Tell that to the 1 in 9 small businesses that succeeded. You know how many businesses were successfull that never were started? Yeah... Enjoy your 9 to 5.
there are safer risks someone can take with their money, and ones that don't involve the necessity of earning back the initial investment. not to mention that this guy needs to depend on the long-term success of this game. what if a new game lures away players this december? where does the subscriber base go? so tell me, if his revenue stream disappears, where does his money come from?
This happens all the time... every time a mall 'dries up' stores move to the next mall. Every time a neighborhood becomes the "old neighborhood" investors move to the next one to develop it. That's just how it happens. It's a risk. You do your research and invest in hopes that you can recoup your investment and make some profit from the deal. It's just business.
what makes you think someone else won't start doing what this guy did? what makes you think it won't cost more to buy the property the next time around? what makes you think the 'renters' won't be wiser? game publishers already want every cent they can get, don't expect anyone to profit in their universe without them taking a cut.
There's nothing that says any of this won't happen. That's also business. But that dosen't make any of it stupid. Of course the game-makers would want a cut... kinda like the US wants taxes on EVERY DAMN THING you do within it's borders. They facilitate an environment where those things can take place and want to get paid to continue to do so.
and regarding software: something that drives productivity has tangible value. i suppose if people paid for all of the above to "have a good time", you might be able to justify a comparison, but i don't think anyone laughs joyously when they plop down several hundred dollars to have the latest version of ms windows.
Um... games? Nothing productive about them.
my domain names have tangible value in that they redirect to servers accessible by anyone with an Internet connection which provide information and services. i control whether or not this tie exists, and it is possible for me to profit from this, although i do not. this man doesn't control whether or not the game's universe exists, only subscribers to the game can access his island, and if the game publisher would like to quash his ability to profit from this, the EULA likely prevents him any recourse.
Your tie to your domain name is controlled by several servers along the way... do you not pay a rental fee every year (or every couple of years) to have this domain name routed to your server? Most individuals with domain names also pay a hosting provider to host the site for the world. Do you know what happens if they remove your harddrive? Gone. In addition to this, only people who can log into the internet can get to it.
It's all virtual... it's all pretend.
Oh... except that you're not making money on your domain name investment and he IS making money off of his investment. I guess that makes you the fool.
he's already recouped his investment... anotherwords... he made his money back, and will continue to earn profit on it... where-as you didn't do it and were stupid for not having done it.
Only a moron points the 'stupid' finger at an idea that worked.
generally the doctors "can't" (in theory) be held responsible if they make a mistake... malpractice covers gross negligence... taking part in a procedure for which they're not trained... ignoring something obvious to a doctor of his training... butchering someone... that sort of thing.
Now that's the idea.... in reality people just sue if they wake up and are still alive (and the family sues if they aren't).
Does it bother anyone that doctors call what they do a 'practice'? lol
I would wager that ALOT of the folks who will end up reading this play these games... WoW, Everquest...etc.
Do you pay to play these games? yes... you're paying to spend your time to build up repore in an online game and have fun. This is no different.
Buying a peice of online real-estate is no different than buying software, a database of information (email addresses... phone numbers... businesses...etc)..
Actually... it's REALLY similar to buying a domain name. How many of you have domain names? (nyposse.net?)::shrug:: seems like simple economics to me... nothing stupid about it.
I'd hit you but I can't do that to jesus.. I'll just let you have it... in fact... you need to breath in the air... *rips off NASA patch* MWHAHAHAHAHHAHA (except it's silent)
open source will be around for a damn long time... this much is true. But i still doubt the viability as a business model. it relies on being the 'cool toy' of the week to generate income. There are exceptions of course... major backbone projects that will be used for years to come... but in general most projects are of the 'here today and gone tomorrow' variety... they depend on being popular to progress.
congratulations.... ? would you like a cookie? I still maintain that people who live in apartments are generally from the lower end of the economic spectrum. There are folks like yourself who live in apartments because you want to... I live in an apartment myself. huzzah
Exceptions: highly metropolitan areas where apartment living covers a much larger portion of the spectrum and/or has been made glamourous/exclusive... These do not however make up the vast majority of apartment dwellers. While a penthouse apartment on madison will house 1 resident, the same amount of space in new orleans is space enough for 100 multi-family units. Low income multifamily dwellings make up the VAST majority of apartment leases. There's an amazing amount of turn-over with these. Most people don't take care of rented property because they don't own it. There's a good chance that people will write bad checks, or bounce checks... or not have enough in their account to cover a debit-card. All of this costs money to the company trying to get their money. Even if a creditcard charge goes through, the company has to pay a certain percentage of the charge to the merchant services provider.
Apartment complex profit margins (especially with low income apartments) are low enough as it is. They simply can't afford to deal with bounced checks and people disappearing without fulfilling their contract payments.
THUS... pre-paid money orders and cash in some cases are generally all that they'll accept.
Seriously though... this isn't a hard concept. I really didn't expect to have to explain it this clearly. Who generally lives in apartments? College students, people who can't (or choose not to) own their own home, people looking for temporary living arrangements. These are high risk leases...
I mean... did I stutter when I said 'generally'? This isn't an insult. It's just true.
more to the point you'd have to protect/defend your land. It's yours? great. It's mine now. What're you going to do about it? (and vice versa when you take it back)
checks are still used in some places so the banks typically must give them out.
phones USED to work that way here (pay per minute as you use it) but people don't like knowing that each minute is costing them $.10 so they changed to this system of 'plans'. Cingular actually rolls over the minutes so you get 200 a month and at the end of the month whatever you haven't used goes towards the next month. if you don't use them then in a few months you could be sitting on several thousand minutes.
Apartments in the US are generally inhabited by the lower end of society. As a result the leasing offices are forced to be strict about getting the payments in physically in certain forms (aka, no personal checks typically). Also, electronic payment systems usually charge a % of each transaction, so if that were used, either it would cost them more to take lease payments, or your rent would go up (most likely the later).
But where did the "only takes one exception to disprove an entire theory" thing disappear to? I was under the impression that scientists were just looking at evidence and deriving unbiased models to explain it. Repeat his experiment... if you get the same results, and those results fly in the face of Quantum theory... then it needs to be thrown out. It dosen't matter how many years of existing evidence or experimentation exist for it. When did scientists become creationists?
exactly... birth is the number one cause of death.
Honestly we could totally eliminate human death all together by just not having sex anymore as a species! That'd be great! Then we would just never die! The other species would be jealous!
I could keep hitting you with this over the head for 2 weeks and you're just never going to understand. For the sake of my own peace of mind, I'm going to try one more time...
You are judging another attempt to find the truth behind the universe by your own (in this case Scientific) set of rules. Please understand that these rules simply do not apply to theology. They can't. I can't walk up to a buddhist citing verses from Exodus because to him they're meaningless. The buddhist would have no luck convincing you that you're wrong by citing tennents of his religion, and you'll have no luck judging the merits of any other religion using your interpretations of the universe. Every one of these groups of people are seeking the same thing. The truth. They have all decided on the 'proper way' of doing that, and went from there. You chose science.
Now your entire argument is built upon your assumption that science is right and all other religions are wrong. This is NOT a basis for an argument. It'll only make since for people who have already come to that conclusion themselves.
Contrary to what you seem to think, Science is FOUNDED on the scientific method. Take away that, and there is nothing. None of the theories, or laws, or hypotheses are valid. This isn't to say that they can't be re-validated with some new system... maybe they can. But maybe they can't.
Either way there's no garuntee that the scientific method is an appropriate model for modeling the universe... just like there's no proof that any other major religion is any better of a model.
What I'm getting at here... is that you assume from the start that you're right... You have absolutely NO proof that the system of guess/test/check/recheck/theory/law is correct. Conceptually it makes sense, but it's still a leap of faith. Yes... scientists have to have faith.
The fact that you've argued this so much thus far tells me that you're just as indoctrinated to believe in your 'system' as any baptist is to believe in his.
If the new theory is developed by a team of budhist monks meditating for 10 years on the top of a metal spike, it doesn't matter. As long as I can use it to model the world and make predictions.
I call bullshit on this one. Noone in the scientific community would accept this theory unless it was able to pass certain criteria outlined by the scientific method. Without following this method, it's not science. Period.
The moment you start using other methods (e.g. the method of sitting atop an iron spike, or the method of thinking that a world without a designer is impossible) you're not doing Science anymore.
The fact of the matter is that scientists are attempting to model (theories) our universe (the real facts sought) using a method, or a "rule-set" if you will (scientific method). This is only possible by taking certain things for granted (assumptions) such as the validity of the scientific method (a model which is used to model the universe), or the assumption that the things which are true now, will be true tomorrow (e.g. chemical reactions won't suddenly 'change' for no observable reason, momentum will continue to be conserved into the unforseen future). Assumptions like the reality of causality are what make Science possible.
Baptists, catholics, theologins, buddhists, etc are trying to model (theories/dogma) the creation/universe (the real facts sought) using a method, or 'rule-set' (bible, koran, other set of guidelines). This is only possible by taking certain things for granted (faith) such as (for christians) the belief that the bible is perfect with no errors. This assuption makes christianity possible.
Both sides of this thing, creationists and scientists, are trying to model the same thing using different rules. The rules were both created by fallible men and women who are trying to get as close as possible to the truth as they can. The rules (of both) are far from perfect. Scientists translate the universe, and theologens translate the bible. A catholic man interpreting the bible would be an absolute idiot if he sat back with 100% certainty that he understood the exact meaning of anything in the bible. By the same token, a scientist would be a moron for saying the same thing about the world. When it comes right down to it, we're all wandering in the dark.
Science has an aweful lot resting on the shoulders of the scientific method... likewise christians have everything resting on the foundation of the bible. Both groups are taking these things by faith/assumption/belief. Whatever you choose to call it.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. A theory can never be proven,
Thankyou for pointing out this fact repeated by every moron on this entire discussion. If you'll look back you'll notice that it was uterly non-pivitol to my point and was clearly only a miss-use of the word.
In other news: Jamaica plans to build world's largest soccerball! Haiti to build world's largest desk lamp! Mexico plans to build world's largest truck... large enough to fit the entire population into the cab!
Evolution, big bang, subatomic particles... these are all theories and models used to describe what we observe in our universe. Absolutely right.
BUT
These are theories used to describe the universe within the belief structure of Science. You BELIEVE that the scientific method is the best way to deal with and extract information from your surroundings. From this BELIEF you get your theories.
If someone does not subscribe to the belief that the scientific method is correct (And you can deride that all you want, but there is no proof whatsoever that the method is simply FACT. It's an assumption that all of science is built on. A well founded assumption, but an assumption none the less.) then all of the scientific proof in the world is worthless to them. It would be like having a baptist come up to you citing a passage of the bible that says XXXX. To him this is his 'proof' which comes from his belief structure (his chosen religion), which leads to his theory, that the universe was created by an intelligent force. It means nothing to you because it dosen't follow your beliefs... it dosen't mesh with the Scientific method.
Is it a Scientific theory? no. It dosen't follow the rules of science. Is it a baptist/catholic/whatever theory? Maybe and probably yes. They're all different afterall.
the ability to give an audiance an emotional need to know the rest of the story is what makes a great story-teller... which is one step along the way to making a great movie.:D
People like YOU are the reason ID is even near being considered a science. And by people like you I mean ignorant, uneducated individuals who have no idea what science is.
Didn't I just say that it isn't a science? lol
So if I understand what you're saying... you're saying that "science is real and theology isn't" which is funny because it's exactly what I just got done complaining about.
If I intend to prove evolution wrong, you're claiming that I need to do it using YOUR rules. The rules of science and the scientific method.
Yet if you intend to prove creationism wrong, you get to use YOUR rules still? And that's where we go in two different directions.
I'm not saying that ID is science. In fact what I'm saying is that Evolution isn't baptist/catholic/buddist/wtfe. All I'm saying is that Science is a religion just as much as Catholisim. It's a set of rules (scientific meathod) governing a belief structure. Whatever religion you might be (baptist, catholic, or scientist) is fine as far as I'm concerned as it has no effect what-so-ever on my life.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to the 1 in 9 small businesses that succeeded. You know how many businesses were successfull that never were started? Yeah... Enjoy your 9 to 5.
If I buy something I own it. If I own it, I can't steal it, or if I steal it, I steal it from myself.
So then why is Sony installing software on my computer?
Try to think a bit before you speak...
there are safer risks someone can take with their money, and ones that don't involve the necessity of earning back the initial investment. not to mention that this guy needs to depend on the long-term success of this game. what if a new game lures away players this december? where does the subscriber base go? so tell me, if his revenue stream disappears, where does his money come from?
This happens all the time... every time a mall 'dries up' stores move to the next mall. Every time a neighborhood becomes the "old neighborhood" investors move to the next one to develop it. That's just how it happens. It's a risk. You do your research and invest in hopes that you can recoup your investment and make some profit from the deal. It's just business.
what makes you think someone else won't start doing what this guy did? what makes you think it won't cost more to buy the property the next time around? what makes you think the 'renters' won't be wiser? game publishers already want every cent they can get, don't expect anyone to profit in their universe without them taking a cut.
There's nothing that says any of this won't happen. That's also business. But that dosen't make any of it stupid. Of course the game-makers would want a cut... kinda like the US wants taxes on EVERY DAMN THING you do within it's borders. They facilitate an environment where those things can take place and want to get paid to continue to do so.
and regarding software: something that drives productivity has tangible value. i suppose if people paid for all of the above to "have a good time", you might be able to justify a comparison, but i don't think anyone laughs joyously when they plop down several hundred dollars to have the latest version of ms windows.
Um... games? Nothing productive about them.
my domain names have tangible value in that they redirect to servers accessible by anyone with an Internet connection which provide information and services. i control whether or not this tie exists, and it is possible for me to profit from this, although i do not. this man doesn't control whether or not the game's universe exists, only subscribers to the game can access his island, and if the game publisher would like to quash his ability to profit from this, the EULA likely prevents him any recourse.
Your tie to your domain name is controlled by several servers along the way... do you not pay a rental fee every year (or every couple of years) to have this domain name routed to your server? Most individuals with domain names also pay a hosting provider to host the site for the world. Do you know what happens if they remove your harddrive? Gone. In addition to this, only people who can log into the internet can get to it.
It's all virtual... it's all pretend.
Oh... except that you're not making money on your domain name investment and he IS making money off of his investment. I guess that makes you the fool.
he's already recouped his investment... anotherwords... he made his money back, and will continue to earn profit on it... where-as you didn't do it and were stupid for not having done it.
Only a moron points the 'stupid' finger at an idea that worked.
generally the doctors "can't" (in theory) be held responsible if they make a mistake... malpractice covers gross negligence... taking part in a procedure for which they're not trained... ignoring something obvious to a doctor of his training... butchering someone... that sort of thing.
Now that's the idea.... in reality people just sue if they wake up and are still alive (and the family sues if they aren't).
Does it bother anyone that doctors call what they do a 'practice'? lol
I don't get how this is stupid...
::shrug:: seems like simple economics to me... nothing stupid about it.
I would wager that ALOT of the folks who will end up reading this play these games... WoW, Everquest...etc.
Do you pay to play these games? yes... you're paying to spend your time to build up repore in an online game and have fun. This is no different.
Buying a peice of online real-estate is no different than buying software, a database of information (email addresses... phone numbers... businesses...etc)..
Actually... it's REALLY similar to buying a domain name. How many of you have domain names? (nyposse.net?)
When did 7 become 37?
I'd hit you but I can't do that to jesus.. I'll just let you have it... in fact... you need to breath in the air... *rips off NASA patch* MWHAHAHAHAHHAHA (except it's silent)
open source will be around for a damn long time... this much is true. But i still doubt the viability as a business model. it relies on being the 'cool toy' of the week to generate income. There are exceptions of course... major backbone projects that will be used for years to come... but in general most projects are of the 'here today and gone tomorrow' variety... they depend on being popular to progress.
congratulations.... ? would you like a cookie? I still maintain that people who live in apartments are generally from the lower end of the economic spectrum. There are folks like yourself who live in apartments because you want to... I live in an apartment myself. huzzah
Exceptions: highly metropolitan areas where apartment living covers a much larger portion of the spectrum and/or has been made glamourous/exclusive... These do not however make up the vast majority of apartment dwellers. While a penthouse apartment on madison will house 1 resident, the same amount of space in new orleans is space enough for 100 multi-family units. Low income multifamily dwellings make up the VAST majority of apartment leases. There's an amazing amount of turn-over with these. Most people don't take care of rented property because they don't own it. There's a good chance that people will write bad checks, or bounce checks... or not have enough in their account to cover a debit-card. All of this costs money to the company trying to get their money. Even if a creditcard charge goes through, the company has to pay a certain percentage of the charge to the merchant services provider.
Apartment complex profit margins (especially with low income apartments) are low enough as it is. They simply can't afford to deal with bounced checks and people disappearing without fulfilling their contract payments.
THUS... pre-paid money orders and cash in some cases are generally all that they'll accept.
Seriously though... this isn't a hard concept. I really didn't expect to have to explain it this clearly. Who generally lives in apartments? College students, people who can't (or choose not to) own their own home, people looking for temporary living arrangements. These are high risk leases...
I mean... did I stutter when I said 'generally'? This isn't an insult. It's just true.
more to the point you'd have to protect/defend your land. It's yours? great. It's mine now. What're you going to do about it? (and vice versa when you take it back)
ooohhhhh!!!! BURRRRNN!!!! you go girlfriend!
checks are still used in some places so the banks typically must give them out.
phones USED to work that way here (pay per minute as you use it) but people don't like knowing that each minute is costing them $.10 so they changed to this system of 'plans'. Cingular actually rolls over the minutes so you get 200 a month and at the end of the month whatever you haven't used goes towards the next month. if you don't use them then in a few months you could be sitting on several thousand minutes.
Apartments in the US are generally inhabited by the lower end of society. As a result the leasing offices are forced to be strict about getting the payments in physically in certain forms (aka, no personal checks typically). Also, electronic payment systems usually charge a % of each transaction, so if that were used, either it would cost them more to take lease payments, or your rent would go up (most likely the later).
finally... you're a moron.
But where did the "only takes one exception to disprove an entire theory" thing disappear to? I was under the impression that scientists were just looking at evidence and deriving unbiased models to explain it. Repeat his experiment... if you get the same results, and those results fly in the face of Quantum theory... then it needs to be thrown out. It dosen't matter how many years of existing evidence or experimentation exist for it. When did scientists become creationists?
exactly... birth is the number one cause of death.
Honestly we could totally eliminate human death all together by just not having sex anymore as a species! That'd be great! Then we would just never die! The other species would be jealous!
yeah... check out "New Look at an Old Earth"... you'll enjoy it if nothing else.
old news... they're proud of it these days. B.O. is a badge of honor, along with having gone the most days without a bathroom break.
I could keep hitting you with this over the head for 2 weeks and you're just never going to understand. For the sake of my own peace of mind, I'm going to try one more time...
You are judging another attempt to find the truth behind the universe by your own (in this case Scientific) set of rules. Please understand that these rules simply do not apply to theology. They can't. I can't walk up to a buddhist citing verses from Exodus because to him they're meaningless. The buddhist would have no luck convincing you that you're wrong by citing tennents of his religion, and you'll have no luck judging the merits of any other religion using your interpretations of the universe. Every one of these groups of people are seeking the same thing. The truth. They have all decided on the 'proper way' of doing that, and went from there. You chose science.
Now your entire argument is built upon your assumption that science is right and all other religions are wrong. This is NOT a basis for an argument. It'll only make since for people who have already come to that conclusion themselves.
Contrary to what you seem to think, Science is FOUNDED on the scientific method. Take away that, and there is nothing. None of the theories, or laws, or hypotheses are valid. This isn't to say that they can't be re-validated with some new system... maybe they can. But maybe they can't.
Either way there's no garuntee that the scientific method is an appropriate model for modeling the universe... just like there's no proof that any other major religion is any better of a model.
What I'm getting at here... is that you assume from the start that you're right... You have absolutely NO proof that the system of guess/test/check/recheck/theory/law is correct. Conceptually it makes sense, but it's still a leap of faith. Yes... scientists have to have faith.
The fact that you've argued this so much thus far tells me that you're just as indoctrinated to believe in your 'system' as any baptist is to believe in his.
If the new theory is developed by a team of budhist monks meditating for 10 years on the top of a metal spike, it doesn't matter. As long as I can use it to model the world and make predictions.
I call bullshit on this one. Noone in the scientific community would accept this theory unless it was able to pass certain criteria outlined by the scientific method. Without following this method, it's not science. Period.
The moment you start using other methods (e.g. the method of sitting atop an iron spike, or the method of thinking that a world without a designer is impossible) you're not doing Science anymore.
The fact of the matter is that scientists are attempting to model (theories) our universe (the real facts sought) using a method, or a "rule-set" if you will (scientific method). This is only possible by taking certain things for granted (assumptions) such as the validity of the scientific method (a model which is used to model the universe), or the assumption that the things which are true now, will be true tomorrow (e.g. chemical reactions won't suddenly 'change' for no observable reason, momentum will continue to be conserved into the unforseen future). Assumptions like the reality of causality are what make Science possible.
Baptists, catholics, theologins, buddhists, etc are trying to model (theories/dogma) the creation/universe (the real facts sought) using a method, or 'rule-set' (bible, koran, other set of guidelines). This is only possible by taking certain things for granted (faith) such as (for christians) the belief that the bible is perfect with no errors. This assuption makes christianity possible.
Both sides of this thing, creationists and scientists, are trying to model the same thing using different rules. The rules were both created by fallible men and women who are trying to get as close as possible to the truth as they can. The rules (of both) are far from perfect. Scientists translate the universe, and theologens translate the bible. A catholic man interpreting the bible would be an absolute idiot if he sat back with 100% certainty that he understood the exact meaning of anything in the bible. By the same token, a scientist would be a moron for saying the same thing about the world. When it comes right down to it, we're all wandering in the dark.
Science has an aweful lot resting on the shoulders of the scientific method... likewise christians have everything resting on the foundation of the bible. Both groups are taking these things by faith/assumption/belief. Whatever you choose to call it.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. A theory can never be proven,
Thankyou for pointing out this fact repeated by every moron on this entire discussion. If you'll look back you'll notice that it was uterly non-pivitol to my point and was clearly only a miss-use of the word.
In other news: Jamaica plans to build world's largest soccerball! Haiti to build world's largest desk lamp! Mexico plans to build world's largest truck... large enough to fit the entire population into the cab!
Your mom gave me a cronjob last night...
nobody is arguing with you.
Evolution, big bang, subatomic particles... these are all theories and models used to describe what we observe in our universe. Absolutely right.
BUT
These are theories used to describe the universe within the belief structure of Science. You BELIEVE that the scientific method is the best way to deal with and extract information from your surroundings. From this BELIEF you get your theories.
If someone does not subscribe to the belief that the scientific method is correct (And you can deride that all you want, but there is no proof whatsoever that the method is simply FACT. It's an assumption that all of science is built on. A well founded assumption, but an assumption none the less.) then all of the scientific proof in the world is worthless to them. It would be like having a baptist come up to you citing a passage of the bible that says XXXX. To him this is his 'proof' which comes from his belief structure (his chosen religion), which leads to his theory, that the universe was created by an intelligent force. It means nothing to you because it dosen't follow your beliefs... it dosen't mesh with the Scientific method.
Is it a Scientific theory? no. It dosen't follow the rules of science.
Is it a baptist/catholic/whatever theory? Maybe and probably yes. They're all different afterall.
the ability to give an audiance an emotional need to know the rest of the story is what makes a great story-teller... which is one step along the way to making a great movie. :D
I know... i flipped at the price. Does it make ANY sense to try to defeat iTunes by charging 2.5 times as much?
People like YOU are the reason ID is even near being considered a science. And by people like you I mean ignorant, uneducated individuals who have no idea what science is.
Didn't I just say that it isn't a science? lol
So if I understand what you're saying... you're saying that "science is real and theology isn't" which is funny because it's exactly what I just got done complaining about.
If I intend to prove evolution wrong, you're claiming that I need to do it using YOUR rules. The rules of science and the scientific method.
Yet if you intend to prove creationism wrong, you get to use YOUR rules still? And that's where we go in two different directions.
I'm not saying that ID is science. In fact what I'm saying is that Evolution isn't baptist/catholic/buddist/wtfe. All I'm saying is that Science is a religion just as much as Catholisim. It's a set of rules (scientific meathod) governing a belief structure. Whatever religion you might be (baptist, catholic, or scientist) is fine as far as I'm concerned as it has no effect what-so-ever on my life.
So stop imposing your religion on others zealot.