Yes. There is a secondary market for them in the game. It's a common method for converting real currency to in-game items (or converting game items/currency for an item of real-world value, if you want to look at it that way).
I say, boo-hoo. Other items lost/destroyed in raids have been worth far more than this measly $1200. What's interesting about it is that it represents pure profit for the owners of the game. Someone paid real money for those items, now they're gone forever -- without the buyer or anyone else ever having the privilege of grinding away a significant portion of their life[1] using them.
[1] Relax, it's a joke. People spend money on time-sucking hobbies. If I choose to spend my cash on hookers and blackjack, it doesn't make me any better than you -- except that maybe I'll be hosting a few thousand or million extra organisms on my genitalia.
But software pirates are just the start - if you go out beyond three miles (12 miles for communist nations, if memory serves), you could host ANYTHING, as no laws could touch you (well, you could still be held liable by which ever country you reside in). Point is, you would have a mecca for pirates and pornographers
What flag are you going to fly that's going to keep anyone interested (say, some country's navy)from blowing your shit to smithereens? You really think there'll be public outrage if some CP-hosting dataserver in international waters has an "accident"?
If you're unaware of why it is true, then you're not educated enough on the issue for me to have worthwhile discussion about it with you.
See my other post to the same kind of comment you made, it might help you.
I'm done discussing with you, this has been a waste of my time. It's obvious you either don't want to have a real discussion, or don't have the foundation to be able to have one.
1. Slavery was a private relationship, this is a public relationship 2. This is not involuntary taxation. You either vote, choose not to exercise your right to vote, or have given up the right to vote via your own voluntary actions, if you are an American citizen.
Make note of the fact that they can't use USB drives, but they can transfer files via write once media like CDs/DVDs
Well, idiocy is not limited to the military. For example, in my company, CD/DVD drives on laptops are disabled for security purposes, but we can use USB drives to our hearts' content. And it's not an artifact of old policy not being updated... this is a newly written policy put into place this year.
The Navy doesn't even own its computers.
So? The issue of ownership is separate from the issue of security.
They can't install anything that's not already approved.
First, don't use quotation marks when you aren't quoting someone or writing dialogue. It can lead to misunderstanding.
But to answer you: yes. That is the status quo, is it not? Obviously, you'd favor the abolition of medicare, medicaid, etc.
I believe some modicum of medical care to be a personal right. Since it requires expense, we deal with that expense the same way we deal with almost all other public expenses -- via taxes.
Just as society has determined that there is no problem forcing me to pay taxes to wage questionable wars on foreign soil, to force me to pay taxes to provide subsidies to massive corporations like ConAgra and ADM, etc., I believe it is just for you, as a member of society, to be forced to pay taxes to ensure the right of access to medical care for the poor.
Everyone in the US has the freedom to buy health insurance.
A freedom does not exist when one cannot exercise that freedom.
Thus, prior to the Health Care Bill being implemented, we have tens of millions of people without that freedom, be it because they are poor, or because no entity is willing to offer them health insurance at a price they can afford (due to pre-existing conditions, etc).
Financial reform can only come in allowing the people to control their money. If you don't like the way some company is running their ship, you can take your money elsewhere. ... Monetary Democracy... no "financial reform" (read: big brother) needed. The only position government should hold in financial reform is regulation (read: removal) of monopolistic practices.
Ahh, now I remember where you are coming from. You're one of the saps who thinks that an unregulated market acts like an ideal free market.
Sorry: barriers to entry, collusion, and lack of perfect information in markets would result in a far-less-than-optimal distribution of resources, even if we regulate monopolistic practices.
But you can go back to reading mises.org if you like, I understand that you'll never get a dose of realism in the way of your idealistic Austrian beliefs.
If I have a legally enforceable right to receive a service regardless of my ability to pay this means that one of two things must happen:
1) The person rendering the service must be compelled to provide it for free.
2) Some third party must be compelled to pay for it instead.
Exactly. So the choice is either to (1) remove your legally-enforceable right to receive the service or (2) require you to pay for the service
On the whole, we have decided that option (1) is not going to happen. Thus we are stuck with option (2) -- so pay the damn $950 along with the other taxes that also are incompatible with 100% individual liberty.
Previously you had the right to choose neither of those options.
Which, in aggregate across millions of people, deprived the rest of us from using our money as we saw fit, since instead we had to use more of them to pay for emergency (and non-emergency) medical care for selfish assholes who chose* not to have medical insurance and yet availed themselves of medical care they could not afford.
The "treat first, worry about payment later" in emergency situations drives up *my* taxes, and *my* healthcare costs, due to freeloaders who abuse this system by not having health insurance, and not being able to pay their costs. The answer is to make those freeloaders pay a fine to help cover the expense and to encourage acquisition of health insurance, or to change how we provide emergency and other medical services to a pay-first-then-treat system.
[1] Since this wasn't clear last time I posted this opinion -- people who cannot afford health insurance, or people who are denied health insurance despite their desire to get it, are excluded from my ire. We need public funding of health insurance for the poor, and regulation to ensure that no one can be refused insurance for pre-existing conditions. OTOH, I have no problem with caps on treatment costs, provided the caps are reasonably high enough. It's harsh, but it doesn't make sense for society at large to pay $5 million in medical costs for one life. Ideally, people should have a choice in their plans -- pay more for a higher-cap plan, etc. (actuaries would need to work out the details).
The natural state of man is anarchy; we cede certain rights to a government to enable an orderly society.
If the natural state of man is anarchy, why do we have so very few places where anarchy is the actual state of affairs?
Here's the thing that bothers me about social contract theory: it's fundamentally flawed once it gets past small groups, just like communism. It doesn't work when enforcement of the contract is not universal or absolute (read: always), nor when the contract is not fully agreed upon by all the parties. Sure, I'll give up some of my liberty for protection from external threats; but how much should be given up?
But when I am told that I MUST send my kids to school, and I MUST pay taxes for a public school system whether I have children in it or not
You benefit from the public school system whether or not you have kids in the school system; it contributes to the orderly society you reference. You are still free to send your kids to a different school at cost to you, or to homeschool your kids according to established criteria. Your freedom to NOT educate your children is one that you must give up in order for an orderly society to exist.
Your issue is not one of theory, but of degree and control. You have already established that you are a proponent of social contract theory; as such, you are surely aware that your existence in society means that you must abide by the established social contract. Your problem is that you have little control over what is in the social contract. Well, get used to it. We have 300 million people, and you are among a minority who do not agree with that part of the social contract. I don't agree that my taxes should support aggressive wars in foreign lands, yet I understand that not paying my taxes is not an option, on philosophical grounds (let alone on legal grounds).
The boom and bust cycles are caused by government interference with the money supply through fiat currency, fractional reserves and centralized banking.
How can you claim that when these boom-and-bust cycles occurred when we had a specie-backed currency, no fractional reserves, and no centralized bank system? Seriously? Are you delusional, that we did not have worse boom-and-bust cycles in the 1800s through early 1900s with no central bank and with specie-backed currency
I've read plenty of Rothbard, plenty of books on Austrian theory. Just because you read something and it seems plausible, doesn't mean that it is true.
If you have any doubts about the history of central bankers as bunglers you might try either Murry Rothbard's A History of Money and Banking in the United States or The Case Against the Fed
I've read both. Just because the fed has done some bungling does not mean that the correct alternative is no fed, specie-backed currency, and no fractional reserves. In particular, no central bank coupled with specie-backed currency would be disastrous, just as it was the last time we tried that.
Of course it was... it was a setup for another poster to come along and elevate the irony level via a similarly-constructed officious-seeming announcement in order to enhance the joke and provide, hopefully, additional chuckles among the fine readers of slashdot.
Instead, by observing my typo, and failing to take the opportunity to craft a joke out of it in the same vein... why that's a complete waste of a setup.
Can you help a brother out and at least continue the joke when the effort of a setup has been made?
--> I've had the lick of having learned to type blind, which makes me able to type without having to think about the keyboard and focus on programming instead, but even the slowest typing collegues seem to have a reasonable typing speed.
Irony alert... irony alert... Irony level has been set to MAUVE.
In the event that additional typos are detected in a post regarding touch-typing ability, please be aware that the irony level may be raised to FUSCHIA. Please ensure your irony preparedness kits are completely stocked, and stay tuned for further announcements.
Doh! Insensitive clod alert... insensitive clod alert... insensitive clod level has been set to MORON.
In the event that another poster uses colors as threat-level indicators in response to a post written by a blind person, insensitive clod level may be raised to DOUCHEBAG. Please ensure your insensitive clod beating kits are prepared for use, and stay tuned for further announcements.
I've had the lick of having learned to type blind, which makes me able to type without having to think about the keyboard and focus on programming instead, but even the slowest typing collegues seem to have a reasonable typing speed.
Irony alert... irony alert... Irony level has been set to MAUVE.
In the event that additional typos are detected in a post regarding touch-typing ability, please be aware that the irony level may be raised to FUSCHIA. Please ensure your irony preparedness kits are completely stocked, and stay tuned for further announcements.
Yeah. Why teach the applications practical to 95% of white collar jobs instead of programming, which most kids won't be interested in, fewer will 'get' and hardly any will ever do professionally?
Because we're discussing general education, not trade school?
At the very least, the foundation in logical thought required for programming would be a boon to general education.
Personally, I think students should receive instruction in both programming, and in business applications. They are two very different subjects, and I don't think it should be an either/or situation.
This is just about the worst metaphor I've seen all day. If you only learn to spell, as opposed to learning speech, reading and literature, you aren't actually doing anything productive.
The kind of literary analysis I did in high school wasn't doing anything productive, either -- but the critical analysis skills I developed doing those exercises were very important for me to learn. Just as ancillary skills to programming (logic, etc) are very important for people to learn.
I'll agree with you in principle, I think the path should be something like LOGO, then BASIC, then Pascal or C.
I'd suggest starting with LOGO just to get the general concept of programming (along with immediate gratification), BASIC for a short time only to bridge between LOGO and a more advanced language.
Too much time spent using BASIC means a lot of un-learning needs to be done later.
This "deflation" did not in any way harm the economy, even though wages went down and money was harder to come by it bought MORE goods and services as time went on so people's standard of living rose despite of the deflating money.
Horseshit. Deflationary spirals in the 1800s resulted in factories closing, crops left rotting in the field or in warehouses, and people destitute. Once deflation starts occurring, then people stop spending, which results in lower demand for goods, which results in less employment, etc. Why would I buy X now with Y dollars, when I can buy X later for some fraction of Y dollars? Enough people asking that question, and you have an economic disaster like the ones we had every 15-20 years in the 1800s and early 1900s.
Those "good old days" were not good.
This is essentially why progressives and others on the Left are almost without exception, vehemently opposed to honest commodity-backed (and especially gold) money.
No, most of us are against commodity-backed currency because (1) it creates a distortion in the market for that commodity and (2) it erases the ability to ameliorate the horrific boom-and-bust cycles that occur in such a system.
1. You're either ignorant of fact and history, or you're dishonest 2. You misattribute motives in your little diatribe 3. You're quite likely paranoid.
Ah, falsehoods once again from the ever-lying C64_love.
The Somersett's case in England emancipated English slaves in 1772.
Abolitionism was much farther advanced as a political movement in England than it was in the colonies. Abolitionism spread from England to the colonies, you ignoramus.
I'm suggesting that if a country the size of China can get by with a smaller government than ours, then the size argument is irrelevant.
Apples to oranges. If you call what they have in China as "getting by" and acceptable to our standards, then there's a larger debate that completely undermines your point.
I'm not going to go through and respond item by item.
I've spent enough time on this.
As a word of advice, when you provide a link saying, "you can find the Harvard study here", you should link to the study, not to the general fair tax site. I've been through that site several times, and I've read the Beacon Hill studies. I'm not a fan of how the Beacon Hill studies cherry-picks data for their graphs to make the "fair" tax look good... e.g., using expenditure deciles instead of income deciles, which masks the huge tax breaks the very wealthy would get under that plan. Note that the very wealthy are less than half of a decile, making the use of deciles misleading.
Yes, I will read more on the "fair" tax, to see if my objections of a couple years ago still stand.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. There is a secondary market for them in the game. It's a common method for converting real currency to in-game items (or converting game items/currency for an item of real-world value, if you want to look at it that way).
I say, boo-hoo. Other items lost/destroyed in raids have been worth far more than this measly $1200. What's interesting about it is that it represents pure profit for the owners of the game. Someone paid real money for those items, now they're gone forever -- without the buyer or anyone else ever having the privilege of grinding away a significant portion of their life[1] using them.
[1] Relax, it's a joke. People spend money on time-sucking hobbies. If I choose to spend my cash on hookers and blackjack, it doesn't make me any better than you -- except that maybe I'll be hosting a few thousand or million extra organisms on my genitalia.
What flag are you going to fly that's going to keep anyone interested (say, some country's navy)from blowing your shit to smithereens? You really think there'll be public outrage if some CP-hosting dataserver in international waters has an "accident"?
If you're unaware of why it is true, then you're not educated enough on the issue for me to have worthwhile discussion about it with you.
See my other post to the same kind of comment you made, it might help you.
I'm done discussing with you, this has been a waste of my time. It's obvious you either don't want to have a real discussion, or don't have the foundation to be able to have one.
Nice troll. You know that taxes do not equate slavery.
Keep fucking that chicken.
Reductio ad absurdem.
But I'll waste my time responding to it:
1. Slavery was a private relationship, this is a public relationship
2. This is not involuntary taxation. You either vote, choose not to exercise your right to vote, or have given up the right to vote via your own voluntary actions, if you are an American citizen.
Well, idiocy is not limited to the military. For example, in my company, CD/DVD drives on laptops are disabled for security purposes, but we can use USB drives to our hearts' content. And it's not an artifact of old policy not being updated... this is a newly written policy put into place this year.
So? The issue of ownership is separate from the issue of security.
This seems like a good practice, to me.
First, don't use quotation marks when you aren't quoting someone or writing dialogue. It can lead to misunderstanding.
But to answer you: yes. That is the status quo, is it not? Obviously, you'd favor the abolition of medicare, medicaid, etc.
I believe some modicum of medical care to be a personal right. Since it requires expense, we deal with that expense the same way we deal with almost all other public expenses -- via taxes.
Just as society has determined that there is no problem forcing me to pay taxes to wage questionable wars on foreign soil, to force me to pay taxes to provide subsidies to massive corporations like ConAgra and ADM, etc., I believe it is just for you, as a member of society, to be forced to pay taxes to ensure the right of access to medical care for the poor.
A freedom does not exist when one cannot exercise that freedom.
Thus, prior to the Health Care Bill being implemented, we have tens of millions of people without that freedom, be it because they are poor, or because no entity is willing to offer them health insurance at a price they can afford (due to pre-existing conditions, etc).
Ahh, now I remember where you are coming from. You're one of the saps who thinks that an unregulated market acts like an ideal free market.
Sorry: barriers to entry, collusion, and lack of perfect information in markets would result in a far-less-than-optimal distribution of resources, even if we regulate monopolistic practices.
But you can go back to reading mises.org if you like, I understand that you'll never get a dose of realism in the way of your idealistic Austrian beliefs.
Exactly. So the choice is either to (1) remove your legally-enforceable right to receive the service or (2) require you to pay for the service
On the whole, we have decided that option (1) is not going to happen. Thus we are stuck with option (2) -- so pay the damn $950 along with the other taxes that also are incompatible with 100% individual liberty.
Which, in aggregate across millions of people, deprived the rest of us from using our money as we saw fit, since instead we had to use more of them to pay for emergency (and non-emergency) medical care for selfish assholes who chose* not to have medical insurance and yet availed themselves of medical care they could not afford.
The "treat first, worry about payment later" in emergency situations drives up *my* taxes, and *my* healthcare costs, due to freeloaders who abuse this system by not having health insurance, and not being able to pay their costs. The answer is to make those freeloaders pay a fine to help cover the expense and to encourage acquisition of health insurance, or to change how we provide emergency and other medical services to a pay-first-then-treat system.
[1] Since this wasn't clear last time I posted this opinion -- people who cannot afford health insurance, or people who are denied health insurance despite their desire to get it, are excluded from my ire. We need public funding of health insurance for the poor, and regulation to ensure that no one can be refused insurance for pre-existing conditions. OTOH, I have no problem with caps on treatment costs, provided the caps are reasonably high enough. It's harsh, but it doesn't make sense for society at large to pay $5 million in medical costs for one life. Ideally, people should have a choice in their plans -- pay more for a higher-cap plan, etc. (actuaries would need to work out the details).
If the natural state of man is anarchy, why do we have so very few places where anarchy is the actual state of affairs?
Here's the thing that bothers me about social contract theory: it's fundamentally flawed once it gets past small groups, just like communism. It doesn't work when enforcement of the contract is not universal or absolute (read: always), nor when the contract is not fully agreed upon by all the parties. Sure, I'll give up some of my liberty for protection from external threats; but how much should be given up?
You benefit from the public school system whether or not you have kids in the school system; it contributes to the orderly society you reference. You are still free to send your kids to a different school at cost to you, or to homeschool your kids according to established criteria. Your freedom to NOT educate your children is one that you must give up in order for an orderly society to exist.
Your issue is not one of theory, but of degree and control. You have already established that you are a proponent of social contract theory; as such, you are surely aware that your existence in society means that you must abide by the established social contract. Your problem is that you have little control over what is in the social contract. Well, get used to it. We have 300 million people, and you are among a minority who do not agree with that part of the social contract. I don't agree that my taxes should support aggressive wars in foreign lands, yet I understand that not paying my taxes is not an option, on philosophical grounds (let alone on legal grounds).
Vaporware, literally.
How can you claim that when these boom-and-bust cycles occurred when we had a specie-backed currency, no fractional reserves, and no centralized bank system? Seriously? Are you delusional, that we did not have worse boom-and-bust cycles in the 1800s through early 1900s with no central bank and with specie-backed currency
I've read plenty of Rothbard, plenty of books on Austrian theory. Just because you read something and it seems plausible, doesn't mean that it is true.
I've read both. Just because the fed has done some bungling does not mean that the correct alternative is no fed, specie-backed currency, and no fractional reserves. In particular, no central bank coupled with specie-backed currency would be disastrous, just as it was the last time we tried that.
Of course it was... it was a setup for another poster to come along and elevate the irony level via a similarly-constructed officious-seeming announcement in order to enhance the joke and provide, hopefully, additional chuckles among the fine readers of slashdot.
Instead, by observing my typo, and failing to take the opportunity to craft a joke out of it in the same vein... why that's a complete waste of a setup.
Can you help a brother out and at least continue the joke when the effort of a setup has been made?
Doh! Insensitive clod alert... insensitive clod alert... insensitive clod level has been set to MORON.
In the event that another poster uses colors as threat-level indicators in response to a post written by a blind person, insensitive clod level may be raised to DOUCHEBAG. Please ensure your insensitive clod beating kits are prepared for use, and stay tuned for further announcements.
Irony alert... irony alert... Irony level has been set to MAUVE.
In the event that additional typos are detected in a post regarding touch-typing ability, please be aware that the irony level may be raised to FUSCHIA. Please ensure your irony preparedness kits are completely stocked, and stay tuned for further announcements.
Because we're discussing general education, not trade school?
At the very least, the foundation in logical thought required for programming would be a boon to general education.
Personally, I think students should receive instruction in both programming, and in business applications. They are two very different subjects, and I don't think it should be an either/or situation.
The kind of literary analysis I did in high school wasn't doing anything productive, either -- but the critical analysis skills I developed doing those exercises were very important for me to learn. Just as ancillary skills to programming (logic, etc) are very important for people to learn.
I'll agree with you in principle, I think the path should be something like LOGO, then BASIC, then Pascal or C.
I'd suggest starting with LOGO just to get the general concept of programming (along with immediate gratification), BASIC for a short time only to bridge between LOGO and a more advanced language.
Too much time spent using BASIC means a lot of un-learning needs to be done later.
Horseshit. Deflationary spirals in the 1800s resulted in factories closing, crops left rotting in the field or in warehouses, and people destitute. Once deflation starts occurring, then people stop spending, which results in lower demand for goods, which results in less employment, etc. Why would I buy X now with Y dollars, when I can buy X later for some fraction of Y dollars? Enough people asking that question, and you have an economic disaster like the ones we had every 15-20 years in the 1800s and early 1900s.
Those "good old days" were not good.
No, most of us are against commodity-backed currency because (1) it creates a distortion in the market for that commodity and (2) it erases the ability to ameliorate the horrific boom-and-bust cycles that occur in such a system.
1. You're either ignorant of fact and history, or you're dishonest
2. You misattribute motives in your little diatribe
3. You're quite likely paranoid.
Ah, falsehoods once again from the ever-lying C64_love.
The Somersett's case in England emancipated English slaves in 1772.
Abolitionism was much farther advanced as a political movement in England than it was in the colonies. Abolitionism spread from England to the colonies, you ignoramus.
"Oh no... now I'll NEVER find the clitoris!"
Apples to oranges. If you call what they have in China as "getting by" and acceptable to our standards, then there's a larger debate that completely undermines your point.
I'm not going to go through and respond item by item.
I've spent enough time on this.
As a word of advice, when you provide a link saying, "you can find the Harvard study here", you should link to the study, not to the general fair tax site. I've been through that site several times, and I've read the Beacon Hill studies. I'm not a fan of how the Beacon Hill studies cherry-picks data for their graphs to make the "fair" tax look good... e.g., using expenditure deciles instead of income deciles, which masks the huge tax breaks the very wealthy would get under that plan. Note that the very wealthy are less than half of a decile, making the use of deciles misleading.
Yes, I will read more on the "fair" tax, to see if my objections of a couple years ago still stand.
Thanks for the discussion.
And meanwhile, the operation of public roadways enabled both the buggy-whip makers and the automobile makers to make a profit in their time.