Slashdot Mirror
Banning Arcades in Malaysia?
Amon CMB was the first of several to submit a story from The Adrenaline Vault where they talk about
arcades banned in Malaysia. The story is pretty scary, one of the reasons for the ban is that children were willing to steal from their parents to get cash for the games. Think about that next time you get worked up about the government censoring the amount of blood in a game. Seems kinda insignificant relative to some places.
Well, anonymous coward, that's cool as handle for now. It seems that alot of Americans are intent on making the rest of the world live like we do before we have finished our domination of the planet. Let us bide our time and our time will come...if we really want children worldwide to be able to put a dollar coin in a machine and splash gore on the walls, we'll let 'em. In fact, government will pay for it. Our tax dollars will put it in the schoolrooms. But no, that won't really happen, because it's not really right. Letting each family judge on their own as to what's right for their children does carry some legitamacy in the world...letting each community judge for itself what is right is a necessary and logical extension. I'm an American, and a proud one, but I am tired of other Americans telling the rest of the world how to eat their cereal. Preserving the basic human rights of other people in faraway places is cool, making them live as we do is not. That is the difference between helping, and ruling. Ultimately, what right do we have to require that another culture allow arcades that show gore to be available to young children? Since when did that become a basic human right, defended by Amnesty International? Grow up man, and travel... You and I don't think alike, and I would regret that it be considered a 'basic human right' that we do. So would you.
Why don't we have that kind of cards as well?
That way whenever some bible-thumping asshole comes to me complaining about my "sins" I could show him the card and tell him to piss off or I'll call the cops and have his ass thrown to jail.
Or better yet, we should wear some kind of a signia of our (lack of) religion on our clothes. That way they should steer clear without bothering us at all.
Think about that next time you get worked up about the government censoring the amount of blood in a game. Seems kinda insignificant relative to some places.
In America we can't compare our problems to other countries. Once we do that we start giving up rights.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Now that you're older perhaps you'd like to talk to this about them and perhaps work out some issues?
Or is that not allowed?
- Mike Hughes
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The government cannot "crack down on theaters" since there are no laws requiring theaters to abide by ratings. The ratings system is a completely voluntary thing (hence movies /rated/ "Unrated").
In general, however, the movie industry does a good job of making sure little kids without parents with them stay out of things such as Pulp Fiction. They actually probably do better than stores that sell cigarettes to minors (something that *is* against the law and actively enforced).
I am all in favor of places like Wal-Mart and K-Mart starting to enforce video game ratings. It makes it more likely that we will follow the movie model rather than the cigarette model (the farther the government stays out of ratings system the better - too close to censorship for me).
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Carefull you don't fall for your own government's propaganda.
The Syrians, the North Koreans and indeed the Cubans have a much greater respect for their own government than most people in the west have for their governments.
We never question why democracy is supposed to be the holy grail of governmental systems. It may be, but many "oppressed" countries are much happier with their government than you are with yours.
Many countries are oppressed but you nor I really can say which ones these are
Regards
Just for info.
I can only speak for the uk here but if someone gets shot with a gun here, it's on the evening news. I don't have any stats on this but I suspect deaths by firearms in the entire country of around 50 million amount to less than 10 or 20 a year.
LOL!
I hate to break it everyone, but when I was a kid, the town that I was in passed a law that kept kids under 16 from playing arcade games in without being accompanied by a guardian. The idea behind this was that parents were concered that some kids where skipping school and stealing to play video games. While I hates the law when I was a kid, I don't think that this is all that unconstitutional. Stupid and ineffective, yes but not unconstitutional.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
Secondly, I'd like to know what you mean by proposing that the Malaysian government be "brought to justice." Do you mean that the Malaysian people should rise up against their government? Fine, let them do so. If you mean that the United States of America should enter the situation and bring down a foreign power, I have to ask what kind of crack you're smoking.
Assuming that the people of Malaysia approve of their government, what right do we, the almighty United States of America, have to destroy it? Remember, sovereignty is an important right too. Just because a nation has the capability to impose their beliefs and culture on another doesn't make it right.
Very true. It's kind of funny to watch politicians with that dopey "Look ma, I done a good thing!" expression on their faces when they pass some big crime bill, only to realize that when you wake up tomorrow, the world will be exactly the same--except for a politician with a good feeling for having "done something for his country."
Then every government on earth must fall since there is no such thing as absolute consensus. This just doesn't work.
Furthermore, from what I have heard from Malaysians here on /., they approve of this action. Why? Because these so-called video arcades are more appropriately termed "illegal gambling dens." These are not the nice safe places you went to as a kid.
I support the destruction of their government unconditionally. The Malaysian people will rise or they will be crushed, just like the Russian people. At the very least, I don't want to have to look back on a decimated Malaysia and think "But my opinions of what is right and wrong are no better than anyone else's, so I had no right to try to fix what I thought to be wrong."
That's not what this is about. I am a firm believer in absolute truth. However, I have seen no evidence that the people of Malaysia are upset about this action. They seem to be happy about it. Remember that during the Cold War, citizens of the Soviet Union were told how horribly our government treated us and how much we desired to be liberated from our hard bondage (capitalism). Are you sad that they didn't succeed?
The people know best, and I will fight for them.
Is it not possible that they don't always know best? I wouldn't trust most of our population with making important decisions about public policy because they either have poor judgement or, more commonly, they aren't informed well enough about the details of the issues to make good decisions. This is why we use a republic rather than a democracy.
I'm looking in the Constitution and...nope. Isn't in there.
a right to look at art?
Scanning the Constitution again and...hmmm. That isn't in there either.
I think most people believe that its your right to do something that dosen't harm other people
Two points:
It doesn't amount to a hill of beans what "most people believe." What matters is what the law says.
Getting back to the original story, this is not about an activity that "doesn't harm other people." This is not the same video arcade you went to 20 years ago in the US where people are playing Pong or Pac-Man. Think of it more as a mafia-run gambling dive where killings and drug sales take place.
You've missed his point. It was largely because of his poor choice of wording and example (minority in the political sense elided into Minority in the racial sense).
What he's really talking about here is that the people of a democracy have the right to vote against something they disapprove of (in this case, illegal gambling dens). If a minority of the population of the country (not a Minority with a capital "M") like that thing (again, in this case, illegal gambling dens) then they have to put up with not having these places to go to. That's the reason democracies are often referred to as "mob rule."
Huh? From here on in you stop making sense entirely.
Again, he's talking about American arrogance. He's saying that if the Malaysian people want to ban gambling dens, then they can do that. We, the US of A, have no right to stop them.
BTW, I applaud your understanding of popular government.
Available here
To be taken with a grain of salt as it does come from a Malaysian press.
I may have been misinformed. A friend of mine went over there to work and made sure the color faded out of his hair before he arrived, so he was seriously worried about this supposed regulation. On hearing reports back from him about the good and bad features of Singapore, this kind of arbitrary interference in things that should not be the province of government seems to be commonplace. So while this one may be a furphy, it seems to be the kind of thing that they *would* do.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Don't you DARE lump us Atheists in with those other groups!
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."
Now what's wrong with that? (it's from the opening speeches of Murray v. Curlett, more info from http://www.atheists.org).
Say what you like about merkins, god botherers and ditherers, but us Atheists are nice normal people who want everyone to play nice.
--
Peter
Atheism is not about proving that God exists or not.
It's about believing that it doesn't matter.
Personally, it makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to me whether your God exists or not. Understand this, and you understand Atheism.
I answer to no higher authority than my fellow man.
If you are so weak and feeble-minded that you need threats of hellfire (in the next life) and fundamentalist religious government (in this one) to keep you on the path of righteousness, then I truly feel for you.
--
Peter
"In the end all Atheist beleive in a infinite power whether they liek to admit or not."
Nope. Sorry. I don't believe in an infinite power. Did you miss that part? Here it is again:
I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS OR OMNIPOTENT/OMNIPRESENT/OMNISCIENT ENTITY WHATSOEVER.
I don't claim to know what happens after death (actually, I do - nothing).
Do you REALLY think I'm somehow "apprehensive" on the off chance that some kinda Supreme Dude is gonna get pissed at me for not having given generously of my purse and my soul for three score years and ten?
I think not, sir. I'm gonna strive to make my heaven on earth; to treat my fellow man as I would have him treat me; to recognise the intrinsic value in every human life; and to just be a damn good bloke as far as is possible.
--
Peter
Its only real advantage is that it's easy to let someone out if it turns out they didn't do the crime - it's kinda harder to unwhip or unkill
Yeah, but you can't give them the ten years of their life back.
In Islam the parents are held responsible for the care and education of their children more so than in Christianity or Judaism.
You don't know much about Christianity, correct?
I would say that if there were a Christian government in America they would probably go around banning things just like this.
As usual, Slashdot has applied its typically American/Christian/Agnostic/Atheist mentality to the affairs of another country.
The Christian and "Agnostic/Atheist" mentalities have almost nothing in common.
Of course it's the "best" country in the world.
If you can, try to learn about your country's real history. Learn about what your forebears have done to countries in Central America and South America to say the least.
People are usually shocked to know about conspirations developed directly by agencies like the CIA and think these were very isolated occurrences. They weren't.
Your country is democratic only in paper. Proof is everywhere if you care to look.
Don't take this as a flame. Take it as the truth.
Flavio
Well, thanks for playing but: firstly, South America is not a country and lastly, there are no (to my knowledge) countries in it that have capital punishment in their civil codes, except for treason in times of war. Perhaps you meant South Africa?
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
It is somehow annoying to yet again meet Americans who're all convinced of facts such as the above. Amnesty works to end all violations of the human rigths. If you think this is "in other countries" only, I suggest you go visit Amnesty's website and have a look for yourself.
It's true that the US isn't by far the worst country with respect to human rigths, but it's very far from the best too. Which two countries has not ratified the UN convention on childrens rigths ? Answer: Sudan and USA.
In particular the death penalty thing is stupifying to an European. Over there it's even used for getting cheap votes. Had a look at the statistics for number of executed after Bush decided he wanted to be elected ? If not I suggest you go have a look.
Regardless of your opinion on death penalty, I can't imagine you find it okay to execute a lot of people as fast as possible for gaining a few votes...
I think there SHOULD be certain rights based on IQ level... the right to drive, the right to own a gun, the right to have children...
See, it's true... Children who are abused become child abusers. How would you like it if someone 3x your size slapped you around because they didn't like what you were doing?
haha... i used to do that too... collection time would come around for my paper route and i'd head to the bank and get a roll of quarters, then head to 7-11 and drop them in the gauntlet 2 machine.
> THey are all free to leave the country.
Actually, no they're not. I travelled through Singappore (from Australia) on my way here, and all the Singapporean guys I met on a dive trip there were so jealous of what I was doing.
Because of their compulsory national service, they can't leave the country for more than 3 months at a time!
Don't kid yourself about Singappore being a "clean city" either. Wander around "Little India". It's as shabby, run-down, foetid and *interesting* as any other South-East Asian city. Plenty of prostitues, brothels and dodgy guys selling pirate hard-core porno VCDs in back alleys.
Cheers, Robert.
Frankly, what I hear about Singapore reminds me of Genua under the rule of Lilith Weatherwax. The whole populace was joyful and merry the livelong day... OR ELSE.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Odd, the same thing could be said for Europe or Canada, yet they offer considerably more freedom than Singapore.
Could it be that this be the result of guns alone being banned???
Well, you can see what good a gun ban did in Washington DC, or New York City. (irony intentional)
I'd suggest that Singapore's domestic tranquility is a combination of good law enforcement, an efficient judicial system, and a societal more that holds the law in far more respect than is typical in, say, your generic American city or suburb. But don't see what a lack of guns has to do with it: a knife, bludgeon, or even a fist can hurt you just as much, or kill you just as dead. . .
Nope. Dead wrong. Surivial chance from a bullet hitting you? 25% Survival chance from being stabbed? Around 85%. Average number of stab wounds to prove fatal? 40. Average number of bullets to prove fatal? 1.
Depends on what was done. You're not going to die of a bullet through the arm, but get your throat sliced, and you're gone in under a minute.
Details are important. After all, on the average, we're all female and Chinese. . .
Do try and read the thread first, next time. . .
restriction of individual rights and liberties, ...
You mean like the CDA and COPA ???
use by police of excessive force in dispersing peaceful demonstrators, ...
Recall Seattle, Washington, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, earlier this year ???
allows detention without charge for up to two years, renewable indefinitely, of anyone considered a potential threat to national security.
We do it here in the States too, if they're foreign nationals. . .
At least 27 prisoners of conscience were detained, ...
We seem to have bunches of those here, too.... I remember a story about a divorce custody case gone bad, the mother hid the child. . .and did several years in jail (basic details here )
My point ?? The US does the same stuff. . .
By your definition, I have the right to paint swastikas on the wall and doors of the local synagogue (yes, I know, we're pushing Godwin's Law here. . .). But I'm quite sure that if I did it, I'd be prosecuted, and rightly so. Why ??? Trespass is not, as you would say, "coercively harmful", and as for the swastikas, hey, that's just freedom of expression. Or to use a more classic example, the right to free speech does NOT extend to the right to shout "fire" in a crowded venue. . .
Rights ***DO*** have to be laid out and delineated as to how far they go. . .
And how about the ban on Half-life a while back. It was said that a parent who was an MOE (ministry of education) official complained to a LAN shop onwer that blamed the shop his son was playing too
[snip]
School teachers have to deal with spoilt parents as well as trouble kids. I spent sometime in primary schools servicing computers and was rather amused by the childish arguments put up by parents to 'protect' their kids.
The half-life ban was definately silly. I'm glad they managed to reverse the ban.
Arcades were banned in the 80s in Singapore too.
The ban was lifted in early 90s.
You won't lose your car, you would just have to pay the fine of about US$15. Else they just tow your car away, and then you will have to pay a heavier fine.
I don't think there is such a ban on colouring hair "unaturally". If you were to walk around the main streets of Singapore or visits the pub, you will see some blue, green or red coloured hair.
Just read on CNN that one of the arcade centers in US is restricting access some games to mature audiences only.
As a famous comedian once said, don't ban the guns. Just make the bullets very very expensive. People will think twice who they want to shot next.
"Being able to play video games is a privilege, not a right." That's crap. Rights are not delineated, not things that have to be written down and voted on before they exist. Any exercise of free will that is not coercively harmful to others is everyone's inaliable right, including the manufacture and use of video games.
---- "When I grow up, I'll know far less"
The ban is focused on battling gambling and addiction, but includes legal non-gambling game arcades? What a load of crap. Everywhere else has managed to put restrictions on gambling without having to close down video game arcades.
Some children are willing to steal from their parents? Well that is the parents responsibility to disipline their child properly.
This may even have a subtle effect on their economy. Hey, an arcade is a tax-paying business, isn't it?
I don't give a damn about the arcade owners! It is the users I am concerned about. In the past I have spent a great deal of time in arcades, and loved every minute of it. The government does not control us... its our life... they shouldn't be able to tell us that we can't do something we enjoy without a very, very good reason.
LOL. Good point. I don't really like conspiracy theories though. :)
You Sir are a socialist loving crackpot. I am tired of the citizens of this country begging for more government intervention. This country was founded on the idea that it should be ruled by the people. Federal government is supposed to be small and non intrusive. If you like their laws so much why don't you just go and live there, because I sure don't want people like you in this country. I on the other hand want to live in a country where if I see something I don't like, I can make a change at the local level. I don't want big government comming in and forcing something on me that might not be appropriate. It amazes me that people like you love this sort of government control, yet you bitch when the governemt monitors us, federal courts makes ruling in favor or the RIAA, and patents are allowed for one click shopping. I'm tired of people like you causing our country to slide toward socializm. I'm not the only one tired of it, other people are starting it fight back. Its about freedom baby! Yeah!
Yet another idiot totally clueless about the concept of democracy. Here's a quick little lesson.
You are the idiot, have you even read any of the documents written by the founders of this country? It might be good to start with The Constitution.
i) Democracies are ruled by the people
Yes, I belive that is was I stated earlier.
ii) The US has 300 million people. If each person opens their mouth to yap then we get perfect anarchy.
Wow, that would be terrible if everyone had freedom of speech now wouldn't it. That is what you would like to believe at least.
iii) If 100 people, or 1000 people, or some such reasonable amount of people open their mouths to yap then actual work
can get done.
Well that is questionable, look at congress, the only thing they ever get done is giving themselves pay increases and shredding The Constitution.
iv) Therefore 300 million people voluntarily surrender their rights to speak by allowing an elected official to speak for them.
That is how it was started, that was the way it had to be done 200 years ago. But with the technology we have now, that could be a different story.
v) If the elected officials doesn't do what you like then TOUGH FUCKING LUCK. Go vote again.
Wow, it amazes me the number of people like you that think this is acceptable. You vote for someone, they claim they stand for certain things, they fold under pressure or money and the you say, oh I guess I'll vote for someone else next time. Meanwhile peoples rights are being taken away.
And I've got news for you, once a right has been taken away, there is very little chance of getting it back. It doesn't matter if you vote in someone new next time, the right that you once had is already gone.
And one more little educational tidbit:
i) The US has 300 million people. Fact is that requires a pretty big central government to look after. Sure you might want
everything to be centralized locally, but wouldn't that destroy the concept of the nation.
First of all, you arrogant attitude is typical of a socialist, whose way of thinking is, "we will do what is best for the people, they don't need to make their own decisions". You are the one that needs the education about democracy. You have confused the U.S. implementaion of democracy with the way democracy should be. The version of democracy that the U.S. has, is being perverted over time and is breaking down.
Warning, socialists like to try to camoflouge themselves by saying they want a true democracy and want what is best for people, the truth really is they are powermogers and what to control you and me!
Have to agree about the arcades though, scary scary places...
~ppppppppö
So I was a 10 year old lad when Arcades were available in the tiny Hamlett of Yeovil, Somerset in the UK. I had made a friend there who seemed to have no trouble in having access to cash to drop into those machines.
Later that evening my parents sit me down and start asking me about where I was getting cash to play video games. Turns out the 'Friend' had used his own money from his savings then blamed it on theft by me. His parents had contacted mine and despite all the protestations and declarations of innocence on my part well my parents did not believe me and beat and punished me anyway.
take a moment here: As a 10 year old boy who had not stolen or done anything wrong this was pretty drucking framatic. I sat in my room the turmoil and suffering so intense at the injustice of it all. [cue Jon Katz suggesting its a good thing we dont have guns in the UK].
Later that evening the boy cracked and admitted to his parents that he had stolen his own money and spent it at the arcade.
MY parents of course did not discover this for 24hrs and so.... Well you can imaging the hell I went through.
Whats worse is I cant ever remeber my parents apologising. I can remember being told this was why Video games were so bad and arcades should not be visited.
Funny really how Parents seem to forget their own culpabilities in being responsible for their children in the face of external preasures and influences.
If the children are stealing from their parents punish the guilty children . Not those whose responsible actions should allow them the pleasures and luxuries of life.
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
I think the reason the us will do that is such laws don't seem fair. I don't think somebody should be fined $1000 for forgetting to flush the toilet -- chewed out perhaps, but not fined. Similarly with spitting on the sidewhat, such behavior should be socially unaceptable not legally. Punishment should fit the crime.
There are more ways to regulate behavior than simply making something illegal. You can try to get the behavior to be culturally unacceptable for example, or attempt to reduce the ill effects
of the behavior through other means. For example, in the Netherlands they had problems with people pissing in the streets. Their solution? Install public urinals on the sidewalk.
Indianapolis recently passed a law which restricts children to video games (Slashdot archived here). Local governments seem to have too much power and can get away with much on a local level (and in cases like this, getting an unconstitutional ordinance voted through). Even if this were to be challenged, the legal system's wheels turn slowly.
Local government ordinances, which are passed or voted in in which the legality is questionable, should be able to be petitioned by citizens for an appeals court in such a case. In a nutshell, this whole radical religious censorship crusade makes me sick.
- Slash
I spent some time studying in Mexico a few years ago. One day I was killing time in an arcade, and a kid who was probably about 5 came up and started playing me.
After I let him win, I realized that he was one of the little guys selling chiclets on the street sidewalk, and that the price of his chiclets == the price of the game. I doubt that the money he was spending was really his to spend.
My point is that this kid was so hooked on this stupid video game, that he was playing with what was probably his families food money.
This makes the news?
What do you expect from a Malaysian government that's basically a dictatorship headed Dr Mahathir and his cronies.
Corruption is rampant, conflicts of interest, multimillion dollar government contracts awarded to family/friends companies without question. Family companies are bailed out under strict instruction from the finance ministry.
Recently Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was the victim of a smear campaign and later jailed on fabricated charges of sodomy, as a direct result of challenging Dr Mahathir and his cronies over corruption. Anwar's closest family and friends were beaten by the secret police till they would testify that they were sodomized by Anwar in court.
It's hard to imagine this is the same country they all lead us to think.
So before we start ranting about closing a few dodgy arcades lets get things in perspective.
For those that would like more info can read a Synopsis and a letter from Anwar himself at
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/2000/ep14-10.htm
Rob
Area51 - We are watching...
well, if they ban the sale of it, its gonna be pretty damn hard for me to get it in the first place, to play in my own home
My comment was specifically meant to take what Rob said in his posting of the story to another level. In other words, I realize that US freedoms are a hell of a lot more free than a lot of other places, but just because other people aren't doing as good doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to maintain our own current level of freedom.
I totally agree with you, I personally would rather just give up the +2 altogether, than accidentally forget to check that box and get flamed for it. I read slashdot to try to have insightful conversations about issues that concern me, not to whore karma.
:)
And yeah, oops, its a +1. I'm a physicist, we don't know how to do simple arithmetic
I couldn't agree with you more. The whole hippie "time-out" crap that permeates our modern PC (thats politically correct, for everyone who's in a computer-only at work mindset) media. I for one, got the crap beat out of me when I was a kid. My dad had an unlocked gun cabinet full of different rifles and pistols, and I wouldn't THINK of touching that thing. I knew I'd get slapped into next tuesday. If and when I have kids, I fully plan on punishing them properly, and if someone comes to my house and tells me I cant, I'll give them the slap their parents SHOULD have given them many years ago.
Oh, P.S. I am not some old-timer lamenting about the good old days. I am 21 years old, and grew up seeing most of my friends whose parents were already getting of the "beating your children is bad" mentality. Unlike most I grew up with, I had a healthy respect for authority. Still do. To this day, I feel uncomfortable swearing or drinking in front of my father. Not because I am afraid of him, but because I respect him, and in a way, I am trying to impress him, by being a good son to him.
Just because its not state or federal doesnt mean I can't get fucked over by it. I saw a lot of discussion about this at the Philadelphia Mayoral debates (an event I Tech'ed for), and I did not like what I heard.
With me, the DVD issue is not a quality one, but a sound one. I LIVE for 5.1 channel surround. MMMMM Klipsch Infinity surrounds....
Anyways, there are still a few of us who believe in paying for a good movie if we want it. I for one might copy a movie I'm not all that fond of, but for a good quality action movie, I'd gladly pay for the DVD for the extra featuers, like AC-3 sound
Make sure you send them VHS Though... the Region Encoding will kill ya otherwise.
"beating the crap out of" was probably a bad word choice. My mom would spank me good and hard, but never really "beat the crap out of" me. I only ever got slapped in the face a few times, and those were times when I was really really bad. I never got "the belt" even tho the constant threat was there. I knew better than to screw up so bad that it came to that. It was more often than no a good slap on the ass every now and then that made me unable to sit for a little while and made me take a good hard thikin about how what I did was wrong. Like I said before, I appreciate greatly my parents doing that for me, because I could honestly see myself growing up to be a good for nothing troublemaker, instead of a contributing member of society.
I apologize if my post made it seem as if I believed the US was infallible. I believe that is far from the truth. I was under the impression that Amnesty focusted more on political prisoners and the like, as opposed to domsetic problems. If I am mistaken in this assumption, I apologize. My post was in no way meant to say the US is better than everyone, but rather to say that even though the US is better than many on human rights issues, this is no reason to allow the taking away of rights just because, as other posters have echoed "well at least we aren't as bad as them"
Totally OT, but I apologize for wasting the +2 bonus on that post, I just passed the karma threshold to get it and didn't realize I had it.
I am sorry, but I believe you read my post out of context. My post was a clarification of an earlier post I made, after a reply was made to it pointing some things out. All the points you made pretty much disappear when you realize what I was talking about in my original post.
Typical.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
But I had fun telling my wife when she saw a big picture of Austin on the cover of some TV magazine. She asked, "Who's that?" (This was before she saw any of the movie.) I said, "He's a famous sex symbol in the United States, women love him and men want to be him." :)
As she saw images of Austin everywhere it became much easier to convince her of this...
Seeing the movie hasn't changed it, most of the jokes went right over her head, and she didn't even watch the whole thing.
Understand though, my wife's idea of what an attractive man looks like skews away from the American norm by quite a bit. She doesn't get the whole grunge look... so it was plausible to her. Nice short hair (on a man), clean shaven and neat, well kept clothing are her idea of nice looking style. Basically, a "square" look that would fit in with the 1950's. Most of our popular American rock groups do not dress like this, though...
Besides, Mr. Powers sort of is a sex symbol, yes? He certainly sees a lot of "action."
Sigh... I love my wife...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I know I'll loose karma for this, but I must say it:
You need to be shot. At point blank range. Multiple times. In the head. With an elephant gun.
People like you are the reason the country is so fubared. Are you too brain-damaged to realize that this simply fosters aggresion and loathing?
Oh, and a "healthy" "respect" for authority isn't always the best thing for someone either. Go ahead, be a good little drone.
Wee, here we go, another iteration of the same.
:)
"Kids these days, have no resepct and it's because of (rock&roll, drugs, lack of parental supervision, video games, D&D, TV)."
How often have you heard it? You think it's new with your generation (and I don't care what generation you are, I'm sure Fred Flinstone muttered it at some point. First falicy: You may have had the perfect upbringing, your parents were strong but firm, etc.
But:
a) When my father disiplined us... well let's say that dad got hauled away by the cops one night when he met them at the door with a 12" kitchen knife that he had been chasing mom around the house with.
So we see that not all people are capible of handling the intense responsibility of administering corpal punishment. If they recognize this and choose not to they should be congradulated not shamed for it.
b) Not all children are the same. Myself I was hyper sensitive. A light talking to was all that was required to set me back on the straight and narrow. Mom realized this and got much better reactions then my father who just aleniated me.
Again, parents who realize the sort of children they have and how to deal with them are to be comended.
c) We all have a tendancy to see our own pasts with rose colored shades. I remember a particular 5 yr old who would stand out on a corner and tell everyone to F-off, and tried to run people down on his bike. This would be a generation ago now. Therfore this is not a problem confined to the current generation. To be clear, I grew up in an upper-middle-class area, doctors, lawyers, teachers that sort of job.
Just to try and bring a bit of perspective.
The world's not going to hell in a handbasket, we're just becoming our parents
----
Remove the rocks from my head to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
To make matters worse, the United States, especially in Texas, has a death penalty that is cruel, harsh, and unjust. A federal judge has stated that the quality of the public defender system in Texas is criminal. The UN has given the United States a slap on the wrist for cruel restraits and/or torture.
The United States is also one of the six countries to execute people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. The other five countries are Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Saudia Arabia. This is against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (IOCCPR), a violation of international law. Gary Graham was a recent case of this, in which a man who was 17 at the time of the alleged crime (in which there is reasonable doubt, mind you) was executed this past summer.
12 of the 17 child offenders put to death after 1993 were executed in the good 'ol USA.
AI is tough on the United States, because we're one of the worst offenders of international law and human rights with regards to the death penalty, and other countries look up to us. It's quite fair, I'm afraid.
-bugg
Yes, that was a mistype. I'm surprised I didn't see that in the preview. *sigh*
-bugg
I wholeheartedly agree with you - Malaysia is certainly nowhere near a democratic country. For those Slashdotters who'd like an education on thus, hunt for the name `Anwar Ibrahim' on Google. Amnesty Interantional got better fish to fry in Malaysia than video games.
> Anything racist is banned
Sort of - it really depends on who you're being racist against. If your target is Malaysia large population of Malay-Chinese [which the government treats as badly as Japan treats Japanese Koreans], then you'll be fine.
And companies like Intel and Dell support the government of this country nevertheless. And if you've got the money, they can bend afew of the above rules if you're willing to invest in the failed Multimedia Super Corridor project.
Oh, and Datuk Seri Mahathir bin Mohamad [the prime minister] pushes against any sort of trade agreements between Asian nations and Australia simply because `their faces aren't asian'. Either continue this childish view but realize that a Malay face also doesn't look like a Chinese face, or grow up and look on goddamned atlas and look where Australia is.
> Muslims also don't believe in interest charges on loans, iirc.
I presume they would logically extrapolate this concept to banks as well. Do they?
> Anything racist is banned
Oops. I forgot to mention the `International Jewish Conspiracy' that Mahatir blamed for the recent down turn in the Malaysian economy. Can't find a link - use google if you'd like, I'd suggest `Mahatir' and `Jewish' as your keywords.
Perhaps you don't fully understand what rights are. Your statement that they can be taken away is proof of that. I wouldn't use the arguement that it is a pretty normal mindset. So what? Most people are too stupid or short sighted to understand the ramifications of thier actions. To quote something my mom said to me growing up 'If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?' The right to free speech, to worship as you please, to a buy video game, are just a small piece of a whole. What it boils down to is that you have the right to do whatever you please, so long as you do not interfere with another. Unrealistic? Doubtful. More likely too lazy, selfish, or beaten.
As i said...why should i have additional burdens placed on me b/c other parents are being lazy?
I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this, but that's not the same thing. Certain drugs can cause immediate mental breakdown, and cause a danger to others. There is a case to made that certain drugs should be illegal.
Well, one might argue that if i own a gun, i could go and kill someone with it. Does that mean i should lose that right? B/c of a possiblity? Instead of taking away the gun, it would make more sense to punish me for shooting someone with it. So i think the same would apply to the drugs. The mental break downs you talk of usually don't lead to the one thats 'high' attacking someone else; as far as i know it usually ends up with that person dying.
Reference? As far as I know, that is not illegal, unless you're using them to spy on others (like, recording movies of having sex with someone, and then selling the movie).
Citizens are not allow to own anything that could be used for survallence. This topic also came up in a privacy and security class i took last year. The professor is known for doing alot of research for his class, and it came up in a discussion of workplace monitoring. What was pefectly legal, and almost required was that employers monitor thier employees, and may use hidden cameras etc. I asked if it was legal to do that at home b/c i had a suspection about it, and he said it was not. My father looked into this b/c he wants to mount a camera outside our house (to catch whoever keep smashing our mailbox). He was told that would be ok, but that he could not monitor inside his house. I don't know the reasoning behind any of it, except that it probably has to do with the law prohibiting citizens from owning hidden cameras and the like.
Well, first of all, that's not at the state or federal level, as I specified. Yes, there are going to be wacky local laws, but 1) they are not enforced, and 2) if they were, they would be struck down by higher courts.
Well, i guess i missed where you specified that. But my point holds, it just effects a smaller number of people. I'm not so sure it would be struck down either, if local decensy laws are strict enough. The supreme court gave that authority to the local gov'ts. If pictures of a certain act are illegal, i doubt doing it would be.
Well perhaps those people shouldn't have kids then. If they can't take the responsibility to do what a parent should, they shouldn't be one. Part of the responsibility is knowing where your kid is and what they are doing. You seem to be the ninny. It IS about lazy parents. I know you can't be w/them 100% of the time, but what disgusts me is the other things i see parents doing (or more correctly, not). They come home and sit thier kids down in front of the tv, or the radio, or video games, or a computer, so the kids can be out of their hair. Society as a whole has decided we will raise citizens of high moral standards? What fucking dream world are you living in? You defend what parents are doing now, saying you want high morals, yet the morals of this country have been declining for decades. The morals of the generation above me seems to be 'anything to make a buck.' I pray to god that my kids don't inherit the 'morals' of this society. This society is twisted and sick.
What in that view prevents cooperation? Who said it was an ego trip? You seem to think that b/c everyone has the right to do as they please, that they cannot work together or help one another. The statement is hardly an ego trip; in fact it orders that you be considerate of others. Everything i do does not interfere with someone else. Did my choice to eat pizza last night interfere at all with anything you wanted to do? Do you think it stopped anyone else from doing what they want? Did my choice to relax yesterday keep anyone from doing what they want?
Doesn't matter what the constitution said. Rights are not granted by a piece of paper. That document does try to point out and leave no doubt about some of the most important ones, but with or without the constition, people have rights. You are sighting legal precedents for some gross violation of rights. You might as well argue that we should still have slavery. There is, after all, legal precedent. In the constition it said slavery was allowed, and it was upheld for quite a while if i recall. Obviously the supreme court erred on that, and other things. First amendment rights are supposed to be guarantees. Thats why they were deemed important enough to be very specific and clear about. What are they otherwise, suggestions? Please don't say that something was upheld in court means that it is right. I can think of countless things upheld by law that are just plain wrong. I hope you realize that something things transend the law, rights being one of them.
Ah, i got the impression you were trying to defend that thinking. I do have to agree with you; its the best we have, for now. I knew about what happened in WW2...i find it ironic that we always blast Germany for having done what it did, yet we were along the same path, and you never hear about it(usually).
The point of that last like, imho, is that we should realize that government saying you have to be 18 or older to buy a game is a much more reasonable thing than alot of people think.
No, i don't think thats reasonable at all. Basically you're saying kids don't have any (or very little) rights. Rights are supposed to be something that cannot be taken away, no matter what. If you start saying you can take away rights from groups of people b/c of certain requirements, you get into a very scary mindset. Should rights only be had by people of certain age, or how about certain IQ. A certain skin color? A certain income? I think most people would agree that the last 3 would be considered discimination. why then is age an ok category? Just because someone is stupid, or is not wise, or does not have experience does not mean we can use that to take away their rights. they need to be educated yes, but placing restrictions on their rights is not a good idea.
And why should they? What if i don't care that my kid buys an M rated game? What if its ok to me that my kid seens an R rated movie? Shouldn't that be my choice? Why should i be inconvienced b/c of a few lazy parents that want the gov't to raise thier kids? Its the parents responsibility to watch what their kids are doing, not the theaters.
Banning stuff in your own home never has and never will be a serious threat in the USA.
The number of laws forbidding what you can and cannot do in your own home is mind boggling. You cannot take certain drugs, you cannot install hidden cameras (as a security system), viewing certain material is not allowed, and in some places certain activities with your spouce are not legal. Do a little research, its amazing what you aren't allowed to do in your own home.
Why ban gambling? If some idiot wants to throw away his money like that, let him!
nah, tape's hardly ever used anymore here in Malaysia. VCDs are the bootleg material of choice, though I wouldn't say no to a DVD copy. Skip the 'few thousand' copies - d'you want to just send me one? I promise to be suitably influenced by the subtle analogies... :-)
"Maybe there is there some kind weirdo fringe group behind it."
there is - we call them politicians. And yes, we have drug problems, and loony fringes who occasionally stock up on guns, but you must realise that video game arcades are a much more attractive problem for the politicians because they're *easy to deal with*. Much harder to take on the drug lords or loonies who are willing to die for their beliefs.
It's like a kindergarden playground - it's always the little kid who gets picked on, not the big beefy hulker with the scowl. That's how small-minded bullies (who grow up to be politicians) operate...
y'want genuine Made-in-Malaysia religion cards? No problem - just let me stock up on ink carts for the bubblejet, and you can have them in any colour you like - say $2.99 apiece? Lamination two bucks extra... :-)
They cite addiction and gambling as reasons to ban?
/. periodically, most of my vices are irregular... but I am fortunate. I have no "addiction".
An acquaintance is now an avid golfer, after spending his life as an alcoholic, and becoming a gambler soon thereafter. Some people need an addiction, some addictions are more socially acceptable than others.
Should addictive pastimes be banned? I don't smoke, I drink to moderation, I
Should my acquaintance be banned from golf courses? Should golf courses be banned totally?
The answer is found in treating addictions, not in removing the drug.
- "Politics is like a drug. It is highly addictive, and frequently hallucinogenic"
- Kevin Myers, the Irish times (slightly paraphrased due to bad memory)
--
We may be human, but we're still animals.
Still, you this doesn't completely make sense. Gambling establisments in the same location as video games are causing our children to steal money to gamble more. Therefore we should ban video games? Methinks not.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
This thing is about gambling. Mabye you could try reading the whole article next time before making an un-informed post in an attempt to get karma. They're shutting down arcades because gambling in them is becoming a problem, not so much the video games.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
hmm...
try looking up some stuff on Joseph Lieberman...
I really doubt this is very high on Amnestys list of things that needs to be freed in Malaysia.
Yeah, I also read it as "Well, we still have a relatively large ammount of freedom, so why fight?" also...
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
It's age discrimination. If I had kids, they should be able to watch whatever movies they want, without me coming along. If they aren't mature enough for Pulp Fiction, they aren't mature enough to walking around upsupervised anyway.
Explain how playing video games is a "privledge?" ... videgames = art + computation ... do you have a right to compute things? a right to look at art? I think most people believe that its your right to do something that dosen't harm other people ...
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Maybe I should have rephrased that, would you LIKE a right to compute? The constitution has been expanded 1000's of times, I point you towards the "right to privacy" which is mentioned no where in the constitution, but is a right nonetheless. At this point, I think you're being purposefully obtuse, so I will respond no further.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
i happen to live and malaysia ..
..
.. must have
and i think you all happen to have got the
wrong idea
what is illegal here is gambling.. not video games..
i think whoever the journalist was
freaked out by the picture of hundreds of
gaming machines being crunched..
they were actually gambling machines..
video games are still legal here.. there are
lots of famous places where u can actually go
and play street fighter, tekken 3, etc. etc.
hope this clears the mess..
- Certain drugs can cause immediate mental breakdown, and cause a danger to others. There is a case to made that certain drugs should be illegal.
Perhaps, but such drugs are a small subset of the drugs that are actually illegal.- Well, first of all, that's not at the state or federal level, as I specified.
http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.htmlLast time I went into an arcade, you ate dots and blue ghosts, jumped over barrels, zapped space bugs, and blew up asteroids.
Then again, the last arcade I went into was in my house, which houses 13 machines from the early 80's... >8-)
Just because a minority disagree, does not mean that they are having their basic human rights taken away from them. If that were the case, the Klan would be able to argue it's their basic human right to set fire to black people
/. context.
Um, I think not. As long as we're talking about America here (and only because these rights are explicity stated in our Constitution. I, and many others would argue that the rights below are the basis for any civilized government), black people, like all citizens have a right to life that cannot be infringed.
I would have the right to steal Dr. Pepper from the store whenever I couldn't afford it, and the legal system would just fall to pieces.
Wrong again, people have a right to property. If you steal you go to jail. End of story.
Perhaps something I've never really noticed about American xenophobia before, and it's only just clicked for me in the
Huh? From here on in you stop making sense entirely.
I bet this doesn't get touched by the moderators, or if it does it will be negative.
Perhaps, but I don't believe in moderating ignorance.
I'm Malaysian muslim & surely i wont say "I'm not muslim" just to play games at arcade which i have to pay something. I agree when they want to ban ONLY gambling base games at the "video games center". but i maybe disagree if they ban other non gambling games such as daytona etc.. Anyway if the ban really happened, it does not cover QuakeIII Arena for computer. Lets play Quake!!!!!!!!! kabooommmmm!!!! p/s: Paklah masuk Slashdot woooooo
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
I'm happy Malaysia become slashdot headline too :)
much better then prouding "dato Azhar mansor aka. perabih_beras" travel arround the world using lotsa money.
Anwar In Sungai Buluh must be happy :-)
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Malaysia Ban Arcade games... ....
:)
But in some case Malaysia did not ban Gambling
hmmm
<p>
Anyway , as a Malaysian, I'm sad when almost all #linux at irc network ban *.my except linuxnet
<p>
Anybody can explain?
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
NO!
Paklah ban the whole archade game not only the
ilegal one.
but you must understand, Law is Law, democracy is democracy,
In Islam, Archade games is not illegal unless it consume lots of like until 'melekakan' , leave 5 time prayer.
There's nothing wrong if the poeple with it own
money to play racing games, after tired working
withour gambling, once a week.
Anyway, if people want to gamble, even to determine who win in Sepang F1 can be gambled.
Now, the most important is to educate people not to gamble, but not to ban everything can be gambled.
if they try to ban anything can be gambled, why dont ban Malaysia Cup too??
sekian.
Dua 3 Kucing Berlari.
...sambung
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
When they took video games, I didn't say anyth...oh hell. Forget it.
Yes, your argument is true, that compared to what right now is going in Burma or Indonesia is nothing compared to what's going in Malaysia. Sure, Malaysia even has an elected government. But elections can be rigged. Also, people just love demagogues and will vote for them, even if they are destined to become dictators. I can already imagine a 60 year old Asian men in a black business suit talking about a mother with 15 children who can't buy herself new shoes because her son stole money from her to play at an arcade? And guess what people will buy that. I can give you tons of example of true dictators who enjoy(or at least did enjoy) popular support and were populary elected. Fujimori, Lukashenka and Milosevic to name a few, but that is far from all. And remember that Malaysia is not in Western europe. Their potential electorate considers such ideas correct, since they fit their Confucian ideology, which defends trade offs of liberty for the sake of order.
And about the "not in your country thing", that is partially true but the internet is not confined to "your country". If you defend freedom of speech on the internet, you should look beyond. Just go and check how many linux user group malaysia has and how many active linux users. I bet that there's quite a large amount, and they too read slashdot, post comments and make jokes about moderates :-)
Sounds like a pretty normal mindset to me. I honestly think you have a unrealistic (but common young american) view of rights. Almost all "rights" can and are taken away for various reasons. The right to move as we please is taken away for any number of crimes, the right to free speech is circumscribed in many ways and always has been. (when free speechers are reminded of one of those that they accept, they generally claim that it is "not a speech issue"). Freedom of religion protects only certain kinds of religion conduct, but all reasons for those kinds of conduct. The right of free association does not currently protect discrimination (in the US).
And of course, people who are under the legal gaurdianship of others have more limitations on their rights. It takes a good sense of paranioa to see anything sinister or discriminatory in that. (and a good amount of hysteria to in anyway comapare it to racial discrimination).
Finally we reach the particularly bizzare assumption that buying a particular video game at an age where someone else has gaurdianship over you is actually classifiable as a Right. Its an action, and in a free society, one can make arguments about the correctness of regulating non-harmful actions. But equating any non-harmful action with rights is IMHO demeaning to real human rights issues.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
In his comment, the author comments that this makes the issue in the U.S. look less significant. That's not the case. It's still government overstepping it's bounds. No government has any right to step in and make rules for kids, that should be up to the parents to decide. Just because something is more wrong than another, we can't just turn our heads and say oh well, it could be worse. If we do that, it will be worse soon.
-MunKy_v2
Jay
steal from your parents to play Street Fighter II. Or Mortal Kombat... "Dude, check out the blood! Fatality!"
*ahem*
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
You have told an outrageous lie.
Christian and Jewish holy books both declare that a parent's number one priority (after obeying God, that is) is the care and upbringing of his/her children. I don't know how one can be held any more responsible than that...
In the Old Testament of the Bible, God judged Eli for his failure to discipline his children:
Religious Christians and Jews in the USA are obsessed with "family values". They employ the same rhetoric as Muslims do about removing vice from society.
But know this, infringing on others' rights to clean up a society, whether that society is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, only leads to bad ends. If you look at history, organized religions, fearing sin, have been liberty's chief enemy. When it comes to government, the agnostics and atheists are the ones I want in charge.
sig semper tyrannis!
You can't show any sex act (even between animals on the Discovery channel), but it's OK to show brutal and graphic violence. A kid wouldn't be allowed to see an uncensored nature program but they can switch channels to a movie like Scanners with heads exploding all over the place.
To live in Malaysia is to live under the thumb of an authoritarian government pandering to the nutcase views of a religious minority.
you got no idea whats under those veils dude
well m'sia is a democracy too...
i can't speak for canada but the streets of many parts of europe at night are hardly as safe as s'pore
damn right, arcades are kewl places to take chicks... as long as u don't pick games that u suck at that is, then it can be kinda embarrassing. if m'sian arcades are like ones in indo though we're talking about something a bit diff from western ones, more "dodgy"
i doubt many countries are without skeletons in the closet
well gum can get in the machines and screw it up, best ban it lah!
Arcades in Malaysia are not the same ones you'll find in the US. 1. They are dark, gloomy, smoky (you get the picture). 2. It is mostly filled with gambling machines rather than arcade games. 3. Usually built around schools to lure kids. Some of you Americans might scoff thinking "how bad can this addiction be?". Well, I've known college students who lost their semester of tuition gambling at this "arcades". Gary
I'm not sure if arcades are necessarily good. They have a few benefits, but they can be addictive. Even the arcade games can be. An absolute ban may be a little excessive, but the negative effects are not going to be serious.
As a thinking human being, I applaud evolution. Get out of the way.
*Claps* As a "thinking" human being I would applaud more insight on a subject in which U definitely know nothing about. Lets see if U can "think" harder, shall we?
You ask a very important question: Why does God need a state?
That my friend, is a question I have been asking myself for a very long time. The fact that a nations such as Malaysia, or Pakistan, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia builds their "Nation States" Under any Laws of Islam is a complete paradox. For you see Islam itself does not promote any kind of nationalism what so ever. Instead it's Universal..How did these so called nations arise, who put the heads of these nations there, and for whose interest? Those are questions that I find myself asking all the time...
So What is your idea of evolution???
A society that promotes (directly and indirectly) rape, crime, greed, and the pyramid scheme..of capitalism.. from credit debt exploitations to exploitation of cheap labor.. When people are exploited by their wallets, is this your idea of evolution?
or Modernism??? Is our evolution guided by the corporate world?? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
If so are we really thinking for ourselves? Is this really evolution? Or is it modernism...better yet a conceived idea of modernism...a commercial world created to exploit U as the materialistic individual. The Individual thinking for his/her self....his/her personal interest...My bills, My credit debt, My rent, My food...SO you don't have a place to sleep? Oh well..I have to worry about Myself... This type of thought has been going since the stone age..How have we really evolved?
There are reasons that we have laws, we can't just leave the world up to the individual. Because, it creates a conflict of interest. Someone's idea of happiness may hurt someone else.
Before you make irrational comments about a system you have never fully experienced, and already have pre-conceived bias opinions on, please for the sake your face and the sake of the truth in general..research this more thoroughly before making fool of yourself in the name of sheer ignorance.
Sorry, already being hired as an overworked, underpaid grad student. ;{
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
My hometown banned coin operated videogames in the mid-80's citing some of the same reasons. As far as I know, they are still banned. Maybe that's why I'm so addicted to Diablo II now.
--Forager
student of animation and the fine arts
This is a rather shortsighted view. Humans dominate this world because they cooperate. Not because we go on whatever ego trip we like.
And, besides, everything you do interferes with somebody else. That also goes for non-doing.
M.
I live in Canada, and even in my relatively small city there are plenty of places I won't walk around in at night, or even drive through. There is a difference between guns being banned, and guns not existing.
And, BTW, "guns" aren't banned, but you do need a special license (read: a real good reason) to legally own a handgun. Automatic weapons are right out. Even so, a number of kids in my old highschool had handguns at home, and automatic ones at that...My old highschool was the one that all the kids from the rural areas outside of town went to though, and I'd be surprised if 75% of them didn't have a rifle or shotgun at their house.
That said, the rules have recently changed, and I'm not sure about them now, but I think you now need a license to possess firearms of any kind. I don't hunt, nor does anyone in my family, so I don't know for sure. I think that in order to get one of these licenses you'll need to pass a test (likely about as difficult as a driver's test) and probably need to be a certain minimum age. Then you can walk down to your local Canadian Tire and pick up a shiny new rifle. Now, rifles aren't nearly as convenient as handguns for sticking up the 7-11, nor for hiding in the dark and mugging someone, but they're just as good at killing someone.
In short, just because it's banned doesn't mean it disappears. I'm farily certain that even I could buy myself my very own illegal handgun fairly easily. And if I was the type of person that wanted to own a handgun, the possibility of the fine for getting caught with it probably wouldn't bother me. Banning something doesn't do anything, you need to back it up with *real* punishment in order to make it work.
Heh, I almost did that too when I got the magical 25 karma. (Noticed it on the last preview before posting - was kinda cool. BTW, it's a +1 bonus, you post at 2 :)) Personally, I think that the karma bonus point should be off by default. Why do you think so many people abuse it? It's there, you have to explicitly disable it! So if I'm not careful, it's easy to accidently post with +1. And I've done it before - although usually, the consequences are mild.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
If you guys want to stop catching TB, maybe you shouldn't be licking TB-spit-infested sidewalks in the first place...
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
And everyone's happy as long as they keep taking their Soma pills...
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Only outlaws will play games!!
So ban the crime (depositing gum in a public place), not the harmless activity that leads to the crime. I have great problems with banning things which are not in themselves harmful.
As for caning, I kind of agree with you. I think prison is probably far more 'cruel and unusual' than corporal punishment. Prison's main purpose seems to be to allow us to forget that criminals exist. Its only real advantage is that it's easy to let someone out if it turns out they didn't do the crime - it's kinda harder to unwhip or unkill someone.
Man, can't you guys just FEEL the anti-American hate in here? Read a couple of these posts.
I just love it when all the ignorant foreigners come out to play, lumping all Americans into a biiig group of stupid people who shop at WalMart and go to Disneyland for their vacations.
Why do I say ignorant foreigners? Because you can't tell who's a foreigner from the smart ones, because they don't waste their time expounding on ignorant stereotypes!
I'm getting sick of hearing it!
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Yep, to require ID to be shown to buy "Soldier of Fortune", the British Columbia government had it officially declared to be pornography.
All of that talk about censorship down in the US, and it pops up out of nowhere on Canada's west coast... Go figure.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Errr...then it's not very constant, is it? Perhaps there are some great laws that would increase the security without decreasing the freedom, or whatever.
nal 11
Not only does lending create money, now that money is not based on precious metals, it is how virtually all money is created today. For example, if banks loan out 80% of their deposits, the total money supply increase by a factor of 5. The Federal Reserve Banks do the same thing on a grander scale. Federal Reserve Notes are what they loan out. The same is true for currencies around the world
For the most part people are allowed to speak without permission from the authorities, and this is quite consistent with a peaceful society. A society in which people arbitrarily silence each other with force is not peaceful. Even if this result is acheived through a democratic process.
And which people are these? Our commie overlords?When did this surrender take place? Or do you have a different definition of "voluntary" than everyone else does?This is a good point about democracy - if you are wronged by the government, you don't necessarily have any recourse, other than the ballot, which is totally ineffecual.Thanks so much, commie overlord, for your insightful ideas on the need for the intelligentsia to seize control of the nation in order to operate it in our interest.
--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
The most common political orientation of African governments has been avowedly socialist. Two African countries have seen outright communism: Ethiopia and Mozambique (yes, the two countries that had the terrible famines in the 80's - what a coincidence!)
There is a grain of truth in calling the middle-eastern dictatorships right-wing, however I think the use of that terminology is misleading. They are arbitrary terms which refer to loose conglomerations of sets of political beliefs which may or may not be related. Their meanings also change over time. They don't translate well into Arab politics. Also, sometimes middle eastern countries are run by socialist parties - Iraq, for example.
I'll let this statement speak for itself. I think you've revealed a lot about your knowledge of world politics and history in this post.
"Uninterrupted growth" is, to put it mildly, a summary which leaves out some major episodes in Soviet history. In 1921 the USSR experienced a worse famine than any that had occurred previously in Russia or any of the countries it had absorbed. This was because Lenin instituted a policy of requisitioning unrealistically high quantities of grain from the rebellious areas in order to redistribute it to cities which were more politically important. At least 3 million starved to death.
It is difficult to estimate both the GDP and the population of the USSR during this period because the country followed a policy which made it extremely closed off from the west-anyone with contact with foreigners was persecuted, and often imprisoned. However as near as we can tell the standard of living for the peasantry was actually much lower by 1930 than it had been in 1915. Lenin also invented the concentration camp in 1919 as a tool for containing disloyal subjects and putting them to work. The use of this labor was extremely haphazard at best, and probably did nothing to help the economic lot of the average peasant. Prisoners were often employed in useless projects, such as a very large canal which was useless (not built deep enough), and most famously the trans-siberian railroad, whose construction claimed a whopping 200,000 dead to exhaustion, exposure, and starvation. It was never used.
One of the measures of the success of the Soviet experiment during the 1917-19 is the rate of population growth. A comprehensive census was completed in 1937; no true complete census had been done since the Tsarist days. De-classified Soviet archives now tell us that originally the census found that the population had shrunk by millions since communist rule began. The census managers who presented this information were all imprisoned, and in 1939 a new set of figures were released showing that the population had remained constant under communism.
One of the major reasons for the population decline was another, perhaps much larger famine under Stalin in 1932-1933. This famine took most of its toll in the Ukraine and what is now Kazakstan (yes that's the new correct spelling), these two republics accounting for about 7 million dead of starvation during the famine period. An additional 2 million in other regions starved to death. Again these famines were caused by massive seizures of grain on the part of the communist government. It targeted these particular regions because they were hotbeds of nationalist, anti-Russian sentiment. The Kazak case is a little different; they were a semi-nomadic people up until the famine period, when they were forced into collectives and many were re-located. It is interesting to note that while these ~9 million people starved to death, the USSR exported 1.8 million tons of grain, while another 4.5 million tons were being kept in secret stockpiles.
I challenge you to explain why the Germans utterly crushed their vastly larger, more resource-rich neighbor, if you maintain that the USSR had been experiencing "uninterrupted economic growth" up until that time. Hitler was able to make it within a few dozen miles of Moscow, and in the process caused the USSR to suffer more war dead than any other country participating in the war. BTW, how do you reconcile Stalin's early collusion with Hitler, if you claim that Soviet communism "worked" and acted in the best interest of the people?
I am also curious to know why it was in the best interest of the people for the USSR to imprison over ten million people at a time for political reasons, in forced-labor camps with 10-30% annual death rates?
Returning to the story of the USSR's "uninterrupted economic growth," there were many amusing most WWII instances of Western onlookers seriously misinterpreting the supposed facts and figures being released by the Soviet government. For instance, one year the Soviets might announce "We are spending X billion rubles to develop factories, canals, mines, etc." Western economists would do the math and conclude that the USSR was investing an ENORMOUS portion of their GDP to investment, which would normally portend unbelievable growth in output for the future. The truth was, the USSR dumped ENORMOUS portions of their GDP into useless projects, useful but mismanaged projects, showpiece projects which served no purpose but to impress outsiders, and a great many other forms of boondoggles. This spending represents pure waste. The only reason the USSR didn't fall behind even more than it did is that factory managers eventually learned techniques to trade goods illegally, which often helped them to improve efficiency even in the absence of markets on which to buy tne necessary inputs. The flip side to this is that factory managers also used this process to enrich themselves.
Points ommitted:
--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
Even if the highest estimates are the right ones, so what? The population was already declining before WWII. If the low WWII casualty figures are correct, then the German army killed less Soviet subjects than the Soviet government did. For a fun exercise, try adding up all the American war dead from every war the U.S. has ever been in. One year of Leninist famine accounts for more deaths. Or one year of Stalinist famine. Or one year of frenzied executions (the Great Terror). A few years' worth of labor camp deaths also accounts for more deaths than all the U.S. wars. As for the appallingly high WWII casualties, this was also the fault of communism. Typically communists seek to over-politicize every aspect of life; Stalin allowed political concerns to determine which people should be officers.
Wrong. The civil war was over by 1921. (Actually, for all practical purposes the civil war was over by the end of 1920.) Having defeated the whites and the democratic socialists the bolsheviks turned to an even more persistent source of opposition: the peasantry. The bolsheviks diverted considerable military manpower and equipment to suppressing local uprisings even during the civil war. This includes the use of heavy artillery and warplanes against villages which violently resisted collectivization.And by the way, the Ukraine is not a region of Russia. When Moscow ruled over the Ukranians it resulted in great misery. BTW, have you ever known a Ukranian or someone of Ukranian descent (especially a Ukranian Jew)? If so, what do they think about your enthusiastic defense of the USSR?
Even the Soviet government no longer advanced this argument by the 1980's. They've admitted the truth, why haven't you? Distribution was not the problem. Soviet authorities set quotas for each region and "requisitioned" that amount of grain. In both famines, quotas were chosen for each region based in part on how many uprisings had occurred in the region (uprisings were recorded and classified). Rebellious regions were given high grain quotas. The soviets had no technical difficulties in distributing the grain to more subjugated or more important regions. BTW, how many famines did the U.S. have during its early history? During the pre-industrial years? And if "any economic system" has trouble distributing food correctly, then why have all the largest famines of this century occurred in communist countries? USSR, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Mozambique... all communist countries at the time of their mass starvations. Why have there been NO mass starvations in non-communist countries since after the end of WWII?
They were a direct product of the collectivization of industry and agriculture. That is communism. The 30+ million who died during China's Great Leap Forward were also victims of an especially rapid collectivization of industry and agriculture. Forcing people into collectives is communism. Granted, the masses don't WANT to be forced onto collectives, but whoever said communism was in the interest of the masses? Come to think of it, I bet you said that.
... most of whom were killed by communists...
Almost pure fantasy-the West didn't fund the whites or anyone else. As for allied troops being present during the civil war, in some instances the communists had actually *asked* for these troops to be moved into the country, because they were negotiating peace with the Germans and wanted to become an unappealing target for them. Most non-russian casualties of the civil war period -about 1500- were Japanese, and in 1924 the Japanese kindly gave back territory they had gained. (Stalin did not reciprocate after WWII.) The battle deaths borne by other allies do not even amount to a thousand over the whole period, and again they withdrew after the armistice negotiations ended. The only other major foreign casualties were a bunch of Czech POW's captured in tsarist days. It had been agreed to release the POW's from Russia so they could be taken to fight in France, but suddenly Trotsky threatened them with imprisonment in the concentration camps if they would not join the Reds. The Czech POW's responded by taking over the railroad by which they were to leave the country, employing the help of eager White forces to do so. Serves the Bolsheviks right for viciously trying to conscript foreigners in this way. It is a fact that this episode pissed off the allies, but they didn't respond by attacking the Russians.Yes. Communism is a political reason.
I'm sure you meant to say dictatorships are NOT unique to communism. But the point is, dictatorships are universal among communist nations. This fact is a plain implication of orthodox communist theory.
Yes it is true that the major powers hoped war would not be required in order to contain German aggression. It is also true they made concessions in hope of acheiving peace. Meanwhile, the Soviets were negotiating acts of war with the Germans. They were dividing up Poland between them. (An earlier unprovoked Russian invasion of Poland in 1919 had failed.) The Germans were asked to indicate their approval of a planned Soviet invasion of Finland (which failed disastrously at first). The Soviets also agreed to let the nazis use Soviet ports to service their u-boats. And they reached a mutual agreement in which Stalin would rat out communists in Germany and Poland in exchange for handing over Polish Jews to Hitler from the Russian-controlled region. Now, how many of the non-communuist and non-socialist European powers were guilty of these acts? The answer is that there were none; only the Nazis (slang expression for "National Socialist) and the communists were engaged in such conspiracies. Granted. And how many of those nations suffered 20 million dead as a result?The trans-siberian railway I am talking about runs roughly parallel to the older one, about 400 miles to the north. It was built ON TOP OF THE SNOW mostly by people whose only crime was failure to submit to the collective. About 200,000 workers died. The rails they built proved impossible to use. The project of building this route was finally completed under Brezhnev, who among other things wanted a railway that didn't pass so close to the Chinese border. Yes, and at least I'm not defending this practice, like you are! I am opposed to drug prohibition. But so long as we are comparing U.S. prisons to the Soviets, what is the annual death rate in U.S. prisons? Is it 10-30% , as in the former USSR?. Let's not also forget the institutionalized torture, the practice of raping daughters and wives of prisoners in front of them, the systematic imprisonment or relocation of innocent families of victims of the NKVD/KGB. The fact that you knowingly defend these practices is quite disgusting. It is particularly grotesque for you to suggest that mass murder is OK, because after all, the U.S. is guilty of imprisoning drug users/sellers. If your most honored socialist leader were to rip out the still-beating heart of one of his victims, would you heckle anyone who objected, on the grounds that the Aztec priests did this, too? Sure, maybe it was just a coincidence that more Russians were executed, imprisoned, or starved to death after the communists came to power. Likewise the death of 1/4 of the Cambodian population might have actually had nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge. And the famines that North Korea has been experiencing - why, that's just the weather! And it's a coincidence that just south of the border the crops do just fine.Face it, when people are forced onto collectives, they suffer, and so they resist. But I'm sure your view is that you have to break a few eggs...
Ironic. Actually it was more like "All power to the Politburo." The slogan you are quoting was used by opponents of the Bolsheviks (no, not the whites or even the mensheviks) who wanted decisions to be made at local councils, not in Moscow or Petrograd.--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
And it would be called a gulag. That's where soviet communists put people who disagreed with them.
You sure do like employing this type of argument. What it amounts to is this: the US once made the horrible mistake of banning alcohol, so now that the barn door's open, why not just cause more trouble banning other stuff?
Most (around 99%) of the drugs developed in the US are developed by private, for-profit, capitalist pig-dog pharmaceutical companies. You must be disappointed we still haven't appointed a Commissar of Medicine to nationalize them.
I am truly happy for you that the one country you happen to live in is the best one on the planet.--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
I'm confused. Does that mean Muslims aren't allowed to play games by law? From this one sentance, I'm guessing that the law is religously based. But this brings up a question to me. How would the Muslims who want to play games do it? Just say "I'm not muslim"?
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
You cannot take certain drugs
I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this, but that's not the same thing. Certain drugs can cause immediate mental breakdown, and cause a danger to others. There is a case to made that certain drugs should be illegal.
you cannot install hidden cameras (as a security system)
Reference? As far as I know, that is not illegal, unless you're using them to spy on others (like, recording movies of having sex with someone, and then selling the movie).
some places certain activities with your spouce are not legal.
Well, first of all, that's not at the state or federal level, as I specified. Yes, there are going to be wacky local laws, but 1) they are not enforced, and 2) if they were, they would be struck down by higher courts.
So in practical terms, there is very little that is forbidden in your own home. And usually the only restrictions are when you are violating the rights of others.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
well, if they ban the sale of it, its gonna be pretty damn hard for me to get it in the first place, to play in my own home
Again, show me a reference to a state or federal politician that has talked about outright banning of the sale of a game.
You're starting to believe too much of the shrill nonsense on Slashdot. Live in reality, not Slashdot fantasy.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Just because its not state or federal doesnt mean I can't get fucked over by it. I saw a lot of discussion about this at the Philadelphia Mayoral debates (an event I Tech'ed for), and I did not like what I heard.
Just because a politician speaks against something, doesn't mean they are advocating banning it. There are a lot of things that I think are rotten in society, and probably so do you, but that's a different thing than believing there should be a law against it.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
However, I have seen politicians who want to outright ban game violence, since most stores do nothing to enforce the ratings levels.
Could you provide a reference? Bottom line, you can't, because it has never happened (at least, at the state or federal level, I'm sure there might be some wacky local politician somewhere...)
I realize that this issue is important to many Slashdotters, but I wish we could have a little more reason and less emotion on these issues. Banning stuff in your own home never has and never will be a serious threat in the USA.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yeah, I been to Singapore. It sucks overall unless you like shopping malls. But, it's is a little glimpse of the first world, which we get so rarely over here. But, Singapore is safe and the people are honest. One time I got into a cab on Orchard Rd. and asked to go to a hotel not knowing where it was. The cabbie scowled and drove me around the corner to the hotel. Had I done that here in Jakarta it would have been an hour long cab ride.
Singapore's laws are the key to it's success. In the rest of Southeast Asia you'll be lucky enough if people know what the colors on the stoplights mean. I'm serious.
With regards to the arcades, let's remember that Malaysia is a developing country. Compare it to the states in 1900-1950 when you want to compare personal freedoms. I think you'll remember that the pre-60's states wasn't so different.
Finally, remember that Law is Negotiable in this region of the world (except Singapore). Outlawing all video arcades this week doesn't mean they'll be closed next week. It just means the local policeman is going to make a bit more take-home-pay.
...and capital punishment, which they are against. While they do a lot of good work on torture and in countries with no human rights, they lose my support when they go out of their way to criticize the United States. The United States has long been the most effective proponent of human rights and democracy and I've no use for organizations that ignore it.
if you think that the number 1 threat to human rights are the constitutionally and democratically sanctioned US dealth penalties, you should make sure you are on the other side from me. But if you think that repression in Cuba, North Korea, Syria, etc. is far worse, you might enlist the aid of people like me who believe in democracy to help defeat those oppressors. It's that simple.
Even as screwed up as it is, and the terrible direction we're heading, this is still the best country in the world.
why not ban masturbation? Maybe sex too.
Hello sir.
The people at FUNAC would like to hire you. Please visit and see if you're interested, as I think they would be elated to hire you and your family via the conditions at http://funac.org/blog/.
Thanks.
,
faeryman
First off, let me say I feel for you...I really do. Arcades, gambling or not, can be a vital part of the economy and thier removal isn't right.
I was reading the other day and noticed the people at FUNAC.org are looking to hire Malaysians as per the terms given at http://funac.org/blog/.
If I was Malaysian (I'm half Korean, half British) I'd apply since it seems like a good deal. Just a heads up.
,
faeryman
http://www.mal ays iakini.com/archives_news/2000/oct/oct5/news9.htm - another link of the story
Who cares.. the arcades sucks.. most of them have
only old games and the one with new ones cost
like a fortune to play...
mmm... playstation.. mmm... pc games...
mmm playstation one.. mmm playstation 2
I remember stealing money from my parents so I could play games in the arcades. Only a dollar here and there, and not so often that it would be noticed, but stealing's still stealing. I guess I should be caned.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
nice 2112 reference. :)
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
then he wrote:
does anyone else see the irony in this?
(oh, and btw, guy: use a spellchecker, would ya?)
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
the point isn't 'how would you like it', the point is 'what would you learn from it?'. the answer that is the GOAL of the exercise is 'not to do it'.
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
no, i would learn to associate cause and effect. do thing X, be punished. if don't want punishment, don't do thing X.
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Disclaimer for the marginal relevance of this post: I don't know whether or not Malaysian arcades are suitable for children or whether they should be banned. Different culture, different values; if they think they need to ban arcades because of gambling or the fact that there are unsavoury characters, I won't give them a hard time.
But the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir, is a nasty piece of work and the current system there is at best quasi-democratic, without any of the political freedoms most of us are used to. (Just read up on the politically inspired and politically manipulated sodomy trial of his former lieutentant Anwar Ibrahim.) Mahathir also has a habit of ranting about international conspiracies of first world governments and currency speculators to keep Asia under the heel of the west. I'm not that impressed with currency speculators either, but Mahathir is a shrill, rabid, xenophobic nationalist who holds on to power by any means necessary and blames others for his own economic mistakes.
The irony I see in the Malaysian govt. accusing kids of stealing that inspired my subject header: in 1997 I was a post-doc at Stanford. Mahathir was visiting Stanford at the time and, in particular, was visiting the Bill Gates building (I know, this is Slashdot---I spat on the sidewalk every single time I entered). He sent some of his security people out to find some reading material. They came into my office and asked around. Wanting to express good will to other nations and promote peace on earth, I offered my New York Times, which I was going to read on my lunch break, on the condition that it be returned to me when Mahathir was finished. I never saw it again and, to this day, I don't know what happened in the world on January xx 1997. I know Mahathir didn't know the conditions under which I lent him the paper and I should blame the security guys, but I don't like him and as far as I'm concerned Mahathir pinched my paper and doesn't have any moral right to crack down on any sort of crime. I'd much rather have a gay friend (i.e. Anwar) than a friend who pinches stuff (i.e. Mahathir).
Sorry for the rant. I don't like his politics and he has personally annoyed me. I was looking for an excuse to go off. If it had been anyone other than a prime minister I would have forgotten about it long ago.
Many moons ago when arcades where new, many parents tried to ban then because it scared them that the kids liked them so much. I saw one news report saying that bight side was it was better then porn alcohol and drugs. SNL did a bit where they had kids going into hard crime to pay for the habit one of them an 10 year old girl prostitute that did her tricks for a quarter at a time. This is just stupid bullshit. There are too many stupid parents that will label anything that there kids care about that is not Jesus, home work, or house hold chores as evil or dangerous. In the end in the US the arcades stayed open and we turn out just fine.
Because, in general, money today is worth more than the same money tomorrow. Let's say I have money to buy a CD. I can buy it now, or I can wait and buy it next year, but then I go for a year without having that CD to play. I'd get more utility out of that money by buying the CD now. In order to convince me to lend you the money and sacrifice my pleasure for a year, you would need to offer me something in return. Such as giving me more money after a year than I give you now.
This is Ludwig von Mises' "time preference" theory of interest.
Of course, interest is also influenced by risk (how likely are you to screw me), inflation (an increase in the money supply, which leads to general price rises) and increased productivity (which tends to lower prices).
I agree with you. Some subsidiary points: 1) In my personal experience, video games have an addictive component. Most people, even those like myself who are tired of the War on Drugs, would give credence to an argument that addictions that rise to the level of social problems need to be restricted. Closing out video games does not seem to me to cause unacceptable side-effects for a society. 2) Arguably, video games have a negative impact on some users beyond addiction, and since the typical user of concern is a child, it is normative in this society to consider restrictions. Typically, an age restriction passes constitutional muster here. Presumedly, in Malayasia, a ban passes muster. 3) Malayasia has had some success in fighting globalism. For instance, during the "Asian flu", they rejected IMF and World Bank programs, were successful in economic recovery, and our Vice President called for the overthrow of the government! They continue to be leaders in Asia in rejecting the "Washington Consenus". I suggest that video games are one of the cultural components of globalism and the Malaysian's serve their country's general welfare quite well by banning them. And their leadership is known to me to read some of the same material I read on this subject and so I find this connection likely.
And how about the ban on Half-life a while back. It was said that a parent who was an MOE (ministry of education) official complained to a LAN shop onwer that blamed the shop his son was playing too much computer games. The owner then said it was the parent's fault and not his, and led to a squabble. The parent left by saying that he would pull his weight and get half-life banned! Eventually it did get banned, but after reaction from the gaming community here (thank goodness for the internet here) the ban got lifted after a few weeks. So much for government impartiality.
Engineering for Humanity.
In Singapore, bubble gum is banned in public areas including malls and restaurants because it is "disruptive, rude, and litter-producing". This comes from a country which is considered one of the most digital ("the intelligent island") in asia, second to Japan. If Singapore can ban bubble gum, it's not surprising to find other things banned in other asian countries such as video arcades..
Gambling goes deeper than entertainment, it is a very direct challenge to Fate, or Destiny, or whatever one calls it. The gambler may know that the game is a losing proposition, but he or she thinks about beating the odds and winning big. Most world religions are based on determining Fate, and there is an immense amount of literature that deals with this subject in all cultures. Capitalism revolves around gambling as well, take a closer look at the stock market (especially futures) and you will see this.
The Soviet Union collapsed, and modern Russia is not in good shape. Why did you pick such a poor example of socialism?
The German law against violence in video games is a good example of a law with good intentions that could go awry. Once the government starts enforcing value judgements about content then there is a real danger that your own values may be outlawed. However I must give credit to Germany for having better laws on protecting the privacy of personal data, something we need in the US.
Believe it or not, our beloved United States isn't pure when it comes to banning things. Mortal Kombat and Night Trap were nearly banned upon their release. Mike Tyson's Punchout and Michael Jackson's Moonwalk were removed from shelves when certain incidences occurred. The movie "A clockwork orange" was actually banned for a short period of time when it came to the US.
MJR, I would like to personally thank you for writing such a narrow-minded view full of ignorance. This gives me a wonderful opportunity to comment.
First, I find it sad that people like you still exist and that "evolution" has changed them into two different beings--one contradicting the other.
I say this because you have previously mentioned assertions like the following:
I promise, I won't judge hastily. I'll take my time, assess the situation, put it in context, and arrive at a logical and reasonable conclusion.
Well, apparently you did not judge so well in this particular instance. It is absurd on your part to arrive at an illogical conclusion on view about Muslims (an area where it is obvious your knowledge lacks).
So although you have every right to state your beliefs (which seems to be plagiarized from Darwin), I suggest that you go back to YOUR cave where you can await for the unforeseen consequences.
--Masta_G
Perhaps I've just been looking in the wrong places, but I've never heard of this. Got any links or info? Sounds to me like something like this happening to such a popular game wouldn't just slip through the cracks.
foxxtrot
End Big Government, Vote Republican
-- this
While it may be a bit offtopic here goes;
Gambling is about buying entertainment, you pay for the 'suspense' of losing/winning. I think that most gamblers already know that they're going to lose money. Lost money is just the cost of the entertainment, just like going to the movies costs money. With gambling you're in control of how much entertainment you want, gamble a lot - pay (lose) a lot. I think gambling is pretty boring though and not worth my money.
There are many reasons for stupid laws... Most of the time, someone at some time has thought it would be a good idea that [group x] should not be allowed to do [action y]. Afterwards the groups change, the public opinion changes, but the law remains.
Maybe you should give (at least some) laws something like an expiration date after that they must be reconsidered. Interesting idea, come to think of it.
--
michael at slashdot.org: The real answer is that a couple of the slashdot authors are sick.
Let's face it: gaming is a corrupt world. There are dishonest players all over the world, trying to get "the edge" at any cost; sometimes, at the cost of human lives. The only ones remaining to stop them are the remaining honest gamers, who play for fun. Unfourtunately, the number of those people are dwindling...
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
++parent
Probably the ban is politically motivated - the ruling coalition (Barisan Nasional - BN) in Malaysia is under pressure from the more "fundamentalist" Muslim parties, which are eroding the coalition's support base amongst Malay muslims.
So the BN bans an activity which is seen as "immoral" (kids - they're always up to no good) to shore up their support amongst the Malays. The owners of the arcades are probably Chinese so the BN isn't too worried about losing their support, because the Chinese will never vote for the Muslim parties anyway. At least, that's the way I see it...
The movie rating system, like the one on video games, is not a law only an advisement placed by the industry to look good in the eyes of the people. In light of this it seems quite disturbing that movie theaters will not allow parents to give the OK for their kids to see movies, they must attend with them.
or not :-(
While we're at it let's look at the entry for the USA:
[Amnesty] called on the authorities at local, state and federal level to take action on a wide range of human rights concerns including the death penalty, police brutality, prison and jail conditions [including systematic torture] and the treatment of refugees, and called on the government to ratify international human rights treaties. [which for some reason the US refuses to do]
And next time, stop pontificating about the USA being a democratic country without doin' your homework. Oh, btw, the US is not a democracy, it's a republic.
Ban the gun, and you don't have to worry about bank robberies. Wait...
Let me see, one dollar a week allowance in the 1980's. WTF!! That wouldn't even buy a 2 liter bottle of soda, let alone 15 minutes in an arcade. I swiped about 10 to 20 dollars a week from my mom and dads loose change jar. I recently told my mother about it and she says she never noticed nor does she care in retrospect! They wouldn't let me get a job or so much as a paper route untill I was 16, what was I supposed to do? Ah, I remember the days of waiting for the arcade to open so that I could have my all too brief go at the games I liked. Although I became good enough to beat a few on one quarter, like Ajax, Rolling Thunder, Heavy Barrell, Time Soldiers, etc... Those poor Malasian kids, most of them will never know the priviledge of a western lifestyle, why begrudge them this one small pleasure?
I was just curious if you could name one case of parents being brought up on child abuse charges, or children suing parents for spanking *alone*...
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
So, you're saying we shouldn't get worked up about government censorship, because our government's censorship is "insignificant" relative to other countries?? I am staggered.
You are either grammatically challenged, or mentally challenged. The whole point of fighting censorship is that censorship starts slowly (on "insignificant" things) but is unstoppable once it gets a foothold.
Yet another idiot totally clueless about the concept of democracy. Here's a quick little lesson.
i) Democracies are ruled by the people
ii) The US has 300 million people. If each person opens their mouth to yap then we get perfect anarchy.
iii) If 100 people, or 1000 people, or some such reasonable amount of people open their mouths to yap then actual work can get done.
iv) Therefore 300 million people voluntarily surrender their rights to speak by allowing an elected official to speak for them.
v) If the elected officials doesn't do what you like then TOUGH FUCKING LUCK. Go vote again.
And one more little educational tidbit:
i) The US has 300 million people. Fact is that requires a pretty big central government to look after. Sure you might want everything to be centralized locally, but wouldn't that destroy the concept of the nation.
Typically communists seek to over-politicize every aspect of life; Stalin allowed political concerns to determine which people should be officers.
So people appointed to various offices for political reasons is unique to communist countries is unique? Not the last time that I checked.
Wrong. The civil war was over by 1921. (Actually, for all practical purposes the civil war was over by the end of 1920.) Having defeated the whites and the democratic socialists the bolsheviks turned to an even more persistent source of opposition: the peasantry. The bolsheviks diverted considerable military manpower and equipment to suppressing local uprisings even during the civil war. This includes the use of heavy artillery and warplanes against villages which violently resisted collectivization
Did I say the extended past 1921. The red armies committed grave attrocities against civilian populations. So did the white armies backed by western governments, particularily in the portion of the war fought in eastern Russia. The Kolchak regime in Siberia was funded, supplied, and armed by the U.S. and Britain. Without foreign support the government would never have lasted as long as it did. The British equiped white armies in Estonia. Arcangel and Murmansk were held by the British. Denikin had large numbers of foreign troops. Without backing from the west the civil war would have lasted at most months. And that my friend is a fact you might want to look up.
And by the way, the Ukraine is not a region of Russia. When Moscow ruled over the Ukranians it resulted in great misery. BTW, have you ever known a Ukranian or someone of Ukranian descent (especially a Ukranian Jew)? If so, what do they think about your enthusiastic defense of the USSR?
The Ukraine is not a part of Russia proper. It was, however, the birthplace of Russia (remember Kiev), and for the large part of the last 1100 years it has been under Russian control.
Yes, and at least I'm not defending this practice, like you are!
Did I ever speak in the defense of labour camps? Your statement was that communism is evil because Russia had labour camps. My argument wasn't to show that the Soviet government was justified, just that other nations are no less guilty.
Let's not also forget the institutionalized torture, the practice of raping daughters and wives of prisoners in front of them, the systematic imprisonment or relocation of innocent families of victims of the NKVD/KGB
Note carefully that I am not condemning this practice. However, previous to Cheka/NKVD/KGB czarist Russia had a long and happy history of secret police involved in the practice of terror and abuse. To blame the Cheka/NKVD/KGB on communism is absurd. Blame it instead on peculiarities of Russian leadership.
The fact is that Russian was extremely backwards before the communists came to power. Despite tremendous hurdles they were forced to overcome, they accomplished many things that enabled Russia to progress. What was once largely an uneducated population is now of the most highly educated in the world, the industrial revolution took full grip under communism, science, arts, and culture flourished.
The major point that you seem hung up is that democracy and communism are mutually exclusive. That has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of all time. You are aware that Soviet Russia was in fact a democracy? It is merely a coincidence that the Bolsheviks outlawed other parties. Otherwise, Soviet Russia would have been every bit as democratic as the U.S. or Canada. All the short-falls of Soviet Russia that you have pointed out are short-falls of dictatorships not communism. I sure as hell don't want to live under a dictatorship, but to me a democratic communist government is as close to utopian as it gets.
BR From a base point of view it comes down to who you want to run things. An entity looking out solely for itself or an entity looking out for the best needs of everyone. Doesn't seem to hard for me.
For the most part people are allowed to speak without permission from the authorities, and this is quite consistent with a peaceful society. A society in which people arbitrarily silence each other with force is not peaceful. Even if this result is acheived through a democratic process.
I never said stifle people by force. However, having 300 million make an intelligent vote on a bill to pass before the commons/congress/knesset is not practical.
And which people are these? Our commie overlords?
They are the democratically elected officials as far as I know. When did this surrender take place? Or do you have a different definition of "voluntary" than everyone else does?
When you go to the ballot box you give the person you are voting for permission to speak on your behalf and to represent you. If you do not wish to surrendor your voice to them, then you are perfectly free to run by yourself.
This is a good point about democracy - if you are wronged by the government, you don't necessarily have any recourse, other than the ballot, which is totally ineffecual.
Let me put a capitalist pig spin on this idea to make easier for you to understand. Say you have voting shares in a company. You might allow some to act as your proxy and vote on your behalf. However if the person acting for you does something you don't approve of, then it is you tough luck. Next time either do it yourself or pay more attention to who you let represent itself.
Socialists are not all power-mongers in the same that capitalists aren't aren't all evil men bent on ripping off the population. However, you only have to look at the countries in Africa and the middle east that are much farther right than the U.S. will ever and take note that these countries are all either dictarships, monarchies, or controlled by all powerfull businesses. Socialism is about doing what is best for the population, and it works, look at Soviet Russia.
Just to counter what you're about to think, yes Soviet Russia was years behind the U.S. in 1991 in terms of economy and political freedoms. However, in 1917 Russia was centuries behind. In those 75 years that the Soviets were in power, Russia achieved uninterrupted economic growth (at an overall rate higher than the U.S.), citizens obtained much higher degrees of rights and freedoms, and what was once the intellectual back-water of Europe is now one the most highly educated populations in Europe.
It all boils down to one thing: socialism is about what is best for the people, capitalism is about what is best for the corporation. Think seriously about that before stating your uneducated opinion.
Well, well, well, where to start?
Let us start with that whole population growth thing that you are so hung up from. Yes, I am fully aware that the overall population over the course of Soviet history was neutral, and that at times the growth was indeed neutral. At the outbreak of WW1 the population of Russia was estimated at 160 million; in 1991 the population was approximately 160 million. Compare this to the states where the population went from approximately 120 million to 270 million over the same period.
However, your claim is that the state of the population is a direct result of Communism. I would argue that the state of population was determined by extraordinary circumstances beyond the scope of the economic model of the country, and the continued high growth despite the lack population growth merely serves to further promote the effectiveness of communism. By far the most significant decline in the population was WW2 which claimed an official count of 25 million soviet citizens, and historians estimate the number could be as high as 50 millionn.
The point you make about the starvation in 1921 is moot. AS you may recall there was a war raging in Russia at time, including the south-eastern / Ukrainian areas of Russia. Considering that the prime agriculture lands that provided the lion's share of food both in pre-soviet and soviet Russia was in turmoil at the time, it would have been hard, if not impossible to get the right amount of food to where it was needed, regardless of the ecnomic or political model of the country. And let us not forget the countless numbers of civilians that died as a direct result of the fighting. A war, where the white army was financed almost exlusively by the U.S. and Britain, and a significant portion of the army were non-Russians.
The 1932-1933 famine was indeed a fault of the government. However, as you yourself said it was caused for political reasons. The famines were not caused because of a fault in communism, but beacuse of vindictive and cruel dictator. Dictatorships are unique to communisn
As you may recall, Russia was not the only nation that treated with Hitler. Remember the Vichy government in France which collaborated with the Nazis. Remember the British government that advocated and adopted the policy of appeasement with Germany, not to mention the high-ranking nobility and politicians who either advocated peace talks with Germany, or who met secretly to discuss peace. Remember how the U.S. also adopted a policy of non-aggression towards Germany for the first two years of the war.
And yes, as you say Soviet Union suffered devestating losses in WW2. And yes, the Russian army collapsed against the German enslaught. But so did the Polish armies, the British armies in North Africa, and the French army. Also, note that at the outbreak of war, France had the largest standing army in Europe; larger than the Russian army, and larger than the German army.
And just little tidbit of information. The Trans-Siberian railway was a project of the csarist government. It was completed in 1905, and it was, and still is, used. It ferried troops and supplies during the Russo-Japanese war, during the civil war, and during WW2. Not to mention the millions of civilians it transported during peace-time, as it was eastern Russia's only major practical means of transportation.
And just who are you to condemn the prision populations of the Soviet Union. The U.S. has 500,000 people in jail on drug offences along, contrast that with the European Union which has 350,000 people in jail in total. That's despite the fact the European Union has a total population 100 million greater than the U.S..
The Soviet Union used slave labour. So did czarist Russia, I fail to see your point. Slave labour was used in the U.S. as well.
You've spent a lot of time pointing out troubles that were present during the period that the Communists were in power. However, you have not shown how these are a result of communism. The problems you have cited are either caused by factors beyond the control of any government, or caused on the whim of dictator. None of them are a result of failures of communism.
It appears that you've read a book or two. The second stop is use your intellectual abilities to form your educated opinions from what you've read.
I promise, I won't judge hastily. I'll take my time, assess the situation, put it in context, and arrive at a logical and reasonable conclusion.
Okay, I've taken some time to think. And I have judged.
The poster of the parent post, efuseekay, a resident of Malaysia, claims that an entity known as "we" has banned the following things:
I have deliberated on this a bit, and have concluded that there is no such entity as "we". If, indeed, the whole of Singapore was banning these things, would they not all simply refuse to watch them? Thus it is clear that this nebulous "we" could not possibly refer to the people of Singapore.
It refers to their "state", the group of thieves, kidnapers, batterers, and murderers among them who have created a "legislature", an entity that they have designed to make their crimes appear moral, and worse, necessary.
For example, if I were to decide that I am the only person who has the right to post to Slashdot, and in order to enforce my decision, I tracked down and caned every other Slashdot user, or I stole five thousand dollars from each, I would be branded a criminal, and punished severely. Even if posting to Slashdot was proven scientifically to be a "BadThing(tm)", no leniency would be granted.
Now, when a group of people known as a "state" decides that nobody else has the right to, say, carry a firearm, they go to their "legislature" and pass "legislation" forbidding it. Now, they may search every man for firearms, and if they find any, they may assault, kidnap, and detain him for years, and steal his property. Strangely, these acts are not regarded as criminal. In fact, they are seen to be legitimate, and even necessary.
It is my opinion that there is no distinction between the above two actions. They are both criminal, and a sane society must not tolerate them.
I conclude, in light of the evidence presented, that Malaysia has been terrorized by a group of criminals, known as a "government" or a "state". This group uses "legislation" to enforce its will arbitrarily on the defenseless people.
I recommend, for the good of the Malaysian people, and in the end, the welfare of all people, that these criminals be swiftly brought to justice.
Justice knows no borders, no cultural distinctions, and certainly no laws. If you take someone's liberty, life, or property, you will be dealt with.
You're too late. Laws expired the day we evolved from brutish monkeys into enlightened men.
Heh. Once and a while I find myself in an especially bad mood and decide to start flamewars on slashdot. Don't take things here so seriously. Come on, is there any expectation of meaningful content on slashdot anymore? I can't find any. Oh well. Now I feel bad because all these people took it very personally and replied with these huge philosophical critiques of my flame baiting. Wait, I guess that's what flame-baiting is supposed to do. Ah well, this is starting to lose it's appeal. Whatever.
BTW, that other post was an attempt to indict a government, based on absolutely NO evidence, in a whole slew of criminal enterprises. It really didn't work too well.
And the previous bigoted post was an attempt to take a legitimate complaint - that this Malaysian government seems to be imposing moral laws on a population that may not agree with them - and transmogrify it into a terrible comparison between Muslims and monkeys.
I'm really growing far too old for this shit.
What does God need with a state?
Great. A predominantly Muslim country. And what are the the other people going to do?
Look. For all I care, the Muslims of the world can make all the decrees they want. Just one thing: I don't want to be Muslim, and I don't want to follow Islamic law. If a Muslim tries to force me or anyone else - even another Muslim - to follow Islamic law, any Islamic law, I will kill him.
If you, as a Muslim, think yourself and your fellow Muslims so corrupt and stupid as to warrant a coercive government to keep you in line, then coercion you deserve.
If you think that I am as corrupt and stupid as you, and that I need to be ruled over like you, well, I don't know what to say. I guess I'll have to buy some big guns.
In my opinion, you are a dying breed. Man is evolving. He is vaulting away from his barbaric monkey past. Monkeys need a Leviathon to keep their "moral fiber" intact.
Men don't. I will NOT hoot, hollar, or climb trees for Islam!
- As a Muslim, I aplaud the move by the Malaysian government in banning these arcades.
As a thinking human being, I applaud evolution. Get out of the way.I'm getting so soft lately, I can't even keep a bigoted flamewar going.
Jogia, that post was pure flamebait. Please don't take it personally. Sometimes I forget that there are still people who take slashdot discussions seriously, as opposed to viewing it as some laboratory for experiments in trolling.
And I do agree with you: if all people were as moral and decent as their God, this species would be a great one.
I think God is different things to different people. For men like Lenin, God was something like dialectical materialism, a Marxist perversion of reality. He thought it was infallible. He probably really believed that what he was doing was, in some sense, commanded by God.
I fear I'm betraying my intent by bringing up more philosophy, and I apologize. I'm just confused, and I'm trying to make some sense of all this. I just feel that there have been so many false prophets in history that it would not be right to unquestioningly believe any higher moral truth from another human being.
I think that's a teaching of Islam: that only God can tell you what is right or wrong. I believe it. I really do think that God is guiding all of us towards good. That might sound fake, because anyone who knows me will tell you that I'm a nihilist and a atheist. But I think the label is just that: a superficial covering that hides the substance of the matter.
I think that even the most ardent athiests are really guided by some purpose that defies logic. Why do we atheists choose to wake up in the morning? Why is this thing we call "love" feel right? Or even to the most strict darwinist, someone who thinks that man is just another natural process, like a forest fire, in that his only goal is to propogate himself: he may think he understands the cause and logic of his morality, but can he explain WHY he chooses to go on? And yet he does.
I don't know if you share my feelings about religion, that the particulars don't matter one bit, but that we are all united by some illogical sense or purpose, a sense that in some way, the universe would be better with humans in it than without, or even a childish lust for some future where all people are far happier and loving than they are today. I can't speak for anyone else. I'm not argumentative enough to try to build some straw man and burn it.
I just hope that some day we will stop using God as an excuse for war and evil, or something to brag about to your friends, or a place to go on the weekends, or as some list of shortcomings for which to harass and injure other people, or a reason why some group of people have more rights than another group.
And I also hope that you have a better understanding, if not agreement, of the real reason why I get angry at legislators and statesmen who claim to know God better than I, and try to impose their understanding of God's teachings on everyone else (I don't really know if this was the case in Malaysia). They are only men.
I don't claim to have any better understanding than they do. I just feel that freedom was what God intended - freedom to do God's work, however one may choose. I've heard quite a few horror stories from supposedly Islamic nations (Iran comes to mind). Things that, to me, seem evil and wrong, and certainly not God's will. For example, I've heard that women are forced to wear shrouds over their faces in Afghanistan, and I've heard that some criminals are killed by throwing stones at them in Iran. Also I don't agree with laws many countries (even the USA, of which I am a resident) have against certain kinds of sex, specifically non-heterosexual non-"missionary position" sex. I don't know how often people are stoned to death, or how many women are forced against their will to wear shrouds, and I admit this. It could just be western propoganda, or some bias against non-Christian religions endemic to the US. I don't know. What I think, though, is that there have been enough examples of things I consider to be wrong (for example, the crusades, or pogroms) that were done in the name of God that I do not believe any man who claims to know what God is, or what God wants from me, or what is right or wrong. I think that God tells everyone what is right and wrong. I can't believe that humanity is inherently corrupt or immoral. Some religions claim this; I don't know if it is a Muslim tenet. I feel that other people are decent and good at the core. I think they are Godly at the core.
I also think that your outlook for America - "Morals don't exist anymore" - is a little too bleak. I can understand why you might post that, in response to a flame like the one I wrote. I feel that the human race is at a very confused point in its development, and that we don't know how to deal with the way that our lives are changing. But I don't feel that things are getting worse, in the long run. I think immorality now is nothing more that birthing pain, and I think that we are on the brink of an unimaginably great future. This may sound heretical, or even obscene, and I don't blame you if you feel it is wrong-headed, but I really think that humanity is not destined to worship God, but to create him.
But it's deceptive and ambiguous. It implies the legitimacy of one's government, as well as some homogenous sentiment among the governed, which can be perfectly expressed by a government.
I feel the only legitimate government is one that exists only for the protection of the minority, not to express the will of the majority. And even this sort of government is superfluous, in my opinion. If we as a species are so brutal that we can't help but lynch each other, then I don't want to be a part of this species. So I'm betting on good.
- I'd like to know what you mean by proposing that the Malaysian government be "brought to justice."
I think the Malaysian people are almost entirely decent human beings, just like Americans and everyone else. As a decent human being, I feel that other humans who are indecent, and would like to bolster their power by regulating and ruling everyone else, should not be tolerated. Ever.Those Malaysians who frequent arcades are people too. If EVERY Malaysian approved of his government, then yes, I would agree with you. That's an impossibility.
I support the destruction of their government unconditionally. The Malaysian people will rise or they will be crushed, just like the Russian people. At the very least, I don't want to have to look back on a decimated Malaysia and think "But my opinions of what is right and wrong are no better than anyone else's, so I had no right to try to fix what I thought to be wrong."
The people know best, and I will fight for them.
Uh huh. OT, but I don't see why ppl care so much about a drunk moron who broke the law in another country, and was forced to submit to their peculiar brand of justice.
If their national law mandated that the punishment should be castration, I'd be all up for the idiot getting his balls ripped off.
Never understood why foreigners should get it easy, ever.
I actually tried to buy a M-rated game yesterday at walmart (just to see if they would card-me) and they did! WHen I told them I didn't have id on me, except for my library card, the guy actually took my library card as id, with no age printed anywhere on it!
The banned Arcades actually serve as a front end for the street gang recruitment. The gang lure students to the Arcades, let them think they can easily win alot of extra pocket money. However, at the end of the day those student will end up owning the gang alot of debts. Inorder to clear the debt, they must work for them by selling illegal pirated VCDs or drugs. If the students happens to get caught, the authority will have alot of problems dealing with them because they are underage. So a ban on the arcades actually helps to protect young people from bad elements.
Ok thier primary reason for baning arcades was that the kids stole money from thier parents... what happens next, banning roller rinks, banning mc donalds, banning any type of retail place....... kids steal money from thier parents so eventually they are not going to have any consumer retailer left if they continue to follow this philosophy...
DD..III.EEE.TTT.U.U.X.X
D D..I..EE...T..U.U..X.
DD..III.EEE..T..UUU.X.X
DD..III.EEE.TTT.U.U.X.X
D D..I..EE...T..U.U..X.
DD..III.EEE..T..UUU.X.X
...then obviously, the parents have that money and everything's fine.
Stop asking: My Karma is nowhere near -100 and will never get there with a default score of -1. I lost.
Need some advice on how to get that Karma down?
Stop asking: My Karma is nowhere near -100 and will never get there with a default score of -1. I lost.
In the marvelous commonwealth of Virginia it is illegal to commit sodomy (a legal term which they use to describe a number of non-intercourse sexual practices (probably all, I don't remember - I could cite examples, but for fear for my karma). True, they don't enforce this much but I will point out that it's there, and I'm not exactly sure how they'd react if somebody were reported...
First of all, children do not have full rights under the constitution. The voting age being a prime example - I can't vote in the coming election because I'm not yet 18, but i'm probably more a informed voter than many who will be at the ballots on November 7th. Do I think this is unfair? A litle, but not really - because I believe that a two-year old shouldn't be allowed to vote, nor a 10 yr. old, nor a 13 year old. The voting age of 18 is a somewhat arbirtrary but objective division between adulthood and childhood and the level of maturity of these voters. They can't give an IQ test, or a poll quiz about how informed people are (because of the ban on literacy tests), so they have to set some year, and I say 18 is fine, because it's a fine line indeed.
Secondly, our rights are suspended once we enter a public school. Student's freedom of speech is stifled (both in what kind of language they can use and all distributed literature must be approved, at least where I live).
Finally, first amendment rights are not considered absolute guarantees. The U.S. Supreme Court stated as much in the unanimous decision in Schenk v. United States where a socialist, Charles Schenck, mailed 15,00 leaflets to draft-age men during WWI telling them that the draft violated their 13th amendment rights. The U.S. had passed the Espionnage Act of 1917 saying that it was illegal to use the U.S. mail system to distrubute materials urging resistance to the government. Schenck was tried and found guilty by the Supreme Court.
Not enough? Fast Forward to WWII, when all Americans of Japanese descent were being forced into intenrment camps away from the coasts. 110,000 people of Japanese origin were forcibly moved from the west coast, allowed only what they could carry with them. 75,000 of them were natural-born ctizens. Enter Fred Korematsu. He lived in Oakland all his life, and had never in his life seen Japan. Fred wanted to join the U.S. navy to fight for the U.S.- no luck there - he was of Japanese descent. So he tried working at a naval shipyard and was fired despite good performance write-ups. He was planning to marry his white fiancee and move to New Jersey when the executive order to relocate was passed. He did not leave, figuring it couldn't apply to him. he was arrested, and he sued. His case made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court (along with two other cases). Korematsu v. United States was tried and the relocation was upheld 6-3.
So yeah, those are two precedents for suspension of rights. I no you probably all hate me for all that blasted legal stuff. Oh well. Oh, and yeah, I know both cases I mentioned were wartime, but the decision in the first left wiggle room for it to apply to any time.
Isn't it nice to know you can pour hot grits down my pants and not go to jail over it? Shoot, I dont even care if you do it in an arcade! There is this cool game there called Slashdot's Arcade Funhouse featuring me as Natalie Portman.. In the game I go and get petrified and you have to rescue me. It's quite fun :)
;)
see you there cutie
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
Who do these peope think they are? I live in malaysia. This is getting out of hand.. They have already sent notices to the arcade's they must be shut down in a month or so.. Since when do kids STEAL from their parents to go to the arcade? I always took money from teh santa clause standing in front of the shopping center. It's not like arcade's are a great economic distress in this country. I mean give me a break!
BOOOOOOOOO for taking down my arcade!
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
as illustrated by MJR. First of all Islamic Law also known as Shariah Law isn't applied in Malaysia as a whole. Secondly Islamic Law has never asked non-Muslims to convert to Islam, if anything it is the only religion in the history to allow minority religious groups to continue practicing their religion. I would be really interested in knowing where in the Islamic history has it forced non-Muslims to convert. Thirdly Mr MJR pointed out that Muslims were a dying breed and "MAN" is evolving. Hence Muslims are not man but some other entity. I don't know what MJR has gone through in his childhood. Why the so much hatred. Maybe he was sexually abused as man evolved into a corrupt being. Or maybe his father or mother were screwing neighbours while he or she was made to watch. Whatever the reason for this much hatred and ignorance from MJR, we as Muslism must learn to forgive him for his mistakes. My point is simple. Man can't keep himself in line. We have seen with all the man made laws, as here in my country U.S.A along with other countries who rule under the banners of democracy, socialist, communist and what else not. Why have they all failed to solve their problems of the society. Every 14 seconds in U.S.A a person is murdered. Every 9 seconds someoen is raped. Kids are having kids, Morals don't exist anymore. Look anywher around where Shariah is not applied in its entirety. Corruption prevails and people like MJR are the ones leading the movement. Why is it where Shariah law is applied crime rate drops to pretty much 0%, prostitution and exploitation of women or men disappears and oppressors can't oppress the people in any way. Please see the results of Northern Nigeria where Sharia has been recently applied. All the cooruption has pretty much dissapeared. History has proven again and again that on Islamic Law for the past 1,400 years had kept all the ills of the society away fromt he Muslim Ummah. Maybe MJR needs a little lesson in history. It did that because Shariah Law is NOT man made law and a law from none other than Allah, hence withotu any faults. As men evolves he must realize from the history(since evolution is based from history)that no matter how much he evolves he can't fix the problems facing the society unless he implements the Divine Law, in which all human beings are treated with justice. And for peopel liek MJR if you hate Islam so much you might want to consider relocating to a country liek ours (U.S.A.) where you will realize that you were better off under the Shariah Law. And as for a dying breed. Islam is the fating grwoign religion in the world. According to U.S.A State Dept. Islam will be the second largest religion in America by 2010. Its is already that in Britian, France, Russia. With over 1.5 billion Muslim aroudn the world and ever growing, WE ARE FROM BEING CALLED A DYIGN BREED. Its MJR and losers liek him who are the dying Breed. Wanna Be Western idiots, who are shamed of who they are. The following quote from DR Shariati accurately describes MJR and people like him. "They(Westerners) have created a people who do not know their own culture, but still are ready to despise it. They know nothing about Islam but say bad things about it. They cannot understand a simple poem but criticize it with poorly chosen words. They do not understand their history but are ready to condemn it. On the other hand, without reservation they admire all that is imported from Europe. Consequently, a being was created who, first became alienated from his religion, culture, history and background, and then came to despise them. He was convinced he was inferior to the European. And when such a belief took root in him, he tried and wished to refute himself, to sever his connections with all the objects attached to him and somehow make himself like a European, who was not despised and looked down upon, and at least be able to say, "Thank God I am not an Easterner since I modernized myself sufficiently to reach the level of a European." And while the non-European is happy with the idea that he has been modernized, the European capitalist and bourgeois laugh at their success in converting him into a consumer of their surplus production. "
I challenge any Atheist to prove the arguments in this article otherwise. No one has been able to do so for 1,400 years, lets see if these nice people can.Please checkout the challenge on the following site. Here is your chance to prove something wrong and stand up for your beliefs.
http://members.tripod.com/~islamx/q/amaz.html
So why answer to him/her? I think that's really feeble minded. In the end all Atheist beleive in a infinite power whether they liek to admit or not. I use to have a Atheist friend. Once he broke his leg and the first thinsg which came out of his mouth were, Oh my "God" thsi hurts. Hmm. There are two neighbors. One is a Believer another is an Atheist. The hundred percent certainty is that they both will eventually die. The uncertainty is as to what could happen after the death. Neither the Believer nor the Atheist has the tangible and perceptible evidence to claim with hundred percent certainty that he knows for sure what is going to happen, after the death. So, the next best thing to do for this uncertain couple is to examine all the possible and plausible options and then evaluate the probable results. Scenario Number One: The possibility; There is nothing after the death. Our life upon this world is the beginning and the ultimate end. Result: Under this Scenario both have nothing to gain or loose, after the death. Scenario Number Two: The possibility; There is some one called the Divine Supreme Entity. In that case there is a possibility for accountability, after the death. Result: Under this Scenario the Believer has a better advantage while the Atheist has much to regret, after his death. The Bottom Line: The Atheist has a possibility of being at a disadvantage at the hereafter, if there is One. The Believer has no such disadvantage and as such no apprehension. He is thus more relaxed and at ease in life.
- To buy cigarettes, I have to identify myself.
- To buy beer, I have to identify myself.
- The goverment enforces 2am curfew on bars.
- I can't enjoy a beer in the park with some friends.
- I can't smoke in the bar, even if the owner of the bar thinks it's ok.
- She's cute, but I have to check her age...
And then theres the housing situation. I find it vaguely amusing that there is almost no rent control (at least that makes sense).And democracy ? Yeah sure, two parties and the one with the most money for the campaign is better off.
Lets not forget censorship. So you're sitting there at 2:30am watching a movie on cable (you'd rather be at a bar socializing, but thats illegal). You've seen the movie before, you remember theres a scene with a pair of naked breasts because the scene is oddly enough missing from the movie...
And half the music on the radio also seems censored, or the artists are just forgetting a few verbs here and there.
So when you rant against other countries, remember that quite a few people coming over here, have the same opinion of the states as I see expressed about malaysia.
I am just used to more personal freedom and less goverment interference in what I'm doing.
/dev/eskil ---
It's not about being "slapped around" or "abused." There's a big difference between appropriate punishment and child abuse. No one is claiming that abuse should be legal.
Ummm, hello? For someone who speaks of the evils of aggression, you sure are violently minded.
People like you are the reason the country is so fubared. Are you too brain-damaged to realize that this simply fosters aggresion and loathing?
I was spanked as a child and yet I am a very mild mannered (some would say nerdy) kind of guy. Furthermore, I appreciate what my parents have done for me. I love them with all my heart and respect them. There are many times I feel they were too easy on me, in fact. Appropriate discipline is born of love for a child. It's the, "I care about what happens to you and how you turn out as an adult," kind of love rather than the, "here's twenty bucks, go hang out somewhere and leave me alone," kind of "love" that most parents seem to practice.
Oh, and a "healthy" "respect" for authority isn't always the best thing for someone either.
Why do you think he used the term "healthy"? Because there's a difference between blind adherence to authority figures and appropriate respect for legitimate authority.
Go ahead, be a good little drone.
As those who know me will tell you, I am far from being a drone. Read my .sig. Yes, I know it's from Monty Python and is intended humorously. I still see a lot of truth to it.
...with its ban on chewing gum, etcetera. And the caning of that little bastard who was damaging cars.
Huge restrictions on what you can do, when you live in Singapore.
But on the other hand, you can walk the streets safely at any time of night, and you don't worry about people breaking into your car and stealing the stereo.
It's a trade-off, just as with all things in life.
When you allow a lot of freedoms, you also allow a lot of assholes to infringe on your own freedom.
Let some jerk chew gum, and you just *know* he's going to stick it on the seat of the bus when he gets up to leave, just as you're about to sit down on it.
Ban the gum, and you don't have to worry about it.
But, then, you don't get to chew gum, either.
Trade-offs and balances, costs and consequences...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
the imprisonment of the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia on trumped-up charges to keep the current Prime Minister and his corrupt cronies in power for a while longer.Amnesty International's annual report on Malaysia (the direct link doesn't work, you'll have to get to it yourself) details some of the abuses. Makes banning video arcades look pretty bloody unimportant by comparison.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's a democracy? Really? Well, let's go have a look at Amnesty International's website...
Hmmm, lesseee.... Ah! Asia, Malaysia, there:
Read it all here.
And next time, stop pontificating about Malaysia being a democratic country without doin' your homework.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Unfortunately you'll find it becomes rather difficult in practice (i.e. when you actually have your own children) to follow through on these principles, because of the political climate in which we live (in this respect things are broadly the same in the UK as they are in the US).
You see, punishing your child will only be effective if they are upset by it. And its painful for any loving parent to have to inflict that on their child. If the punishment was successful, inevitably you will often harbour some doubts as to whether maybe you were a bit too hard on them. As a result psychologically healthy parents are all to some extent inhibited from doling out punishment.
Now if that were all, everything would be well. But unfortunately during the 1960's an idea arose which essentially states that disciplining children is always wrong. Good parents know in their hearts why this idea gained currency so easily, it is for most adherents nothing more than a reaction against the healthy sense of remorse I just spoke of. But as 1960's permissiveness took hold, society lost its backbone. In this, as in so many other things, most people no longer seem to have the stomach to face difficult moral responsibilities when there's an easy way out. And at some point since then, having acquired a wrapper of respectable post hoc rationalisation, the idea became a full-blown ideology. Nowadays people can reassure themselves that this abrogation of parental responsibility is all actually in a good and noble cause.
Is it fuck.
In the last twenty years, like many liberal ideas it has infiltrated social, health and educational policy, and has in some countries has even become enshrined in law. Although in some places you can therefore go to prison for slapping your child's rear end, that is not the most effective inhibitor to being an effective parent however. What is, is the fact that the ideology is now so widely accepted that most parents, teachers, healthcare professionals, welfare officers etc. would be shocked and offended to hear you admit that you are prepared to smack your child. Most people prefer to avoid public censure. More specifically, most people don't want to be regarded as the child-abusing monster they are made to feel they are. Unfortunately society at large no longer accepts the argument that the smack is necessary to teach an important behavioural lesson to a wilful child too young to reason with.
So whereas parents used to think twice about using physical punishment they now think thrice and more often than not they just abstain altogether. Even though many of us still know deep down that in doing so we are simply evading an unpleasant responsibility.
As everyone knows, it is in the first few years of life that our most basic behavioural patterns are given shape. If a child doesn't receive good discipline at that time it is going to be awfully difficult to change tactics later on when they are big enough to get into more serious trouble. But I'm afraid that too many parents don't realise their mistake until then and by that time it is of course far too late to do anything about it.
As for me, when I became a dad I set out at the beginning with the firm intent to dish out the odd gentle smack when necessary. But because of the current atmosphere surrounding the practice and the risk that the children might be encouraged to complain to the "thought police", I have found myself increasingly unwilling to make the effort. I have fared no better than anyone else in the end.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I did not know that. Thanks.... I'll go look that up.
It's just the way we think about it though.
.Where is the 'interest' payment supposed to come from, if all money is loaned in the first place?
By the same token, a society built on respect, if Abdul needs an extra grand to do something, and I have it to give, that is a gift. Out of respect, Abdul will repay that gift at an appropriate time.
If you look into where 'money' really comes from, you will probably find that interest is the devil itself.
Many countries work like this..
a national 'reserve' (the Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, etc...) 'lends' money to the banks at prime. This is money 'created from ntohing'. This is the source. The bank, in turn, lends that money to people
Yes, they do.
Good for them. Loans at that level do not mean the same thing as they do when you borrow money from Uncle Bob.
Remember, money is illusory..
Gambling is only a 'sport' for people who can't do math!
That's right folks. If money represents our hard work and ability to trade.. what purpose does gambling serve? It's not like you are buying a service or a good.. you are simply risking money.
Muslims also don't believe in interest charges on loans, iirc. ANd this again makes sense; although it's so ingrained in our western society, think about it. Why should someone get interest simply because they lent you some money they didn't need anyway? Was more 'money' actually created in society through that lending? Why should more exist then? (Before ripping me apart, consider where money actually comes from)
Sadly, the movie has probably been banned.
Never meant half of the things I said to you. So you know, there's a half that might be true - G. Phillips
I'm sorry, I really should have backed up my statements trough links, but I didn't have any at hand.
I live in Switzerland, so I haven't been directly concerned by the censoring, but since I read a couple of german game magazines I have repeatedly heard about it.
The only relevant link I could dig up from my bookmarks is the web site of the government organization which does the "filtering". It's called Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften" (more or less meaning: federal investigation agency for youth-endangering writings).
I have seen the german version of Half-Life however, and what I wrote is definitely true. In addition to this, I think most of the iD games have been "indiziert" (german word, which basically means censored, or at least no advertising or selling in places accessible by minors).
Maybe someone from Germany would like to comment on this?
PS: While I was writing this, I also checked out some links trough Google. Here's a justification for the censoring of iD Software's Doom (in german).
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
... But not nearly as bad: In Germany, games which are deemed too violent are routinely subjected to modifications in order to be allowed to advertise and sell them in places accessible by minors.
A very funny example was Half-Life, in which the marines were replaced by some sort of combat droids which would spill motor oil instead of blood. Note that the gameplay doesn't change at all, you're still butchering like crazy...
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
I dunno about the rest of the USA, but are there any arcades left in existence? I remember almost 20 years ago there was Chuck E Cheese's(before it was 99& kiddie/skee-ball games), Cirucs, Showbizz pizza place, and a couple others. Wall to wall of fun video games. Now you only see 1 or 2 games in movie theaters, etc. Blah. I miss the old days.
Actually, I am one of the few /.ers that agrees with age restrictions on games. However, I have seen politicians who want to outright ban game violence, since most stores do nothing to enforce the ratings levels. Here the problem is the same as movie theaters, crack down on the theaters, not the movie makers, and in parallel, crack down on the stores, not the manufacturers
So, basically, if somebody in Malaysia decides to earn money by operating an illegal arcade out of his van, what will happen to him? In China, middle aged ladies are beaten by police and killed in prison because they want to do Falun Gong breathing exercises.
I think Amnesty International is more concerned with state torture and judicial murder, not so much the crimes that these countries use as an excuse for their Draconian punishments.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Where do you get your definition of "right" and "not a right?"
There are only two kinds of rights. Inalienable rights, which are rights which can't be taken away. For example, the government can't order you to commit suicide, without using the threat of death or a fate worse than death against you. This is why we call the Right to Life an inalienable right.
All other rights are enshrined in law. In our society, rights are defined in the constitution and interpreted by the courts. The most recent interpretations by the courts on video games, Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers have been that video games are not responsible for murders committed by people who happened to play one once. This being the case, video games are supposed to fall, legally, well within the realm of our First Amendment Rights protection, even considering the Supreme Courts recent creation of the 'secondary effects' doctrine. Nude-dancing case threatens free speech. Not that I agree with this moronic ruling by our wonderful Reagan/Bush appointees, but even considering the Supreme Court has been willing to undermine the First Amendment, video games are still protected. Maybe not for much longer, with the Hell hole people like you are turning this country into. (I really must get around to building a bunker, one of these days.)
Oh, right, I keep forgetting the American mantra. If we Americans keep pretending really hard that we live in a free and enlightened country, it will be true no matter what the pesky facts say...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Muslims aren't allowed to *gamble* by law. Games per se are fine, it's wagering money that's not allowed for Muslims. And it's a little harder to get around than saying "I'm not Muslim" since Malaysians carry compulsory identity cards which (amongst other things) help to distinguish Muslims and non-Muslims.
Knee-jerk reactions like this are typical of the Malaysian Government, unfortunately. We use the traditional approach to selecting Cabinet members - it's an intellectual race and the slowest ones win...
Somehow I doubt the government is going to start telling what you can and cannot play in your own home. One could even consider an extention of Roe vs Wade to cover this. I honestly don't think that a government saying that one has to be 18 or older to buy a game that has massive graphic violence in it is all that bad of a thing. That brings it to the point of one's parents telling you what you can and cannot play in your home, and I'm sorry, but you don't have that many rights in a matter like this. The point of that last like, imho, is that we should realize that government saying you have to be 18 or older to buy a game is a much more reasonable thing than alot of people think.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
It might not have helped you, but it made my day. The man who cracks mirrors with his bad teeth, the ideal man? The joke is complete! I just about laughed my head off, and I'll be lucky if I don't fall out of my chair. Say it ain't so! You don't really believe that, do you?
Look out Mike Myers! the men and women of the world have fallen in love with Austin Powers!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In Malaysia 95% of the gaming is in Internet cafes not arcades anyway. Only the big arcades in the malls have any games from the last 10 years and will not be affected by the law. The arcades the government are referring to are not nice places...gambling is illegal in Malaysia (sort of...if you dont count Toto 3d etc). As usual an american centric view and bad journalism combine to make a story where there is none.
(a) You are reading too much into the word "we". In fact, this said "we" also go to VCD stalls at night markets to buy said banned movies.
.....
/. posts!
:))
(b) You are also using a technique call "strawman" by posing the "we" above as a bunch of murderers+bla-blah. So much for your "logical and reasonable"-ness.
(c) I merely was stating certain facts of the "prudishness" of Malaysian Government. I laugh at this prudishness. But, instead, you make the judgement that I am condoning their actions. So much for your "logical....." (ditto)
(d) You concluded the Malaysians are "terrorized by criminals." While I agree that the Gov is not perfect and corrupt, I think your statement would fall under the fallacy called "slippery slope". So much for
(e) You keep invoking the concept of "Justice". However, I would like you to define "Justice".
Anyway, your rhetoric, and command of English is commendable.
Advice : Relax. Life's too short to get all wound up over
(Oh yeah, this is certainly Flamebait, so Moderators are welcomed to -1 Flamebait, but I am having too much fun to be held back!
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
You missed my point. Bad wording on my part to blame - your points are entirely valid and that was my point.
/. I've seen more and more people bash down other countries claiming that rights were being infringed, with a "holier than thou" consitution-quoting arrogance.
I was trying to get across the difference between a right and a privilege, and how some people will argue something to be their right, when it quite clearly isn't. Over the last few months on
If you are unable to distinguish in your own mind a privilege afforded you by the rules and laws within your country, and basic human rights, you're just not getting it. For example, in Holland they have an interesting political experiment going on where the law is extremely liberal. It is legal to smoke dope in Holland. Is that a basic human right, or is it a privilege? In my opinion, it's clearly a privilege, because by removing that law the only harm you are causing is that it is now illegal to smoke dope. If however they decided to refuse women suffrage that is an infringment against women's rights to speak out against the political and legal system in which they participate.
I admit my original argument was badly worded, but I'm getting kind of sick about the "rights" that some people on here think they are entitled to - in short, access to video games is a privilege, not a right, so treat it as such. Sure, it's a shame, but then is anybody going to be tortured or killed over this? Hope not, and it's pretty unlikely.
The one thing that makes me despise arguments about the preservation of people's basic human rights, is when people do not realise what is a right, and what is effectively a privilege. Being able to vote democratically is a right. Not being discriminated against due to race, creed or sexuality is a right. You have the right to not be imprisoned illegally, or to be tortured.
/. context. I really hate to break this to you guys, but other countries than the USA are democracies as well. In fact, if you had looked up your very own CIA's World Factobook entry for Malaysia yourself, you would notice that they do indeed have a democratically elected lower assembly, just like the UK. Marvellous. If they don't like it, they can vote them out. In fact, the legal system is based upon UK law (which is pretty hot on the old democratic rights stuff) and they have universal suffrage at the age of 21. Fancy that, they even let women vote as well! These foreigners are getting very advanced aren't they, and there you all were thinking that just because it was somewhere "foreign" it must be one of those places you see on CNN with pictures 100 foot tall of Commies everywhere. Indeed.
:-)
Being able to play video games is a privilege, not a right.
If you have the rights I've outlined above, you will be able to vote the government out of office who has banned video games, if that is your preference. A populous that is mostly in support of the banning of video games has the right to ban them (through democratic means) if they wish. Just because a minority disagree, does not mean that they are having their basic human rights taken away from them. If that were the case, the Klan would be able to argue it's their basic human right to set fire to black people, I would have the right to steal Dr. Pepper from the store whenever I couldn't afford it, and the legal system would just fall to pieces.
Perhaps something I've never really noticed about American xenophobia before, and it's only just clicked for me in the
No need for Amnesty International in this particular situation then - I'm sure that AI is busy enough dealing with real infringments against human rights. In fact, do us all a favour and go and read their Annual Report and read about some real horrors before describing the banning of arcades as a travesty.
Morons. Get your priorities right. I can understand you wanting to bitch about the FBI snooping your data - it's your contry, your right. But to bitch about a democratic government banning video games???? Purrr-lease....
I bet this doesn't get touched by the moderators, or if it does it will be negative.
actually runs as follows (or so I'm told). The gum ban only came into effect after S'pore had gotten a new, ultracool underground transit system. Automated doors, always on time, squeeky clean stations, the works. Then, one day, all this perfection comes to a crashing halt. For some strange reason, the train won't leave. The doors refuse to close and the driver can't take off. So the efficient as always in S'pore, transit mechanics proceed to take apart the entire train to determine where the problem is. After three or four hours, the train is completely disassembled, but still, nothing. So they put it back together again and tow it to some maintenance station or other, where it's given a good, solid cleaning before it's to be taken apart again, this time by more knowledgeable techs. Imagine the surprise when some underpayed malay or Indian scrublady discovers a piece of gum stuck to one of the electronic eyes that determines whether or not it's safe to close the doors yet.
In Singapore, this means you ban chewing gum straight away.
Don't know if the above story is true, but it went around at the time.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
The amazing thing is that this is about video games, not crack houses or militias like the police in the US. I can't imagine that this is one of their biggest problems. Maybe there is there some kind weirdo fringe group behind it.
Icebox
I salute the efforts of organizations such as Amnesty International, who work for freedom in other nations
A slightly strange comment. AI concentrate on torture, political imprisonment, etc. The fact a few people aren't going to be able to play Daytona is unlikely to worry them.
If I was wearing my flame proof pants, I might mention that it's this inability to see the line that gets merkins a bad name.
I both agree, and at the same time I disagree with you.
First of all, I think we have to differ between "Beting the crap out of the kids" and "spanking" them.
Here in Norway we can't even grab kids by the arm if we catch them stealing, because it's forbidden by law. And spanking is absolutely not recommended, if the authoroties has a chance of knowing it. Wich sums up to "Don't even think about beating the crap out of any kids".
When that's said; I, too, got an occational spanking when I was a kid (I'm 27 now), but that was only when I did something really bad (like the time I totally killed my grandmothers flowerbed by feeding the flowers laundry detergant. There were some quite rare flowers in it, too.) Less serious "crimes" might be punished by just a slap on the hand, or just a verbal reprimande.
Today, we have a rising problem with crime, especially among young people (14-25), and I think the law forbidding parents physically punishing their kids have som of the blame. I'm not saying that kids should be beaten up for everything wrong they do, but if a kid gets spanked for stealing money from his/her mothers purse the first time, he/she will think twice before doing it again.
This fact that kids don't learn (by feeling) that crime is punished, makes it easier to resort to bigger crimes, since there is no fear for punishment. In addition, norwegian courts struggle with the problem that it takes a very long time to get a ruling, wich adds to the problem; there don't seem to be a punishment to the crime. I.e. the criminals are "told to say they are sorry and never to do that again", and that's it. No wonder they keep stealing when that's the way they're punished.
Give the kids a spanking if they really deserve it (but be sure to make that the exception, not the rule). Being unable to sit for an hour or so shouldn't do any long time harm, as long as the kid knows he/she did something really bad and deserved the punishment.
---
This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
When I was in high-school, they made it against the rules to go to the bathroom durring lunch when I was a Junior, because people smoked there.
Whatever you think of smokming or video games, most good things end-up banned to stop something else that scares the authorities. Authorities like to dictate and ""criminals" tempted them to do it. Give humanity enough rope, they'll always hang themselves some how.
As far as the reason, it seem the Malays actually have a slightly more justifiable reason than is often used here. Blood in gore have been in every media from folf lore ("Kill Snowwhite and bring me her lungs and liver"
As usual, Slashdot has applied its typically American/Christian/Agnostic/Atheist mentality to the affairs of another country. This seems rather prevalent in most Slashdot articles on 'freedom'. You cannot expect that every country wants to be like America. In Islam the parents are held responsible for the care and education of their children more so than in Christianity or Judaism. If a number of children are stealing money from their parents to play these arcade games, most of which advocate violence, sexual promiscuity and other things which fall under the term 'haraam'(forbidden) in Islam, then an Islamic government is going to take what ever steps that are neccesary to ensure that the moral fiber of their people is held intact.
As a Muslim, I aplaud the move by the Malaysian government in banning these arcades. Many children go to the arcades instead of studying or doing useful and lawful things. Most Americans find it difficult to believe that anyone could have a different idea of freedom or democracy than they do. And when somthing like this happens in a predominantly Muslim country(our way of thought is entirely different from Western thought, trust me), you whine and complain and start shouting about censorship and how this should scare us all. The Malaysians removed a cancer from their society as they have every right to do. And if the people don't like it, it will show in the next election.
This is dangerously close to A Clockwork Orange. In order to remove the bad parts of someone (or a society), they take the good parts out as well. Maybe we should ship them a few thousand copies of the movie
those who steal from their parents will just have to steal more to cross the border over to enjoy arcades in Singapore...
Reality Master dun said:
Actually, certain types of hidden cameras are generally not allowed to be sold to the public, or if they are allowed to be sold at all, require special licensing. Certain types of security cameras (smaller than, say, around an 8mm movie camera) are not allowed to be sold to persons other than "qualified" law enforcement and to licensed private investigators because they are considered "surveillance equipment".
New York State, in particular, has passed several laws on the books banning personal security cameras below a certain size (in an attempt to shut down "spy shops"), and many localities have similar laws.
In a word: Wrongo.
Up until fairly recently, literally all sex outside of the missionary position was illegal in Kentucky (our sodomy law has recently been overturned in KY Supreme Court as unconstitutional, as it was used largely to target the state's homosexual population). In Alabama, not only is everything but the missionary position flatly illegal (yes, people have actually been prosecuted for sodomy for consentual oral sex in Alabama, and yes, there have been convictions even in the past two years) but in fact all sexual activity between unmarried persons is illegal. The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled this legal, by the way.
A rather surprising number of states (often in the Southeast US, but a few other states have similar laws--Utah and Colorado are biggies) have laws that criminalise even consentual anal or oral sex. Most of these laws have not yet been ruled unconstitutional, and by and large, these laws are used to target homosexuals and/or teens "doing it"; they have been used to harass even straight, married couples in some cases, however. (Some good info on what is and isn't illegal is here; while the link deals more with statutory rape laws, it does have info regarding sodomy laws as well).
For that matter, a surprising number of states still have laws against adultery on the books. These are rarely enforced, but are sometimes used in divorce proceedings and the like.
A recent appeal to get Texas' sodomy law overturned has failed--and this was to the US Supreme Court. (Kentucky's sodomy law DID get overturned by the state Supreme Court, but this was because it was found it was used to blatantly harass homosexuals and that the definition of sodomy was overbroad--not on the merits of having a sodomy law in the first place.) Alabama's law, which (as noted previously) literally prohibits all sexual activity besides the missionary position between married adults, has not as of yet been overturned. (Incidentially--Alabama also has a law prohibiting gays from marrying, and (up until it was recently revoked after discovering it was still on the books) also had laws against interracial marriage. Some states still have these laws on the books, even though US Supreme Court decisions have overruled them.
There are court challenges to sodomy laws, but their success in part depends on state challenges and in part also to what happens with US Presidential elections. (If Dubya gets elected, it is likely that any Supreme Court nominees he picks are substantially more likely to rule sodomy statutes that even prohibit consentual anal/oral sex are constitutional.)
In any case, I'd say it would be quite inadvisable to, say, come into a small, rural Alabama town at night, going to Lover's Lane, being of one race and having a partner of another race--even if you ARE married (God help you if you're gay) and go through the entire Kama Sutra in the back of one's car. These are areas where the Kama Sutra is often banned for being considered obscene; doing such is probably a VERY good way to find one's self convicted under Alabama's sodomy laws. (Chances go up even more if your spouse or partner happens to be the same sex.)
(I'll note, as an aside, that Alabama is all but a fundamentalist Christian theocracy nowadays. One of the major judges posts and preaches Christian scripture before trials, has stated flat out that "Hindus and Muslims and pagans" are "not worth protecting". The Governor of the fine state of Alabama flat out stated (when he was warned by authorities that this was stepping over the bounds of the First Amendment's separation of church and state) that if the judge was ordered to leave he'd send in the National Guard to prevent the judge being disbarred. If it weren't for the Supreme Court, they'd be as much of a theocracy as Taliban Afghanistan (and no, I am not making this up--the Southern Baptist Convention [which has become increasingly fundamentalist and coercive to the point that their own seminary may now be defined to be a coercive group--destroyed the world's only college of social works in the process of a fundy purge] and other fundy groups and denominations [most notably the American Family Association, the UnChristian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Assemblies of God] have an incredible amount of influence on both the common folk of Alabama and on its legislature--one almost cannot get elected there without the approval of the Religious Reich, especially in more rural areas [read: most of the damn state]).
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
This stuff is all on the surface, and all aimed mostly at the upper class Thai's, like my wife and her family. However (and I'm not trying to embarrass the Thai government into "cleaning things up" here I'm a Libertarian and I think prostitution ought to be decriminalized), Bangkok is not exactly known as the puritan capitol of Asia.
Incidentally, my wife can't understand why Austin Powers is popular in the United States. My brother tried to show it to her and her cousin, and they whispered to me part way through it "can we stop watching the movie now." Of course, it didn't help when I kept telling them that he was a popular sex symbol in the US and considered the ideal man...
Incidentally, in the United States, we have de facto restriction in a lot of areas of the country over what types of games are allowed in arcades. Games which use plastic guns are particularly targetted, as part of the propaganda campaign against the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, restrictions like these are very bad for arcades in the US, which seems to be a constantly shrinking market.
Basically, the Malaysian government is just more honest than the US government. If the US government wants something banned or censored, they just make the companies pretend they are doing it of their own free will. Of course, the companies wouldn't do it if people didn't threaten legislation, regulation, and litigation against them. The American people let the government get away with this, because we like to preserve the illusion in our country that the Bill of Rights means something and that we are freer than the rest of the world (yeah, life might be better in the US but we are not particularly free, we are just a fairly rich country.)
So, don't worry about the condescension you'll probably hear from /.ers on this, things are bad all over. If they aren't as bad here yet as they are in Malaysia (and they may be) its just a matter of time till they are.
I'm kind of sick of people claiming that people in the US should just shut up about the grim, Puritan Jihad that's going on in this country because other parts of the world are "so much worse." First of all, I happen to know that you make trade offs for living in the US, and that there are good things you give up as well as bad. Mainly, though, I think that the grim, humorless people who are rising to power in this country are a real threat. Both Weimer Germany, before Hitler, and Russia after the Liberal revolution, before Lenin, were temporarily free societies. All it takes to destroy that is a group of grim, humorless fanatics who are willing to use force against the populace to "save them from themselves."
These are the people behind all the Culture War crusades currently going on, and these people are dangerous.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Yes, the US government censorship of violent games seems mild compared to Malaysia's banning of entire arcades. But that doesn't make American censorship right. Just because someone is relatively worse doesn't make the situation in the US good.
Being complacent about US censorship because it's worse somewhere else is a sure-fire way to end up like that somewhere else in a hurry.
That said, comparing US censorship to Malaysian censorship is unfair. The US has a tradition of free speech and Malaysia does not. Malaysia bans all sorts of stuff:
I'm pretty sure they'd ban Slashdot if it were based there.
sig semper tyrannis!
I don't know where the rest of you grew up, but I know of a few people in my high school 10 years ago who didn't obtain their nintendo cartridges legally. (Oxon Hill High School, outside of Washington, DC)
These days, they're having problems with kids stealing other kids Pokemon cards. I'm guessing there's a few kids out there who are lifting a little cash from their parents to get it, too.
And the reason this happens is because unlike Malasia, if you give the kid a good spanking, you get brought up on child abuse charges, or your kid sues you for emotional trauma years later. But if you just let them steal, you're fine, as they're still a juvenile, and they'd just get sent up to Boy's Village for a little while.
Not even a full generation later, and you're not shocked to see some 5 year old mouthing off to his mom. If I did that to my mom, I knew that after we got home, I'd not be sitting so easy for the rest of the day.
Too many kids these say have no real adult supervision-- both parents work, and they're sent off to a daycare or have a babysitter watch after them 'till a parent gets off work. If they're lucky, they have an older brother who will beat them when they do something stupid. [of course, they could also get my brother, who would beat us for no particular reason]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Think about that next time you get worked up about the government censoring the amount of blood in a game.
Now, don't get me wrong, I believe it is a travesty that there are other countries out there that take away personal freedoms like this. I salute the efforts of organizations such as Amnesty International, who work for freedom in other nations. And, I feel very thankful for the freedom we Yanks have in comparison to some of these other countries. My sadness over their own situation, however will NEVER make me stop fighting to preserve my own rights. While it pales in comparison to the situation in Malaysia, my government telling me what I can and cannot play in my own home is STILL a violation of my rights, and I will continue to fight every single time something like that happenes. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
I would like to note that a few years ago, when I took a trip to the UK, I ended up going into a few arcades there, and the place was about 75% gambling, 25% video games. If you read the article, it says that the ban was mainly focused at the illegal gambling 'arcades', and happened to catch the legitimate arcades as a side effect. I don't agree with this, but I don't think it's all that bad of a thing either. Given that the US has restrictions on gambling as well, I think people should realize that diferent countries are going to deal with different things differently.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I am sure glad to see that Malaysia has made a /. headline! -sarcasm- Malaysia Boleh! -sarcasm-
/.-ters, don't judge too hastily. It's the knee-jerk reaction that, unfortunately, permeates too many people (including /. people) nowadays.
Anyway, being a Malaysian, I can give a bit of history about this stuff.
Malaysia is a prudish country. To illustrate, let me list out the movies _we_ have banned : Austin Powers, Prince of Egypt, Schindler's list, Saving Private Ryan, countless others.
We also banned kissing scenes in American TV movies : they are always hilariously cut/bleeped off.
We banned Ellen Degeneres' appearance in David Letterman.
etc.. You get the Picture.
BUT...
The banning of Video Arcades, however, is not exactly a BadThing(tm), though. Have you ever seen some of these "video arcades" in Malaysia? They are not Dave and Busters' nice, clean stuff. But they are like gloomy, full of smoke, and lots of unsavoury characters.
Basically, if I have kids (I don't), I won't even let them -near- that place. If my kids want video games, I'll happily buy a Athlon and QuakeIII for him.
So, please
(As a point of history, video arcades were banned for the same reasons some years back. But the licenses were reinstated a few year back.)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.