gamerates

Forbes: I let expire after they wrote an article titled "Love Global Warming" (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html) written by the head of what is more or less an ExxonMobile thinktank. It was just too much for me.

Wired: Because it was free

Used to subscribe to Maximum PC (great magazine) when I use to tinker with computers more.

Magazines I'm looking at subscribing to:

HBS: For upcoming mgmt consulting job

Urban Land Institute: Due to a growing interest in commercial development, architecture, and urban planing

Probably a magazine on design/architecture... haven't decided what yet.

FT: And before you start nitpicking the numbers, a word of warning from the study:

"Our Social Return on Investment analysis is not just an intellectual exercise – it has big implications for the way in which our society and economy are structured. Financial incentives are very powerful, and we tend to shower them on some of the professions that are the most socially and environmentally costly. This promotes undesirable behaviour, while positive activities are discouraged. .... We have not aimed for precision in our calculations – there may be aspects of value that were left out. The point was to draw attention to the issue. We have not included detailed recommendations because it is clear to us that there are deep structural issues that need to be addressed, and change will not come overnight."

On that wider `issue’ note, prepare to forget almost every economic theory you’ve ever heard.

According to the study, the City of London is not essential for the UK economy (manufacturing, apparently, is much more important). Low-paid jobs don’t create a ladder for people to work their way up — social mobility is flat. The UK doesn’t need high salaries to attract and retain talent, since higher salaries don’t necessarily reflect the best people available. Etc.

For starters it isn't risk free to buy a 30 year treasury note when you are financing it with short term loans the rate of which could be changed at any time. If interest rates go up your 30 year treasury you bought isn't going to be worth much and may actually start to lose you money. Remember if you are 10x leveraged the market price of that 30 year treasury only has to drop a little for you to lose money. So instead, let's invest in short term treasury rates ( http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html) well except the return on short term treasury rates is about what you would pay at the discount window.

I guess you could invest in short term bonds or other investments, but it isn't going to be risk free then. And it really isn't a scandal that trying to set low interest rates will encourage lending/investing some of which could turn out to be speculative or would not have been made if interest rates were higher. It could also lead to inflation. Those are sort of the costs/benefits of cheap money.

The KQII remake (new animation/storyboard, new story, voice over pack) is probably one of my favorite games of all time.

With Eve these matters are a bit confusing as you can "role-play" a morally bankrupt character or a thief and such behavior is at times semi-encouraged in the game. Players known this when they sign up for the game. However, when you use your trust within the community to steal from a player-formed bank and then use the proceeds for real life gain it seems to cross an ethical boundary.

I've debated before over the justification for real money trade (http://www.gamerates.com/posts/show/debate_over_the_justifca...) and compared the "War on Gold Farming" to the "War on Drugs" (http://www.gamerates.com/posts/show/the_war_on_drugs__the_wa...), but all of those arguments required that the RMT/gold farming be a sort of "victimless crime" which would not hurt the game or community anymore than if you choose to play extra hours instead of outsourcing that boring playtime to China (boring repetitive gameplay is at anything a game flaw in MMO's as it's expensive to make original unique gameplay that can keep players busy for months/years; and very cheap to make them replay the same event hundreds of times aka "farming").

It seems the thief made the common mistake that just because you are anonymous and online that it is somehow OK to cheat and steal. I mean how many of you have had someone try to cheat you out of something online, but doubt the same person would ever be so brazen in person? It didn't seem like the theif was "role-playing" to enhance the wild-wild-west-in-space nature of the game either. He stole virtual money from a bank he was entrusted with (that players had spent a great deal of time acquiring and valued) and then sold it to a website that spams virtual currency ads to pay some bills.

It is one thing to outsource boring parts of the game to another to player for you, and another to steal from your fellow players and then sell the proceeds to pay your personal bills. If the player who did this was fine with his actions, he should have publicly released his name. However, hiding behind anonymity shows he's probably not that comfortable with his actions "role-play" be dammed.

I know if I ran a google search of his name and this was the top story that came up I'd have reserves about hiring him.

:)

Personally I'm more a fan of smaller "nudge" (nudge.org) like concepts combined with a progressive tax code and a strong commitment to helping minimize "brute luck" (being born to poor parents) while holding people fully accountable for personal decisions or "option luck" (choosing to take a risk, or making a life decision such as being a teacher vs. an i-banker; or going out at bars instead of saving). (Sort of in a Dworkin fashion see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin#Theory_of_equali... / or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck_egalitarianism).

For example: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/04/2...

"The truly amazing thing to me is that parental income isn't just crucial in getting to college, and getting through college -- its effects linger on, basically, in perpetuity. One of the most remarkable findings from the Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Mobility Project is that a child from a family in the top income quintile who does not get a college degree is more likely to wind up in the top income quintile himself than a child from a family in the bottom income quintile who does get a college degree"

A large part of this is due to public policy and there are clear examples of many European countries where changing public policy produces less arbitrary income inequalities. As the developed world transforms into a more knowledge based economy which requires large long-term investments in yourself to really compete, income inequality will only grow between those that can make the investments and those that can't.

I'd also be careful to consider how the market pays people as necessarily being "fair" until you look at after-tax income and the institutions that help determine that price. There are many different ways to setup a distribution of resources in a society and there are many different ways to setup markets (property rights, laws, public services, regulation, taxes etc.). As such we should consider the fairness of our human created rules and institutions; the particular results they create are just indicators. Of course whatever people are paid is "appropriate" as long as it follows the system of rules we have setup.

The "appropriate" results would be very different if we changed how the system was setup.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/ "In a study of 35 sex education programs around the world, the World Health Organization found there is no evidence that comprehensive programs encourage sexual activity.

The study also concluded that abstinence-only programs are less effective than comprehensive classes that include abstinence and safe-sex practices such as contraception and condom use."

At the same time it reminds me of a scene from the movie "Mean Girls" a comedy about the American High School where the gym teacher (who somehow in most high schools is also the "health teacher") uncomfortably states:

"Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die! Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up, just don't do it, OK, promise? OK, now everybody take some rubbers."

However, if having sex puts you at a high risk of infinite punishment forever (instead of infinite reward forever) it sort of changes the argument which is why the two sides have difficulty even discussing the topic. It's also why there are claims that after more and more studies show that sex education doesn't increase promiscuity (but it does reduce STD and teen/unwanted pregnancy rates), and the documented failures of abstinence only education, that even then many Christian groups will always say the studies are flawed. This is because the question was never open to debate in the first place, it was a divine infalliable law and we just need to keep running the tests until we get the predetermined correct answer. That's sort of where I see people arguing that many Christian groups are opposed to science. They love science, as long as it agrees with them (the same can we said for many secular liberals as well as Larry Summers found out).

I also think the Catholic church will reverse it's position on contraception for married couples within my lifetime. They sort of semi already have the steps to do that when they endorsed Natural Family Planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning)

"Having sex at an infertile time in a woman's life (such as pregnancy or post-menopause) is also considered acceptable, since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docume...)

I always thought that was rather arbitrary that you could have sex for pleasure only, but only during infertile times to prevent pregnancy, which we can measure rather accurately today due to advanced technology that we couldn't do very well in the past, because that's part of the human cycle and thus part of God's plan. However, doing the exact same sex-for-pleasure while preventing pregnancy act by using a piece of technologically simple latex that also protects against STI's is an awful sin.

However, due to the vast pluralism of viewpoints in society and our governments responsibility to not endorse any set religion, they suppose to consider the heaven/hell side of the argument in it's policy decisions. It should of course allow others to consider it independently, and thus we have an opt-out program with our sex education.

Here is a really poor wiki definition of "sex negative" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negativity).

"Sex negativity" is more about a lack of tolerance of different forms and viewpoints of sexuality.

I don't think that upon reading the Catechism or looking at a history of the Catholic Church and it's view on sex/sexuality you come away with a very comfortable view of the actual sex act. Part of this may be due to the fact that those that wrote the doctrine were suppose to be chaste. It's interesting reading how the Catholic Church changed it's early viewpoint from allowing priests to marry early on, to outlawing it (in all but a few loopholes, such as getting the "calling" after you are married).

Most of the doctrine seems to view sex as some unfortunate necessity for procreation, not something to be celebrated by itself. It's never been that comfortable with sex for pleasure. This is in stark contrast to let's say the Greek/Roman societies before the rise of Christianity.

However, I feel like the word itself is partly biased because it assumes that a "sex-negative" viewpoint is bad and a "sex-positive" viewpoint is good (similar to the atheists movement to call atheism "brights"... which makes it seem like everyone else is dims) instead of using more neutral definitions.