Well, I don't want to come off as libertarian, but presumably you could buy insurance against this in an environment where there's a bunch of people who need such a service.
There's more such arguments, like suggestions that you need a nation to subsidize your health care or protect you from every day crime, but all of those are reasonably privatize-able as well.
How is an insurance company going to stop an extradition? Unless it manages to claim sovereign status over some land where you can live and have your business, you're still at the mercy of your generous host country. And if that happens, I think they call it a country.
Insurance Company A has mercenary company B and diplomat C on retainer in case of conflict with foreign nations.
Really, we pay taxes, and taxes cover things like the aforementioned ambassadorial services. It is arguably doable that we could pay some other organization to do the same thing.
OK, let me illustrate my point. Let's say you, a US citizen, renounce your citizenship and vow allegiance to this new entity which doesn't hold any land, but with which the US has generously agreed to a permanent residency status for any of its citizens (however unlikely such an occurrence). You run your online business from the US, and a judge in, say, Thailand rules that your product is in violation of their laws incriminating insults to the king. The Thai embassy files for your extradition, as the country has an extradition agreement with the US, and since you are not a US citizen, you are placed in US Immigration & Customs custody until your residency status can be determined. Now, why would the US ICE administrator or Justice Dept. official in charge stick his neck out and prevent your custody from being transferred to Thai authorities? What could your "ambassador" possibly offer as leverage comparable to what his Thai equivalent brings to bear?
Vocal pauses are natural, and they happen. Our brains can handle them. Why is it even considered personal betterment to expend energy replacing them with whitespace?
I think the whole point of the involvement of computers and the internet as fair godmother in their scenario was to handwave away problem 2 through someone else's very hard work at making a very, very good process for automatically vetting potential employees.
I love the applications of the luddite fallacy to IT..the treatments of code as looms or steel mills hit hard on the fact that economists are historians, and prone to assumptions that past performance will indicate future performance.
Devil's advocate for a moment, but every way that I'm aware of Monsanto letting people die is essentially an economical one: They ruin people's ability to buy or labor for food...which makes the comparison to the RIAA just one of a different scale. If the RIAA were even better at taking money from people, people would starve.
Of course, it makes no sense for the RIAA to starve its working musicians, but the ones who have stopped selling above margin?
Except that if the RIAA could/would actually put a musician
out of bussiness, that musician could do another line of
work to earn enough money to eat.
What Monsanto is doing, basically, is redisigning crops to
work on their behalf. Whenever a crop can develop properly due to the proliferation of roundup resistant weeds, you
have to buy the newest crop from them again, wether you like it or not.
Also there is the (theoretical) risk that someday they
won't be able to keep up with resistance, which could
curtail food supply, and won't make a difference wether you
can purchase it or not.
I do love Avatars for these reasons, and having a signature as an entirely vain engagement. But quite often, I find myself removing the signature because...as shown on that site, they're quite large, gaudy, and bloody repetitive.
Saying that 'engage your users' is a better terminoligy for what's going on here than 'gamification' basically ignores the whole point of the idea, which is that people like to be making progress towards goals..not 'engaged', but metrically shown as advancing.
That is, at the very basic level, what gamification is, its making an activity into an activity with specific measures of progress toward a goal, such that people can rank themselves (and we do).
This isn't a new or faddish idea, its an insight into how people act, and an attempt to use that bit of new understanding, as Atwood did, before being aware of the term, to engage users using what are called 'game mechanics' which are basically motivations outside of the actual reward structures of the activity. I suspect "engage your users" is moving into the much more targeted and practicable mode of "gamify your interface" rather than vice versa.
Games are not games because they are scored and have goals. Games are games because they are fun. Scoring is one aspect and usually present, but it's only one aspect and will only appease a subset of people. You can play soccer for 2+ hours and not achieve a single goal. It's still fun. Even if goals are scored, keeping track is entirely optional. Soccer is a game and fun, even when you don't "gamify" it by keeping score.
Furthermore, "gamification" by that definition often begets "gaming" the system. Because scoring, measuring, and mechanical details almost never perfectly match the spirit and original intent of the game, these edge cases cause dissonance and frequently disengagement. Examples: A baseball player hitting 17 foul balls waiting for a good pitch, basketball players causing fouls on purpose simply to stop the game clock, monks in Everquest using the "feign death" skill to split mobs that would be unbeatable as a group; these are real dynamics in successful game systems originally designed or evolved to be that way. In other areas, such as academic grading or pay-for-performance, the dissonance is significantly more profound.
People play foldit because it's fun, and that's what "gamification" should be about. The scoring metrics are merely a small piece of that.
Granted that's what games are about. But gamification is about using game mechanics (mechanics being things like -scores- which let you understand your position against that position of other people, and rules, which keep you from doing whatever you like, as something completely aside from the point of the 'fun' of the game) to do something much more functional than make things fun: to make things addictive or otherwise drive the user to pursue things outside of their standard pattern.
Stack overflow's design isn't about making it fun, its about making the users collaborate into something that is easy and valuable to the population. The rules of a game in general aren't about making the games fun, they're about providing a framework for competition.
Right, and that's why I think "gamification" will be a fad. Eventually people will see through transparent attempts to lead them by the nose through otherwise completely unengaging content and will move on to something more compelling.
Sure, designers will continue to include game mechanics to enhance engagement, it just won't be this crazy concept that everyone obsesses about. It'll just be a tool you can use sometime if the situation seems right.
And I disagree about stackoverflow on both counts. I believe it is fun, and that competition is a nonessential component to the sites success. Some people do thrive on competition, others do not. The core of stackoverflow is the dialogue between askers and answerers. Maybe say "rewarding" instead of "fun." The scores and rules are a nice enhancement to the core experience-- they facilitate public recognition, sorting and organization, among other things. There has been competition and recognition on Wikipedia for a long time, and they have made no overt attempt to "gamify".
Another important thing that the stackoverflow game mechanics do is guide users to functionality they might not know about. What you call "driving" users I would call "leading." Hardcore completionist, achievement-oriented, and competitive users are, of course, driven. The rest, however, are not, and to them features like "badges" just bring attention to the wide variety of ways the site can be engaging. The FAQ is well-written and very useful. The "analytical" badge merely helps draw a little extra attention to it. vBulletin has a boilerplate FAQ that probably no one has read in years since it's the same on every single forum that uses the software.
Yep, that's the point. People who use gamification for things like green living and saving energy, or advertising, or redeeming rewards, etc are missing the point. There's nothing to freaking gamify. Nobody feels any sense of achievement from saving energy, or redeeming airmile rewards, or checking in to places and doing random stuff.
Yes they do. First of all, saving energy is in itself a reward. Moreover, that's easily gameable by simply comparing yourself to a group of strangers at their energy efficiency house. Airline miles is kinda a hard one, except for the people in that group, competing there (and I'm sure there is), and as far a s random stuff...I'm here in large part because every once in a while I wonder if I can't get a few upvotes on hacker news, hopefully by saying something helpful or insightful, of course.
Saving energy doesn't instill a sense of achievement. Nobody has a bucket list with an item that says "Save as much energy as I can". It just doesn't inspire anyone. Sorry if that's your startup idea.
I don't want to simply reply to a comment, there's a theme flowing through this thread, that capitalism makes everyone better off in a society, that our choices lead to where we are. I think you're ignoring a fundamental truth. There aren't unlimited opportunities for every person who works hard...just opportunities for those who work harder, on the margin, than others. Capitalism isn't about working hard and getting rewards, its about being better on the margins and getting rewards.
You're connecting the two examples too much. While releasing this information may well have malicious intent, robbing a bank to give away money (as this information was hacked -to leak-) isn't exactly malicious. Leaking information that can be a warning or making an example of, now that can be. Intent depends on intent, and the intent of the example bank robbers was to hand out free cash. (and banks are insured...)
There's more such arguments, like suggestions that you need a nation to subsidize your health care or protect you from every day crime, but all of those are reasonably privatize-able as well.