abrenzel

This article is sensationalism dressed up as economic reasoning. In the opening paragraph, the author fails to make the distinction between profits trending toward zero versus prices trending toward zero in a free market. This undermines his argument even without the very real and substantial caveats he waves away later in the piece.

Second, while the marginal cost to sell one copy of a game is effectively zero in electronic marketplaces, the gross cost of making a game is never zero, not even for indie developers, because if nothing else it costs them their time. What we should then expect to see is a situation where, assuming a game is successful, a game sells at some non-zero price the market will bear until it earns its costs back, with steep discounts following. Of course, it is more than possible the game will simply lose money.

We should expect this to be true even in a world where games are sold purely in electronic form and those markets are flooded with free content (which is to say, developers willing to sell their games at a loss). Come to think of it, that's pretty much precisely what we observe in the games industry today. Where's the beef?

Yes, I contradicted your assertions that

a) it is MIT and JSTOR that have primary discretion in whether a criminal case moves forward (it is the government's sole discretion)

b) MIT and JSTOR are in fact responsible for bringing criminal charges (they are not - they can only bring civil charges)

c) that the prosecutor is responsible for the severity of the penalty and/or the defendant's emotional response to that penalty

My disagreement with your third assertion was more implicit so let me clarify a bit.

First, it is not the prosecutor's job to question whether a law's penalties are in proportion to the crime it proscribes when deciding whether to bring a case. Discretion over the severity of the punishment is left to the sentencing phase of the trial if the defendant is convicted, and it is highly likely that Aaron's sentence would not have been the maximum had he been found guilty (a fact I am sure his lawyers made him aware of).

Second, under what reasonable standard can a prosecutor be held personally responsible for the emotional state of the defendant? Should it be acceptable for criminal defendants to pressure prosecutors into dropping cases by threatening self-harm or suicide in the hopes that a public outcry will harm the prosecutor's career? Try to ignore for a moment that the defendant in this case has your sympathies. Would you accept that tactic from a serial killer or rapist?

It may be that the law itself is unnecessary or counterproductive. I'm certainly open to the argument that at least publicly funded research ought to be open to the public. Yet it is still the law of the land. From the facts of the case, Aaron committed an obvious crime and behaved as though he knew it were a crime. The potential price of civil disobedience is that you will in fact end up punished for it. In the end, his story (like Rosa Parks and others before him) may end up bringing about the change he wants. But to say that the prosecutor abused her authority or was personally responsible for his death is an emotional response without basis and runs counter to the very idea of a criminal justice system.

Strictly speaking this is not correct. JSTOR and MIT cannot bring criminal charges; only the US government may. They can bring civil charges on their own behalf in addition to the criminal charges, and whether the 2 parties agree to settle out of court is relevant to any civil charges brought against the defendant. This is the basis for the difference between civil and criminal law - civil law covers disputes between 2 parties and serves as a framework if the 2 parties cannot reconcile.

On the other hand, criminal actions are not just about the grievances between the defendant and the victim of the crime. In principle, crimes are committed against the people themselves (hence the case naming scheme exemplified by the United States vs. X or The People of Illinois vs. X). Even if the victim isn't particularly interested in pursuing the prosecution, the prosecutor is still within his rights to try the case. Indeed, in many violent crimes such as rape, the victim is not interested in aiding the trial. While this can sometimes derail the prosecution, it need not. Pursuing the case absent the victim's full cooperation cannot ipso facto be considered prosecutorial abuse.

I just see this as an incremental development, rather than a revolutionary one. As I mentioned above, the server is still very involved with UI events and navigation. If the user causes a UI event that saves data to the server, even if there is client-side validation it will often be the server that responds with an error and forces the page to do something with that. The nice thing is that we now get to encapsulate the server's influence on the application into definable actions, rather than by a single request. That's a rather good thing for us developers, but it is still well within the bounds of the traditional HTTP model.

As for Coffeescript, anything that tames some of the nasty bits of Javascript is fine by me. I don't dispute Coffeescript's usefulness. My point was just that Coffeescript is like syntactic sugar for Javascript, not a paradigm shift in client side coding.

Well yes, now you can perform more manipulation of the page without needing a roundtrip to the server, but saving the state of the application still involves one, unless you are the type of radical early adopter who is going to try to do it all with HTML5 local storage.

The relative balance of the work may have changed, but I don't see it as a revolution except in terms of user experience, where AJAX has definitely drastically changed the way users perceive a web page.

Otherwise, the development model of HTTP - the server sends me something, I send a reply, and it sends me back something else - is still alive and well. That's to be expected, since browsers were built with HTTP in mind and the supporting technologies, Javascript included, all must live within that box. The server is still intimately involved with the behavior of the page, but its involvement is encapsulated into individual actions rather than an entire page load (i.e. the server returning an error can be responded to in the context of the HTML form that caused it, rather than with a page redirect or some such). Again, I don't deny that's a helpful thing.

Some things from this article just don't make sense to me.

Like, why is AJAX/client-side MVC pointed out as something that overcomes the HTTP request/response cycle? No, it doesn't. It just means you don't have to refresh the entire screen every time a request is made. Whether the server now sends back "a wad of HTML/javascript" or some JSON to be parsed by the Javascript MVC framework du jour, nothing you are doing is transcending the HTTP protocol either way. AJAX changed the way users interact with web applications, but it did not change anything really fundamental about their architecture.

Second, Coffeescript does not liberate you from Javascript. It IS Javascript. It makes it easier to control some of Javascript's difficult areas, like the meaning of "this" as execution context changes as one example, but it doesn't suddenly give you license to write browser code the way you would write Python or C++.

In any case, let's not confuse convenience with paradigm shifting.

I would be curious to do this and am in Chicago. Hopefully I wouldn't hold back the group!

Should this article be retitled: Understanding Groupon Means Understanding Accounting Fraud?

Absolutely. Indeed risk is not even just about the "customer's" (in this case, the nation of Greece) inability to pay, but also counterparty risk. It's not just Deutschebank that's on the hook for defaulted Greek debt, but every counterparty who wrote them credit default swaps (CDS) on that debt. That's what triggered the financial crisis in 2008 - as Bear Stearns' and Lehman Brothers' cash flow from their debt holdings dried up, redemption calls for their CDS metastasized though the financial system.

If anyone is wondering why the core Euro-area (not to mention the US government) is so concerned about Greek (and Irish and Portuguese and Spanish and Italian) debt, it's less about some abstract political commitment to EU unity than it is the simple fact that a true default will destroy the European banking system.

Throwing cheap cash at the problem will work until the day that it suddenly doesn't. While the proximate cause to the original financial crisis was cash flow, that is not the ultimate cause for these problems. The problem is that risk in the financial system is (still!) extremely opaque, and it is not so much that banks are illiquid as there is almost no circumstance in which they could procure enough cash to meet calls on their outstanding CDS in the event of some "unexpected" event like subprime mortages or Greece going into default.

The US government learned the hard way what would happen if they allowed one of these overlevered banks to go under as they did with Lehman Brothers in 2008. On the other hand, national governments do not have enough capital to possibly cover the total liabilities in the financial system, nor can they even predict when and where that capital might be needed.

As with many things in life, there is no real good solution to this, and there is still lots of pain ahead.

From the looks of it, the program merely learned the rules of the game by doing textual analysis of the manual, and maybe got a few strategic hints as well. As for actually learning to play the game _well_, my sense from the article is that the program then used more conventional machine learning techniques to test and adopt winning moves.

One might argue that the algorithms used by Wall Street firms to trade the stock market learned how to play long ago... ;).