It's not just technology it's all things. As much as engineers want to have a perfect widget and developers want to have a perfect system it's just not practical. What is "good enough" is determined by exterior factors and most notably economics/usage. If a product is desirable enough to make it the most profitable at a given price point with a given feature set and less than optimal quality then there is no incentive to improve the product beyond that point. In fact it is damaging the economic value of the product to do so since it consumes resources without an expected return. For those of you who find the economic argument in poor taste and just want to make things good on principle switch the concept over to helping people solve their problems or pure usage of your product(s). Investing more in a product won't help more people or get more people to use it beyond a certain point where as focusing your efforts on a new product will help more people or get more usage of your portfolio of products as a whole.
Regardless this is nothing new and yes "Good Enough" will be the future of all things not just technology. What is good enough will largely depend on the economic concept of "utility" and maximizing that utility for the greatest number as well as the impact of failures. If failures kill people the definition of what is good enough is different than if you just have to reboot and wait 20 seconds.
Heck life just works this way. Evolution isn't an optimal system for the individual but by being suboptimal at that level it tries out failure paths and becomes optimal for a species as a whole. Economics and how "good" something gets works in a similar manner serving the needs of the whole population rather than the needs of the individual user or small group who want the product to reach it's perfect form.
Have steam engines really evolved that much since 1906? I mean materials science is better but I doubt (and I could be wrong) that we've pumped much R&D effort/funds into small steam engine design over the last 100 years. Anyone know?
If you want to boil it down to a simple yes/no, I think it largely comes down to a calculation of what supports the most sentient creatures in the end or a sentience total cost of ownership concept. Given that these things are unknowable you would have to turn to statistics, quantify sentience, and then find the set of events with the highest expected value for sentience, Time is relevant to the question you pose only in the fact that it affects the probability calculation for life or death of a unit of sentience.
It's an interesting thought experiment but in the end that's the interesting thing about evolution. Each individual creature can act with self-interest and things like environmental adaptability, altruism, and numerous other emergent behaviors that are a side-effect of the simple will of the individual to survive take questions like this out of our hands for the large part which IMO is a much better system than one person or a small group of people attempting to decide things for themselves within the limited context of their own existence.
Interesting and valid point, but aren't they only a deterrent if they can be used to actually catch people? If you go to Google and type London Crime Rate Camera and look through various articles ranging back to 2007 or so you'll see that studies have shown that there hasn't been an appreciable drop in crime due to CCTV in London. Additionally, studies have argued that better street lighting and more regular police patrols are more effective at a fraction of the cost. Also there are some interesting expert opinions on Schneier's site about how criminals will out evolve CCTV in areas that aren't high value and have a short guaranteed response time by authorities.
So if they don't affect the crime rate, and they use resources that could be more efficiently used elsewhere, and they don't help solve crimes then what is it the Brits are giving away their privacy for?
To paraphrase an often misquoted and misattributed line, if you sacrifice freedom for security you don't deserve either.
Oddly similar to my first impressions. I was very excited by the first few moments then all of the sudden it devolved into something I'll probably not even see on video.
As such, it is logical when one has actual knowledge of the game, as well as how it's designed server-wise, despite it not being apparent on a conceptual basis.
Wow...you really can't have a discussion without being an ass can you?
So best I can tell you've successfully made the argument for 30% reduction != 30% decommissioning and that you can't achieve perfect efficiency due to the volatile nature of the resource usage profile. I have no issue with either of these assertions. I think you're deluding yourself if you think that they're running at peak efficiency post and pre a 30% drop and that there has been no possible change in resource utilization or that "playing the game" is the best view into how hardware is being used.
Thanks for the info, it's always interesting to see how others approach shared problems but I'm not sure how this means that decommissioning hardware is non-viable. To be 100% clear, I'm not saying they will, I'm not saying the should, I'm not saying I'm certain they can but it is a common strategy / reason for cutting into a user base and not replacing the users (i.e. the hardware savings are worth more than the users)
Does it have to be planned? Sure. Do they have to do this during downtime assuming what you've posted? Sure. Does it require proper capacity management and sizing analysis based on usage, nodes, and everything you've mentioned above? Yes. Can all that affect how much is available for resizing? Yes. But does it prevent them from decommissioning if they have an excess of unused hardware capacity? Absolutely not.
I can tell from the posts that players don't want them to and think its a bad idea but that's not really what we're taking about. We were talking about could they save money in this manner and I have yet to see anything that says they can't.
Take for example the following thought exercise using your terminology. I have five systems A, B, C, D & E all running on separate nodes (we'll equate a node and core for simplicity sake but the concept will apply to cores in reality which means there is more complicated planning required during decommissioning in the real world.). A always requires a reinforced node B and C sometimes do and D & E are lightly used. If usage drops by 30% the needs of these systems changes. In our example let's assume that A still requires a big node, B & C sometimes do but less frequently and D & E drop to even less usage. I can leave A on a big node, I can consolidate B & D onto a single node and C & E onto a single node then keep a warm node for when I need to upsize B or C. Or I can put B & C on dedicated big nodes and consolidate D & E on a shared node. Either way I went from 5 nodes to 4 in this rather simplistic example. There is a ton of analysis that has to be done for a software system the size and complexity of EVE but to state categorically that a 30% drop in usage doesn't provide a chance for consolidation and decommissioning isn't logical.
Now there are scenarios where this won't work. For example, if they're already running in an efficient usage mode then there is nothing to consolidate. However a 30% drop in usage of resources implies that they aren't running efficiently post drop evne if they were perfect pre-drop. As another example, if all systems require that they be on reinforced nodes at regular and unpredictable intervals with similar frequency then it becomes much tougher. But that is rarely the case in game worlds because some locales are more valuable than others. Additionally if that is the case CCP would be well served to look at rearchitecting their system for dynamic allocations of resources which would let them respond to user needs in real-time and keep only the amount of needed hardware on hand and running (granted this isn't want we're discussing)
...here's a quick handicap for those challenged in research ability...
oh and thanks for this nugget of slashdot jackassary, next time I'll be sure to search around for dev blog archives for any system that I might want to have a conceptual conversation about.
Not to argue because I've never seen a physical architecture diagram of the EVE system but how do you know this? You seem to be taking in game experiences (which may have something to do with server capacity) and I assume communications form the company to the user community then assuming a design.
Additionally I seriously doubt the cluster is "FIXED" otherwise they've implemented a system that can't scale (btw, scale generally goes both ways up and down or it's not very useful but it does have a minimum and maximum point). Finally even if you have inside knowledge and what you say about the design is 100% accurate that really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they'll decommission some nodes, just which nodes would be targeted and what type of consolidation strategy they might use.
All that said I don't have any ideas what CCP's plans are I'm just telling you how these decisions are made and how various architectures can support different scaling models based on several years of software architecture experience across multiple industries. If you have information on how they chose to provide scalability I'd love to see it out of general curiosity.
Agreed, but the post i was replying to was questioning the savings aspect even if they didn't grow their user base and I was trying (in a long winded and poorly written way) to explain how that could be true.
Depending on data center costs and decommissioning cycles and billing cycles it is probably that this isn't an immediate 2% hit but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. That said I'm guessing they've done the business case to realize that a 20% reduction in infrastructure costs will pay back their 2% drop in profits within X number of months and that X is short enough time frame to affect yearly operational costs in a positive way for several years to come. Additionally it affects taxes and assets and all sorts of things. I don't know how they justified it but I'm pretty sure there was a positive business case before they did something like this.
Data center costs are brutal for companies with significant infrastructure. Most people don't realize how expensive servers are to run day in and ay out. In a top tier data center it sometimes costs as much or more to run a server for a year than it did to originally buy it, and we're not talking dells from best buy we're talking about $20K+ machines ranging on up to ridiculous numbers for some SunOracle boxes. Once you add in things like the land lease, the power, the telecoms, redundancy, depreciation on the facility, labor, etc. it becomes a rather significant cost. If they don't decide to decommission the freed up capacity right away to get the savings it gives them options for deferred spending or for various corporate trade in programs which allow corps to treat servers like cars and get a good bit off of the next gen, generally cheaper due to efficiency gains versions of hardware. Additionally these days most companies outsource the data center work and are locked into various contracts for given periods of time so the only recourse they have to be more efficient on the infrastructure front is to use less until the next contract cycle comes up.
Again, I have no idea what their numbers look like but it's not crazy to think that a 20% reduction in infrastructure usage could have a very good business case with a very short payback time.
Actually no, I meant holding enough of the market to be worth billions. What happens if they put a cease and desist on Oracle? Nothing, oracle doesn't ship it anymore (to my knowledge).
Maybe they win a one time judgement but that's not their current strategy with MS. Their current strategy is to stop the shipments and try to force negotiations for patent license fees.
We have determined that OpenOffice does not have enough assets to have infringed upon or patent. Should they ever become a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporate behemoth we will revisit the situation.
IMO, the concept of a software patent at all is completely borked. It's the equivalent of patenting math or a list of instructions. Copyright the code? fine. Patent basic math and the actual operations? complete B.S. Software patents are a ridiculous concept that keeps individual innovators from competing with slow and lazy corporations. Mix in the patent trolls and it's truly a messy and worthless system.
Yes, but at some point in time, I'm sure Keith Richards passed through...
Which is why 12% tested positive. I figure he probably touched 2% of Japan's money for buying hookers and booze and the other 10% was just contaminated by the coke cloud that follows him around.;)
If people are having the same kind of fun, who cares?
Agreed. I wasn't saying people shouldn't go, I was saying realize why things are changing. If people still enjoy it they should attend.
The rule changes have been pretty logical and the increase in control has more to do with the increase in attendance. A stadium concert has far more rules than one in a small bar. This isn't the result of some corporate conspiracy.
Whether or not you think the changes are logical or acceptable is a personal thing. For those that don't they should find something else that better suits them. For those that do they should continue to enjoy it.
Um, I don't really know how this "study" was conducted and I'm far too lazy to read the article on the weekend but if the summary is accurate this is ridiculously bad logic. Why don't we just start deciding that our data means whatever we want it to mean...oh wait we do that already...nevermind carry on.
I have no doubt that those that are still attending it believe that and I'm sure that the general spirit is still there among a majority of participants. It was definitely about that when it started. But trust me, when they start worrying about who is using pictures for what and they're threatening people with legal talk and they're selling tickets and leasing property and buying insurance it's becoming about money. I'm sorry for your loss. I would suggest you move on and find the next grass roots version or if you still enjoy it then keep going until it changes to the point that you don't then find the next grass roots version. Either way change and commercialization is the way of the world and these are pretty good indicators it is coming to Burning Man. The good news is there will always be new things when creatives are involved.
So I think you aren't paying attention...I was referring to the AC above who said he could take pictures at a PGA event and I said "only if they let you bring a camera in" because it is a private event that has controlled entry. Lots of places don't allow cameras or photography from those attending.
Where your argument comes in is if they let you come in with all your stuff and then claim they own the rights to the photograph. That said, as you pointed out, they can also force you to sign away rights in order to bring a camera in as you pointed out.
Can they keep me from using my personal plane to fly over and take pictures form the outside? no. Can they keep me from attending if I don't agree to abide by their rules? yes.
The first time I heard about the Burning Man, they were saying everywhere "come at your own risk ! We don't provide water or health services ! If you want to be safe, either bring an hospital or stay home !" At the beginning, it was supposed that there were no spectators, only participants. They sounded like they would be ready to leave you dead on the sand.
Now what ? They want to protect the privacy ? What kind of sissy participant is unable to come unrecognizable if s/he does not wish to be ?
It's not about privacy. Burning Man is no longer what you described. It's now a corporate money machine and like all things that explode with success the raiders descend and now they try to control the environment so that the golden goose continues to lay eggs for as long as possible. Their goal is to no longer have Burning Man grow but instead to have it generate a low risk income for as long as possible before their suffocating grip slowly kills it. This is not new by any means, companies behave in the same way in any industry.
Entrepreneur begets, risky business, begets client base, begets minor success, begets corporate buyout/rapid growth, begets a need to ensure future profits, begets restrictions on customer base, begets slow decline begets litigation, begets bankruptcy begets another cycle.
Only if they allowed you to bring a camera into their private event. I think this is crap, and stupid on Burning Man's part, but private events control whether you can take pictures or not and what you can do with them all the time.
"no no we're the good guys we're doing it to stop the big bad corporation and greedy people. IT"S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD."
Any time someone's position boils down to it's for your own good, they're a liar. It may be for some reason they consider noble and altruistic but what is in your best interest is exercising your free will and when people restrict free will in another it is in their best interest not yours.
Burning Man may be a wonderful thing I've never gone but don't for a second believe anyone is helping you out by restricting what you can do. I don't even necessarily thing they shouldn't try to restrict you but I'm offended by the rationale corporations, religions, third world dictators, and now naked, desert hippies use when rationalizing why they're doing some form of mild evil or evil light if you will.
As a disclaimer, I work for a mega-corp, belong to a religion and hope to someday be a third world dictator surrounded by naked, desert-hippy chicks so it's not like I'm against these types of folks on principle, just for the love of all that is good quit telling me you're limiting me for my own good.
Pranknet wouldn't exist without an audience to consume it
I don't know if I buy that. I've seen plenty of asshats who are willing to harass people and destroy their property without the benefit of sharing their deeds with a broader audience.
I'm not sure I have an answer to the why but I will say I don't see too many "asshats who are willing to harass people and destroy their property without the benefit of sharing their deeds with a broader audience". The democratizing effect of modern technology now means that that audience is large but you rarely find people who harass just to harass (short of true sociopaths).
Instead you find people largely doing this type of stuff to impress an audience even if it is just their circle of friends. The mentality is similar to concepts like Jackass, Crank Yankers, Borat, Bruno, etc. It's just less mainstream and the damages aren't covered by a studio and insurance company. If there really are folks out there doing it by themselves without an audience (even a small one) for no other reason than that they can they are either anarchists (which is technically a reason) or sociopaths.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just technology it's all things. As much as engineers want to have a perfect widget and developers want to have a perfect system it's just not practical. What is "good enough" is determined by exterior factors and most notably economics/usage. If a product is desirable enough to make it the most profitable at a given price point with a given feature set and less than optimal quality then there is no incentive to improve the product beyond that point. In fact it is damaging the economic value of the product to do so since it consumes resources without an expected return. For those of you who find the economic argument in poor taste and just want to make things good on principle switch the concept over to helping people solve their problems or pure usage of your product(s). Investing more in a product won't help more people or get more people to use it beyond a certain point where as focusing your efforts on a new product will help more people or get more usage of your portfolio of products as a whole.
Regardless this is nothing new and yes "Good Enough" will be the future of all things not just technology. What is good enough will largely depend on the economic concept of "utility" and maximizing that utility for the greatest number as well as the impact of failures. If failures kill people the definition of what is good enough is different than if you just have to reboot and wait 20 seconds.
Heck life just works this way. Evolution isn't an optimal system for the individual but by being suboptimal at that level it tries out failure paths and becomes optimal for a species as a whole. Economics and how "good" something gets works in a similar manner serving the needs of the whole population rather than the needs of the individual user or small group who want the product to reach it's perfect form.
In fairness there's no way he could have known that another Slashdotter would actually read the story...that's like a million to one against.
Have steam engines really evolved that much since 1906? I mean materials science is better but I doubt (and I could be wrong) that we've pumped much R&D effort/funds into small steam engine design over the last 100 years. Anyone know?
If you want to boil it down to a simple yes/no, I think it largely comes down to a calculation of what supports the most sentient creatures in the end or a sentience total cost of ownership concept. Given that these things are unknowable you would have to turn to statistics, quantify sentience, and then find the set of events with the highest expected value for sentience, Time is relevant to the question you pose only in the fact that it affects the probability calculation for life or death of a unit of sentience.
It's an interesting thought experiment but in the end that's the interesting thing about evolution. Each individual creature can act with self-interest and things like environmental adaptability, altruism, and numerous other emergent behaviors that are a side-effect of the simple will of the individual to survive take questions like this out of our hands for the large part which IMO is a much better system than one person or a small group of people attempting to decide things for themselves within the limited context of their own existence.
Interesting and valid point, but aren't they only a deterrent if they can be used to actually catch people? If you go to Google and type London Crime Rate Camera and look through various articles ranging back to 2007 or so you'll see that studies have shown that there hasn't been an appreciable drop in crime due to CCTV in London. Additionally, studies have argued that better street lighting and more regular police patrols are more effective at a fraction of the cost. Also there are some interesting expert opinions on Schneier's site about how criminals will out evolve CCTV in areas that aren't high value and have a short guaranteed response time by authorities.
So if they don't affect the crime rate, and they use resources that could be more efficiently used elsewhere, and they don't help solve crimes then what is it the Brits are giving away their privacy for?
To paraphrase an often misquoted and misattributed line, if you sacrifice freedom for security you don't deserve either.
Oddly similar to my first impressions. I was very excited by the first few moments then all of the sudden it devolved into something I'll probably not even see on video.
As such, it is logical when one has actual knowledge of the game, as well as how it's designed server-wise, despite it not being apparent on a conceptual basis.
Wow...you really can't have a discussion without being an ass can you?
So best I can tell you've successfully made the argument for 30% reduction != 30% decommissioning and that you can't achieve perfect efficiency due to the volatile nature of the resource usage profile. I have no issue with either of these assertions. I think you're deluding yourself if you think that they're running at peak efficiency post and pre a 30% drop and that there has been no possible change in resource utilization or that "playing the game" is the best view into how hardware is being used.
Does it have to be planned? Sure. Do they have to do this during downtime assuming what you've posted? Sure. Does it require proper capacity management and sizing analysis based on usage, nodes, and everything you've mentioned above? Yes. Can all that affect how much is available for resizing? Yes. But does it prevent them from decommissioning if they have an excess of unused hardware capacity? Absolutely not. I can tell from the posts that players don't want them to and think its a bad idea but that's not really what we're taking about. We were talking about could they save money in this manner and I have yet to see anything that says they can't.
Take for example the following thought exercise using your terminology. I have five systems A, B, C, D & E all running on separate nodes (we'll equate a node and core for simplicity sake but the concept will apply to cores in reality which means there is more complicated planning required during decommissioning in the real world.). A always requires a reinforced node B and C sometimes do and D & E are lightly used. If usage drops by 30% the needs of these systems changes. In our example let's assume that A still requires a big node, B & C sometimes do but less frequently and D & E drop to even less usage. I can leave A on a big node, I can consolidate B & D onto a single node and C & E onto a single node then keep a warm node for when I need to upsize B or C. Or I can put B & C on dedicated big nodes and consolidate D & E on a shared node. Either way I went from 5 nodes to 4 in this rather simplistic example. There is a ton of analysis that has to be done for a software system the size and complexity of EVE but to state categorically that a 30% drop in usage doesn't provide a chance for consolidation and decommissioning isn't logical.
Now there are scenarios where this won't work. For example, if they're already running in an efficient usage mode then there is nothing to consolidate. However a 30% drop in usage of resources implies that they aren't running efficiently post drop evne if they were perfect pre-drop. As another example, if all systems require that they be on reinforced nodes at regular and unpredictable intervals with similar frequency then it becomes much tougher. But that is rarely the case in game worlds because some locales are more valuable than others. Additionally if that is the case CCP would be well served to look at rearchitecting their system for dynamic allocations of resources which would let them respond to user needs in real-time and keep only the amount of needed hardware on hand and running (granted this isn't want we're discussing)
...here's a quick handicap for those challenged in research ability...
oh and thanks for this nugget of slashdot jackassary, next time I'll be sure to search around for dev blog archives for any system that I might want to have a conceptual conversation about.
Not to argue because I've never seen a physical architecture diagram of the EVE system but how do you know this? You seem to be taking in game experiences (which may have something to do with server capacity) and I assume communications form the company to the user community then assuming a design.
Additionally I seriously doubt the cluster is "FIXED" otherwise they've implemented a system that can't scale (btw, scale generally goes both ways up and down or it's not very useful but it does have a minimum and maximum point). Finally even if you have inside knowledge and what you say about the design is 100% accurate that really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they'll decommission some nodes, just which nodes would be targeted and what type of consolidation strategy they might use.
All that said I don't have any ideas what CCP's plans are I'm just telling you how these decisions are made and how various architectures can support different scaling models based on several years of software architecture experience across multiple industries. If you have information on how they chose to provide scalability I'd love to see it out of general curiosity.
Agreed, but the post i was replying to was questioning the savings aspect even if they didn't grow their user base and I was trying (in a long winded and poorly written way) to explain how that could be true.
Depending on data center costs and decommissioning cycles and billing cycles it is probably that this isn't an immediate 2% hit but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. That said I'm guessing they've done the business case to realize that a 20% reduction in infrastructure costs will pay back their 2% drop in profits within X number of months and that X is short enough time frame to affect yearly operational costs in a positive way for several years to come. Additionally it affects taxes and assets and all sorts of things. I don't know how they justified it but I'm pretty sure there was a positive business case before they did something like this.
Data center costs are brutal for companies with significant infrastructure. Most people don't realize how expensive servers are to run day in and ay out. In a top tier data center it sometimes costs as much or more to run a server for a year than it did to originally buy it, and we're not talking dells from best buy we're talking about $20K+ machines ranging on up to ridiculous numbers for some SunOracle boxes. Once you add in things like the land lease, the power, the telecoms, redundancy, depreciation on the facility, labor, etc. it becomes a rather significant cost. If they don't decide to decommission the freed up capacity right away to get the savings it gives them options for deferred spending or for various corporate trade in programs which allow corps to treat servers like cars and get a good bit off of the next gen, generally cheaper due to efficiency gains versions of hardware. Additionally these days most companies outsource the data center work and are locked into various contracts for given periods of time so the only recourse they have to be more efficient on the infrastructure front is to use less until the next contract cycle comes up.
Again, I have no idea what their numbers look like but it's not crazy to think that a 20% reduction in infrastructure usage could have a very good business case with a very short payback time.
Actually no, I meant holding enough of the market to be worth billions. What happens if they put a cease and desist on Oracle? Nothing, oracle doesn't ship it anymore (to my knowledge).
Maybe they win a one time judgement but that's not their current strategy with MS. Their current strategy is to stop the shipments and try to force negotiations for patent license fees.
We have determined that OpenOffice does not have enough assets to have infringed upon or patent. Should they ever become a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporate behemoth we will revisit the situation.
Sincerely,
The Patent Trolls
IMO, the concept of a software patent at all is completely borked. It's the equivalent of patenting math or a list of instructions. Copyright the code? fine. Patent basic math and the actual operations? complete B.S. Software patents are a ridiculous concept that keeps individual innovators from competing with slow and lazy corporations. Mix in the patent trolls and it's truly a messy and worthless system.
It's just an artifact of the .org bubble. After the correction it will be more reasonably priced.
I highly doubt the singles and fives in circulation are anywhere near as tainted as the tens, twenties, fifties, and hundreds.
I don't know....I would thing there was an above average use of both singles and cocaine among strippers.
Yes, but at some point in time, I'm sure Keith Richards passed through...
Which is why 12% tested positive. I figure he probably touched 2% of Japan's money for buying hookers and booze and the other 10% was just contaminated by the coke cloud that follows him around. ;)
If people are having the same kind of fun, who cares?
Agreed. I wasn't saying people shouldn't go, I was saying realize why things are changing. If people still enjoy it they should attend.
The rule changes have been pretty logical and the increase in control has more to do with the increase in attendance. A stadium concert has far more rules than one in a small bar. This isn't the result of some corporate conspiracy.
Whether or not you think the changes are logical or acceptable is a personal thing. For those that don't they should find something else that better suits them. For those that do they should continue to enjoy it.
Um, I don't really know how this "study" was conducted and I'm far too lazy to read the article on the weekend but if the summary is accurate this is ridiculously bad logic. Why don't we just start deciding that our data means whatever we want it to mean...oh wait we do that already...nevermind carry on.
I have no doubt that those that are still attending it believe that and I'm sure that the general spirit is still there among a majority of participants. It was definitely about that when it started. But trust me, when they start worrying about who is using pictures for what and they're threatening people with legal talk and they're selling tickets and leasing property and buying insurance it's becoming about money. I'm sorry for your loss. I would suggest you move on and find the next grass roots version or if you still enjoy it then keep going until it changes to the point that you don't then find the next grass roots version. Either way change and commercialization is the way of the world and these are pretty good indicators it is coming to Burning Man. The good news is there will always be new things when creatives are involved.
So I think you aren't paying attention...I was referring to the AC above who said he could take pictures at a PGA event and I said "only if they let you bring a camera in" because it is a private event that has controlled entry. Lots of places don't allow cameras or photography from those attending.
Where your argument comes in is if they let you come in with all your stuff and then claim they own the rights to the photograph. That said, as you pointed out, they can also force you to sign away rights in order to bring a camera in as you pointed out.
Can they keep me from using my personal plane to fly over and take pictures form the outside? no. Can they keep me from attending if I don't agree to abide by their rules? yes.
The first time I heard about the Burning Man, they were saying everywhere "come at your own risk ! We don't provide water or health services ! If you want to be safe, either bring an hospital or stay home !" At the beginning, it was supposed that there were no spectators, only participants. They sounded like they would be ready to leave you dead on the sand. Now what ? They want to protect the privacy ? What kind of sissy participant is unable to come unrecognizable if s/he does not wish to be ?
It's not about privacy. Burning Man is no longer what you described. It's now a corporate money machine and like all things that explode with success the raiders descend and now they try to control the environment so that the golden goose continues to lay eggs for as long as possible. Their goal is to no longer have Burning Man grow but instead to have it generate a low risk income for as long as possible before their suffocating grip slowly kills it. This is not new by any means, companies behave in the same way in any industry.
Entrepreneur begets, risky business, begets client base, begets minor success, begets corporate buyout/rapid growth, begets a need to ensure future profits, begets restrictions on customer base, begets slow decline begets litigation, begets bankruptcy begets another cycle.
Only if they allowed you to bring a camera into their private event. I think this is crap, and stupid on Burning Man's part, but private events control whether you can take pictures or not and what you can do with them all the time.
"no no we're the good guys we're doing it to stop the big bad corporation and greedy people. IT"S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD."
Any time someone's position boils down to it's for your own good, they're a liar. It may be for some reason they consider noble and altruistic but what is in your best interest is exercising your free will and when people restrict free will in another it is in their best interest not yours.
Burning Man may be a wonderful thing I've never gone but don't for a second believe anyone is helping you out by restricting what you can do. I don't even necessarily thing they shouldn't try to restrict you but I'm offended by the rationale corporations, religions, third world dictators, and now naked, desert hippies use when rationalizing why they're doing some form of mild evil or evil light if you will.
As a disclaimer, I work for a mega-corp, belong to a religion and hope to someday be a third world dictator surrounded by naked, desert-hippy chicks so it's not like I'm against these types of folks on principle, just for the love of all that is good quit telling me you're limiting me for my own good.
Pranknet wouldn't exist without an audience to consume it
I don't know if I buy that. I've seen plenty of asshats who are willing to harass people and destroy their property without the benefit of sharing their deeds with a broader audience.
I'm not sure I have an answer to the why but I will say I don't see too many "asshats who are willing to harass people and destroy their property without the benefit of sharing their deeds with a broader audience". The democratizing effect of modern technology now means that that audience is large but you rarely find people who harass just to harass (short of true sociopaths).
Instead you find people largely doing this type of stuff to impress an audience even if it is just their circle of friends. The mentality is similar to concepts like Jackass, Crank Yankers, Borat, Bruno, etc. It's just less mainstream and the damages aren't covered by a studio and insurance company. If there really are folks out there doing it by themselves without an audience (even a small one) for no other reason than that they can they are either anarchists (which is technically a reason) or sociopaths.