Joking aside, trust me, it would get un-amusing really quickly. One of the problems with this type of nerve damage is the person ends up VERY frustrated and unhappy.
It is a worthwhile question. A big piece of the answer is that his constituency does not believe in the censoring, even if only a small percentage of them are actively pushing him for the 18+ rating. He is also the lone holdout among other AGs, so his personal opinion is running pretty strongly against, well, everyone. He stopped 'representing' and is instead pushing his personal agenda.
'When', not 'where.
The 4 goals of prison are in constant flux. Though it was actually the US that pioneered the idea of rehabilitative prison and that was what our prison system was built around initially. (specifically it came out of Quaker prisons)
This has, of course, changed over the years.
Well, in theory the developers wanted political conflict, not griefing. And EVE does not have death, just 'loose your stuff'. EVE PvPers like talking how hardcore they are, but I doubt they would be so full of themselves if they played one of the old permadeath MUDs.
EVE Online managed to find a balance that UO did not. The game has plenty of room for PvE people. Though just like the split UO went through when they mirrored the world, most people in EVE stick to the PvE areas (including alts of PvP players since PvP is.. well.. not very profitable). EVE survives because they have learned to cater to both groups, not giving either the full experince they want, but enough that they enrich eachother.
I think you are not far off there. PvP groups tend to require dedication, otherwise you get kicked as 'deadweight', so in general only very active players can really participate in them.
"more powerful person to prey on the less powerful for shits and giggles"
That sums up why these games fail right there.
Shits and giggles are meta game. Fighting for in-game reasons and people have fun (even the UO supporters always talk about the in-game reasons for conflict and ignore the megagame reasons)... killing for metagame reasons and the victims tend not to have fun, since they are actually playing the game.
I think one of the big problems with trying to build games like this is that such a system does, unfortunately, attract griefers. I agree that not all PvP is griefing,.. there are lots of reasons to attack other players. Reasons are the problem.
Such games work great when people are fighting over territory, or wealth, or control, or other in-game advantages. Griefers on the other hand are fighting purely to make the game unpleasant to other people, and that ends up killing a system.
One of the gulfs between those who saw UO as fun vs ones who found it miserable was how much of a target they were. The people in the powerful groups did not have many troubles so they tended not to see the problem. People outside the groups on the other hand were harassed into a pretty much unplayable state. The normal response of course was 'well, join one of the big powerful groups!' with the problem that this was not always an option. The politics of the groups were not open to everyone.
What is even the point of a comment like this?
"There are people who like X, but I do not like X, so I feel the need to announce my lack of interest in X!"
Besides new technologies, one also needs to keep up with the current flavor of 'one true way' programming. Multi-paridigm programmers are increasingly being seen as warped or 'in need of training' since they can *gasp* see value in something other then the current snapshot of how OOP is done. Experience and perspective become detriments unless one knows which current fad to focus on and which ones you are supposed to say have no value.
Ahm, how is 'gives the authors a significantly better deal then the industry standard' a bad thing? I also think it is quite a stretch to call that an ad populum fallacy. It merely points out that attacking amazon for taking 70% in favor of regular publishers which will take upwards of 90% is rather silly.
And I highly doubt you could have a fully functional book selling site set up in 2 days that comes even close to the functionality (both front end and back end) of a place like amazon, or have the same load capacity. Do you have any idea what is involved in 'moving money back and forth' in a system like that?
Competition benefiting the customer has never been the case. It was an interesting mathematical model for how economics MIGHT work, but it did not hold up very well in the real world and was replaced by more accurate models decades ago. Still, it lives on as a meme.
Well, the same is true in the US. As a general rule, it is not possible to go about your day without breaking some laws, usually ones that are not enforced via a nod and a wink. Unless of course some DA wants to get you, in which case they magically start being valid laws. Everyone in the US lives under the constant threat of immediate arrest and crippling charges if someone really wants to.
Perhaps not automatic, but I think that many Americans' ancestors had similar motivations for coming here.
See, I have no objection to a family like this immigrating. I do believe that if you do not like how your government governs you should be able to leave.
But political asylum is a fasttrack system for when the people's lives are in danger or other significant threats. I have a serious problem with 'my kids are being forced to go to public schools and be exposed to other religions!' using a mechanism intended for 'if I am sent back to our country of origin we will be tortured and killed along with my entire family'.
Ahm.. how do home schoolers count as a protectable social group if all they have in common is homeschooling?
I am not sure this is a good precedent. This same logic could be applied to any activity that is illegal in one country but legal here. "I do not want to follow the laws of my home country" should not be an automatic 'you can immigrate to the US' pass.
TV (and movie executives) have seroius ramifications if they suffer the 'embarrassment' of releasing something and then someone else making money off of it.
This is a big reason why many execs refuse to even license out a show (which brings in some profit) because no one wants to be branded as an exec that let something 'get away'.
In this case, the VP is probably worried that the preservation might be popular. The probabily of profit is too low for them to do it themselves, but the risk of someone else doing it is too high (with no reward), so the safest option is to let it die.
This is what happened with Invader Zim for instance. Nick did not think it was profitable for them and did not want to produce it, but it wold be career suicide to sell it to another network if it became profitable there.
And party leadership (who are not elected) gets to decide who gets funding, party attention, and access to existing champagin infrastructure.
The voters have minimal say in who actually wins a primary. It makes for good theater, but in reality the candidates with the leadership's blessings are the ones who win primaries. The only time there is even close competition is when the canidates are proxies for conflicts within the party, in which case the leadership fight eachother with canidates and voters being pawns.
*shrug* If you think there is enough of a remaining market for such games, that a large enough niche group is not being served, then start a business and serve them. Or better yet, patronize the companies that are doing so! There are plenty of small companies still putting out very cerebral games and their business model allows them to survive the small percentage of people who will buy their titles.
Now, this does mean you tend to sacrifice graphics, which part of the problem is many self proclaimed 'cerebral' players are not willing to do.
Re:One person's myth is another person's fact.
on
Myths About Code Comments
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
And if your resume passed my desk, you would not be hired.
I have to ask.. what in the world is your problem? It sounds like you wish to torch anyone who does not use the exact amount of commenting you do. Engineering is about tradeoffs, and comments are no exception, that is all the piece said.
It did not even say 'do not comment', just to be aware of the cost/benefit and make a decision based off that.
If you are encouraging people to take a blind dogmatic approach rather then doing the work to determine what the appropriate amount is, then I question how effectively you can apply it. To be blunt, it makes you sound like another type of hot shot that is an equal bane to the ones you are complaining about.
I think most people in a conflict want to be the complete and total victor and would be thrilled if the other side simply stopped fighting and 'accept' the situation.
Right now Israel has a strong incentive to want the fighting to end, since they currently control the land. If there was a massive pushback and they no longer controlled the territory, I doubt they would want to simply 'stop and live in peace' either.
Neither side quite wants peace, both sides want to win. No one wants peace if it means loosing.
Which makes me think Fusion Garage had a bit of group think between a bunch of non-lawyers that convinced themselves that they would get away with something like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Joking aside, trust me, it would get un-amusing really quickly. One of the problems with this type of nerve damage is the person ends up VERY frustrated and unhappy.
It is a worthwhile question. A big piece of the answer is that his constituency does not believe in the censoring, even if only a small percentage of them are actively pushing him for the 18+ rating. He is also the lone holdout among other AGs, so his personal opinion is running pretty strongly against, well, everyone. He stopped 'representing' and is instead pushing his personal agenda.
I would not even call this a flaw in a 'parameter' but in government process of assigning priorities. Bureaucracy kills again.
'When', not 'where. The 4 goals of prison are in constant flux. Though it was actually the US that pioneered the idea of rehabilitative prison and that was what our prison system was built around initially. (specifically it came out of Quaker prisons) This has, of course, changed over the years.
Well, in theory the developers wanted political conflict, not griefing. And EVE does not have death, just 'loose your stuff'. EVE PvPers like talking how hardcore they are, but I doubt they would be so full of themselves if they played one of the old permadeath MUDs.
They were also running in the red. Pre-Trammel they were not pulling a profit,.. they were too niche to maintain themselves.
EVE Online managed to find a balance that UO did not. The game has plenty of room for PvE people. Though just like the split UO went through when they mirrored the world, most people in EVE stick to the PvE areas (including alts of PvP players since PvP is.. well.. not very profitable). EVE survives because they have learned to cater to both groups, not giving either the full experince they want, but enough that they enrich eachother.
I think you are not far off there. PvP groups tend to require dedication, otherwise you get kicked as 'deadweight', so in general only very active players can really participate in them.
"more powerful person to prey on the less powerful for shits and giggles"
That sums up why these games fail right there.
Shits and giggles are meta game. Fighting for in-game reasons and people have fun (even the UO supporters always talk about the in-game reasons for conflict and ignore the megagame reasons)... killing for metagame reasons and the victims tend not to have fun, since they are actually playing the game.
I think one of the big problems with trying to build games like this is that such a system does, unfortunately, attract griefers. I agree that not all PvP is griefing,.. there are lots of reasons to attack other players. Reasons are the problem. Such games work great when people are fighting over territory, or wealth, or control, or other in-game advantages. Griefers on the other hand are fighting purely to make the game unpleasant to other people, and that ends up killing a system. One of the gulfs between those who saw UO as fun vs ones who found it miserable was how much of a target they were. The people in the powerful groups did not have many troubles so they tended not to see the problem. People outside the groups on the other hand were harassed into a pretty much unplayable state. The normal response of course was 'well, join one of the big powerful groups!' with the problem that this was not always an option. The politics of the groups were not open to everyone.
What is even the point of a comment like this? "There are people who like X, but I do not like X, so I feel the need to announce my lack of interest in X!"
Besides new technologies, one also needs to keep up with the current flavor of 'one true way' programming. Multi-paridigm programmers are increasingly being seen as warped or 'in need of training' since they can *gasp* see value in something other then the current snapshot of how OOP is done. Experience and perspective become detriments unless one knows which current fad to focus on and which ones you are supposed to say have no value.
Ahm, how is 'gives the authors a significantly better deal then the industry standard' a bad thing? I also think it is quite a stretch to call that an ad populum fallacy. It merely points out that attacking amazon for taking 70% in favor of regular publishers which will take upwards of 90% is rather silly. And I highly doubt you could have a fully functional book selling site set up in 2 days that comes even close to the functionality (both front end and back end) of a place like amazon, or have the same load capacity. Do you have any idea what is involved in 'moving money back and forth' in a system like that?
Competition benefiting the customer has never been the case. It was an interesting mathematical model for how economics MIGHT work, but it did not hold up very well in the real world and was replaced by more accurate models decades ago. Still, it lives on as a meme.
Even if it is not illegal, credit card companies are always thrilled to do chargebacks....
Well, the same is true in the US. As a general rule, it is not possible to go about your day without breaking some laws, usually ones that are not enforced via a nod and a wink. Unless of course some DA wants to get you, in which case they magically start being valid laws. Everyone in the US lives under the constant threat of immediate arrest and crippling charges if someone really wants to.
See, I have no objection to a family like this immigrating. I do believe that if you do not like how your government governs you should be able to leave. But political asylum is a fasttrack system for when the people's lives are in danger or other significant threats. I have a serious problem with 'my kids are being forced to go to public schools and be exposed to other religions!' using a mechanism intended for 'if I am sent back to our country of origin we will be tortured and killed along with my entire family'.
Ahm.. how do home schoolers count as a protectable social group if all they have in common is homeschooling?
I am not sure this is a good precedent. This same logic could be applied to any activity that is illegal in one country but legal here. "I do not want to follow the laws of my home country" should not be an automatic 'you can immigrate to the US' pass.
I wonder how much the rights are worth at this point. I imagine some pocket change would do the trick.
Actually there is another possiblity.
TV (and movie executives) have seroius ramifications if they suffer the 'embarrassment' of releasing something and then someone else making money off of it.
This is a big reason why many execs refuse to even license out a show (which brings in some profit) because no one wants to be branded as an exec that let something 'get away'.
In this case, the VP is probably worried that the preservation might be popular. The probabily of profit is too low for them to do it themselves, but the risk of someone else doing it is too high (with no reward), so the safest option is to let it die.
This is what happened with Invader Zim for instance. Nick did not think it was profitable for them and did not want to produce it, but it wold be career suicide to sell it to another network if it became profitable there.
And party leadership (who are not elected) gets to decide who gets funding, party attention, and access to existing champagin infrastructure.
The voters have minimal say in who actually wins a primary. It makes for good theater, but in reality the candidates with the leadership's blessings are the ones who win primaries. The only time there is even close competition is when the canidates are proxies for conflicts within the party, in which case the leadership fight eachother with canidates and voters being pawns.
*shrug* If you think there is enough of a remaining market for such games, that a large enough niche group is not being served, then start a business and serve them. Or better yet, patronize the companies that are doing so! There are plenty of small companies still putting out very cerebral games and their business model allows them to survive the small percentage of people who will buy their titles.
Now, this does mean you tend to sacrifice graphics, which part of the problem is many self proclaimed 'cerebral' players are not willing to do.
And if your resume passed my desk, you would not be hired.
I have to ask.. what in the world is your problem? It sounds like you wish to torch anyone who does not use the exact amount of commenting you do. Engineering is about tradeoffs, and comments are no exception, that is all the piece said.
It did not even say 'do not comment', just to be aware of the cost/benefit and make a decision based off that.
If you are encouraging people to take a blind dogmatic approach rather then doing the work to determine what the appropriate amount is, then I question how effectively you can apply it. To be blunt, it makes you sound like another type of hot shot that is an equal bane to the ones you are complaining about.
I think most people in a conflict want to be the complete and total victor and would be thrilled if the other side simply stopped fighting and 'accept' the situation.
Right now Israel has a strong incentive to want the fighting to end, since they currently control the land. If there was a massive pushback and they no longer controlled the territory, I doubt they would want to simply 'stop and live in peace' either.
Neither side quite wants peace, both sides want to win. No one wants peace if it means loosing.
Which makes me think Fusion Garage had a bit of group think between a bunch of non-lawyers that convinced themselves that they would get away with something like this.