund enterprise out of their pockets. Original poster said: 'this is not right, nobody puts that kind of effort into more benifitial avenues'. Reply: 'yes they did, see the tsunami'. Which is true. What's your point?