except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place
Not really. They aren't using their dominance in one area to extend into others, both their search engine and their online advertising work just as well on Firefox and IE as they do on Chrome so using them doesn't mean you have to use their browser as well.
Just having a monopoly isn't illegal, nor is using the profits from said monopoly to try and compete in other markets. If Microsoft had went after the bakery business and put some ads for their cakes during Windows install, nobody would've batted an eyelid. The anti-trust problems only started when they made IE mandatory with every copy of Windows and nearly impossible to uninstall.
Oh yeah, let's all boycott drug companies that make profit. What exactly is wrong with making profit?
What exactly is wrong with them *not* making a profit? in other words, what do we lose if they go bankrupt? with the RIAA we already know the answer is "nothing of value", and I believe that was why your parent post made the comparison but perhaps you can provide a better answer.
As with everything, YMMV. Personally, I believe LotR: Battle for Middle-Earth II is the finest RTS of the C&C/Starcraft-derived variety, and it was made by EA.
Now, they do have some turds in their catalogue (ahh, Spore), but which company doesn't? its just their turds are better marketed than most, which is where TFA comes into play, but that doesn't mean they don't make good games too.
You're comparing "could" with "did". How many of those BL-5C batteries did ended up exploding? or, how many iPhones out there were built with the exact same components as the ones that exploded? until you can safely answer at least one of those questions, you're just comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).
If you support open source, good enough will be the norm, as in, "Linux is good enough for my software needs, I don't need/want anything else." Since open source products have less competition (hard to compete with a $0 price tag), the need to improve the product will be almost non-existent
Good for me. So far Linux has done quite well relying on just people's desire to improve the products, instead of need. Better than their closed-source counterparts, I may note.
Though both go for "good enough" so I don't know why you're comparing them. To see an example of an industry that goes for "perfect" instead of just "good enough" go look at cryptography, then imagine how it'd be if something as big as an entire Operating System had to go under the same amount of scrutiny before being put in production.
It is government sponsored. While the BBC is factual, trustworthy, and all that, other state sponsored media are not. Imagine being stuck with the Chinese, Iranian or North Korean state sponsored news organizations.
You seem under the impression that a privately-funded news organization in those countries would fare better than a state-sponsored one. I assure you, if they're of any significant size they would not.
Controlling the prisons provides you with a much bigger 'incentive' than controlling the money flow.
There is a difference, but I'm not sure it's in their favor. If a company is allowed to lie then you'll get both liars and honest people from them, but if a company is allowed to fire people for refusing to lie, eventually you'll only have liars working there.
But, perhaps the consistency of the latter case outweights the value of the ocassional honesty in the former, as you can then dismiss them without guilt. Dunno really.
People will be people and I defy you to find any self-selected group where you are guaranteed not to come across childish wankers, regardless of their RL age, whether it be WoW, WAR, Aion, or the US House of Representatives or US Senate.
My point, exactly. I quote:
The best part, though, is that the presence of a monthly fee keeps away kids who can't convince their parents to pay for their subscriptions! It doesn't keep all the kids away, of course, but it definitely makes a difference.
Emphasis mine. It does not, therefore the GP is wrong, therefore he should use better arguments if he wants to defend monthly fees instead of that 'holier than thou' attitude since it's annoying, stupid, and wrong.
So, your experience of finding a guild with mature players somehow contradicts my assertion that you need to join a guild to find mature players?
Good guilds exist in every MMO, free or not. My point is, if you can't join a random pick-up group and expect a significant majority of the players to act maturely then WoW isn't any better than the 'free' ones and, therefore, the GP's assertion that having a monthly fee improves the level of the community is false.
Only if those are free -- as the previous poster pointed out, in fact, your typical offline games will end up costing you more than a monthly MMORPG.
The previous poster assumed you'd somehow grow bored of the game in less than a month, but tolerate the tedium of the MMORPG for at least half a year, *and* that you'd pay full retail price for the game, each time. I know plenty of people still playing Team Fortress 2 after almost two years, for a total cost of $30 for The Orange Box, and I know many who've spent a *lot* more than 20 hours on Fallout 3 and Oblivion, both of which can be gotten for a lot less than $50 nowadays.
Well no shit. Thanks for letting us know, Captain Obvious. You've really added a lot to this discussion.
By "free" I meant "with no monthly fees", though yeah, completely free ones also exist. The question is, however, if their existence was so obvious, why didn't the GP mention them in his post? hand-picking the comparisons to make your argument appear more solid than it is isn't a very good form of argument.
I'd say the general lack of screaming is the result of a population becoming jaded after 20+ years of seeing their rights being eroded by all sides of the political spectrum, rather than a misguided faith in their current president.
That, or they're busy filling out the forms for a Canadian Visa.
If you look at it in terms of entertainment per hour per dollar spent, MMORPGs are actually quite cheap.
But still nowhere as cheap as offline gaming, online FPSs, or free online RPGs.
The best part, though, is that the presence of a monthly fee keeps away kids who can't convince their parents to pay for their subscriptions! It doesn't keep all the kids away, of course, but it definitely makes a difference.
Does it? all I've seen about WoW suggests that the community is filled with stat-whores who won't give you the time of the day if you can't do $X of DPS and have at least an $Y level armor, and that a 'casual' gamer has no chance of *ever* finding a good party (defining 'good' as 'can speak proper english and is willing to help newbies with their shortcomings instead of writing "gtfo nub"') withotu joining a mature, respectable guild. In other words, exactly the same as most free MMOs.
I would dispute this, also. Mice are more accurate at controlling first person shooters. Better is something different, entirely.
And subjective. Since for me, faster + more accurate => better, but it seems you hold a different criteria.
Playing the DOOM mods that allow mouse input SUCKS compared to the original keyboard scheme.
I believe differently. In fact, despite playing both quite heavily during my childhood with a pure keyboard-based control scheme, I can no longer stand to play either DOOM nor Duke Nukem 3D without a traditional WSAD+mouse scheme, it just plain works better.
some small-budget productions -> lots of small-budget productions -> some big-budget productions and lots of small ones -> lots of big- and small-budget productions living in a stable ecosystem.
It happened with games and the web at least, so it's likely what'll happen with online video shows as well. And I, for one, am quite happy that we've finally reached some degree of success with step 1, even if we're not ready yet to throw our dumb boxes out the window.
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals... while eliminating individualism. That's a contradiction. How does the state "get out of the way" AND destroy personal liberty ?
Take a look at the US and see how they do it. By granting enterpreneurs the ability to screw everybody else for their own gain (see: copyright, patents), they manage to both incentive the free enterprise of individuals *and* destroy personal liberties. Take it just a bit farther and you get corporatism first, then fascism, two extreme right-wing philosophies which you somehow missed in your effort to Godwin the discussion.
Now, I'm a right-wing capitalist, what in the US would be called a "libertarian" I believe, but seriously: stop pretending only one side of the political spectrum holds a monopoly over stupidity, you aren't helping your own credibility by doing so.
It's lazy, dangerous, and ineffective to force-fit physical world rules to other realms. We should insist that they throw away rules of physical evidence and create reasonable rules for digital evidence.
Which is exactly how this looks like, to me. They recognize that information in databases can be no more "hidden" than any other, but they saw that, since allowing that kind of wide searches would open up a huge can of worms as far as privacy is concerned, you aren't allowed to use them in courts without a proper warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "toy language", then we can discuss whether a quarter of the software development industry is relying on a "toy" or not.
except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place
Not really. They aren't using their dominance in one area to extend into others, both their search engine and their online advertising work just as well on Firefox and IE as they do on Chrome so using them doesn't mean you have to use their browser as well.
Just having a monopoly isn't illegal, nor is using the profits from said monopoly to try and compete in other markets. If Microsoft had went after the bakery business and put some ads for their cakes during Windows install, nobody would've batted an eyelid. The anti-trust problems only started when they made IE mandatory with every copy of Windows and nearly impossible to uninstall.
Not really. The EU is watching them this time and *they* have balls, unlike the folks at the US government.
Oh yeah, let's all boycott drug companies that make profit. What exactly is wrong with making profit?
What exactly is wrong with them *not* making a profit? in other words, what do we lose if they go bankrupt? with the RIAA we already know the answer is "nothing of value", and I believe that was why your parent post made the comparison but perhaps you can provide a better answer.
As with everything, YMMV. Personally, I believe LotR: Battle for Middle-Earth II is the finest RTS of the C&C/Starcraft-derived variety, and it was made by EA.
Now, they do have some turds in their catalogue (ahh, Spore), but which company doesn't? its just their turds are better marketed than most, which is where TFA comes into play, but that doesn't mean they don't make good games too.
You're comparing "could" with "did". How many of those BL-5C batteries did ended up exploding? or, how many iPhones out there were built with the exact same components as the ones that exploded? until you can safely answer at least one of those questions, you're just comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).
If the free market is incapable of producing fair and balanced news then fix the free market.
Mind sharing some ideas as to how?
-- Sincerely, the rest of the world.
If you support open source, good enough will be the norm, as in, "Linux is good enough for my software needs, I don't need/want anything else." Since open source products have less competition (hard to compete with a $0 price tag), the need to improve the product will be almost non-existent
Good for me. So far Linux has done quite well relying on just people's desire to improve the products, instead of need. Better than their closed-source counterparts, I may note.
Though both go for "good enough" so I don't know why you're comparing them. To see an example of an industry that goes for "perfect" instead of just "good enough" go look at cryptography, then imagine how it'd be if something as big as an entire Operating System had to go under the same amount of scrutiny before being put in production.
You're assuming the GP didn't hack his MP3 player to play a different song on each headphone.
What? You think everyone in the world chose where to be born? Did you choose YOUR parents?
No, but most of us *did* choose the place we live in. Choose one *inside* the city and there, problem solved.
You make very good points, don't get me wrong, but there's only one appropiate response to your whole post:
WHOOSH!
It is government sponsored. While the BBC is factual, trustworthy, and all that, other state sponsored media are not. Imagine being stuck with the Chinese, Iranian or North Korean state sponsored news organizations.
You seem under the impression that a privately-funded news organization in those countries would fare better than a state-sponsored one. I assure you, if they're of any significant size they would not.
Controlling the prisons provides you with a much bigger 'incentive' than controlling the money flow.
A distinction without a difference.
There is a difference, but I'm not sure it's in their favor. If a company is allowed to lie then you'll get both liars and honest people from them, but if a company is allowed to fire people for refusing to lie, eventually you'll only have liars working there.
But, perhaps the consistency of the latter case outweights the value of the ocassional honesty in the former, as you can then dismiss them without guilt. Dunno really.
People will be people and I defy you to find any self-selected group where you are guaranteed not to come across childish wankers, regardless of their RL age, whether it be WoW, WAR, Aion, or the US House of Representatives or US Senate.
My point, exactly. I quote:
The best part, though, is that the presence of a monthly fee keeps away kids who can't convince their parents to pay for their subscriptions! It doesn't keep all the kids away, of course, but it definitely makes a difference.
Emphasis mine. It does not, therefore the GP is wrong, therefore he should use better arguments if he wants to defend monthly fees instead of that 'holier than thou' attitude since it's annoying, stupid, and wrong.
So, your experience of finding a guild with mature players somehow contradicts my assertion that you need to join a guild to find mature players?
Good guilds exist in every MMO, free or not. My point is, if you can't join a random pick-up group and expect a significant majority of the players to act maturely then WoW isn't any better than the 'free' ones and, therefore, the GP's assertion that having a monthly fee improves the level of the community is false.
Only if those are free -- as the previous poster pointed out, in fact, your typical offline games will end up costing you more than a monthly MMORPG.
The previous poster assumed you'd somehow grow bored of the game in less than a month, but tolerate the tedium of the MMORPG for at least half a year, *and* that you'd pay full retail price for the game, each time. I know plenty of people still playing Team Fortress 2 after almost two years, for a total cost of $30 for The Orange Box, and I know many who've spent a *lot* more than 20 hours on Fallout 3 and Oblivion, both of which can be gotten for a lot less than $50 nowadays.
Well no shit. Thanks for letting us know, Captain Obvious. You've really added a lot to this discussion.
By "free" I meant "with no monthly fees", though yeah, completely free ones also exist. The question is, however, if their existence was so obvious, why didn't the GP mention them in his post? hand-picking the comparisons to make your argument appear more solid than it is isn't a very good form of argument.
I'd say the general lack of screaming is the result of a population becoming jaded after 20+ years of seeing their rights being eroded by all sides of the political spectrum, rather than a misguided faith in their current president.
That, or they're busy filling out the forms for a Canadian Visa.
I think you grossly misunderestimate the effect a shut down of the net would have on the global economy.
If you look at it in terms of entertainment per hour per dollar spent, MMORPGs are actually quite cheap.
But still nowhere as cheap as offline gaming, online FPSs, or free online RPGs.
The best part, though, is that the presence of a monthly fee keeps away kids who can't convince their parents to pay for their subscriptions! It doesn't keep all the kids away, of course, but it definitely makes a difference.
Does it? all I've seen about WoW suggests that the community is filled with stat-whores who won't give you the time of the day if you can't do $X of DPS and have at least an $Y level armor, and that a 'casual' gamer has no chance of *ever* finding a good party (defining 'good' as 'can speak proper english and is willing to help newbies with their shortcomings instead of writing "gtfo nub"') withotu joining a mature, respectable guild. In other words, exactly the same as most free MMOs.
I would dispute this, also. Mice are more accurate at controlling first person shooters. Better is something different, entirely.
And subjective. Since for me, faster + more accurate => better, but it seems you hold a different criteria.
Playing the DOOM mods that allow mouse input SUCKS compared to the original keyboard scheme.
I believe differently. In fact, despite playing both quite heavily during my childhood with a pure keyboard-based control scheme, I can no longer stand to play either DOOM nor Duke Nukem 3D without a traditional WSAD+mouse scheme, it just plain works better.
The progression is quite simple:
some small-budget productions -> lots of small-budget productions -> some big-budget productions and lots of small ones -> lots of big- and small-budget productions living in a stable ecosystem.
It happened with games and the web at least, so it's likely what'll happen with online video shows as well. And I, for one, am quite happy that we've finally reached some degree of success with step 1, even if we're not ready yet to throw our dumb boxes out the window.
My toons are all celibate. Since my beloved IRL doesn't play, I don't even allow myself the fantasy of another SO relationship. Problem solved.
I solved the problem differently: I just ship my characters amongst themselves, that way its no more "cheating" than masturbation is.
You must realize that Latin American countries are far more collectivist.
No, we aren't. Don't generalize the whole population of Latin America based on what the Supreme Idiot of the Venezuelan Republic does or says.
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals ... while eliminating individualism. That's a contradiction. How does the state "get out of the way" AND destroy personal liberty ?
Take a look at the US and see how they do it. By granting enterpreneurs the ability to screw everybody else for their own gain (see: copyright, patents), they manage to both incentive the free enterprise of individuals *and* destroy personal liberties. Take it just a bit farther and you get corporatism first, then fascism, two extreme right-wing philosophies which you somehow missed in your effort to Godwin the discussion.
Now, I'm a right-wing capitalist, what in the US would be called a "libertarian" I believe, but seriously: stop pretending only one side of the political spectrum holds a monopoly over stupidity, you aren't helping your own credibility by doing so.
It's lazy, dangerous, and ineffective to force-fit physical world rules to other realms. We should insist that they throw away rules of physical evidence and create reasonable rules for digital evidence.
Which is exactly how this looks like, to me. They recognize that information in databases can be no more "hidden" than any other, but they saw that, since allowing that kind of wide searches would open up a huge can of worms as far as privacy is concerned, you aren't allowed to use them in courts without a proper warrant.