chimariko

I'd rather emphasize that the key factor in making money in online gaming is sustainable character development.

I wonder how he got all those users in the first place. http://www.torn.com/ is poorly designed and doesn't elaborate on what the game is.

It is ability to gain a community rather than design that matters for this type of web-service.

It's a handful of PHP scripts with little to actually "do" - at least at the intro level - training is merely clicking on some JavaScript buttons.

What difference for the player does it make what technology was used for scripting and buttons? An average guy from these 40k users might not even know such words as JavaScript/PHP/Flash.

That's exactly why games with such content should be allowed.

Torn makes a lot of money because it is an interesting online game. It is interesting because you can build your character and watch how it performs over time, not because it is about crime. Very similar to other online multiplayer games, e.g. Legends of Zork.

As far as I know, there isn't any statistically valid data in favor of the concept "letting people try it out in another reality decreases crime rate" or the opposite. I tend to think trying it out virtually does decrease crime rate. It has the same effect as an experience of a vaccine injection, where one gets an infection in low dose, which helps them gain immunity to it.

I like your point that it's necessary to figure out the math of replication first and then apply the knowledge in design of alternative computer-based replicators.

In addition to the approaches from top and bottom there is one more (bottom-bottom) approach: turn an existing cellular automation like Conway's Game of Life into an evolving computer-based replicator. As far as I know, all existing examples of cellular automation can only produce replicating systems. They are not evolving because they don't have selection. The moment one of these systems is tweaked so that it would also have a possibility to mutate and endure natural (artificial would be a better word here) selection, there will be evolving life in a computer.

I wouldn't rely on poor people's altruism as on a valuable contribution to others. Even if giving those 2 cents was an important decision for the woman considering her poorness, the piles given out by a richer man were much more valuable. It is absolute value of a contribution that matters for a receiver of good here.

Capitalism creates an environment where both positive and negative traits can be materialized. Everyone agrees that altruism is better than selfishness in moral sense. However one must be quite civilized and have high quality of life and standard of living to exercise altruism. Those whose individual demands are not met simply cannot afford altruism. A financial system aimed at rewarding those who think of others (surprise!) exists right now. Those who have extra money, time or other resources can invest them in those who are in need through loans, grants and scholarships. I'm sure any innovative ideas in this area would be accepted by the HN community and society in general. This proves that the current society/economy is open for a change toward a more altruism-encouraging system.

Western society and morality is based on the relative tolerance to innate human desires and wishes in contrast to other cultures. That's why it has created a financial system that made the countries that chose it developed.

"Males have a desire to procreate, but rape is forbidden. We have a desire to promote the success of those with our genes, but discrimination is forbidden."

Morality restricts certain ways in which a human can fulfill their needs. However rape is not the only way to procreate and discrimination has very little to do with promoting the success of one's genes. Today's social and financial system is successful among other factors because it provides equal and legitimate ways to have sex or multiply for everyone.

We are at crossroads, we have opportunity to choose the way financial system would look like in the future and that's why it is especially important to understand why the current financial system is successful. It is, despite difficulties, which, for example led only to a 2% drop in US GDP growth rate in 2008 compared to 2005. The GDP is still increasing! You can have look at http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353&co... (US GDP statistics) to see how stable economy is. These disturbances are annoying, but their impact on lifestyle is minor.

"Imagine saying, "You're so greedy!" Now imagine saying, "You're so giving!" It's a totally different feeling. Imagine a society that promotes the giving over promoting the greedy."

What does this have to do with the initial argument? Could you please point out where I disagreed with this?

Financial market affects today's economy a lot. There's a great demand for assumptions and forecast involved in financial services. However the reliability of today's forecast and analysis methods leaves a lot to be desired. This situation is the cause of the current crisis.

You should point out what you disagree with instead of (in addition to) downvoting. What is your opinion?

Sure, what I mean is that the pursue for individual success is a key feature of Homo sapiens species. Traditional capitalism declares it as its main trait. The fact that participants of a capitalist system are encouraged to act according to their natural behavioral patterns makes capitalism the most stable system ever known.

Although capitalism is crash-prone to some extent it is the most reliable system mankind has ever come up with. It is arguably because it's idea of individual success reflects the nature of the animal the system is supposed to work on.

Modeling a system theoretically capable of evolution is a great idea. However, I think EvoGrid would be better off modeling a system with some simple interactions rather than the real world biochemistry. The real world biochemistry is very redundant and the chances are higher that a simpler system would produce evolving life on the same computer power.

Great, I'll check this one out too.

The flaw of Gerald Skinner's approach is that he makes an assumption that there is some kind of absolute abstract quality of a soccer team, whereas the quality of a soccer team is defined by their results in a tournament.

I've been looking for a natural language translation library for Python lately. And here it comes, Peteris Krumins writes one, thanks Peteris!

This is interesting analysis. However I think the most important factors of success of a start-up are 1) what service to provide; 2) team to run the business. Friendly funding environment is a plus, but it is not a sine qua non for a young company.

I think it is only possible to say whether one's work is great in a while after it has been done. It's a good idea to take up something that you really like and dive into it because the fact that you like the subject raises the odds of your success. It is quite useless to look for an area where the average chances are high unless you are interested in the subject matter.

In terms of the Mark's hypothesis that "our greatest life’s works will be inspired from both within and desired externally" I would definitely emphasize the "inspired from within" part.

I like the approach described in this article, which is, in fact, "Take some time to look around and then choose." Choose too soon -- you don't have a relevant criterion. Wait too long -- you might have already missed the best units.

I wonder if there is an insight into the actual model behind the resulting change_mode_number = total/euler_number formula?

Books were rarities in ancient/old times and writers didn't name their book keeping promotion in mind. Today it's all different: there are lots of books out there and it's vital that a book has a title that sells.

There are two points that surprised me here: 1. Rods and pins are used instead of classic nuts and bolts; 2. Crane's extension. It's amazing how self-sufficient a construction crane setup is.

I am not sure about SRS for learning API of a language. However I have recently started to use mind maps for that. Whenever I come across a new language or library I take an A4 and a pen and put down all basic concepts. It helps to grasp the big picture of the system and to see the interconnections of different blocks of code. I prefer mind maps to the standard linear up-down way of writing stuff down because the schematic representation utilized in mind mapping eases the twist between the way information is stored on paper and (presumably) in the human memory.

All in all I find spending some time on studying docs useful in contrast to the pure work-by-doing approach.