A company (Sony) that has been steadily losing money in its game/console division is looking for alternate revenue streams. Other companies have established that subscription-based gaming is viable. The gaming market is rapidly shifting more towards online play.
Captain Obvious to the rescue -- Sony plans on having an online gaming service!
"Again, a slight difference is that helping the steel or airline industries didn't require draconian or oppressive laws. It required money and laws and maybe even protectionism, but didn't really limit the freedoms of the populace at large. In my opinion, it is okay to implement laws to protect business models, but it is NEVER okay to implement draconian laws (by which I mean laws that restrict the freedoms of citizens) to protect businesses.
"
Good point, that's an important distinction... furthermore, action by the government to support those industries resulted (or is intended to result) in greater good for the individual as well as the companies. Prop up the airline industry so we can still fly... prop up the steel industry so our economy doesn't collapse... prop up the recording industry so...? I can't come up with anything.
"This isn't easy, unless you want to spend hours collecting gold instead of playing the game."
'Collecting gold' is part of the game. The idea is that PvP or PvE combat is just one facet of the game; players would need to develop their characters economically as well, in order to become uberleet.
The unforeseen problem, I think, is the nature of the userbase -- seems to me like Blizzard expected their base to more resemble traditional MMORPG players, instead of MOFPS players. This is what created the market for the gold farmers -- most players want to be able to fight well without having to craft or farm their own gold.
"Add another example, rare patterns that are placed on the auction house for obscene amounts. How can sellers do this?"
This is a result of the inflation in the game, nothing more. Rare patterns are scarce, gold is not. This problem disappears if farming disappears.
So, I'd say that the problem isn't that the designers didn't think through their decisions -- within the context of other MMORPGs, their system would have been fine. The problem is that they attracted a much higher proportion of a different kind of player.
"That having been said, I believe we are both in favour of people spending a little more time thinking about the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of these arguments, rather than always jumping to a pragmatic justification for legal action. (I hope I have not misrepresented your stance.)"
You've got it pretty good, except that I would say that the basis of law must be ethical -- the pragmatic should be the little brother of the ethical.
One problem I see is that laws passed for pragmatic concerns often set precedents that, when applied to other situations, have consequences that are either unethical or unpragmatic. And, unfortunately, (here in the US anyway), precedent is treated as gospel far too often.
Art, be it music or any other form, rarely pays a decent living. Does that suck? Yes. But it is reality.
"And also spare us the idealistic "Well, if you don't like it, you can go indie" crap. It's hard enough making a living as a musician (or any other sort of artist, Web designers and commercial artists possibly excepted); it's even harder when you're indie."
No one said life was easy. Not my problem if you're art doesn't have enough market appeal to make you a living... get a day job, just like the semi-pro athletes who dream of making it big... or the actors waiting tables at night while auditioning every day. Give lessons or mow lawns or something.
You can scream and rail against the recording industry, but you DO have a choice.
BTW, I hate the recording industry. But I also think it's ridiculous for artists to think that they are 'forced' into signing with a major label.
Consider the example of a label that can choose to sign and promote whoever they wish... whoever they select will become popular and make millions for the company. All the bands/artists that don't get signed go home with empty pockets. All that example tells me is that there is an oversupply of 'artists' and that they are all pretty much interchangeable.
Why don't musicians unionize? It seems to have worked out pretty well for actors. That's a solution to your problems.
Of course you are right about law needing to balance the pragmatic and the ethical. However, the issue of the failed business model is a red herring, and distracts from the true issue. A problem is that laws generally need to be based upon both ethical and pragmatic issues -- so striking down draconian anti-piracy laws needs to be done as a strike against oppressive IP protections, which means saying that the IP itself is not wholly valid.
Now, in terms of addressing the business model, I am aware of how and why it is failing. What I fail to understand is why it needs to be stressed over and over when the fundamental question(s) has not been answered. There have been many other cases where legislation has been passed to prop up failing models -- like US Government buyout of steel/airline/[insert random industry] pensions, for example. The question is, whether or not the IP in question is truly property -- that is, should the 'owners' have sole control over copying, licensing, and distribution?
Until this question is answered, discussion of business models in practice is useless.
One reason I mention this is that it is easy to find examples of just causes that have failed. Failure != 'bad.'
"You're right, IP is just a theory since the product doesn't actually exist"
The concept of physical property is also just a theory. Whether or not the object is tangible or not does not affect the fact that all notions of property are theory.
"but the point is that the business model IS broken."
That's not the point. The point is that 'information wants to be free' or 'no one owns IP, anyone should be free to copy or distribute it.' The model being viable|not viable has absolutely nothing to do with whether IP laws are valid or invalid.
If the problem is just that the business model is broken, one solution is to try to make it viable again through legislative means.
"The law is there to enforce utility, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, albeit with certain rules applied because there ARE cases where that could lead to anarchy."
Not really, or at least not in the US. The law is not about utility. It is about preservation of rights (theoretically) and administration of delegated duties. It's a pretty interpretive stance, to say that the purpose of law is to provide the greatest utility.
I edited out the 'tyranny of the majority' from my OP, but that's exactly the problem with the winner-take-all system.
And re: gerrymandering, as you point out, it negates even the 2nd party from most districts... any 3rd party is extraneous, just as the minority (out of 2) party is extraneous.
" This is a strange new idea, instead of following the law you instead try to gain political power and change the laws."
I hope you were being sarcastic, but this idea is neither new nor strange... this is how US politics has worked since day 1.
This is also the main precept of democracy in governmental theory -- by the social contract you agree to abide by the law, even if you disagree with it. You are welcome to work to change the law, however -- which is the nice thing about participatory democracy.
In theory, this is what makes democracy effective.
"The big news here, to me, is that Sweden seems to allow minority opinions into their parliament (similar to Costa Rica and other countries). In the US it is near impossible to get a minority opinion into even a state legislature -- democracy and gerrymandering prevent the minority opinion from ever seeing the light of day."
Well, that's the difference between a parliamentary system and the system here in the US.
Re: democracy: It's not democracy that's the problem -- it's the form of democracy in the US. Rules that favor a two-party system, etc. There's a reason that democracy has been called the tyranny of the majority.
Re: gerrymandering -- this doesn't kill third parties so much as it is used to prevent 2nd-party opposition from gaining ground. What really kills 3rd-parties is campaign finance -- few corporations will give tons of $$ to a party unlikely to have any pull when it comes time to pay the piper. Without having any pull, it's hard to get that critical mass of funding where a party can really get going.
Is 'They the Party' anything like 'We, the People'? I'm sure it was something lost in translation (or gained, in this instance).
"They will refuse to allow data retention nonsense based on terrorism claims or failed RIAA business models."
I am so sick and tired of hearing about 'failed RIAA business models.' This has nothing to do with the traditional record industry business model -- it has everything to do with whether IP is valid property or not. Business models should never enter into a discussion of the validity of IP, since IP is a theoretical construct that doesn't depend on business models for its existence, regardless of what the motivation for original IP laws was.
What it boils down to is:
Do I have a right to control distribution of ideas I have had?
This has nothing to do with the fact that the way some companies have chosen to control distribution isn't making them as much money as they'd like.
" I don't know how these companies expect a wireless revolution to take place when they are gouging the prices like this."
It's not gouging. Gouging is when you charge overly much (take an unfair advantage) during times of shortage (particularly when the shortage is due to a crisis).
You think it's too expensive -- fine. Don't purchase it, and (hopefully) competition will bring the price down.
But just because something costs more than you feel it's worth doesn't mean that it's gouging.
The reason I think it's important to make this distinction is that price gouging is a serious matter, and 'dilution' of the term by misusing it lessens the effect of using it approriately.
"Apparently, leading the pack in terms of damage output isn't enough anymore."
Since when do Rogues get to backstab with every attack? They need to be undetected, and it only works against humanoids. Furthermore, fighters and their ilk have plenty of damage-buffing skills and feats.
Yes, a backstab can be a devastating attack. However, it's usable only in rare situations.
"you generally wouldn't expect the fighter to take the delicate approach, at least not in a D&D game."
Depends on the player. Not all fighters are foolhardy; I would expect the least foolhardy to live the longest... at least that's how it's worked in all the D&D games I've played (from the original to 3rd edition PnP, as well as single-player and online).
"That the designer allegedly wanted to write nothing down and also suffered memory loss of what he requested is so totally ridiculous that it sounds like a fabrication to me"
Not only that, but even if true, this is not just a failure of the designer. This is a failure of everyone on the design team, and everyone on the dev team as well. I get verbal requests from forgetful people all the time (and often get some contradictory requests later in time). I make it my responsibility to confirm the requests, usually via email, so that any confusion can be cleared up should it arise.
These confirmation emails don't need to be explicit, they don't need to disclose proprietary information -- they just need to serve as an identifier of what was actually requested. At some point, junior management and 'line' workers need to understand that they must implement a CYA policy when faced with management of this kind. Sometimes it just protects them, sometimes it causes actual positive change in management.
I agree, I'd not want to be the guinea pig either. But I think the reason it wouldn't cause discomfort os because it would be sequestered/encapsulated...
I know for sure that capsaicin released in the GI can cause discomfort if it's not sequestered, usually about 24-36 hours after ingestion...
I drink bourbon on the rocks. Sometimes it's served in a rocks glass (which I prefer), sometimes in a highball glass, sometimes in a pint glass (when I'm feeling frisky).
I've definitely noticed that (aside from the pint glass), barteneders tend to pour more into the rocks glass (short and stout) than the highball glass (tall and thin).
I think this happens regardless of what type of alcohol is being poured, but has more of an effect when you're drinking the unadulterated hard stuff.
OK, so this post is going to sound like an anti-MS troll, but:
"Microsoft is against ISPs doing anything that would restrict customers' choice of software. And he says this isn't just about the impracticability of demanding that data centers patch everything on the second Tuesday of the month. Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC.'"
Plenty of people buy a new computer when their old one is too slow -- even if that slowness is due to malware and bloat.
Requiring people to have a well-configured computer would decrease sales of new PCs, since people would experience extended life for their hardware.
Thus, MS no longer gets the 'MS tax' on the new PCs not being sold.
Not only that, but this raises the specter of greater public awareness of just how insecure Windows is. MS can't afford to have the Joe Sixpacks of the US realize that they are better off without MS.
This is one case where the anti-MS paranoia seems to apply.
So, the article is basically saying that it's a new thing for people in MMOGs to have the level of trust where they'd invest (collectively) thousands of dollars in a cooperative venture (EVE). Especially since that the same time, Linden Labs established a currency trading service, despite a private service being available, because people can't trust other people.
The difference here is that the entire foundation of success in EVE is trust and cooperation. In order to have the kind of cash necessary to buy shares, you have to have trusted people previously.
I can't see this working in most other MMOGs, since 'griefing' and scamming are well established in the cultures of WoW and others. Though frowned upon, thiose are games where trust of others is not necessary (as TFA points out, but does not stress).
Trust is the reason that guilds are successful in MMOGs, as has been discussed many times on/. It's the same principle, just not as fiscally structured as the 'neutral outpost' in EVE.
"??? Oh, I know, you read this phrase on slashdot somewhere and the poster got modded up, so now you slip it into all your posts, without an understanding of its meaning, in the cargo-cult hope that you'll get modded up, too.",/i>
Umm, no. Your post was hypocritical (not understanding the meaning of 'independent' and lambasting others for same). It applies. Let me guess, you didn't even bother reading the sentences following that phrase, and so you don't even understand the point I was making. I'm not motivated by karma or getting modded up -- I'm motivated by trying to make useful additions the the dialogue -- and I had to respond to your illogical and trolish post.
"These people wouldn't even call themselves journalists."
Doesn't matter. The broader point still holds, which is that crying 'bias' just because they track Microsoft exclusively, and aren't truly 'independent' by your contorted definition, has nothing to do with whether their research can be trusted at all. You want to dismiss it out of hand, because of some perceived bias that you can't cite examples of -- my point is that unless you can tie in some of that bias to your theory, it doesn't hold water.
Let me guess -- you've discovered that posting an early response taking a strong stance on some pretext related to an article, without bothering to make a fully reasoned point, often results in getting modded up -- especially when you add a troll to the end of it. So that's what you do.
The idea, though, is that the nerve endings wouldn't be exposed to the polymer-encased capsaicin; only busting the polymer mini-capsules open, by cutting etc, would cause a situation where it would do damage.
"I'm thinkking you come to the table with a POV (i.e. bias)"
Anyone and everyone who has had even the tiniest bit of exposure to something has bias.
" Dude, if you're devoted exclusively to tracking Microsoft, how likely is is that you're independent?"
Independent != unbiased. Independent == not funded by MS or a competitor.
"why would you devote your time exclusively to tracking Microsoft in the first place?"
Because it's too much for one person to track every company? Because it's an area of interest?
"Oh well. If a country's citizens think 'bipartisan' and 'independent' are the same thing, who am I to complain that the concept of independence has slipped a little?"
Pot, meet kettle. Political independence/bipartisanship is not comparable to journalistic independence. Until you understand what independent means in terms of journalism, please don't bother ranting about how everyone else's view of journalistic independence doesn't meet your flawed idea of what it is.
It's one thing to say that the author in question doesn't have journalistic integrity for reasons A,B, and C. It's another thing to say they are inherently biased because they choose to focus on one subject. The best journalists will focus on a subject and still maintain objectivity, which is totally different from independence.
Slashdot Mirror
" Follow nintendo's, and pretty much every PC game"
Quick, what was the largest grossing videogame in 2005?
World of Warcraft. Pay to purchase, pay to play. Subscription service and content only available online = $$.
A company (Sony) that has been steadily losing money in its game/console division is looking for alternate revenue streams. Other companies have established that subscription-based gaming is viable. The gaming market is rapidly shifting more towards online play.
Captain Obvious to the rescue -- Sony plans on having an online gaming service!
"Again, a slight difference is that helping the steel or airline industries didn't require draconian or oppressive laws. It required money and laws and maybe even protectionism, but didn't really limit the freedoms of the populace at large. In my opinion, it is okay to implement laws to protect business models, but it is NEVER okay to implement draconian laws (by which I mean laws that restrict the freedoms of citizens) to protect businesses. "
Good point, that's an important distinction... furthermore, action by the government to support those industries resulted (or is intended to result) in greater good for the individual as well as the companies. Prop up the airline industry so we can still fly... prop up the steel industry so our economy doesn't collapse... prop up the recording industry so...? I can't come up with anything.
Yes, the AFM helped back the musicians who struck when working for the RCMS in December.
But unionization could help musicians who aren't session musicians, etc.
"This isn't easy, unless you want to spend hours collecting gold instead of playing the game."
'Collecting gold' is part of the game. The idea is that PvP or PvE combat is just one facet of the game; players would need to develop their characters economically as well, in order to become uberleet.
The unforeseen problem, I think, is the nature of the userbase -- seems to me like Blizzard expected their base to more resemble traditional MMORPG players, instead of MOFPS players. This is what created the market for the gold farmers -- most players want to be able to fight well without having to craft or farm their own gold.
"Add another example, rare patterns that are placed on the auction house for obscene amounts. How can sellers do this?"
This is a result of the inflation in the game, nothing more. Rare patterns are scarce, gold is not. This problem disappears if farming disappears.
So, I'd say that the problem isn't that the designers didn't think through their decisions -- within the context of other MMORPGs, their system would have been fine. The problem is that they attracted a much higher proportion of a different kind of player.
"That having been said, I believe we are both in favour of people spending a little more time thinking about the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of these arguments, rather than always jumping to a pragmatic justification for legal action. (I hope I have not misrepresented your stance.)"
You've got it pretty good, except that I would say that the basis of law must be ethical -- the pragmatic should be the little brother of the ethical.
One problem I see is that laws passed for pragmatic concerns often set precedents that, when applied to other situations, have consequences that are either unethical or unpragmatic. And, unfortunately, (here in the US anyway), precedent is treated as gospel far too often.
Bitter?
Art, be it music or any other form, rarely pays a decent living. Does that suck? Yes. But it is reality.
"And also spare us the idealistic "Well, if you don't like it, you can go indie" crap. It's hard enough making a living as a musician (or any other sort of artist, Web designers and commercial artists possibly excepted); it's even harder when you're indie."
No one said life was easy. Not my problem if you're art doesn't have enough market appeal to make you a living... get a day job, just like the semi-pro athletes who dream of making it big... or the actors waiting tables at night while auditioning every day. Give lessons or mow lawns or something.
You can scream and rail against the recording industry, but you DO have a choice.
BTW, I hate the recording industry. But I also think it's ridiculous for artists to think that they are 'forced' into signing with a major label.
Consider the example of a label that can choose to sign and promote whoever they wish... whoever they select will become popular and make millions for the company. All the bands/artists that don't get signed go home with empty pockets. All that example tells me is that there is an oversupply of 'artists' and that they are all pretty much interchangeable.
Why don't musicians unionize? It seems to have worked out pretty well for actors. That's a solution to your problems.
Of course you are right about law needing to balance the pragmatic and the ethical. However, the issue of the failed business model is a red herring, and distracts from the true issue. A problem is that laws generally need to be based upon both ethical and pragmatic issues -- so striking down draconian anti-piracy laws needs to be done as a strike against oppressive IP protections, which means saying that the IP itself is not wholly valid.
Now, in terms of addressing the business model, I am aware of how and why it is failing. What I fail to understand is why it needs to be stressed over and over when the fundamental question(s) has not been answered. There have been many other cases where legislation has been passed to prop up failing models -- like US Government buyout of steel/airline/[insert random industry] pensions, for example. The question is, whether or not the IP in question is truly property -- that is, should the 'owners' have sole control over copying, licensing, and distribution?
Until this question is answered, discussion of business models in practice is useless.
One reason I mention this is that it is easy to find examples of just causes that have failed. Failure != 'bad.'
"You're right, IP is just a theory since the product doesn't actually exist"
The concept of physical property is also just a theory. Whether or not the object is tangible or not does not affect the fact that all notions of property are theory.
"but the point is that the business model IS broken."
That's not the point. The point is that 'information wants to be free' or 'no one owns IP, anyone should be free to copy or distribute it.' The model being viable|not viable has absolutely nothing to do with whether IP laws are valid or invalid.
If the problem is just that the business model is broken, one solution is to try to make it viable again through legislative means.
"The law is there to enforce utility, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, albeit with certain rules applied because there ARE cases where that could lead to anarchy."
Not really, or at least not in the US. The law is not about utility. It is about preservation of rights (theoretically) and administration of delegated duties. It's a pretty interpretive stance, to say that the purpose of law is to provide the greatest utility.
I edited out the 'tyranny of the majority' from my OP, but that's exactly the problem with the winner-take-all system.
And re: gerrymandering, as you point out, it negates even the 2nd party from most districts... any 3rd party is extraneous, just as the minority (out of 2) party is extraneous.
I think it's the original question... that is, after all, what ownership is, right?
" This is a strange new idea, instead of following the law you instead try to gain political power and change the laws."
I hope you were being sarcastic, but this idea is neither new nor strange... this is how US politics has worked since day 1.
This is also the main precept of democracy in governmental theory -- by the social contract you agree to abide by the law, even if you disagree with it. You are welcome to work to change the law, however -- which is the nice thing about participatory democracy.
In theory, this is what makes democracy effective.
"The big news here, to me, is that Sweden seems to allow minority opinions into their parliament (similar to Costa Rica and other countries). In the US it is near impossible to get a minority opinion into even a state legislature -- democracy and gerrymandering prevent the minority opinion from ever seeing the light of day."
Well, that's the difference between a parliamentary system and the system here in the US.
Re: democracy: It's not democracy that's the problem -- it's the form of democracy in the US. Rules that favor a two-party system, etc. There's a reason that democracy has been called the tyranny of the majority.
Re: gerrymandering -- this doesn't kill third parties so much as it is used to prevent 2nd-party opposition from gaining ground. What really kills 3rd-parties is campaign finance -- few corporations will give tons of $$ to a party unlikely to have any pull when it comes time to pay the piper. Without having any pull, it's hard to get that critical mass of funding where a party can really get going.
"Even if they the party gets no-one elected"
Is 'They the Party' anything like 'We, the People'? I'm sure it was something lost in translation (or gained, in this instance).
"They will refuse to allow data retention nonsense based on terrorism claims or failed RIAA business models."
I am so sick and tired of hearing about 'failed RIAA business models.' This has nothing to do with the traditional record industry business model -- it has everything to do with whether IP is valid property or not. Business models should never enter into a discussion of the validity of IP, since IP is a theoretical construct that doesn't depend on business models for its existence, regardless of what the motivation for original IP laws was.
What it boils down to is:
Do I have a right to control distribution of ideas I have had?
This has nothing to do with the fact that the way some companies have chosen to control distribution isn't making them as much money as they'd like.
" I don't know how these companies expect a wireless revolution to take place when they are gouging the prices like this."
It's not gouging. Gouging is when you charge overly much (take an unfair advantage) during times of shortage (particularly when the shortage is due to a crisis).
You think it's too expensive -- fine. Don't purchase it, and (hopefully) competition will bring the price down.
But just because something costs more than you feel it's worth doesn't mean that it's gouging.
The reason I think it's important to make this distinction is that price gouging is a serious matter, and 'dilution' of the term by misusing it lessens the effect of using it approriately.
"Apparently, leading the pack in terms of damage output isn't enough anymore."
Since when do Rogues get to backstab with every attack? They need to be undetected, and it only works against humanoids. Furthermore, fighters and their ilk have plenty of damage-buffing skills and feats.
Yes, a backstab can be a devastating attack. However, it's usable only in rare situations.
"you generally wouldn't expect the fighter to take the delicate approach, at least not in a D&D game."
Depends on the player. Not all fighters are foolhardy; I would expect the least foolhardy to live the longest... at least that's how it's worked in all the D&D games I've played (from the original to 3rd edition PnP, as well as single-player and online).
"That the designer allegedly wanted to write nothing down and also suffered memory loss of what he requested is so totally ridiculous that it sounds like a fabrication to me"
Not only that, but even if true, this is not just a failure of the designer. This is a failure of everyone on the design team, and everyone on the dev team as well. I get verbal requests from forgetful people all the time (and often get some contradictory requests later in time). I make it my responsibility to confirm the requests, usually via email, so that any confusion can be cleared up should it arise.
These confirmation emails don't need to be explicit, they don't need to disclose proprietary information -- they just need to serve as an identifier of what was actually requested. At some point, junior management and 'line' workers need to understand that they must implement a CYA policy when faced with management of this kind. Sometimes it just protects them, sometimes it causes actual positive change in management.
Same problem with the Pentagon hack link.
Is Zonk asleep at the wheel? Perhaps a new game is being 'reviewed' while bad links are getting through unchecked.
I agree, I'd not want to be the guinea pig either. But I think the reason it wouldn't cause discomfort os because it would be sequestered/encapsulated...
I know for sure that capsaicin released in the GI can cause discomfort if it's not sequestered, usually about 24-36 hours after ingestion...
I drink bourbon on the rocks. Sometimes it's served in a rocks glass (which I prefer), sometimes in a highball glass, sometimes in a pint glass (when I'm feeling frisky).
I've definitely noticed that (aside from the pint glass), barteneders tend to pour more into the rocks glass (short and stout) than the highball glass (tall and thin).
I think this happens regardless of what type of alcohol is being poured, but has more of an effect when you're drinking the unadulterated hard stuff.
OK, so this post is going to sound like an anti-MS troll, but:
"Microsoft is against ISPs doing anything that would restrict customers' choice of software. And he says this isn't just about the impracticability of demanding that data centers patch everything on the second Tuesday of the month. Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC.'"
Plenty of people buy a new computer when their old one is too slow -- even if that slowness is due to malware and bloat.
Requiring people to have a well-configured computer would decrease sales of new PCs, since people would experience extended life for their hardware.
Thus, MS no longer gets the 'MS tax' on the new PCs not being sold.
Not only that, but this raises the specter of greater public awareness of just how insecure Windows is. MS can't afford to have the Joe Sixpacks of the US realize that they are better off without MS.
This is one case where the anti-MS paranoia seems to apply.
So, the article is basically saying that it's a new thing for people in MMOGs to have the level of trust where they'd invest (collectively) thousands of dollars in a cooperative venture (EVE). Especially since that the same time, Linden Labs established a currency trading service, despite a private service being available, because people can't trust other people.
/. It's the same principle, just not as fiscally structured as the 'neutral outpost' in EVE.
The difference here is that the entire foundation of success in EVE is trust and cooperation. In order to have the kind of cash necessary to buy shares, you have to have trusted people previously.
I can't see this working in most other MMOGs, since 'griefing' and scamming are well established in the cultures of WoW and others. Though frowned upon, thiose are games where trust of others is not necessary (as TFA points out, but does not stress).
Trust is the reason that guilds are successful in MMOGs, as has been discussed many times on
"??? Oh, I know, you read this phrase on slashdot somewhere and the poster got modded up, so now you slip it into all your posts, without an understanding of its meaning, in the cargo-cult hope that you'll get modded up, too.",/i>
Umm, no. Your post was hypocritical (not understanding the meaning of 'independent' and lambasting others for same). It applies. Let me guess, you didn't even bother reading the sentences following that phrase, and so you don't even understand the point I was making. I'm not motivated by karma or getting modded up -- I'm motivated by trying to make useful additions the the dialogue -- and I had to respond to your illogical and trolish post.
"These people wouldn't even call themselves journalists."
Doesn't matter. The broader point still holds, which is that crying 'bias' just because they track Microsoft exclusively, and aren't truly 'independent' by your contorted definition, has nothing to do with whether their research can be trusted at all. You want to dismiss it out of hand, because of some perceived bias that you can't cite examples of -- my point is that unless you can tie in some of that bias to your theory, it doesn't hold water.
Let me guess -- you've discovered that posting an early response taking a strong stance on some pretext related to an article, without bothering to make a fully reasoned point, often results in getting modded up -- especially when you add a troll to the end of it. So that's what you do.
The idea, though, is that the nerve endings wouldn't be exposed to the polymer-encased capsaicin; only busting the polymer mini-capsules open, by cutting etc, would cause a situation where it would do damage.
"I'm thinkking you come to the table with a POV (i.e. bias)"
Anyone and everyone who has had even the tiniest bit of exposure to something has bias.
" Dude, if you're devoted exclusively to tracking Microsoft, how likely is is that you're independent?"
Independent != unbiased. Independent == not funded by MS or a competitor.
"why would you devote your time exclusively to tracking Microsoft in the first place?"
Because it's too much for one person to track every company? Because it's an area of interest?
"Oh well. If a country's citizens think 'bipartisan' and 'independent' are the same thing, who am I to complain that the concept of independence has slipped a little?"
Pot, meet kettle. Political independence/bipartisanship is not comparable to journalistic independence. Until you understand what independent means in terms of journalism, please don't bother ranting about how everyone else's view of journalistic independence doesn't meet your flawed idea of what it is.
It's one thing to say that the author in question doesn't have journalistic integrity for reasons A,B, and C. It's another thing to say they are inherently biased because they choose to focus on one subject. The best journalists will focus on a subject and still maintain objectivity, which is totally different from independence.