Ir para conteúdo

Todas Atividades

Atualizada automaticamente     

  1. Today
  2. O que você anda jogando?

    Começei a jogar o Beta fechado do Magic The Gathering Arena Eu parei de jogar Magic no Bloco Tempestadade, portanto consigo jogar o básico perfeitamente, mas ... mudaram muitas coisas, queimadura de mana não existe mais, regra dos mulligans, cards com face dupla, veiculos, comander, planeswalkers e um zilhão de novas mecânicas que ainda estou adaptando... Mas ainda é o jogo que voce é ferrado pela falta ou abundacia de terrenos, os deck iniciais são bons, principalemente o Mono Black Zumbi, MtGA tem muito da useabilidade grafica de hearthstone: O player escolhe um avatar, o mesmo local para utilizar emotes e a mesa é bem identica ao concorrente. Mas o jogo é bem buggado. Ainda coçando a cabeça pra saber quem diabos é Jace ou Liliana, mas com o tempo vou assistindo videos de lore no Youtube. E os pacotes de boosters não são iguais ao da vida real, 5 comuns, 2 incomuns e 1 rara= 8 cartas enquanto um booster na vida real tem 16= 11 comuns, 3 incomuns, 1 rara + 1 card de ficha/marketing também o preço in game é menor mais ou menos 2 dollares vs 4 dollares, mas pelo menos voce pode trocar com alguem as cartas repetidas ou vende-las algo que no game nao da. mais tarde faço um review
  3. Qual foi o último livro que você comprou/ganhou?

    acabei de receber de presente : Bigger Than Business Um livro com historias de empreendedores que utilizam a fé como bússola moral para os negócios, um livro bem diferente.
  4. Hearthstone

    Novo evento: Os Dias do Trono de Gelo Ate 23 de setembro: Quem logar no jogo vai receber uma carta dourada gratis, a carta possui uma sinergia muito boa pra priest e bruxo(healock). E todos vão receber 2 quests que valem 300 ouros cada, ou seja 600 por jogar a contenda na fazenda e um pacote de cartas (30 Pacotes - R$ 46,90) a um preço menor. E durante Hearthstone Global Games (HGG) de 17 de setembro a 4 de novembro quem utilizar 2500 cheer no canal oficial ira receber este cardback mais pacotinhos e outras firulas
  5. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Tenho um notebook que jogo ragnarock/lords of magic desde 1998 ... tenho um problema em jogar computadores velhos... a maioria esta guardada em casa...
  6. Yesterday
  7. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Mega ganhou de todos!
  8. A ética do mercado livre

    Invisible Hand Ethics Doing right by others is difficult and time-consuming. Hence the attraction of what I call ‘invisible hand ethics', in which we mind our own business and the ethics takes care of itself. This is modelled on Adam Smith's famous account of how the overall outcome of lots of self-interested actions in the economic sphere can be good for society as a whole. Bakers just want to make a buck, but their self-interest produces the bread that feeds the people. Their competition for sales keeps prices down. The customers in turn just want the cheapest best bread, but wind up helping the best bakers make a good living. You get the idea. Smith argued that in the economic domain this could be a far more reliable mechanism for achieving good outcomes than good intentions. Invisible hand ethics has long since conquered the economic domain. We no longer worry, as theologians did (they still do – but we don't listen anymore), about whether it is ethical for business people to make a profit beyond what they deserve for their work; whether prices should be proportionate to people's ability to pay; or whether a life of money making is a good one. The duty of the businessperson – as taught in every business degree, magazine, and TV gameshow – is just to help her company win the game and take home the profit prize. The idea of moral desert is still there. But now merit is decided by economic outcomes (price and demand), not by the moral inputs (the character or intentions of those concerned). Economic ethics has been outsourced to the markets. It is now a property of the system rather than of individuals. Invisible hand ethics has spread. It can now be found far beyond the economic domain, especially in the professions organised around antagonistic competition, such as politics, science, sport, academia, law, and journalism. Lawyers strive to tell the story that best suits their client's interest; scientists race to make discoveries first; politicians try to get the most votes; etc. The invisible hand is supposed to transmute this aggressive pursuit of self-interest by individual players into collective goods like knowledge and justice and prosperity. It does so by domesticating the raw desire for self-aggrandizement into an ethics of winning a carefully structured and regulated game. Thus, for example, the genius of liberal democracy. Instead of trying to eliminate the vices of vanity and ambition for power (as the moralists and theocrats promise) those very vices are redirected into a competition to serve the public best. Competition between politicians keeps them subservient to the people and encourages a vigorous public debate about the best way to manage things. Before explaining my worries about invisible hand ethics I should acknowledge the power of a system approach to the practise of ethics. If everyone had to do due diligence beforehand about the nature and effects of every action much less would get done. We are not very good at figuring out the extended effects of our actions. Nor are we very good at investigating the facts behind the choices presented to us. Even very religious people who organise their lives around moral prohibitions must rely on systems (such as kosher/halal certification agencies) to navigate all the choices thrown up by modern life. When properly set up and understood, invisible hand ethics can dramatically enhance ethical performance. Unfortunately those conditions are increasingly absent. Smith's original invisible hand simply describes the phenomenon that in some kinds of cases, such as under certain kinds of competition, our actions can result in unintended (but foreseeable) benefits for others. As Smith was well aware, however, there are also plenty of mechanisms by which people can generate unintended but foreseeable harms on others. For example, individuals leaving their litter behind them on the beach, or over-using antibiotics, or borrowing more money than they can afford to pay back, can all generate a net cost to society. Whether one ends up with social benefits rather than social costs thus depends on the mechanisms at work in any particular case. If one wants to ensure social benefits then one has to make sure that the system is set up so that the positive mechanisms dominate negative mechanisms, and maintain the system to make sure that it doesn't degrade over time. This is why Adam Smith made his deistic reference to a providential ‘invisible hand' that had so arranged things that they turned out for the best. In mainstream economics this role is played by an independent regulator with (direct or delegated) governmental powers. Such a regulator is necessary because the system cannot govern itself and is fundamentally unstable. This follows from the direct contradiction between the motives of the economic actors (corporate profit) and the goals of the system (net social gains to the ordinary people). Rules are needed and must be continually recalibrated to promote social benefits and discourage social harms. For example, companies can make profits by creating new better products or by finding new ways to make the same things cheaper. That creates value for society as a whole. Or they can make profits by eliminating their competition, taking shortcuts with safety, or abusing tax loopholes. That kind of competitive behaviour creates extra problems for society – but from the point of view of a self-interested player of the game, it looks the same. The first problem is that in the economy and elsewhere we don't have the regulators we need to make the system work, or else they are too partisan or weak to do much good. The result is that we cannot rely on the invisible hand to convert the personal ethics of winning into a better world for everyone. Often we will end up worse off. This is the underlying cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession. But also problems as various as mass incarceration in America (prosecutors measure success by sentences); populists' political innovations of targeting Muslims and truth; the crisis of replicability and triviality in science; the ubiquity of doping in sport; clickbait journalism; and so on. The second problem is related to the first. Even though the invisible hand works poorly if at all across all these different areas of modern life, we still act as if it does. When I teach business students I am astonished by their faith in the market to fix all problems and turn corporate self-interest into gold. (I am also astonished by the selfless loyalty they aspire to show to their future corporate overlords. Milton Friedman has a lot to answer for.) Business students are not alone in their naiveté. Many of my fellow academics still believe - or at least, they believe that they believe - that they discharge all their responsibilities to the knowledge project they are a part of merely by publishing an article. Publishing generates personal career points, so they focus on that. There is an assumption that the system will somehow take care of the rest: ensuring that if their article was good enough to publish then it will do good for the world. The hard fact is though that most academic articles are so worthless that they will never be cited by anyone, not even the people who reviewed them as publishable. No wonder the invisible hand is breaking down everywhere. We have forgotten how it works, and how much care and effort it takes to keep it going. It has become taken for granted, like the internet or indoor plumbing. In keeping with its own principle, we have outsourced our understanding of how invisible hand ethics works. We assume that we can just get on with doing the things that suit us best – like seeing if we can make the H5N1 virus airborne to achieve a high prestige publication or selling people's personal browsing histories to advertisers – and the system will somehow turn our self-service into gold. The third problem is related to the second. The kinds of work where ethics has been outsourced to the invisible hand used to be called vocations – something one feels inwardly called upon to do. Now the ethical character they model increasingly resembles that of the businessperson. Winning is all. Good lawyers are the ones who win cases; good academics win prestigious positions at places like Harvard; good politicians win elections; good athletes win medals. Other values – such as personal honesty, or curiosity - are squeezed out by the relentless competition that powers the system. The slogan of our time is the rationalisation: If I don't do it, someone else will! The system we have created does not ensure ethical outcomes because it has replaced ethical motivations with incentives – and has failed to keep those incentives lined up with good outcomes for society. Training individuals to be interested only in what it takes to win is removing our ability to recognise and act on our moral responsibilities to each other and to the system we all depend on. This is a recipe for personal corruption and social disaster.
  9. A ética do mercado livre

    Invisible Hand Ethics Doing right by others is difficult and time-consuming. Hence the attraction of what I call ‘invisible hand ethics', in which we mind our own business and the ethics takes care of itself. This is modelled on Adam Smith's famous account of how the overall outcome of lots of self-interested actions in the economic sphere can be good for society as a whole. Bakers just want to make a buck, but their self-interest produces the bread that feeds the people. Their competition for sales keeps prices down. The customers in turn just want the cheapest best bread, but wind up helping the best bakers make a good living. You get the idea. Smith argued that in the economic domain this could be a far more reliable mechanism for achieving good outcomes than good intentions. Invisible hand ethics has long since conquered the economic domain. We no longer worry, as theologians did (they still do – but we don't listen anymore), about whether it is ethical for business people to make a profit beyond what they deserve for their work; whether prices should be proportionate to people's ability to pay; or whether a life of money making is a good one. The duty of the businessperson – as taught in every business degree, magazine, and TV gameshow – is just to help her company win the game and take home the profit prize. The idea of moral desert is still there. But now merit is decided by economic outcomes (price and demand), not by the moral inputs (the character or intentions of those concerned). Economic ethics has been outsourced to the markets. It is now a property of the system rather than of individuals. Invisible hand ethics has spread. It can now be found far beyond the economic domain, especially in the professions organised around antagonistic competition, such as politics, science, sport, academia, law, and journalism. Lawyers strive to tell the story that best suits their client's interest; scientists race to make discoveries first; politicians try to get the most votes; etc. The invisible hand is supposed to transmute this aggressive pursuit of self-interest by individual players into collective goods like knowledge and justice and prosperity. It does so by domesticating the raw desire for self-aggrandizement into an ethics of winning a carefully structured and regulated game. Thus, for example, the genius of liberal democracy. Instead of trying to eliminate the vices of vanity and ambition for power (as the moralists and theocrats promise) those very vices are redirected into a competition to serve the public best. Competition between politicians keeps them subservient to the people and encourages a vigorous public debate about the best way to manage things. Before explaining my worries about invisible hand ethics I should acknowledge the power of a system approach to the practise of ethics. If everyone had to do due diligence beforehand about the nature and effects of every action much less would get done. We are not very good at figuring out the extended effects of our actions. Nor are we very good at investigating the facts behind the choices presented to us. Even very religious people who organise their lives around moral prohibitions must rely on systems (such as kosher/halal certification agencies) to navigate all the choices thrown up by modern life. When properly set up and understood, invisible hand ethics can dramatically enhance ethical performance. Unfortunately those conditions are increasingly absent. Smith's original invisible hand simply describes the phenomenon that in some kinds of cases, such as under certain kinds of competition, our actions can result in unintended (but foreseeable) benefits for others. As Smith was well aware, however, there are also plenty of mechanisms by which people can generate unintended but foreseeable harms on others. For example, individuals leaving their litter behind them on the beach, or over-using antibiotics, or borrowing more money than they can afford to pay back, can all generate a net cost to society. Whether one ends up with social benefits rather than social costs thus depends on the mechanisms at work in any particular case. If one wants to ensure social benefits then one has to make sure that the system is set up so that the positive mechanisms dominate negative mechanisms, and maintain the system to make sure that it doesn't degrade over time. This is why Adam Smith made his deistic reference to a providential ‘invisible hand' that had so arranged things that they turned out for the best. In mainstream economics this role is played by an independent regulator with (direct or delegated) governmental powers. Such a regulator is necessary because the system cannot govern itself and is fundamentally unstable. This follows from the direct contradiction between the motives of the economic actors (corporate profit) and the goals of the system (net social gains to the ordinary people). Rules are needed and must be continually recalibrated to promote social benefits and discourage social harms. For example, companies can make profits by creating new better products or by finding new ways to make the same things cheaper. That creates value for society as a whole. Or they can make profits by eliminating their competition, taking shortcuts with safety, or abusing tax loopholes. That kind of competitive behaviour creates extra problems for society – but from the point of view of a self-interested player of the game, it looks the same. The first problem is that in the economy and elsewhere we don't have the regulators we need to make the system work, or else they are too partisan or weak to do much good. The result is that we cannot rely on the invisible hand to convert the personal ethics of winning into a better world for everyone. Often we will end up worse off. This is the underlying cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession. But also problems as various as mass incarceration in America (prosecutors measure success by sentences); populists' political innovations of targeting Muslims and truth; the crisis of replicability and triviality in science; the ubiquity of doping in sport; clickbait journalism; and so on. The second problem is related to the first. Even though the invisible hand works poorly if at all across all these different areas of modern life, we still act as if it does. When I teach business students I am astonished by their faith in the market to fix all problems and turn corporate self-interest into gold. (I am also astonished by the selfless loyalty they aspire to show to their future corporate overlords. Milton Friedman has a lot to answer for.) Business students are not alone in their naiveté. Many of my fellow academics still believe - or at least, they believe that they believe - that they discharge all their responsibilities to the knowledge project they are a part of merely by publishing an article. Publishing generates personal career points, so they focus on that. There is an assumption that the system will somehow take care of the rest: ensuring that if their article was good enough to publish then it will do good for the world. The hard fact is though that most academic articles are so worthless that they will never be cited by anyone, not even the people who reviewed them as publishable. No wonder the invisible hand is breaking down everywhere. We have forgotten how it works, and how much care and effort it takes to keep it going. It has become taken for granted, like the internet or indoor plumbing. In keeping with its own principle, we have outsourced our understanding of how invisible hand ethics works. We assume that we can just get on with doing the things that suit us best – like seeing if we can make the H5N1 virus airborne to achieve a high prestige publication or selling people's personal browsing histories to advertisers – and the system will somehow turn our self-service into gold. The third problem is related to the second. The kinds of work where ethics has been outsourced to the invisible hand used to be called vocations – something one feels inwardly called upon to do. Now the ethical character they model increasingly resembles that of the businessperson. Winning is all. Good lawyers are the ones who win cases; good academics win prestigious positions at places like Harvard; good politicians win elections; good athletes win medals. Other values – such as personal honesty, or curiosity - are squeezed out by the relentless competition that powers the system. The slogan of our time is the rationalisation: If I don't do it, someone else will! The system we have created does not ensure ethical outcomes because it has replaced ethical motivations with incentives – and has failed to keep those incentives lined up with good outcomes for society. Training individuals to be interested only in what it takes to win is removing our ability to recognise and act on our moral responsibilities to each other and to the system we all depend on. This is a recipe for personal corruption and social disaster.
  10. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Pobres tolos, são como peixinhos de aquário que nunca ouviram falar do grande oceano! Meu desktop é de 2002, único upgrade foi aumentar a memória ram e o hd e meu notebook é de 2006 sem nenhum upgrade!
  11. Última semana
  12. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    O meu notebook é de 2007. Venci! Mas ele tá encostado...
  13. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    E é o mais antigo. Ao menos em comparação ao meu, que é de 2010 e o seu é 2009, logo mais antigo. Mas realmente para coisas básicas PC dura muito tempo cuidando bem dele. Com sorte o meu ainda passa mais 2 anos sem queimar nada. Se tem uma coisa que não quero é gastar dinheiro no momento. Se bem que vou gastar por causa dele. A cadeira que uso no PC quebrou uma parte do pé e o apoio das costas. Essa eu já devo doar e comprar outra mesmo.
  14. Mensagens Para Pensar...

    Nomofobia ,homens e mulheres no mundo inteiro sendo contagiado por essa doença Medo de ficar sem celular não é vício, é uma doença e tem nome: Nomofobia. A nomofobia é o nome dado à sensação de medo ou agonia que um indivíduo tem de se sentir incomunicável por estar sem o aparelho celular ou computador. Seu nomevem do inglês “no more phone phobia”, que significa “medo de ficar sem telefone”. 1- Quem tem medo de ficar sem celular e por quê? 2- Quem fica mais tempo on line, o maior tempo de uso é para o trabalho ou lazer? Minha resposta: 1-O celular cria uma dependência física da pessoa estar sempre antenada com todos, fiquei uns dias sem o celular porque estava esperando chegar a bateria em minha cidade...descobri que posso diminuir bem o uso e estou cada dia selecionando mais o tempo de uso. 2- Tem dias que fico mais tempo, geralmente para cursos on line , até silencio o celular para não ouvir quando chegam as notificações e mensagens do zap.Já joguei bem ,hoje não tenho nem tempo de explorar os jogos já contidos no celular.
  15. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Achava que meu notebook era o mais antigo...2009 Samsung Infinity,tb me atende e tá lento...rs
  16. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Geralmente eu uso até quebrar. Mas há uma relação com meu PC do trabalho. Se o meu PC no trabalho quebra posso substituir ele por meu PC de casa e comprar um novo para mim. Mas no geral é até quebrar em um nível que não vale a pena consertar. O que é difícil, pois quando quebra só alguma peça é só trocar. Dificilmente dá perda total. Meu PC de hoje, por exemplo, é um PC de 2010 ainda e não tenho intenção de trocar nada nele tão cedo. Continua me atendendo bem, nesse meio tempo acho que só adicionei um HD e troquei a GPU que queimou. Processador já se mostra meio lento, mas estou na espera de que queime para trocar.
  17. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Geralmente tento doar a alguém que conserta para que aproveite as peças... Algumas poucas vezes jogo fora...quando está muito ruim...vou explicar... Aqui só tivemos Pcs seminovos de segunda da mão ou estilo Frankenstein ...produzido com peças de outros na zona franca do @Goris Manaus.
  18. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Arrumado! Agora vote.
  19. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Se tiver como editar, deixe aberto para mais de uma resposta. Normalmente eu guardo para doar para outras pessoas, ou guardo para sempre, ou jogo fora. Nisso, esse ano dei um zip drive mais uns 10 discos pra um amigo, um joystick tipo manche para outro e peças pra outro, mais outras que joguei fora. Estou com dois notebooks antigos que pararam de funcionar (usei até pararem) e já vi uma pecinha chinesa para transformar os dois monitores de notebook em TVs, que devo comprar no fim do ano. Já o resto da carcassa, vou doar mas se ninguém que conheço quiser, vou ter que jogar fora.
  20. O que vocês fazem com o PC velho?

    Bem povo... gostaria de saber o que vocês fazem com aquele hardware que fica obsoleto e talz!
  21. Homem-Formiga

  22. Homem-Formiga

    Realmente o filme é entre médio e bom. Também achei interessante. O vilão Jaqueta Amarela existe nos quadrinhos desde a década de 60: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaqueta_Amarela
  23. Homem-Formiga

    Finalmente eu vi! Gostei, achei entre mediano e bom. Michael Douglas estava ótimo no papel! Esse vilão existe nos quadrinhos? Eu achei que o ator estava bem acima do personagem... Esse careca apareceu em house of cards e mandou bem, não sei o nome do sujeito mas gosto dele. Nos quadrinho o hank também passa o manto pro scott lang? Não sabia disso, pra mim o ant man sempre foi o hank pynn
  24. Filmes da Semana

    Obrigado!
  25. Presidência 2018 e você

    Não se esqueça que o Lula elegeu um poste duas vezes...
  26. Earlier
  27. Filmes da Semana

    Você chegou a assistir o filme? Se sim, te mando spoiler sobre um detalhe ou outro. Mas no geral o que eu gostei do livro é que a história é mais inteligente. Teve algum ponto que até achei cansativo ler por conta do ritmo lendo em um capítulo ou outro, mas no geral achei o livro excelente, pois monta muito bem toda a trama e cada personagem tem uma personalidade forte. No filme é algo bem teen onde tudo é fácil e todo mundo é amigo de todo mundo, no livro é difícil até descobrir onde é o desafio e durante a maior parte da história cada um joga sozinho. Art3mis em especial é bem mais inteligente e independente no livro.
  28. Presidência 2018 e você

    Lula já saiu do páreo e não tem chance de voltar. Vai ter que ficar com o poste do Haddad mesmo.
  29. Presidência 2018 e você

    Espero que não! Lugar de vagabundo é na cadeia!
  1. Mais Resultados
×