The defendant in the Johnson case was arrested for selling stolen AT&T long distance numbers for $8.00 at Port Authority in NYC. He was charged with possession of stolen property. The problem with that charge was that the indictment didn't allege any tangible property that was stolen -- Johnson rightfully owned the slip of paper on which three numbers were written. According to a prior 1989 case, People v. Molina, the stolen property statute did not apply to the mental possession of numbers. While the Molina court acknowledged that what the defendant was doing was wrong, it stated that "the mere isolated knowledge of those numbers, essentially the situation here, has not yet been defined by the Legislature as a crime."

The lack of logic in that thesis is evidenced by the following question: is the number with the card of any more value to a person intent on placing phone calls without charge than is the number without the card? The number itself is what is crucial, and not who has the superior possessory interest in the paper on which the number is recorded, or whether the number is written as opposed to being memorized.

It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation. We talk to the illusion of a world with many concurrent activities and a speak least metaphorically, to the agencies that can live in such places (e.g. of Non-Player-Characters and Player-Characters interacting with shared world state). In the fact of today, however, such parallelism is a fiction - most games are implemented within a single simulation thread (they just iterate through all the objects quickly but in sequence... "butcher before baker before the cat jumps over the moon..."), but this is likely to change, perhaps very soon.

H. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict the purchase, sale, exchange, or other transaction related to stocks, bonds, futures, options, commodities, or other similar instruments or transactions occurring on a stock or commodities exchange, brokerage house, or similar entity. On the one hand this may seem like technical arcanum, but note that we all often pretend this point in our discussions and comments on Terra Nova and elsewhere. It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation. We talk to the illusion of a world with many concurrent activities and a speak least metaphorically, to the agencies that can live in such places (e.g. of Non-Player-Characters and Player-Characters interacting with shared world state).

Guild Wars gives a similar full screen map and compass-thingy. But the compass shows me mobs and the system also has medium scale map that displays the path I’ve taken – and that’s very reassuring indeed. It also raises some interesting non-design problems. It looks to me as if it would discourage RMT, for example, because investments won't necessarily be seen as sufficiently long-term. The truth is World of Warcraft Gold doesn’t HAVE to take a long time to get, especially in the higher levels. Buy WOW Gold here, and then enjoy your excited WoW life! Warhammer Online Gold will keep your high power. On the other hand, if RMTers persuade the courts that people own what their characters own, the whole concept of a purge might be threatened.

What's a charette, you ask? A wagon. There and Second Life are two of the few that have this type of activity, as they both have in-world economies with economic ties to real-world currency, official support for the creation of member owned businesses, in-world features and tools that enable the creation of branded products, and officially sanctioned ways for members to market and advertise their products and brands. Virtual worlds that don’t have these things, not surprisingly, are not seeing the development of member brands. It also raises some interesting non-design problems. It looks to me as if it would discourage RMT, for example, because investments won't necessarily be seen as sufficiently long-term.

In most games, the best way to think about A.I. is to think about it as a puzzle the player needs to solve. On the one hand this may seem like technical arcanum, but note that we all often pretend this point in our discussions and comments on Terra Nova and elsewhere. It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation. We talk to the illusion of a world with many concurrent activities and a speak least metaphorically, to the agencies that can live in such places (e.g. of Non-Player-Characters and Player-Characters interacting with shared world state). In the fact of today, however, such parallelism is a fiction - most games are implemented within a single simulation thread (they just iterate through all the objects quickly but in sequence... "butcher before baker before the cat jumps over the moon..."), but this is likely to change, perhaps very soon.

Make the game element of a MMO just that, an element of the online experience? Would the ability to see near by explorers, or people in the IT industry, or sociologists or US singles interested in Star Trek and puppies be a positive feature in an MMO? Or would it be a really annoying distraction for 99% of players or worse fodder for griefers? Damion points out that this doesn't mean that AI realism has to be avoided in MMOGs (though it is now), but that it does mean that AI realism will puzzle different gameplay patterns. On the one hand this may seem like technical arcanum, but note that we all often pretend this point in our discussions and comments on Terra Nova and elsewhere. It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation.

A comment that Betsy made on the v-Space thread got me thinking about MMOs as social software. On the one hand this may seem like technical arcanum, but note that we all often pretend this point in our discussions and comments on Terra Nova and elsewhere. It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation. We talk to the illusion of a world with many concurrent activities and a speak least metaphorically, to the agencies that can live in such places (e.g. of Non-Player-Characters and Player-Characters interacting with shared world state). In the fact of today, however, such parallelism is a fiction - most games are implemented within a single simulation thread (they just iterate through all the objects quickly but in sequence... "butcher before baker before the cat jumps over the moon..."), but this is likely to change, perhaps very soon.

DAoC splits each of its servers into three different realms: Albion, Hibernia and Midgard, each of which is at war with the others. Before you can even create a character, you must first choose the realm with which your loyalties lie. This instantly puts your character in conflict with the other two realms, adding to the flow of the game's storyline for your personal avatar. Whereas the game does support individual Player vs. Player conflict (dependent on which server you choose when starting up the game), the main focus is definitely the Realm vs. Realm aspect.