Sure, there will be spikes and problems but by nature they will work themselves out IF they would let it just happen
I'm not so sure that would work on the economic side. It's hard to balance an economy, and allowing complete player control will probably make you end up with monopolies that break the game for casual and/or new players.
As for the rest... there are a couple open-source RPGs out there that are player/contributor developed. Sure, the graphics leave something to be desired, as does a lot of the gameplay, but if you want to help build a world, opportunities exist.
Wow. Really good point for a setup where most things are non-instanced.
One other item to add -- say you've got a group fighting a balrog or similar big baddie. It sure would be confusing and annoying if collision was turned on -- perhaps even enough to be a fun-killer. Could you imagine trying to communicate effectively enough? That level of coordination would be pretty much impossible, IMO.
Well, what if I lent you my saw (in exchange for a fee) to cut down a tree? And then you went and added diamond teeth to it, then gave it to someone else to cut pipe with?
Whether or not software licensing is a good thing, it is how a large portion of the software world works.
See, the thing is, software isn't a material good. That alone provides a reason for why it should be handled differently than a car. Is the current system a good one? I don't think so, as there is too much room for abuse. However, the fact remains that software is inherently different than material goods.
Because the EULA, which is a shrinkwrap license, says so?
Hmm. Still working that angle? The Microsoft EULA for Visual Studio Express is not a shrinkwrap EULA -- one has the option of declining the license before completing installation. A shrinkwrap EULA is when the license isn't viewable before accepting the terms of the license. (E.g., install completes, then the EULA "By installing this software, you agree... blah blah blah" becomes readable.
See, I'm trying to help people like you who can't understand the motivation behind the message.
You assume I don't understand the motivation. I do. What I don't uderstand is why you feel it necessary to 'translate' his comments in such a ridiculous manner, rather than addressing what you point out. It's almost like, I don't know, you need to flame MS every time you come across anything having to do with them -- that it makes you feel good, or that you know it'll be rewarded.
Your arguments would carry a lot more weight with "people like me" if they were actually intelligent.
Your disingenuous interpretation of both my comment and the situation at hand
Disingenuous? Really? How so? I meant nothing other than exactly what I wrote, with no other meaning intended. Maybe you'd like to look up what disingenuos means, since obviously you use a different meaning than the rest of the world.
As for interpretation of the situation at hand, I made none. I simply made an observation of how you chose to post, the situation at hand has very little to do with the fact that you chose to 'translate' Fernandez's words for effect, rather than for truth.
You, sir, are a hypocrite, and I am not impressed.
Good for you, as I'm most assuredly not impressed by your hypocracy either. You can make judgment calls based on your imaginary constructs all you like.
One of your problems is that you assume that what you think reflects reality. Over and over again, you make baseless assumptions about people, and feel the need to attack them. For example, you believe that because I disagree with your methods, I agree with or support Microsoft. I don't know why you have such a chip on your shoulder, but I'd assume it has something to do with your childhood. Have you been seeing a psychologist? It might help you cope better with whatever issues you're dealing with.
I hate proprietary software. Anyone who doesn't share my views on free software is an ass. Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously talking out two sides of their mouth, so I'll just go ahead and substitute words to make it seem like they are as much of a troll as I am.
Seriously, I've never see someone so completely reword someone else's words into flamebait, just so they could then flame them.
I don't know, but given the choice between never having visual studio released and having to hear people bitch, moan, and complain about how someone is providing people the option to extend software which they downloaded, I would chose (sic) to have you stick that code up your ass sideways.
Nice going there. Good to see that you're keeping up the juvenile flame levels, I was concerned that discourse on Slashdot was getting too mature.
It's funny, in a sick way, that a lot of the politicians that are quick to place restrictions on video games and music seemingly don't care a bit about violence in the entertainment industry. Like everything else, you only need to look at the money to figure out why.
It's not just money (although that's a big factor, pretty soon game developers will have to start paying their right-to-operate-as-they-wish tax -- errr, campaign contributions, I mean).
Games are an easy scape goat -- the majority of voters don't play a lot of video games, so they aren't personally affected and have no understanding of what playing violent games is like. Also, people trust that movie theaters will enforce ratings, whereas they don't trust video game stores to do so.
1) Censoring of a NUMBER. I even posted a huge base-10 number created by me pounding the keypad... it was deleted.
Did you read Drew's post about why they were censoring it? Drew reacted to it early, before there was awareness that there was no way they could put the kibbosh on public availability of the key. This is why the DMCA is bad folks -- Drew made the best choice in a system designed to produce that choice. Don't hate Fark or Drew, hate the DMCA. Faced between the choice of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and penalties, and censoring the posts, what do you think he would do? What would YOU do (in reality, not in some idealistic information-wants-to-be-free fantasy)?
2) Censoring of boobies in threads. There was a recent article ABOUT cleavage and some mod went all "OMG NO BOOBS IN THREADS" on the thread. If you're browsing Fark at work then you should know a thread about breasts is going to have pictures of breasts. I have "Images like Opera" installed and have it not display any images on sites originating at forums.fark.com.
It's not about people who are reading Fark and whether they are at work; it's about advertisers who do not want their product associated with lewd content, and markets whose parents don't want them viewing lewd content. You knew that, right? Fark is a business, not a hobby.
3) The new layout SUCKS. Slashdot, when they went CSS, did it tactfully, I'll notice more features and slicker integration as time goes on. Fark threw all UI logic out the window. Thankfully there is greasemonkey.
Personal preference, I guess. Change is hard, but I'll bet you get used to the new layout over time. The old layout was pretty bad, too -- we forget how bad something is once we get used to it. And, as you say, there's always greasemonkey, so you should complain too much.
2) why is there a relationship since nothing that promotes the solar wind is thought to have an effect on the air speed of an unladen plasma of helium?
Would that be African, or European, plasma?
Seriously, though, there was a passage in TFA that explains it. As I understahd it, solar wind has an escape velocity necessary to leave the sun; factored into this is the drag created by the He-H attraction (which I'm not too clear on, since they are both positive ions). Since He is heavier, its escape velocity is higher; at 260 km/s the only H ions that escape are ones that break free of He. At higher speeds, the plasma can escape even when there are higher concentrations of He.
I visualize it as similar to a fine needle in a drop of water. There is a minimum speed required for the needle to break the surface tension of the water droplet; at exactly that speed, the needle will come free cleanly. At much higher speeds, the needle will drag some of the water with it due to friction. The higher the speed, the more water comes with the needle. This visualization equates the sun's gravity well to surface tension, and I think it's pretty obvious what the water and needle are. The question unanswered is, what makes the needle move?
The speculation provided in the article is that CMEs provide the energy for the solar wind. Increasing concentrations of Helium at solar wind ejection sites (due to fractional release of H in the solar wind) result in a high-energy state relieved by a CME.
The article gets the usage right: "far better than its predecessor."
The misquote is an issue; the usage is no big deal, IMO -- don't quote something unless you actually are quoting it, not paraphrasing.
That said, if you are pedantic enough to get upset about an apostrophe where it does not belong, you should also object to the use of contractions in written material. Contractions should only be written when one is quoting the spoken word.
EX
John did not [1] say, "I don't [2] like to use contractions."
[1] no contraction should be used, this is written word. [2] Contraction is fine, since dialogue reflects words spoken regardless of grammatical correctness.
I think you've got it backwards. The copyright statute is NOT an example of government intervention to maintain a free market. It's an example of the opposite.
Re: Guiness... well, to each their own. I grew up on the stuff, so I really enjoy the flavor; it's what I expect stout to taste like.
For the record, I only drink the classic American beer when I am on the river and it is 125 degrees out.
Agreed. Though any super-hot activity would qualify for this, such as mowing the lawn on a blisteringly hot day.
Otherwise, when I drink, I drink whiskey, like a man should.
Out of curiosity, what whiskeys do you enjoy? Style/brand etc? I'm always looking to try new stuff, normally I'm a bourbon drinker, but I drank scotch for a few years, and had a rye kick a while back.
yes, exactly the same thing...every.single.week. Cold and bitter.
Well, right there's your problem. ST:TNG is best enjoyed tepid, just like Guiness. That way, you actually get to appreciate the flavor, which the slight bitterness accentuates. When you drink it cold, all you can taste is the bitterness.
This is why American-style lager is best served ice-cold -- so you can't taste it.
So, to bring this back around to Star Wars, I'd say that it's less like a fine wine and more like bourbon. A young bourbon will burn, but you can enjoy it for the raw effects on your mind/body. A well-aged bourbon goes down easy, and you can still enjoy the alcohol effects. An over-aged bourbon has a bitterness to it from an excess of tannins, often has trace amounts of toxic wood alcohol, but you still enjoy it for the alcohol effects.
I wouldn't; so-called "free market" ideology has always been about defining strong property rights,
WEll, first, there's a reason you use quotes around "free market" while I don't. I'm talking about a true free market, as defined in economic terms. I think what you're referring to is something completely different -- it's the notion of "free market" as co-opted by certain interests. "Free market" != unregulated, which is why I have a problem with a group that claims to support a free market but at the same time lobbies for increased government restriction of supply.
but to claim that a support of copyright and a support of the free market are somehow philsophically incompatible is just ridiculous.
How so? Are not copyrights an government-induced restriction on supply of a good? Doesn't a free market require no artificial restrictions on supply?
IP has infinite supply sans regulation. This reduces its value to near zero in a truly free market. This is fact. Just because it doesn't serve the profit motives of IP holders doesn't mean that it isn't true -- but instead, we have an artificial restriction of supply in order to make sure that the price of IP remains high enough to maintain a profit incentive. Regardless, it's an artificial restriction of supply, and thus contrary to free market ideology.
All that said, I don't know what the best solution is -- I'm in favor of limited copyrights, but enforcement is a huge problem. What we're actually seeing here is the free market at work -- government-enforced restriction of supply is being overwhelmed by the infinite supply of IP and the ease of 'buying' and 'selling' IP for its true value as a commodity.
Personally, I think we're going to end up with a patronage system. Since supply is impossible to restrict, we'll see wealthy individuals patronize artists and musicians; we'll also see groups of individuals patronize the artists they like (i.e., donating money to artists they like). A more democratic approach to patronage than what existed in the Renaissance and later, but patronage nontheless.
Only a three-time champion of idiots would write that.
You miss the entire point, in your defense of copyright -- not surprising, since your ad hominem attacks seem to be your primary point.
Tell me, what defines a free market? Go ahead, think long and hard on this. Feel free to Google it, if you never took economics or have forgotten it by now. Ah, hell, I'll quote the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry:
market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government
Notice the phrase "not being regulated by the government"?
Copyrights are a government-induced restriction of supply, and hence do not belong in a truly free market -- period. You ad hominem and irrelevant arguments do not change this.
The truth of the matter is that IP has infinite supply when unregulated -- therefore within a free market, its price normally approaches zero.
Those that would mess with copyright terms would do well to remember that the people who wrote them were themselves authors
Oh, you mean that some people wrote self-serving laws? Surprise, surprise.
Then why should anyone pay you for your work?
Exactly; supply of that work is infinite, why should anyone pay me? Regardless, your entire argument is irrelevant -- the validity and purpose of copyright has absolutely zero to do with whether copyright fits into free market economics.
Note that I am a proponent of limited copyrights. However, this doesn't mean that I can bend the facts to support my view, nor does it mean that I can ignore realities (such as copyrights being in contradiction with a free market).
The group is headed by Patrick Ross, a former senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a strongly free-market think tank.
...
the Alliance is dedicated to 'strengthening copyright law' using 'bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to protect creators' and advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.
Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...
This just goes to show that many of the free market idealogues out there aren't really about free markets; instead they are all about unrestricted corporate activity. The two are not the same, and shouldn't be conflated. It's been shown time and again that maintenance of a free market requires government intervention (see Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the US); even the Austrian school will admit that their economic model requires adjustment (and by implication, government action) to correct for monopolies.
The difference being that the Walmart version is always inferior at some level.
This is because Walmart demands a lower price every year. Sometimes this can be met via economies of scale, but not after a few years. See Snapper mowers for an example of a business owner who said no.
...and never get out, since Gore-Tex is watertight. Besides, when running, my feet sweat, so water will end up inside the shoe even if it isn't wet outside.
GoreTex is special because it breathes - water vapor can escape. Sure, not as well as wool, but breathability is the advantage GoreTex has over other waterproof fabrics.
That said, I'm pretty much a sweathog as well, so I typically produce more moisture than can get through the GoreTex if I'm exerting myself. But, GoreTex overs are FAR more comfortable than other waterproof overs when I'm out in the rain, or on a boat in choppy seas.
Slashdot Mirror
As for the rest... there are a couple open-source RPGs out there that are player/contributor developed. Sure, the graphics leave something to be desired, as does a lot of the gameplay, but if you want to help build a world, opportunities exist.
Wow. Really good point for a setup where most things are non-instanced.
One other item to add -- say you've got a group fighting a balrog or similar big baddie. It sure would be confusing and annoying if collision was turned on -- perhaps even enough to be a fun-killer. Could you imagine trying to communicate effectively enough? That level of coordination would be pretty much impossible, IMO.
Whether or not software licensing is a good thing, it is how a large portion of the software world works.
See, the thing is, software isn't a material good. That alone provides a reason for why it should be handled differently than a car. Is the current system a good one? I don't think so, as there is too much room for abuse. However, the fact remains that software is inherently different than material goods.
Hmm. Still working that angle? The Microsoft EULA for Visual Studio Express is not a shrinkwrap EULA -- one has the option of declining the license before completing installation. A shrinkwrap EULA is when the license isn't viewable before accepting the terms of the license. (E.g., install completes, then the EULA "By installing this software, you agree... blah blah blah" becomes readable.
Please sir, can I have some more FUD?
Or the fool who believes the fool who follows the fool's follower is not the first fool?
Your arguments would carry a lot more weight with "people like me" if they were actually intelligent.
Disingenuous? Really? How so? I meant nothing other than exactly what I wrote, with no other meaning intended. Maybe you'd like to look up what disingenuos means, since obviously you use a different meaning than the rest of the world.
As for interpretation of the situation at hand, I made none. I simply made an observation of how you chose to post, the situation at hand has very little to do with the fact that you chose to 'translate' Fernandez's words for effect, rather than for truth.
Good for you, as I'm most assuredly not impressed by your hypocracy either. You can make judgment calls based on your imaginary constructs all you like.
One of your problems is that you assume that what you think reflects reality. Over and over again, you make baseless assumptions about people, and feel the need to attack them. For example, you believe that because I disagree with your methods, I agree with or support Microsoft. I don't know why you have such a chip on your shoulder, but I'd assume it has something to do with your childhood. Have you been seeing a psychologist? It might help you cope better with whatever issues you're dealing with.
Seriously, I've never see someone so completely reword someone else's words into flamebait, just so they could then flame them.
Nice going there. Good to see that you're keeping up the juvenile flame levels, I was concerned that discourse on Slashdot was getting too mature.
What? From wikipoedia:Their games are selling -- some of the games at VC release were Sega games. Do you mean newly deveoped games?
Games are an easy scape goat -- the majority of voters don't play a lot of video games, so they aren't personally affected and have no understanding of what playing violent games is like. Also, people trust that movie theaters will enforce ratings, whereas they don't trust video game stores to do so.
Sure, but Fark doesn't claim to be news programing.
Personal preference, I guess. Change is hard, but I'll bet you get used to the new layout over time. The old layout was pretty bad, too -- we forget how bad something is once we get used to it. And, as you say, there's always greasemonkey, so you should complain too much.
Seriously, though, there was a passage in TFA that explains it. As I understahd it, solar wind has an escape velocity necessary to leave the sun; factored into this is the drag created by the He-H attraction (which I'm not too clear on, since they are both positive ions). Since He is heavier, its escape velocity is higher; at 260 km/s the only H ions that escape are ones that break free of He. At higher speeds, the plasma can escape even when there are higher concentrations of He.
I visualize it as similar to a fine needle in a drop of water. There is a minimum speed required for the needle to break the surface tension of the water droplet; at exactly that speed, the needle will come free cleanly. At much higher speeds, the needle will drag some of the water with it due to friction. The higher the speed, the more water comes with the needle. This visualization equates the sun's gravity well to surface tension, and I think it's pretty obvious what the water and needle are. The question unanswered is, what makes the needle move?
The speculation provided in the article is that CMEs provide the energy for the solar wind. Increasing concentrations of Helium at solar wind ejection sites (due to fractional release of H in the solar wind) result in a high-energy state relieved by a CME.
That said, if you are pedantic enough to get upset about an apostrophe where it does not belong, you should also object to the use of contractions in written material. Contractions should only be written when one is quoting the spoken word.
EX[1] no contraction should be used, this is written word.
[2] Contraction is fine, since dialogue reflects words spoken regardless of grammatical correctness.
Sorry, just felt I needed to one-up the pedantry.
So, Europe and Japan offer it at a fraction of the cost, but the American version is more expensive?
It seems that your post is partly redundant, except that it repeats itself.
I think you've got it backwards. The copyright statute is NOT an example of government intervention to maintain a free market. It's an example of the opposite.
Agreed. Though any super-hot activity would qualify for this, such as mowing the lawn on a blisteringly hot day.
Out of curiosity, what whiskeys do you enjoy? Style/brand etc? I'm always looking to try new stuff, normally I'm a bourbon drinker, but I drank scotch for a few years, and had a rye kick a while back.
This is why American-style lager is best served ice-cold -- so you can't taste it.
So, to bring this back around to Star Wars, I'd say that it's less like a fine wine and more like bourbon. A young bourbon will burn, but you can enjoy it for the raw effects on your mind/body. A well-aged bourbon goes down easy, and you can still enjoy the alcohol effects. An over-aged bourbon has a bitterness to it from an excess of tannins, often has trace amounts of toxic wood alcohol, but you still enjoy it for the alcohol effects.
How so? Are not copyrights an government-induced restriction on supply of a good? Doesn't a free market require no artificial restrictions on supply?
IP has infinite supply sans regulation. This reduces its value to near zero in a truly free market. This is fact. Just because it doesn't serve the profit motives of IP holders doesn't mean that it isn't true -- but instead, we have an artificial restriction of supply in order to make sure that the price of IP remains high enough to maintain a profit incentive. Regardless, it's an artificial restriction of supply, and thus contrary to free market ideology.
All that said, I don't know what the best solution is -- I'm in favor of limited copyrights, but enforcement is a huge problem. What we're actually seeing here is the free market at work -- government-enforced restriction of supply is being overwhelmed by the infinite supply of IP and the ease of 'buying' and 'selling' IP for its true value as a commodity.
Personally, I think we're going to end up with a patronage system. Since supply is impossible to restrict, we'll see wealthy individuals patronize artists and musicians; we'll also see groups of individuals patronize the artists they like (i.e., donating money to artists they like). A more democratic approach to patronage than what existed in the Renaissance and later, but patronage nontheless.
Tell me, what defines a free market? Go ahead, think long and hard on this. Feel free to Google it, if you never took economics or have forgotten it by now. Ah, hell, I'll quote the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry:
Notice the phrase "not being regulated by the government"?
Copyrights are a government-induced restriction of supply, and hence do not belong in a truly free market -- period. You ad hominem and irrelevant arguments do not change this.
The truth of the matter is that IP has infinite supply when unregulated -- therefore within a free market, its price normally approaches zero.
Oh, you mean that some people wrote self-serving laws? Surprise, surprise.
Exactly; supply of that work is infinite, why should anyone pay me? Regardless, your entire argument is irrelevant -- the validity and purpose of copyright has absolutely zero to do with whether copyright fits into free market economics.
Note that I am a proponent of limited copyrights. However, this doesn't mean that I can bend the facts to support my view, nor does it mean that I can ignore realities (such as copyrights being in contradiction with a free market).
This just goes to show that many of the free market idealogues out there aren't really about free markets; instead they are all about unrestricted corporate activity. The two are not the same, and shouldn't be conflated. It's been shown time and again that maintenance of a free market requires government intervention (see Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the US); even the Austrian school will admit that their economic model requires adjustment (and by implication, government action) to correct for monopolies.
That said, I'm pretty much a sweathog as well, so I typically produce more moisture than can get through the GoreTex if I'm exerting myself. But, GoreTex overs are FAR more comfortable than other waterproof overs when I'm out in the rain, or on a boat in choppy seas.
Heh. I feel the same way sometimes... but it also backfires occasionally, when an exceptionally gifted countertroll takes over the thread.