That's because a large percentage of everything is CRAP. A MUCH smaller percentage is good/excellent - (and the percentage in-between is average). Because of this, any increase in production is guaranteed to produce a higher ratio of crap to good/excellent products.
Add that to the fact that people forget the crap stuff a lot easier than the good/excellent stuff, and you wind up with the situation we have now - mainstream=lots more stuff produced=more crap/average products=not much more good/excellent products...
I have to agree with this - I actually started out by reading Nicholas Fisk and Douglas Hill books at Primary school, (I'm in the UK), which is probably a bit younger than the ages we're looking at here, and it was those two that got me interested in sci-fi and after that I moved straight into Asimov - (Foundation and Robot stories) - Heinlein (my dad had a big collection of his) - and Clarke...
I know and understand that - but something that size for just 1MW seems a waste of engineering/manufacturing to me...
Like the guy in the study said - (which I'd REALLY like to find) - a(some) 40GW nuclear plant(s) is(are) a very hard system to match - although some wind/solar/tidal will help, it still makes sense to use the most efficient system, (and this doesn't sound like it - only 1MW per object) - (though linking to solar power in the sahara is still the best technical solution - the best 'political', however, is, of course, another matter, which is where nuclear comes in).
According to the study - (if I remember) - using all the available space in the UK for wind turbines and some offshore too, along with some tidal etc. STILL didn't produce enough power - I think we need a least a hundred GW, (or 2?), if I remember correctly, and this sort of system, along with wind turbines simply doesn't produce anywhere near enough power for national use...
I dunno - seems a bit big for that 20MW - it's only, what, 4 5MW wind turbines...?
I'm in the UK, and I remember the register having an article about an energy study a physics professor did, but I can't find it now - can anyone help? I'd really like to read it again...
yep - though, tbh - I didn't help my cause by automatically thinking 'MMORPG' instead of MMO in general - and yes - for an MMO in general, a dynamic game in as many ways possible is basically IT for v2, well, ok v4/5...
TBH - the only 'dynamic' MMO I've played so far - (and about the only MMO I'd go back to - (if I didn't have a crappy usage cap on my internet connection:( )) - even though it is more PvP orientated than PvE, (which I usually prefer, though thats mostly because I've never liked the way the PvP is generally implemented) - is Eve Online... Even then, though, it still has a lot of static content in it...
Basically, my main philosophy about MMO's is either make them PvP OR PvE first, then see how far you can go before thinking about making any compromises to add in the other. So many MMO's feel too heavily compromised IMO because the game nearly always tries to do both and generally sucks at it... (Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none... etc..). I think the main reason Eve Online Works is because it's obvious they specialised in PvP as much as they could, then added the PvE afterwards - which seems to work much better than the other way round...
Well - World of Warcraft is simply the best MMO we have at v1.0 so far...
Unfortunately, no MMO out there so far really seems to aiming for v2.0 - Conan and WAR might be trying, but from what I've heard so far, at best they might make v1.5
The problem with trying to make an MMO v2.0, is that so much needs to be done differently to the current games, from scratch - and it doesn't seem like any company is going to take that opportunity - sorry - 'chance'.
So, what elements would make an MMO at v2?
The main one is an RPG system that:
a) scales up the wazoo as easily as possible, (to make it easy to add more depth) b) is also modular, to make adding other additional game-play mechanics easier
And I'd also like to see:
c) making the game-play scalable too - so that two players, say, could play the same game in two different ways - (say as an adventure game (with RPG elements) or as a full RPG, in ways that are both BALANCED and COMPATIBLE - meaning if someone doesn't give a damn about character development/advanced combat systems, and is happy with everything on rails and auto-combat, and the other wants the opposite - then they can both have that, WITHOUT compromising each other...
As far as the general game-play, and the in-game content goes though - (though not quite so much the game-world, (though it will still play a part) (whether you are happy with a fully static world, (like we tend to have atm), or don't mind randomly generated areas) - which is another matter) - there's just one word which matters here:
DYNAMIC.
A lot of companies are already thinking about the latter - but I'm telling them, that if they try it without the former - (a good RPG system) - then it'll never reach it's full potential - and a good RPG system should be the FIRST thing you start working on...
Now, don't get me wrong - I might - (and only 'might' unfortunately:( ) - have something at stake here - since I happen to have been working on an RPG system that can do all that... (As well as a game idea supporting the rest). Unfortunately, BECAUSE it's so different from how games work atm, I seem to be having a lot of trouble getting people to understand it...
So I'm writing a 'little' paper, to try and help them with that - I just don't know what to do with it when I've finished it?
The first 2 parts are here, if anyone is interested in reading it?:
So don't buy shit - it's the only way things improve - unfortunately - we live in the age of the Lowest Common Denominator - and I don't see it changing that quickly...
"Again, memorization is not critical thinking, and memorization != IQ."
Exactly - intelligence is more of a description of the APPLICATION of knowledge, than the knowledge itself...
Though, if people don't want to learn any ('useful') knowledge to begin with, then they're not going to have as much to apply, or as much practice at applying it, as they should do, which is why they don't do so well at the IQ tests...
If you encrypt it right - they never will...
Hey - it's only a number - and changing a number into any other is simple arithmetic - you just need to add or subtract the difference - (the key) - (it's called a one-time-pad cipher).
Exaclty... I've had this argument with soo many people over the years - (and still have it now and again with my friends), that it's almost rediculous...
Since I've played a lot of games over the years, and lots of RPG's - be it tabletop D&D to Oblivion, and games such as Zelda to FPS's and RTS's, and had and heard so many different descriptions of different styles of games over the years, that I've come up with (what I think) would be a pretty fair description of what an RPG should include that makes it different, from, say an adventure game etc.
The first thing to understand, is that if you take the term 'role-playing game' literally, then pretty much most computer games ever made would count - so that can't be the case...
However, there is one game from which we can take as being the overall 'standard' as to what an RPG is and then compare it to others and see what it is about that game that makes it an RPG, and so help 'nail down' the definition...
That game, is, of course, Dungeons and Dragons...
So what is there about dungeons and dragons that specifically makes it an RPG? Is it the fact that you play a role of a character throughout the game? yes - but it's only a start - otherwise Tomb Raider, (playing the role of Lara Croft) would count, aswell as umpteen other games which we don't call RPG's too...
The next point is that the characters you play develop over the course of the game - and we're not talking items or gear here - but the characters abilities and skills... (Which is normally closely linked with the game and plot etc.). This is closer, but there are still a few other games like that which I wouldn't call an RPG - however, most of them would count as Adventure games... (Such as Zelda etc.).
The final point, and the crux of the matter for me, is that the player has some control and influence over HOW the chracter develops (skills and abilities etc.) over the course of the game... This to me is the essence of any RPG, and is what makes an RPG what it is. The more depth in this area - the 'more' of an RPG it is... So, yes, to me, World of Warcraft is an RPG - but only just - (because of the talent points) - though the new version of Star Wars Galaxies is not - (since the character development is all on rails)...
Sounds like your looking for the game I'm trying to write...:) (And have been working on for almost 6 years now). Unfortunately it's taken me this long just to get most of the basic game mechanics right - I made the age-old mistake of making the basic underlying game systems a little too complicated - now though I think I've fixed it - quite a few little very simple mechanics in a very modular, very flexible system. IF you take the 'whole thing', as-in I designed it for a full MMORPG, then no, it won't have any of the problems you've been talking about - nor kill-stealing/loot-stealing/camping etc. - however, if you want to use it to make a nice little 'limited-multiplayer-game - (like D2) - then some of the problems might still be there - just minimized as much as possible - (though if you want to make another repetitive gear based game - you can do that too;) ).
The thing about my game is that it's a SKILL based system - not item/gear/money etc. - yes, it still has those elements - but they're supporting the main gist of the game rather than BEING the main gist of the game. The main 'point' about my game is for the character to earn experience points - (which can be done in LOTS different ways - therefore minimizing the repetitiveness) - and then spend them as your character develops, again, in LOTS of different ways and areas - though not TOO many ways - and each way is just as viable as any other - because it's been DESIGNED that way... (Not slapped together like a lot of games seem to be these days).
So no 'the same thing but better' syndrome like WoW - or even Oblivion suffer from that seems to have pervaded RPG's since the beginning of time - i.e. the illusion of depth, but not a true reality. (Which mine is aiming for). (I have an old version - (very incomplete and out of date) - of some of the stuff I've written online - if anyone wants to read it? lol).
And in the end it all comes back to the same thing.....
The biggest reason why so many companies are having 'problems' with computer software (PC software in particular) is because they are neither licensed nor bought - 'properly'. Buying the software, in the same way as music etc. wouldn't help here - but a proper licensing scheme, would... (Along with the DRM/copy protection stuff aswell). That way, yes - you could transfer the liscense for the game accross - but you'd have to create a new account from scratch - the problem with computer games atm is that they arn't liscensed to a particular person/people. LIKE THEY SHOULD BE - they seem to be trying to link them to 'machines' instead - which is a bad idea, and doesen't really work that well in the real world, except to piss people off - afterall - the computer doesen't own the game/software - I do....
This one is all down to the design of the games... If the games force you to value cash or items (gear) more than anything else - (Diablo 2 anyone?) - then of course people are going to sell them for real money if they can.
The only alternative I can think of - (and have been working on) is more of a skill based system, though with some gear - but not as important... This way it's the character's experience thats the most valuable thing - and if you can't sell/transfer characters, then...
The problem with Star Wars Galaxies, (and fortuantely not with WoW), is that it's a licensed product first, and a game second... WoW, however, is a role-playing game first, and a Warcraft game 2nd...
I think part of the problem here is that either a) Blizzard don't KNOW how to make a game that is different and dosen't suffer from these problems, or b) they don't WANT/CARE to make a game that dosen't have these problems - be it for time/effort/we-don't-think-it's-broke-so-we-won't- fix-it reasons.
Either way - nearly ALL the problems with these games stem from the fact that it's an item/cash based multi-player RPG. Because of that - OF COURSE some items/cash is going to be worth enough for some people to pay real money for them.
As I said in another post - it IS possible to design a game differently so it dosen't have these problems - but I don't know if such a game currently exists? The only games I've played where gear/items didn't matter so much, unfortuantely fell into the repetitive 'same-thing-but-better-every-few-levels' approach, which isn't very good for an MMORPG - easy though it may be for the developer.
The main 'problem' with these problems is if they can solve them - (if they WANT to solve them) - keeping as much player interactivity/gameplay depth/character balance as possible (if Blizzard knows what those three phrases eman to begin with:-/ ).
'First off, Blizzard should just recognize that the reason farmers exist is due to their game design.'
EXACTLY. Just like Diablo 2, and like a few other MMORPG's, WoW is ITEM, (and therefore, (because of the auction houses) - CASH) based. Because of this, farming etc. is inevitable. The thing is, is that it seems that Blizzard, (and soem other developers), actually seem to WANT this situation to happen - otherwise they'd design the game differently, to eradicate the problem - (more of skill/xp based game instead - which would be just as viable, if not more so for an MMORPG - the only problem with that would mean adding a little more depth to it - and since games like that don't seem to exist that much - maybe they think it would take too much work/time/effort to get it right?).
As a fiddle-player, I've played with a band called Los Racketeeros, which starred Charlie Witney from Family, with whom John Wetton played the bass with for a short while, (as shown on the Live at the BBC album), who also played with King Crimson in the early 70's along side Robert Fripp...
Yes, but the customer is the one in control over (roughly) how fast it gets to it's destination - The postal service has no stake or interest in the package except in it's delivery, however, since it has been directed and created by the 'cunstomer', which the postal service has no stake or interest in - so it is not liable for the content of the package delivered.
The question here, is exactly who the customer is the company wants to deal with and take money from, and be liable for and to - the web-sites/servers on-line, or the people browsing/downloading on/from the servers and internet etc.. Yes, you could make some sites faster than others by inspecting the data etc. - but in whose interest is that, and who is in control of how/when and to what it is done?
Inspecting every packet sent is the equivalent of the postal service opening letters to decide how important it's content is and sending it accordingly. Not a good idea. If that were to happen, then OF COURSE they become liable for the information sent. Also, this also opens up anti-competitive behaviour of a web-site paying a carrier to be faster than it's competition, over a resource which has a 'natural' monopoly - which should (hopefully) be illegal. Now, if there was a way to speed up connection speeds between certain destinations according to it's customers - wishes and direction, then great - but ONLY if it didn't have to inspect the 'mail' between them. Unfortuantely - in the case of the internet it dosen't seem possible - regardless of what some people would like...
It's not just corporate leaders who can't plan ahead - but politicians aswell...
Thats one of the main reasons WHY the house of lords here in the UK was made up of life-peers/seriously rich people etc. etc.. They were the sort of people who didn't have to think and worry about what life was going to be like tomorrow - they could look and think about what life was going to be like in 10 years time - or for the next generation, since their life was secure enough to do so.
Unfortuantely - they seem to want to get rid of them all and have even more people who think about now, now, and now - fuck tomorrow....
Slashdot Mirror
Doh - I HATE the log-in system on this website - (I posted the above...).
That's because a large percentage of everything is CRAP. A MUCH smaller percentage is good/excellent - (and the percentage in-between is average). Because of this, any increase in production is guaranteed to produce a higher ratio of crap to good/excellent products.
Add that to the fact that people forget the crap stuff a lot easier than the good/excellent stuff, and you wind up with the situation we have now - mainstream=lots more stuff produced=more crap/average products=not much more good/excellent products...
I have to agree with this - I actually started out by reading Nicholas Fisk and Douglas Hill books at Primary school, (I'm in the UK), which is probably a bit younger than the ages we're looking at here, and it was those two that got me interested in sci-fi and after that I moved straight into Asimov - (Foundation and Robot stories) - Heinlein (my dad had a big collection of his) - and Clarke...
I know and understand that - but something that size for just 1MW seems a waste of engineering/manufacturing to me...
Like the guy in the study said - (which I'd REALLY like to find) - a(some) 40GW nuclear plant(s) is(are) a very hard system to match - although some wind/solar/tidal will help, it still makes sense to use the most efficient system, (and this doesn't sound like it - only 1MW per object) - (though linking to solar power in the sahara is still the best technical solution - the best 'political', however, is, of course, another matter, which is where nuclear comes in).
According to the study - (if I remember) - using all the available space in the UK for wind turbines and some offshore too, along with some tidal etc. STILL didn't produce enough power - I think we need a least a hundred GW, (or 2?), if I remember correctly, and this sort of system, along with wind turbines simply doesn't produce anywhere near enough power for national use...
I dunno - seems a bit big for that 20MW - it's only, what, 4 5MW wind turbines...?
I'm in the UK, and I remember the register having an article about an energy study a physics professor did, but I can't find it now - can anyone help? I'd really like to read it again...
I haven't majored in Marine Biology - in fact, I haven't 'majored' in anything - (I'm in the UK) - but I still get it :)
Do I get a cookie? ;)
Ditto here...
Though I also need a bit more variety in my PvE gameplay, which doesn't seem to exist yet - (got bored with EQ/AO/SWG/WoW etc.
The funny ting is that the only game I found that I liked is a PvP one (Eve Online) which is funny...
yep - though, tbh - I didn't help my cause by automatically thinking 'MMORPG' instead of MMO in general - and yes - for an MMO in general, a dynamic game in as many ways possible is basically IT for v2, well, ok v4/5...
:( )) - even though it is more PvP orientated than PvE, (which I usually prefer, though thats mostly because I've never liked the way the PvP is generally implemented) - is Eve Online... Even then, though, it still has a lot of static content in it...
TBH - the only 'dynamic' MMO I've played so far - (and about the only MMO I'd go back to - (if I didn't have a crappy usage cap on my internet connection
Basically, my main philosophy about MMO's is either make them PvP OR PvE first, then see how far you can go before thinking about making any compromises to add in the other. So many MMO's feel too heavily compromised IMO because the game nearly always tries to do both and generally sucks at it... (Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none... etc..). I think the main reason Eve Online Works is because it's obvious they specialised in PvP as much as they could, then added the PvE afterwards - which seems to work much better than the other way round...
Well - World of Warcraft is simply the best MMO we have at v1.0 so far...
:( ) - have something at stake here - since I happen to have been working on an RPG system that can do all that... (As well as a game idea supporting the rest). Unfortunately, BECAUSE it's so different from how games work atm, I seem to be having a lot of trouble getting people to understand it...
Unfortunately, no MMO out there so far really seems to aiming for v2.0 - Conan and WAR might be trying, but from what I've heard so far, at best they might make v1.5
The problem with trying to make an MMO v2.0, is that so much needs to be done differently to the current games, from scratch - and it doesn't seem like any company is going to take that opportunity - sorry - 'chance'.
So, what elements would make an MMO at v2?
The main one is an RPG system that:
a) scales up the wazoo as easily as possible, (to make it easy to add more depth)
b) is also modular, to make adding other additional game-play mechanics easier
And I'd also like to see:
c) making the game-play scalable too - so that two players, say, could play the same game in two different ways - (say as an adventure game (with RPG elements) or as a full RPG, in ways that are both BALANCED and COMPATIBLE - meaning if someone doesn't give a damn about character development/advanced combat systems, and is happy with everything on rails and auto-combat, and the other wants the opposite - then they can both have that, WITHOUT compromising each other...
As far as the general game-play, and the in-game content goes though - (though not quite so much the game-world, (though it will still play a part) (whether you are happy with a fully static world, (like we tend to have atm), or don't mind randomly generated areas) - which is another matter) - there's just one word which matters here:
DYNAMIC.
A lot of companies are already thinking about the latter - but I'm telling them, that if they try it without the former - (a good RPG system) - then it'll never reach it's full potential - and a good RPG system should be the FIRST thing you start working on...
Now, don't get me wrong - I might - (and only 'might' unfortunately
So I'm writing a 'little' paper, to try and help them with that - I just don't know what to do with it when I've finished it?
The first 2 parts are here, if anyone is interested in reading it?:
http://rpgforumsonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20613
Yep - if shit sells - thats what they'll make....
So don't buy shit - it's the only way things improve - unfortunately - we live in the age of the Lowest Common Denominator - and I don't see it changing that quickly...
not a 'democracy'....
"Again, memorization is not critical thinking, and memorization != IQ."
Exactly - intelligence is more of a description of the APPLICATION of knowledge, than the knowledge itself...
Though, if people don't want to learn any ('useful') knowledge to begin with, then they're not going to have as much to apply, or as much practice at applying it, as they should do, which is why they don't do so well at the IQ tests...
If you encrypt it right - they never will... Hey - it's only a number - and changing a number into any other is simple arithmetic - you just need to add or subtract the difference - (the key) - (it's called a one-time-pad cipher).
Hmm - Darth Vader vs. Tech Support...
:)
Time to grab some popcorn.....
Exaclty... I've had this argument with soo many people over the years - (and still have it now and again with my friends), that it's almost rediculous...
Since I've played a lot of games over the years, and lots of RPG's - be it tabletop D&D to Oblivion, and games such as Zelda to FPS's and RTS's, and had and heard so many different descriptions of different styles of games over the years, that I've come up with (what I think) would be a pretty fair description of what an RPG should include that makes it different, from, say an adventure game etc.
The first thing to understand, is that if you take the term 'role-playing game' literally, then pretty much most computer games ever made would count - so that can't be the case...
However, there is one game from which we can take as being the overall 'standard' as to what an RPG is and then compare it to others and see what it is about that game that makes it an RPG, and so help 'nail down' the definition...
That game, is, of course, Dungeons and Dragons...
So what is there about dungeons and dragons that specifically makes it an RPG? Is it the fact that you play a role of a character throughout the game? yes - but it's only a start - otherwise Tomb Raider, (playing the role of Lara Croft) would count, aswell as umpteen other games which we don't call RPG's too...
The next point is that the characters you play develop over the course of the game - and we're not talking items or gear here - but the characters abilities and skills... (Which is normally closely linked with the game and plot etc.). This is closer, but there are still a few other games like that which I wouldn't call an RPG - however, most of them would count as Adventure games... (Such as Zelda etc.).
The final point, and the crux of the matter for me, is that the player has some control and influence over HOW the chracter develops (skills and abilities etc.) over the course of the game... This to me is the essence of any RPG, and is what makes an RPG what it is. The more depth in this area - the 'more' of an RPG it is... So, yes, to me, World of Warcraft is an RPG - but only just - (because of the talent points) - though the new version of Star Wars Galaxies is not - (since the character development is all on rails)...
Well - thats my take on the matter....
Sounds like your looking for the game I'm trying to write...:) (And have been working on for almost 6 years now). Unfortunately it's taken me this long just to get most of the basic game mechanics right - I made the age-old mistake of making the basic underlying game systems a little too complicated - now though I think I've fixed it - quite a few little very simple mechanics in a very modular, very flexible system. IF you take the 'whole thing', as-in I designed it for a full MMORPG, then no, it won't have any of the problems you've been talking about - nor kill-stealing/loot-stealing/camping etc. - however, if you want to use it to make a nice little 'limited-multiplayer-game - (like D2) - then some of the problems might still be there - just minimized as much as possible - (though if you want to make another repetitive gear based game - you can do that too ;) ).
The thing about my game is that it's a SKILL based system - not item/gear/money etc. - yes, it still has those elements - but they're supporting the main gist of the game rather than BEING the main gist of the game. The main 'point' about my game is for the character to earn experience points - (which can be done in LOTS different ways - therefore minimizing the repetitiveness) - and then spend them as your character develops, again, in LOTS of different ways and areas - though not TOO many ways - and each way is just as viable as any other - because it's been DESIGNED that way... (Not slapped together like a lot of games seem to be these days).
So no 'the same thing but better' syndrome like WoW - or even Oblivion suffer from that seems to have pervaded RPG's since the beginning of time - i.e. the illusion of depth, but not a true reality. (Which mine is aiming for). (I have an old version - (very incomplete and out of date) - of some of the stuff I've written online - if anyone wants to read it? lol).
I guess that'll help with the the overheating then? Dunno about dust though...
And in the end it all comes back to the same thing.....
The biggest reason why so many companies are having 'problems' with computer software (PC software in particular) is because they are neither licensed nor bought - 'properly'. Buying the software, in the same way as music etc. wouldn't help here - but a proper licensing scheme, would... (Along with the DRM/copy protection stuff aswell). That way, yes - you could transfer the liscense for the game accross - but you'd have to create a new account from scratch - the problem with computer games atm is that they arn't liscensed to a particular person/people. LIKE THEY SHOULD BE - they seem to be trying to link them to 'machines' instead - which is a bad idea, and doesen't really work that well in the real world, except to piss people off - afterall - the computer doesen't own the game/software - I do....
This one is all down to the design of the games... If the games force you to value cash or items (gear) more than anything else - (Diablo 2 anyone?) - then of course people are going to sell them for real money if they can.
The only alternative I can think of - (and have been working on) is more of a skill based system, though with some gear - but not as important... This way it's the character's experience thats the most valuable thing - and if you can't sell/transfer characters, then...
The problem with Star Wars Galaxies, (and fortuantely not with WoW), is that it's a licensed product first, and a game second... WoW, however, is a role-playing game first, and a Warcraft game 2nd...
I think part of the problem here is that either a) Blizzard don't KNOW how to make a game that is different and dosen't suffer from these problems, or b) they don't WANT/CARE to make a game that dosen't have these problems - be it for time/effort/we-don't-think-it's-broke-so-we-won't- fix-it reasons.
:-/ ).
Either way - nearly ALL the problems with these games stem from the fact that it's an item/cash based multi-player RPG. Because of that - OF COURSE some items/cash is going to be worth enough for some people to pay real money for them.
As I said in another post - it IS possible to design a game differently so it dosen't have these problems - but I don't know if such a game currently exists? The only games I've played where gear/items didn't matter so much, unfortuantely fell into the repetitive 'same-thing-but-better-every-few-levels' approach, which isn't very good for an MMORPG - easy though it may be for the developer.
The main 'problem' with these problems is if they can solve them - (if they WANT to solve them) - keeping as much player interactivity/gameplay depth/character balance as possible (if Blizzard knows what those three phrases eman to begin with
'First off, Blizzard should just recognize that the reason farmers exist is due to their game design.'
EXACTLY. Just like Diablo 2, and like a few other MMORPG's, WoW is ITEM, (and therefore, (because of the auction houses) - CASH) based. Because of this, farming etc. is inevitable. The thing is, is that it seems that Blizzard, (and soem other developers), actually seem to WANT this situation to happen - otherwise they'd design the game differently, to eradicate the problem - (more of skill/xp based game instead - which would be just as viable, if not more so for an MMORPG - the only problem with that would mean adding a little more depth to it - and since games like that don't seem to exist that much - maybe they think it would take too much work/time/effort to get it right?).
As a fiddle-player, I've played with a band called Los Racketeeros, which starred Charlie Witney from Family, with whom John Wetton played the bass with for a short while, (as shown on the Live at the BBC album), who also played with King Crimson in the early 70's along side Robert Fripp...
Yes, but the customer is the one in control over (roughly) how fast it gets to it's destination - The postal service has no stake or interest in the package except in it's delivery, however, since it has been directed and created by the 'cunstomer', which the postal service has no stake or interest in - so it is not liable for the content of the package delivered.
The question here, is exactly who the customer is the company wants to deal with and take money from, and be liable for and to - the web-sites/servers on-line, or the people browsing/downloading on/from the servers and internet etc.. Yes, you could make some sites faster than others by inspecting the data etc. - but in whose interest is that, and who is in control of how/when and to what it is done?
Inspecting every packet sent is the equivalent of the postal service opening letters to decide how important it's content is and sending it accordingly. Not a good idea. If that were to happen, then OF COURSE they become liable for the information sent. Also, this also opens up anti-competitive behaviour of a web-site paying a carrier to be faster than it's competition, over a resource which has a 'natural' monopoly - which should (hopefully) be illegal. Now, if there was a way to speed up connection speeds between certain destinations according to it's customers - wishes and direction, then great - but ONLY if it didn't have to inspect the 'mail' between them. Unfortuantely - in the case of the internet it dosen't seem possible - regardless of what some people would like...
It's not just corporate leaders who can't plan ahead - but politicians aswell...
Thats one of the main reasons WHY the house of lords here in the UK was made up of life-peers/seriously rich people etc. etc.. They were the sort of people who didn't have to think and worry about what life was going to be like tomorrow - they could look and think about what life was going to be like in 10 years time - or for the next generation, since their life was secure enough to do so.
Unfortuantely - they seem to want to get rid of them all and have even more people who think about now, now, and now - fuck tomorrow....