Slashdot Mirror


Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has posted their take on Indiana's newest attempt at passing a game law that seeks to restrict the sale of violent video games. This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in. From the article: 'The state capitol, Indianapolis, was one of the first cities in the nation to try and strike out at violent video games, first going after arcades and other entertainment vendors back in 2000. The quest ended up where they all do: in front of a judge, and left for dead. Now that California, Illinois, and Michigan have all suffered astounding defeats in their attempts to address PC and console game sales, Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures.'"

267 comments

  1. LOL @ USA! by Asshat+Canada · · Score: 0, Funny


    Worst. Country. Ever.

  2. Good to see the Taliban alive and well in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful


    next up, all women have to wear a veil and cannot go out in the day

    1. Re:Good to see the Taliban alive and well in USA by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, actually this isn't the American way at all - it is the Greek way from roundabout 350BC - The days of Aristotle and Stoa. The problem is that most Americans have not read the classics and therefore keep going over the same old, tired, ancient arguments, that were argued to death thousands of years ago already in Europe...

      Progress? What progress? We are still mentally in the bronze age.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:Good to see the Taliban alive and well in USA by qvek · · Score: 0

      That's a bit extreme I think.

  3. at fist glance by Amouth · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When i frist read the artical i though it was "India" and i couldn't figure out why they where refrencing US court stuff.. now i get it "Indiana"... yea.. i can't wait for it to fail.. slowly every state will do this and then mabey just mabey they will sit back and realize.. humm mabey the parents need to watch what their kids are doing.. it isn't the governments job to raise kids.. it is the parents..

    but i could be wrong.. becuse common sence never seems to make it to the people in government

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    1. Re:at fist glance by Kijori · · Score: 0

      Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe. Now write it out 100 times.
      Only joking. While I agree that it would be nice if it could fail everywhere, what if it doesn't? It only takes one state to enact this law and others will likely follow suit; the risks of this working are too high for my liking... I think I'll wait to celebrate.

    2. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 3, Funny
      Dear Anonymous Coward

      You fool, you silly fool. The Amouth (879122) post is intentionally mis-spelled to discredit Liberal America.

      More specifically, it's part of a plot to make all you Freedom of Speech nutters, Homosexual Marriage supporters, Abortion Baby Killer advocates and Water Fluoridation practitioners look ignorant, uneducated, and stupid. (You gotta admit - pretty good work).

      879122 is with a branch of the NSA PR Office and works with cookie dissemination ... and please gimme my off-topic hit here.

    3. Re:at fist glance by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      WHITE OUT DOESN'T WORK ON YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN.
      Didn't Strong Bad prove that in one of his emails?
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    4. Re:at fist glance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It seems computer games are to be blamed for the epidemic of illiteracy too.

    5. Re:at fist glance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hush, fool! That's a STATE SECRET!

      The FEDS will be AFTER you!

    6. Re:at fist glance by Guuge · · Score: 1

      Water Fluoridation practitioners

      Shouldn't that be further down the list, after 'Science Supporting Heretics' and 'Anti-Torture Prudes'?

    7. Re:at fist glance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL U R so rite!

    8. Re:at fist glance by scbysnx · · Score: 1

      did you honestly just say freedom of speech nutters?? you do realize that that is true republican ideal right? of course the crappy excuse for a republican party that is in office today wouldn't support freedom of speech at any cost.. "protection" and control is their game. I'm a republican and AS a republican I disgusted by the current republican party.

    9. Re:at fist glance by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Thank you for pointing this out while i was away.. but why do you have to go blow my cover.. that is just not nice.. now i have to be sent back, to the factory and that's a drag for me and it's an expense for the government, and that's a drag for me...

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    10. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 2, Funny
      No problem. I renditioned myself out of the country many moons ago.

      PS - If you will insist on using netiquetically repulsive capitalizations, at least get it right. Your last line should read:

      The FEDS will be after YOU!

      (Note that a misplaced emphasis on the "after" implies that the Feds have failed in an attempt at queue-jumping).

    11. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 1
      I did neither honestly nor dishonestly (nor any shade in between) 'say' anything, I merely typed some stuff. As an ex-German or semi-German, or pseudo-German, (and most SlashDot readers are one), one of my self-ordained missions in life is to promote accuracy and precision in the Home of the Free. Clearly a hopeless endeavor with a non-homogenous collection of ethnic groups who use inches, pounds, bushels and who more often than not believe in Charlton Heston, with or without flintlock...and who have inexplicably not adopted DIN standards. (...Idiots).

      But my heritage is one that favors (...or 'favours' if your preferred flavour is Manchester, Birmingham or Boston) and promotes, whenever possible, hopeless last-stands, to whit:

      http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/projekt/

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108211/

      Furthermore, your last line, after correcting the syntactical typographical error, reads:

      "I'm a Republican and as a Republican I disgusted the current Republican party." (Caps are mine). This may have unintentionally exposed a factoid.

    12. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 1
      1. You are of course quite welcome.
      2. The outing of diseffective NASA operationalists is an existential necessaryness in order to guard, protect and maintainance the sinkcity of our greta nation and buffer the PR office firewall.
      3. Was 'drag' part of your cover or merely a transitory harmonically influenced lifestyle choice?

      Maintain Purity of Thought. dontlookatherknockers
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4682533.stm http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031129/2 003112904.html http://www.partydomain.co.uk/d-commerce/product899 .html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/050 7.cannon.html

    13. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 1

      No. Hermetics and Prunes are merely Running Dog Reactionaries and as such mentioned in neither Genetics nor the Old Testicle.

    14. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 1
      Ohmygod I've finally been modded up.
      Twice.
      Might as well retire.
      Nought more to live for.

      Death, where is thy sling of outraged arrows?

    15. Re:at fist glance by Amouth · · Score: 1

      honestly i saw a chance to use the words from my favorite song http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/pause-claus.shtml

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    16. Re:at fist glance by scbysnx · · Score: 1

      next time I have to write a paper with proper gramar I'm just going to type it up then post it here so you can correct it for me

    17. Re:at fist glance by Schickie · · Score: 1
      Dear scbysnx.

      No problem, glad to help.

      -Possibly more succinct, avoiding redundant "helper" words, might be:

      "When next I wish(want) to write grammatically(syntactically) correct I'll type it and post it here for you to correct."

      sig1: Where is it written that pedantry must be reserved for pedants?
      sig2: To prevent hypertension, assume the source forgot the smiley or is a congenital moron.

  4. It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid law by isdnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a very good thing that the United States has a system of judicial review, wherein legislative folly can be overturned by courts. HOWEVER, there's a downside. Legislators know that they can pass anything they want, since their mistakes are subject to being overturned anyway. This lets them legislate recklessly. It's a free pass to allow them to pander to the religious right, for instance, by passing laws that will sound good to the party "base", and getting a double benefit by being able to rail against "activist judges" who are predictably bound by law and precedent.

  5. ARS? by mugnyte · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      Today are we just going to post all the ARSTechnica.com articles?

    -1 Redundant

    1. Re:ARS? by anonymous_wombat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not only that, but this was the very next story after the RIAA one.

  6. Another Failure by ogar572 · · Score: 0

    for Indiana. Wait, I am from Indiana!

  7. gta: a call for censorship by maynard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Indiana, ya know what? You can bite my fleshy white ass. I just bought gta: Liberty City Stories for psp and am enjoying every fucking sicko minute of it. Woohoo, there goes another pedestrian! *smush!*

    1. Re:gta: a call for censorship by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      GTA: A Call for Censorship

      You know, that would make for an awsome tile for their next game.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:gta: a call for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GTA: A Call for Censorship
      You know, that would make for an awsome tile for their next game.


      Really. This time you play as THE MAN. Respect my authority!

  8. Religious people by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can't outrun them. You can't destroy them. If you damage them, the essence of what they are remains -- they regenerate and keep coming... eventually you will weaken -- your reserves will be gone... they are relentless.

    1. Re:Religious people by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trigger the Rapture. They'll all be gone and we'll get all their stuff!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Religious people by Crilen007 · · Score: 1

      Resistance is futile!

    3. Re:Religious people by mugnyte · · Score: 1


      AND...they play dirty games! Their tightwad rules are for their secret alter-egos, of course.

    4. Re:Religious people by NizzyWizzy4Shizzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes... let us blame bad legislation on all religious people. Religious people are after all... evil... right?

      There's a conceptual fallacy in there somewhere...

      Anyway, the real problem is not with religious people, but people who don't think that parents can or should be responsible for themselves or their children. Not all religious people think like this.

      Summary: This is about personal responsibility, the government's influence, and video games. Not religion.

    5. Re:Religious people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Religious people are after all... evil... right?


      Pretty much, yes.

    6. Re:Religious people by Sebilrazen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Parent is correct.

      I want a bumper sticker that states: "In case of Rapture your car will be not be empty, because I'll be driving it."

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    7. Re:Religious people by rewt66 · · Score: 1

      But you'll only have their stuff for seven years... then they'll be back and you'll be gone!

    8. Re:Religious people by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Well, that is to be expected - they get reborn all the time...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    9. Re:Religious people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But with them gone, things would be a lot more peaceful. Getting raptured up and the world not destroying itself would be kind of embarrassing, wouldn't it? (Especially if it turned out they were only beamed up by the Greys.)

    10. Re:Religious people by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      In other words, they are the Borg. Resistance is futile.

    11. Re:Religious people by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't we camp on their respawn points?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    12. Re:Religious people by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      ...and the first thing to go? That damn plastic Jesus!

    13. Re:Religious people by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, the previous Pope said: "I just loooove the children" - without realizing that, that is the whole damn problem with the Catholic church and child molestation...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    14. Re:Religious people by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes... let us blame bad legislation on all religious people. Religious people are after all... evil... right?
      No, not all. Just the ones who want to decide for me that I can't play a violent video game with a hooker while smoking a joint and discussing my extensive porn collection. They have no problem with the Governator smoking dozens of cops in Terminator 2, but Grand Theft Auto will supposedly drag your children to hell.

      They are actually only a vocal minority in Christianity, but they arrogate to themselves the right of dominion over the rest of us. And then when we point out the obvious, that they are small-minded reactionary nitwits with garden-variety monomania on a old-fashioned power-trip, they dishonestly act as if we are tarring all people of faith the same brush. We're not.

      I have no problem with the person of quiet and strong faith, whose belief in Christ moves them to judge less and love more. But they don't run for office much, do they?

      When a person brings religion into their politics, it's about power 100% of the time. A person seeking worldly power may be working for a greater being, but it ain't Jesus.

  9. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 0

    Simple answer: If someone passes a law that is later determined to be unconstitutional, everyone who voted for that law tried to do something illegal. So send the 50%+ of both the congress and senate to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass-prison and things should straighten out real quick.

  10. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by nharmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more. Judicial review exists as a system of checks so ensure the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.

    But I do agree with you, it would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights.

  11. Indiana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That guy should stick to recovering ancient artifacts and stuff and leave law making to the experts.

    1. Re:Indiana by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      We named the dog Indiana.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Indiana by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is what Indiana Jones 4 will be about. Indiana Jones and the Last Arcade.

  12. bah! video game voilence agan! by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Funny

    look! ive play all teh quake and gta gamez and im not stupider than any1 else i kno... and if u belive it amkes ppl crazy or sumthin i just hav 1 thing to say u... im gonna fucking eat ur children!! yea u heard me right... im gonna do that and then eat ur fuckin ears like mike tyson and kill hookers like they do in gta... omg thats awesome lol dont u think

    so u fuckin losers get a life video gamez dont affect u!!!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:bah! video game voilence agan! by ytr · · Score: 1

      Congratulations - what an excellent spoof. Absolutely wonderfully humerous, you have truly captured the genre. Mod up Funny someone

    2. Re:bah! video game voilence agan! by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      No you got that rant wrong. It should be: "I have done it before and I'll do it again. I am going to f*ing kill Google!"

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  13. Everybody has their pet law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in.

    This will certainly get modded into oblivion. But the fact that gay marraige laws and gay marraige amendents were defeated in all 11 states which had them on the 2004 ballot has not stopped people from trying to get those laws passed. Everyone has something near and dear to his (or her) heart that he (or she) would really like to see change.

    1. Re:Everybody has their pet law by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      This will certainly get modded into oblivion.

      Why? Your comment was a rather bland observation of fact.

      I'll never understand why people consistently preface their comments with this caveat when their comments are almost invariably either repetitions of typical slashdot groupthink or simply entirely non-controversial. I used to think maybe the ones that said it appropriately were actually getting modded down, but in years of browsing at -1 while modding, I haven't seen it.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:Everybody has their pet law by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is a funny old place. Some days you can scream heresy and get modded 5+ for it. The next day you can say exactly what the group think says and you'll get modded troll. In the past I've had some really insightful comments modded to 5 then down to -1 before being modded to 1-2ish. It's really quite queer..

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Everybody has their pet law by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was scared of the dreaded "-1 Offtopic". And he got it!

  14. My prediction: by rob_squared · · Score: 1

    This law would pass at just the time that porn is made illegal, which I think we realize will be never.

    But I've always had a more direct question: Why does anyone even try to pass such laws? What problem does it prevent?

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:My prediction: by gold23 · · Score: 1

      Don't you understand? Somebody has to think of the children!

      --
      Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax
    2. Re:My prediction: by norton_I · · Score: 1

      It only takes a few true believers or shameless panderers to bring a bill like this to a vote, and once they do so, nobody wants to be on record opposing it, since it makes excellent fodder for an opponent at your next reelection campaign (Senator X is pro drugs and killing hookers! Vote Y for Senate!). So, people vote for the ban confident that the courts will overturn it and everybody saves face. Kind of a waste of time and money, but I have much bigger gripes about the legislature. The cynic in me says that every minute debating a bill like this is a minute they can't be passing the DMCA II.

    3. Re:My prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave that to Nambla and priests.

    4. Re:My prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What really makes this interesting (some would say expected) is that this is the same state that went with Catherine MacKinnon's interpretation of pornography and obscenity in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut. My guess is that it will be struck down just as forcefully by the Seventh Circuit Court.

    5. Re:My prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those darn Republican states where the elected officials got their 51% mandate from the voters! Maybe its time to register and make a trip to the local school in November, and vote for someone a little less ignorant ...

    6. Re:My prediction: by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      What problem do you have with the marlon brando look-alikes?

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  15. Glad I Live in Blue State by tealover · · Score: 1, Funny

    I seriously would like NYC to secede from the country. Then we can ban visas from all red states. Can't stand those disgusting, backwards idiots.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    1. Re:Glad I Live in Blue State by east+coast · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Glad I Live in Blue State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Democrats have never supported this stuff before?

    3. Re:Glad I Live in Blue State by Schickie · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that you're assuming that if/when you help elect Lady Clinton she will by then have learned to love '25 To Life' et al.

    4. Re:Glad I Live in Blue State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if you know this, but some states have actually tried that before. I know, I know, I was shocked too.

      Turns out they got their asses kicked. They did pretty well at first, but at the end? Yeah, not so much. It's amazing what happens to your willpower when your wife is being raped and your house is burning down behind you.

      So, instead of a successful secession, they decided to stick around and annoy the rest of us with obnoxiously loud proclamations of "the south will rise again" while driving around in their pickup trucks with a confederate flag hung in the back. I guess you could say it's their thing now.

      As an aside, what is it with "don't mess with texas"? Do they think they're more frightening than any other state filled with hicks and guns? They may not know this, but a guy with cowboy boots and a pistol isn't nearly as terrifying as a teenage thug from detroit on crystal meth and a glock in his waistband. Shocking, I know. But at least you can trick a stupid hick by saying "hey, look - air!" and fleeing, whereas your punk on ice is just probably more apt to shoot you for looking at him as he is to blink.

      But I guess arrogant bastards don't like to be reminded of things like that.

    5. Re:Glad I Live in Blue State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Don't Fucking Mess With Texas!

  16. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legislating While Intoxicated should be a major offence, but just try getting that law passed!

  17. Video/DVD rental shops enforce ratings by Zey · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How hard can it be? Video stores (at least here in Australia) have managed it for years: X and R rated videos on separate shelves, video clerks manage to not lease videos to minors because the rating is clearly marked. Games are just another medium.

    Incompetent implimentation in the past doesn't mean that game rating is a bad idea, just that it needs a national censorship regime to clearly impliment a standard that can be applied across all states.

    1. Re:Video/DVD rental shops enforce ratings by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      needs a national censorship regime to clearly impliment a standard that can be applied across all states.

      And here lies the problem (or one of them, anyway). States Rights are a must bigger issue in the USA than Australia. Their states are smaller too, which encourages people to shop around in adjacent states. Look at the problems they have with gun laws.

      The best example here would be the ACT porn loophole. I assume it still exists, or did until the internet came along in a big way.

    2. Re:Video/DVD rental shops enforce ratings by Television+Viewer · · Score: 1
      Video stores (at least here in Australia) have managed it for years: X and R rated videos on separate shelves, video clerks manage to not lease videos to minors because the rating is clearly marked.

      I think this is what the state laws want. They don't want to stop the sale of games to adults.

      It would not be a problem if a parent wanted to buy the game for their kid. The state does not want the child buying the game behind their parents back.

      --
      I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
    3. Re:Video/DVD rental shops enforce ratings by dangitman · · Score: 1
      It would not be a problem if a parent wanted to buy the game for their kid. The state does not want the child buying the game behind their parents back.

      I presume we are talking about under-18-year-olds here. Are you expecting a 17-year-old to do all his shopping with a parent? Do you expect parents to infantilize their children and isolate them from reality so much that they have to shop with their teenage kids at all times? that is rather disrespectful to the parent and child. Many teenagers can be trusted by their parents to make their own decisions. What happened to Family Values?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Video/DVD rental shops enforce ratings by tepples · · Score: 1

      It would not be a problem if a parent wanted to buy the game for their kid.

      Except parents gleefully ignore the rating for a GTA game and buy it for their kids anyway.

    5. Re:Video/DVD rental shops enforce ratings by tepples · · Score: 1

      I presume we are talking about under-18-year-olds here. Are you expecting a 17-year-old to do all his shopping with a parent?

      In the United States, "mature" games and "restricted" movies are rated 17+, not 18+. If you would object to any bright line whatsoever, then what's your opinion on voting rights for people whose nth birthday is the day after Election Day?

  18. Violent Video games by richpulp · · Score: 1

    Kids sometimes fail to see the difference between reality and fiction. I shudder at the number of WAR type video games and the relentless drive for military enrollment.

    1. Re:Violent Video games by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do realize that the Army has a video game out with the specific intention of recruiting people for service?

      (lol, like a video game could really prepare you for sweating to death inside an APC...)

    2. Re:Violent Video games by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      "lol, like a video game could really prepare you for sweating to death inside an APC..."

      Well, playing the game in your parent's basement during the summertime...

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    3. Re:Violent Video games by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the Army has a video game out with the specific intention of recruiting people for service?

      You mean: the Army has a video game that a bunch of guys convinced their bosses would be "for the specific intention of recruiting people for service?", and they got away with it. How cool is that?

      Not that there's anything wrong with the Army keeping with the times in its recruitment methods, IMO, but this seeems like a bit of a reach. Still, you have to admire the audacity of the developers of this taxpayer-funded game in getting the right people convinced to pay them to do this.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Violent Video games by Animats · · Score: 1
      You mean: the Army has a video game that a bunch of guys convinced their bosses would be "for the specific intention of recruiting people for service?", and they got away with it. How cool is that?

      It's very cool. And very real. If you do well in the game, you might get a call from a U. S. Army recruiter. "Hey, kid, how'd you like to do some real fragging?".

    5. Re:Violent Video games by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Not that there's anything wrong with the Army keeping with the times in its recruitment methods, IMO, but this seeems like a bit of a reach. Still, you have to admire the audacity of the developers of this taxpayer-funded game in getting the right people convinced to pay them to do this.

      Compared to the expense that the US military spends on recruitment otherwise, a game is cheap.

      It was an experiment.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Violent Video games by Araxen · · Score: 0

      To quote a very famous(ok not really THAT famous) person.....fps_doug(http://www.purepwnge.com/ ):

      "Maybe I can join the army, it's just like FPS except with better graphics. But what if I get lagged out there? I'M DEAD!! I mean I even heard there's no respawn points in RL (real life)!"

  19. required games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    they should pass a law instead that requires all teenage boys to purchase and play at least one version of "Leisure Suit Larry". i know that game has helped me immensely.

    1. Re:required games by notasheep · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you and your Christie Brinkley hand-puppet get along famously thanks to what you've learned in the game.

      --
      Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
  20. Put your money where your mouth is by MacFury · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'd like to see Legislators prorate taxes for Gay couples. If they can't enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual married couple, don't charge them as much in taxes to offset the financial burden of not being able to get married.

    1. Re:Put your money where your mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then Utah should prorate taxes for polygamists as a factor of the number of wives they have. And cohabitators should receive these same benefits as well, regardless of their proclivities or relations.

    2. Re:Put your money where your mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd back that 100%. The only problem with polygamy is when any of the wives are forced into marriage against their will, which is often the case in Utah unfortunately. Freedom and choice is the key, here. Basically when it comes to love, at least, ANYTHING should be legal so long as all the parties involved are consenting adults.

    3. Re:Put your money where your mouth is by EvilNecro · · Score: 1

      In the United States, married couples often pay more taxes than unmarried people with the same income. Many married couple file separate tax returns for this very reason.

    4. Re:Put your money where your mouth is by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >I'd like to see Legislators prorate taxes for Gay couples.

      I'd prefer to see NO tax implications associated with marriage, at all.

      Let existing laws govern property and child custody, and don't let marriage be an institution of the state, period.

      The whole concept of marriage favors the "normal", the attractive, the wealthy, and the religious, and brutally excludes others. I would challenge the state sponsorship of marriage on equal protection grounds.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Put your money where your mouth is by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Usually married couples pay more tax than unmarried couples. This is why in Canada the gay marriage thing is mostly a non issue. Anyone with half a brain cell feels that if gays want to marry in order to get the same disadvantages as other married couples - fine - go ahead - the Liberals always need more money for their scams...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  21. How about Indiana citizens sue? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    They should sue Indiana for wasting their tax dollars on a proven failure in legislation. It is a tremedous waste of tax dollars and it has been shown to fail on constitutional grounds over and over again. Why then do they keep trying it? To me it demonstrates legislators' ineptitude and shows waste.

    1. Re:How about Indiana citizens sue? by westlake · · Score: 1
      They should sue Indiana for wasting their tax dollars on a proven failure in legislation.

      None of these cases, so far as I know, have moved beyond the district court level. That doesn't count for much in the federal system.

    2. Re:How about Indiana citizens sue? by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      They should sue Indiana for wasting their tax dollars on a proven failure in legislation. It is a tremedous waste of tax dollars and it has been shown to fail on constitutional grounds over and over again. Why then do they keep trying it? To me it demonstrates legislators' ineptitude and shows waste.

      So your solution to wasting tax dollars is to waste more tax dollars. Excellent.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    3. Re:How about Indiana citizens sue? by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The legislature here in Oregon has tried to pass a sales tax NINE times. You'd think they'd get the hint after the first three or four, wouldn't you? But no: any special interest group with enough money (in this case, transplanted Californians who think the lack of a sales tax is a sign of barbarism) can get this sort of shit sponsored over and over and over again.

      It's non-stop. They think they'll eventually be able to wear you down enough to vote for them, or at the very least not vote against them. The only thing you can do, really, is to shoot them down at the polls every time they raise their ugly mugs.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    4. Re:How about Indiana citizens sue? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Naw, it should come out of the proposer's re-election funds. That'd stop alot of this.

      This is a case of congresscritters wanting to appear to be doing something, knowing full well that it'll create a stir but ultimately change nothing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:How about Indiana citizens sue? by Araxen · · Score: 0

      There really should be some sort of law that prohibits how many times you can try to pass a law. There should be a 3 strikes and you're out law on trying to push stuff through. If you try 3 times to get a sales tax passed and it does not go through well you're shit of luck for 10-20 years before you can do it again.

      Same things needs to be done in the EU how many are they going to let them try and pass through software patents? What are we up to what 3-4 times now!?

  22. I just check google by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

    Miserable Failure still links to Bush. I guess there haven't been enough states trying to ban violent video games yet.

    1. Re:I just check google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Bush is a failure in the face of assholes like Tipper Gore who get their way by enforcing the labeling and restricted sales of material they consider offensive. Good job democraps! If you think this is a "right wing" only issue you're fooling yourself.

    2. Re:I just check google by svtdragon · · Score: 1

      The only parties in the US that I can see opposing it (entire parties, that is) would be Libertarians and Socialists. (IE, far left on the personal-freedoms scale, and position on the economic-freedoms scale is irrelevant).

  23. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by sexybomber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quoth the replyee: Pandering to their "base" is their job.

    No, representing their constituents is a politician's job. Their party base (which I assume is the "base" you refer to) represents only a tiny portion of said constituents.

    So by pandering to their "base", they are NOT doing their jobs, they are serving the interests of a very small minority. Ergo, in this case, judicial review serves to protect the interests of the MAJORITY. The special interest groups don't like that, because then they don't get what they want. So they whine and moan about the "activist judges".

    I could go on, but this s*** irritates me, and I don't like being irritated.

  24. Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Television+Viewer · · Score: 1, Insightful
    yea.. i can't wait for it to fail.. slowly every state will do this and then mabey just mabey they will sit back and realize.. humm mabey the parents need to watch what their kids are doing..

    Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.

    There is a HUGE difference between a state saying "No sales to those under 18" and a state saying "No sales". As long as those over 18 can buy it, it should be legal.

    Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?

    The RIAA that is suing grandmothers is the same type of lobby that wants these games sold. The big corporations want to sell you these games at 50 bucks a pop. And since they don't innovate, they turn up the shock value. At some point, it is going to twist young 9 and 10 year old minds.

    --
    I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
    1. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by jtorkbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Drinking age laws are, like video game legislation, not suitable as a substitute for proper parenting, although when properly handled are invaluable tools to good parents. I was more than mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed. Unfortunately, the letter of the law meant that even though I could drive and pay taxes, I couldn't watch a horror flick on the big screen.

      If you ask me, it all comes down to hypocrisy. If you consume illegal substances, how do you expect your children to not desire the same thing? If you watch violent movies, how do you expect your child to not want to watch violent movies... or to play a violent video game, which is pretty much the same thing?

      The job of parents in this world has to be as much to prepare their children as to shelter them.

      --
      AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
    2. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?

      Some places won't sell M rated games to those under 18, without a parent there. But it isn't the law, nor are there any laws about MPAA ratings. Nobody is trying to make laws about MPAA ratings however, and the difference is probably that they donate more money to political campaigns than the video game industry.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Sarisar · · Score: 1

      I thought selling a movie ticket to an R rated film wouldn't get you fined, just possibly fired. Then again IANAL and IANAA (I am not an American) so my knowledge of US law is a little sparse. I have heard from various sources that you can't get done for selling movie tickets to a kid so that would be where the difference is (can someone confirm?)

      They should either ditch the law or extend it for EVERYTHING that is age restricted which is why I thought it was thrown out earlier because it picks on video games.

      In the UK (hmm... IAAL - I am a Limey) while there is no actual law stopping sale of DVDs / Games to underage kids almost all the retailers have agreed not to do this. Also we have movie style ratings - 15, 18 etc which probably makes it easier as everyone seems to know the movie rating systems.

    4. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Baddas · · Score: 1

      There are no criminal or civil repercussions to selling a movie ticket to someone underage in the USA

    5. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Television+Viewer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Drinking age laws are, like video game legislation, not suitable as a substitute for proper parenting, although when properly handled are invaluable tools to good parents. I was more than mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed. Unfortunately, the letter of the law meant that even though I could drive and pay taxes, I couldn't watch a horror flick on the big screen.

      You might have been mature enough at age 16 to watch any movie, but what about those who are not? And where is the line? 15? 14? What about 11 years old? The point is not about mature, the point is there must be some line. And even with a law denying 16 year olds access to R-rated material, they still could get access if a parent made the purchase. It is not set in stone.

      I don't think it is asking too much to have laws which let the parents in on what the kids are doing. Everyone on slashdot knows that most 14 and 15 year old hide what they believe their parents will not approve of. If the 14 year old knows dad does not want violent games, that game will be hidden and played while dad is at work. By having a law which will not allow sales to minors without a parent, it gives dad the upper hand.

      --
      I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
    6. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by hurfy · · Score: 1

      What MPAA ratings?

      Have you shopped for DVDs lately? The majority (or damned close) are NOT RATED now. If you at a shop you can usually see the movies original rating on the back cover in the credits but the other material is unrated. The latest trend seems to be ADVERTISING the fact that the dvd is not rated.

      Seems to be ok for movies as is, how are games that much different? Don't let the kids buy games/movies you don't like :) I see no problem with an obvious XXX style tier but the others are so randomly defined i cant see hard restrictions on them. I also see very few games that would hit that level.

    7. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >There is a HUGE difference between a state saying "No sales to those under 18"
      >and a state saying "No sales". As long as those over 18 can buy it, it should be
      > legal.

      Is there? I know of at least one state that completely bans alcohol sales, and even posession, everywhere, except for special reduced-alcohol versions of "beer" and "wine".

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by schon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.

      Great idea. Glad to see an American who isn't afraid to follow in the footsteps of most of the rest of the first world.

    9. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >What MPAA ratings?

      Do let us know when the MPAA is a government agency that makes and enforces laws.
      The MPAA's authority extends to the voluntary consent of its members, and its ability to make a persuasive argument that individuals will accept. Film ratings are NOT law.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by sqlrob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.

      There is documented developmental harm from alcohol. None from games.

      Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?

      If a store wants to do that, let them. Don't legislate it.

    11. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Unfortunately, the letter of the law meant that even though I could drive and pay taxes, I couldn't watch a horror flick on the big screen."

      The letter of the law? What law was that? The only law that applies to film ratings, is the one that permits a private property owner to refuse to allow you on his property for *any* reason. A valid reason is that the screening of a film is limited only to patrons over the age of 17 or whatever. But there was no *law* that said people under 17 cannot be admitted to an R-rated movie.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My parents knew I smoked pot and also that I drank alcohol every Friday and Saturday from 10th grade on. I also had very little restrictions, no curfew, no real set time to be home if I came home at all, I drove the family car all the time without my license, and I also had VHS porn and mags all around my room and basement. I even had a 1/2 barrel for my 15th birthday in my house with my parents home and my mom covered for us when the cops came. For a time during late 10th grade and early 11th, my grades started to slip because I was missing a lot of school. I had to make a decision for myself, either drop the advanced courses, not make it through high school, or buckle down. I buckled down on my school work and made it with ease (although I kept up the pot and drinking on the weekends).

      Fast forward 15 years. I drink maybe 3 times a year and have not touched drugs since high school. I had 10 successful years in the military and I worked my way up to a network engineer making about 100k at my current job.

      My parents let me have some freedom and I abused it, I learned from my mistakes and turned myself around. This is while I was 15-16. Everyone is different but sheltering is NOT the best way to bring up a child.

      My best friend during these same times? Dad a doctor, church every Sunday, big family etc., Went to catholic schools, did not drink and never took risks, always had to be home earlier then the rest of us blah blah blah. He dropped out of college his parents were paying for, was bouncing around at mimimum wage jobs and spent 10 years in jail for drug trafficing.

      Correct my spelling if you desire. I have no desire to make this post perfect for those that are anal about that.

    13. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol restrictions are irrelevant. Alcohol is not speech. Video games are speech protected by the first amendment.

      Restrictions on admittance to R-Rated movies are purely theater policy, and have no basis in law. MPAA ratings such as "R" have no more legal force than ESRB ratings such as "M". No laws exist to enforce MPAA ratings because such laws would similarly fail judicial review.

      It is not only the rights of the children, but the free speech rights of the authors and publishers of game software that these laws seek to restrict.

      All constitutional, statutory, and case law indicates that these restrictions are illegal, which is why they are being overturned by judicial review.

      Restrictions based on sexual content judged to be obscene are possible, but would only have the power to impose restrictions on the basis of sexual content. For the most part, laws enforcing these restrictions are already in place. These restrictions are narrower than you might think; the 'Hot Coffee' portion of GTA:San Andreas probably would not suffice to engage them.

      In short, I believe that the only legal method by which the sale of games to minors may be restricted on the basis of violent content is an amendment to the federal constitution.

    14. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by TallMatthew · · Score: 1
      It is not only the rights of the children, but the free speech rights of the authors and publishers of game software that these laws seek to restrict.

      Beh. Restricting the distribution of material to adults doesn't fall under the umbrella of free speech protection. If that were so, age requirements for pornography sales would fall under the same category.

      This falls in the category of "legislation to prevent things parents wish weren't true." Kids look at porn on the Internet. Kids listen to music with naughty language. Kids go to R rated movies and learn about all sorts of interesting things. Kids play video games with blood and boobies and, in fact, seem to prefer those video games. You can affix labels and restrict sales all you want to, but kids are smart enough to figure out how to get access to these things.

      By passing this legislation, nothing is accomplished. Maybe once in a great while a youngster won't be able to play Death Death 2000 for a week or two. But that's not the point. It makes the legislator look like a family values guy and gives concerned parents an outlet for their frustrations. They can smile sweetly and say they did something, regardless of the fact nothing was accomplished.

      Just another example of our justice system at work ... adding to a long series of poorly-written laws enforced irregularly.

    15. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there's a constitutional provision for alcohol specifically in the amendment that repeals prohibition, which makes it constitutional by definition.

    16. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restricting the distribution of material to adults doesn't fall under the umbrella of free speech protection. If that were so, age requirements for pornography sales would fall under the same category.

      Videogames are under the free speech umbrella. So is pornography, which is why the restrictions on it apply only to a very precisely defined category of 'obscene' speech. 'Obscene' speech is one of the two main categories of speech to which first amendment protections are not extended; 'Harmful' speech, or speech with the intent to cause harm or to incite others to cause harm, is the other such category.

      Courts have repeatedly found that video games represent protected speech that is neither 'obscene' nor 'harmful'. There is no case law precedent that could be used to restrict the sale of violent games to minors, and plenty of precedent affirming that such restrictions are unconstitutional.

      Make of that what you will, but I believe that these laws will never pass judicial review, and thus the only way to restrict these games is by amendment of the federal constitution.

    17. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Except in Korea.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    18. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Perseid · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of people are, as we speak, frantically searching P2P services for a download of Death Death 2000.

    19. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by damsa · · Score: 1

      I thought the provision gives the right back to the states. So states can choose whether to regulate alcohol sales. And in certain communities, it is still outright banned.

    20. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by TallMatthew · · Score: 1
      Hundreds of people are, as we speak, frantically searching P2P services for a download of Death Death 2000.

      As well they should ...

      You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
      There is a small mailbox here.
      >open the mailbox.
      Opening the small mailbox reveals a leaflet.
      >take the leaflet out of the mailbox.
      Taken.
      >read the leaflet.
      "WELCOME TO DEATH DEATH 2000! DEATH DEATH 2000 is a game of adventure, danger, and low cunning. In it you will explore some of the most amazing territory ever seen by mortals. No computer should be without one!"
      >go north.
      North of House
      You are facing the north side of a white house. There is no door here, and all
      the windows are boarded up. To the north a narrow path winds through the trees.
      >kill everything
      Done!
      You have achieved DEATH DEATH 2000. I hope you're 18.

    21. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I am glad you got modded Troll .. i have had the chance to go over seas and see how the rest of the world deals with drinking.. and you knwo what unlike the imature teenagers here in the US they do it like it should .. they drink it.. here teens get it and benge drink and go drive into a pole.. over there they drink it as if we drink soda.. they have been for years.. in some areas it is cheeper than water..

      and honestly i wish they would get rid of the laws.. hell people in the US can be drafted and die for their country but they can't walk into the local pub and get a drink.. it sickens me..

      the only laws that sould restrict children are the once that protect them (under age p0rn nasty stuff) and ones that protect socity at large (age to drive) the rest is crap because partents are seemingly (not all but alot) not wanting to raise their kids and just want to have the government do it for them..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    22. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed.

      They waited until you were 16? I was watching renting R rated movies at 12, if not earlier.

      The job of parents in this world has to be as much to prepare their children as to shelter them.

      I'm reminded of the old tale of the parents who totally sheltered their child until he was an adult. He took one step into the real world and croaked from shock.

      Shelter and Protect, yes. But not keep ignorant of the ways of the world. Violence and sex is part of the real world. Isolating a child excessivly from these forces only leaves them without control mechanisms when they finally enter the real world.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    23. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      He didn't say anything to disagree with that, he's just saying that more and more DVDs have no MPAA ratings at all.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    24. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by eneville · · Score: 1

      Much like the drinking laws, some games have certificate ratings. The parents can only watch what the children do in the house, which is probably why arcades do not put games on their systems which have a certficate rating, the parents can't be there to supervise etc.

      You do have a valid point that the parents should supervise what the children watch on the screen, but drinking is a much bigger influence on behaviour than computer games which you can separate from reality.

    25. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Deaths+Hand · · Score: 1

      Er, actually it is illegal to sell a video/DVD or a game to to an underage person in the UK, if the item as been rated by the BBFC (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/), as per the 1984 Video Recordings Act (and amended in 1993).

      If the game has only been rated by PEGI (http://www.pegi.info/) then there is no legal statute to prevent the game being sold to underage people, though as you say, retailers generally don't.

    26. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so correct, the courts have stood by the decisions they minors are not guarenteed any first amendment rights. This should be the same as movie ratings! Why is this first amendment rights anyway? that would give you rights to make it not to play it!

    27. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by Araxen · · Score: 0

      I agree with this post in the US you can father/have children(aka legally have sex)at age of 18(minus a couple years in some states) but you can't drink till you're 21. Something is wrong with this picture.

    28. Re:Those under 18 do not have the same rights by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      You have the same problem from studying in Japan. Therefore, school should be banned.

  25. Economics will prevent this by moore.dustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a law like this were to pass, the state would be hurt in the bank account for it. Pair that with the fact that you arent protecting kids from these games, you are only forcing them to get them through other means.

    The state will lose a decent amount just from sales tax from these games and all the while kids are still buying the games online and givin money to out of state companies.

    Nothing really helps these motions along, the more you look at it, the more you laugh at the proposition.

  26. hitler by hostingreviews · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What violent games did Hitler play? What awesome game did Ghandi play? What's in Kim Jong ils PS2 right now you think?

    1. Re:hitler by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What's in Kim Jong ils PS2 right now you think?"

      He doesn't know either. He's trying to build a nuclear power plant so he has enough electricity to turn the thing on.

    2. Re:hitler by rts008 · · Score: 1

      LOL!!! ribs hurt....cramps....ouch!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    3. Re:hitler by dangitman · · Score: 1
      What violent games did Hitler play?

      Tetris.

      Or, as known locally, "OH- mein Gott! Das fallende Spiel des Blockes. Es zerquetscht!"

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler liked to draw pictures.

    5. Re:hitler by westlake · · Score: 1
      What violent games did Hitler play?

      The more important question to ask is what games did Hitler's regime enourage -- or require -- children to play: Game Pieces from an Antisemetic Game Called: Jews Out

    6. Re:hitler by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      What's in Kim Jong ils PS2 right now you think?
      Judging by his taste in movies, probably War of the Monsters .
      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  27. And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Military enrollment is down.

    Kinda punches a hole in that argument, doesn't it?

    1. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it be that military enrollment is affected by more than one factor? For instance, a real live shooting war that de-glamorizes what the video games are glamorizing.

    2. Re:And yet... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the de-glamorization by the game itself... http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20021 121

  28. why is it so hard just to by Rooked_One · · Score: 2, Insightful
    get cashiers to ID people buying video games? Where I live, if a cashier doesn't id you (unless you look like you are 80) they can loose their job and there are TONS of fines.... Do the same thing to the cashiers....

    What is the big deal here? Is Indiana a liberal or conservative state also?? (no flaming please, I just want to know)

    1. Re:why is it so hard just to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ID people buying video games? This is part of the frakking problem! Yes, yes, you've got games where people are selling drugs, and ripping the heads off zombies... but these are GAMES. Heck, if my 8 year old can't buy Resident Evil then I'm just going to BUY IT FOR HIM. These stupid ratings on games do nothing. The reason people want these rated and banned is because they are stupid enough to think that people who play video games will go and re-enact those games IN REAL LIFE. Its absurd! The world has lost its grip and totally lost the plot. Anyone who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong is going to go and cause havoc REGARDLESS. Maybe we should ban people? Have an age restriction on going outside? You should need to pass a test before communicating with someone, just in case you "set them off".

      These are games. You play them. The whole point is that you do thing you can't do in real life. Its "make believe". Sure, we're lopping aliens into chunks - BUT ITS FUN. Trying to ban fun is bad, and everyone should make the strongest possible stand against such ludicrous actions.

    2. Re:why is it so hard just to by Wicked187 · · Score: 1

      Indiana is the second most conservative state in the Union...

      However, there are certain area that are controlled by liberal politicians... Indianapolis and Gary. It was in Indianapolis where it was first attempted. Also, our nice socialist senator, Bayh, is pushing it on a larger scale. That is what happens when you have a socialist, nanny-state.

      --
      Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    3. Re:why is it so hard just to by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

      just goes to prove that neither side has it right - they are just throwing out cards for more votes. Pathetic.

    4. Re:why is it so hard just to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have voted Republican for President everytime since the 60s. We have 1 Republican Senator that has ticked off the right on several occasions. One Democratic senator. We had Democrats ruling both legislature and Gov. office for 16 years. Now Republican controlled. We still have a war within the state to enter the 1950s and use DST. The democrats opposed that.

      Our supreme court dumped prayers in the State House. The first state in the union to have that problem.

      I am Republican and don't think the State is that Conservative. More so than last year. But mostly on fiscal matters. In other words unlike the previous 2 administrations one of which blew a $2 billion surplus in 2 years. Indiana is close to balanced books again.

      This kinda of crap just wastes time and money and makes our state look stupid.

  29. One would think... by Army+of+1+in+10 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That if parents were doing their jobs and paying attention to what their children are buying and playing, legislators wouldn't feel that these laws are necessary.

    But then reality sets in, and one realizes that legislators would attempt to pass these laws regardless of how vigilant parents are.

    --
    I am an Army of 1 in 10
    1. Re:One would think... by Army+of+1+in+10 · · Score: 1

      Flamebait?

      I guess if you're of the opinion that parents should have no say in what content enters their homes and to what their children are being exposed, then sure that would be flamebait.

      --
      I am an Army of 1 in 10
    2. Re:One would think... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Why the flamebait rating? Parent brings up a good point, if in a roundabout way. When did it become the government's job/responsibilty to raise your kids? To borrow the phrase "Forget the village, where are the damn parents?"

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    3. Re:One would think... by dangitman · · Score: 1
      But we aren't talking about 10-year-olds here. Shouldn't 16-18 year-olds be allowed some independence from their parents? Especially if they have shown responsibility. What are we supposed to do - have someone be a "kid" at 17 or 20, and then they suddenly become an "adult" at 18 or 21?

      Young people are expected to grow up faster, but have any benefits from growing up or taking responsibility taken away from them. If we don't give teens any rights or independence (or parents for that matter), then how can we expect to blame them or make them take responsibility for what they choose to do?

      Some parents are assholes, some children are assholes. But tying parents to children at the hip until 18 is no solution to teaching either side about life. Parents can learn from children's experiences too. If they are allowed to have any.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:One would think... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating smothering the kid, but parents still have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kid is doing. Letting the kid do whatever he or she wants is oft-times as bad as smothering the kid.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    5. Re:One would think... by dangitman · · Score: 1
      I'm not advocating smothering the kid, but parents still have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kid is doing. Letting the kid do whatever he or she wants is oft-times as bad as smothering the kid.

      Right, so what does that have to do with the government and games-sellers? If they want parental responsibility, why are they dicking around with laws on inconsequential video-games, instead of passing laws that punish parental irresponsibility harshly?

      These laws are about punishing video-game businesses. They don't punish the prents. In fact, they give the parents a huge loophole. "It's not my responsibility, the video store should have protected Johnny!"

      They don't ban sales of circular saws, or put big stickers on them, because they can cut a kid's arm off. No, it is considered common sense that kids shouldn't be using circular saws without supervision. But accidents still happen.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:One would think... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      That was the point of my post. Why in the name of all that is holy is the government dicking around with this?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  30. The New Porn by blueZhift · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess violent video games have become the new porn. I recall that years ago it seemed that someone in Indiana was always proposing or passing laws to restrict the sale of pornography. These laws were regularly struck down as unconstitutional just as the laws restricting violent video game sales have been. Oh well, I guess porn is just out of style!

    1. Re:The New Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yep, same state and city. Catherine MacKinnon tried to frame it as a civil rights violation, and Indianapolis passed it as a law, but the Seventh Circuit Court threw it out in American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut.

    2. Re:The New Porn by ebooher · · Score: 1

      Nah, they are still trying to outlaw porn too. They are just being more sneaky about it now. Like changing zoning laws so adult book stores can't be within 900 miles of a populated area.

      They can still sell what ever porn they want. Just have to be in, oh say, Chicago to do it.

      --
      "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
    3. Re:The New Porn by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I don't think that porn shops have that much of a future. The zoning and such has put them into quite undesirable locations (ie, I often wouldn't feel safe standing outside of one after dark - and that's with me having a concealed carry permit and carrying a Glock 26 everywhere I'm allowed to).

      That being said, most of it has moved online and has done VERY well. The porn industry is simply amazing on generating business. Not just because "it's porn", but these people seem to understand customers more. X-rated DVD's? No CSS. Downloadable clips from these "weekly movie" sites? No DRM (a few exceptions on this, but it's generally true) Sure their clips are traded left and right on P2P networks, but none of the producers bitch about it because they still make plenty of money. They're also adopting HD-resolution movies much, much quicker than others are.

      IMHO most members of the RIAA/MPAA could learn alot from the adult industry.

      I just hope that congress doesn't get too "shocked" at this market that doesn't affect anyone but those who want to buy such material and try to restrict it online (not really possible given the international nature of the 'net, but ya don't want the girls in EVERY movie to have an accent ;).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:The New Porn by Crizp · · Score: 1

      The "no css" part would most likely be because you need to pay licensing fees to have CSS in your product. This could be in a small way linked with HD content - no fees == more profit == new Sony HD cameras!

  31. I'm in Indiana by Dpaladin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and I haven't heard a single word about this before now. Since I'm here, I feel qualified to say no one cares.

    --
    Bad puns gave me bad karma. =(
    1. Re:I'm in Indiana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, my friend, are a short-sighted fucktard.

    2. Re:I'm in Indiana by ebooher · · Score: 1

      Tune to ... 97.3? What ever is between 97.1 and 98.3. It's either the all Christian all the time channel or they were playing the 700 Club. Either way, on the way to work tonight music surfing, the scan stopped there long enough for me to hear those asshats talking about it, so I stopped the scan to figure out what they were talking about. Apparently it's a senator from the south, Evansville area or something like that.

      Reminds me of when 93.9 tried to become WGOD radio, All God, All the time. That worked so well they didn't even get all the letterhead finished before they changed to WSNG The Song.

      --
      "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
  32. Raising Kids by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you dont have kids yourself.

    Kids WILL do things behind your back that are bad for them. Even when they are taught its wrong. Its part of being a kid.

    Having a law that protects a *child* from *adult* material isnt a bad thing.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Raising Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your child has learned NOTHING of any value from you for everything you try to teach them, then you are simply an ineffective parent.

    2. Re:Raising Kids by Kinsbane · · Score: 1

      Having *parents* that protects a *child* from *adult* material is an even better thing.

    3. Re:Raising Kids by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Remember that statement once you grow up and have kids yourself.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Raising Kids by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Remember that statement once you grow up, move out of your mothers basement and have kids yourself.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Raising Kids by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      And how do you do that? Lock them in their bedrooms until they're 18? Keeping objectionable material/substances out of the hands of kids is very difficult and isn't helped by stupid corporations being quite happy to sell anything to anyone irrespective of consequences. This isn't about banning such stuff, it's about trying to prevent kids from seeing or doing things they don't have the maturity to deal with.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  33. Re:My Take,,, by isbhod · · Score: 2

    ok, I'll bite.

    well first of all if you don't "Give a Shit" then why did you bother posting in the first place? Why waste the time, effort, energy, and money on something you don't care about?

    Second, if the big circle represents the universe, the dot in the middle is not you.

    Third, learn to see beyond what is in front of your face. If you are over 18 as you claim you should know well that laws rarely only apply to what they are written about And are used as precedents for other things. This law could turn out to be the very law that is use as the deathblow to free speech, and brings about regulations not only to video games, but all forms of communications including, but not limited to your "I don't give a shit" comments on SlashDot.

    So the moral of this story is even things you do not think have any effect on you, may in fact do. S.E.Ps(please see you hopefully well read More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide for a definition of S.E.P.) are visible out of the corner of your eye, and certainly not observable enough for you to make a slashdot posting. So therefore you should care, and should greatly as this not Someone Else's Problem, but everyone problem, an last time i check you are part of the everyone (even though your dues are bit behind, we'll be sending Rock-o over to collect, I'd advise you to lock up the liquor as he's a mean drunk, but i digress)
    I hope that makes everything clear as mud for ya.

  34. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by johnd39 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They can be impeached; they're violating their oath to the Federal Constitution, and often to their respective State Constitution as well.

    The problem is, impeachment is done by the legislature. They're not going to pass a law and then vote themselves out of office for passing the law.

  35. Spank the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could always spank the kids, oh wait thats against the law.

    Spoil the child until their 15, then use the death penalty. What a fucked up country.

  36. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more."

    Not really. Why pander to voters when you can instead choose who votes for you? The joys of gerrymandering!

  37. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by leereyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What you're saying is very true. But it is also true that legislators from left-wing areas do the exact same thing.

    The laws that the lefties try to pass that violate our gun rights get struck down just as readily as the right-wing laws that violate our 1st amendment rights, and often by the same judges.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  38. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    Pandering to their "base" is their job.

    I wish they pandered to thier base, but in reality its special interest groups and lobbiests with money to burn.

  39. Re:My Take,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you should care because the general idea is to require ID be shown before buying games.

    The point of this is to make it the retailers fault when someone less than 18yrs old buys a Mature game.

    Once there is a law that is being broken, you have a reason to sue. This will be much easier to pursue in court than the 'video games made my kid do it' tactic, which has repeatedly failed.

    The law will undoubtedly have some language (not necessarily based on any scietific evidence) that the reason for requiring ID is that video games cause kids to kill people and/or torture small animals.

    The other angle is that the legislation wants to require Mature games be treated like Adult-Only material, in which case major retailers (WalMart) might stop carrying the stuff rather than deal with the extra hassle.

    It's really a stupid law, as described by Ars, and will not survive a challenge in court.

  40. Re:My Take,,, by blank101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    why do I give a shit if EA can't peddle its warez to minors? Can someone explain why I should care or this is this an issue only teenagers and the people who stand to loose money care about?

    For the same reason thet ACLU cares about the rights of the KKK, presumably. Presumably they aren't interested in lynching people (they are stereotypically a buncha peace-loving hippies afterall), but they are interested in preventing the establishment of legal precedent to restrict the rights of a minority group because that minority has opinions that differ from the majority.

    What if, by some "heaven" sent miracle, the law survives judicial review? There will be legislators nation-wide that will snap up the opportunity to win the votes of parents who want to worry a little less about their kids; and don't think they won't eye (successfully or not) other commercially consumed art (if today's box office bombs can be called such a thing)-you might have to give back your thirty silver in taxes for the states' legal fees.

    Of course by now, videogame makers, unable to make as much of a profit on games that portray (nebulously defined) violent and sexual themes, will invest themselves elsewhere. So it's not like you'd be able to spend it on such games if you were so inclined.

  41. Capital, not Capitol by ickoonite · · Score: 4, Funny

    Far be it from me to instruct you guys - as Americans - on the use of American English, for I am a Brit and as such there are sure to be others better qualified to make the observation I am about to make, but in the absence of such, I humbly submit as follows:

    It's "capital", not "capitol". Go. Check now. Go on. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Oxford American Dictionary only a keypress away, which defines "capitol", or rather "Capitol" as:

    Capitol |?kapitl| (usu. the Capitol)
    1 the seat of the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC. ( capitol) a building housing a legislative assembly : 50,000 people marched on New Jersey's state capitol.
    2 the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome.

    Thus the usage in the submitter's blurb - "the state capitol, Indianapolis" - is incorrect, as, unless I am very much mistaken, the building implied by the term "capitol" is not named "Indianapolis". I presume the submitter intended the wording "state capital", and only namedropped Indianapolis after a comma for the benefit of international readers like myself who, unlike Americans, are sometimes unfamiliar with certain of the state capitals. Otherwise, if "capitol" was intended, might I suggest "the state capitol, (in|located in|situated in) Indianapolis". Incidentally, it is worth noting that the word "capitol" does not really exist in British English.

    The British are wont to decry the ill effect America has had on the English language. At least try to prove them wrong in matters concerning your own coinages. This is the second time this has happened this week, if memory serves!

    iqu :)

    (N.B. The tone of this post is playful. It is not intended to invite lengthy flames. If you do not understand British humour, think twice before replying.)

    1. Re:Capital, not Capitol by DavidinAla · · Score: 1

      Thanks. You saved me the trouble of writing an explanation about the words. Of course, since this is Slashdot, you might be flamed for caring about word usage. :-)

      David

    2. Re:Capital, not Capitol by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Karl Marx also didn't write Das Kapitol either - though a nice book about all the Kapitols of the world may have been more useful as a late 19th century Koffee table book, than the series he did write... No, this is not a blurb for KDE.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    3. Re:Capital, not Capitol by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      ...and saved the world an awful lot of bother!

      *sigh* Oh to have been there to convince him otherwise:

      Marx: Ja, I am writing dis new book, ja, about zer oppressif kapitalists, und how ze proletariat will...
      Visionary: Dude that is, like, so passé. Like, you know, so boring. You should write a book about the capitals of the world. You could call it...Das Kapital...
      Marx: You relly sink zey vill like zis? Zis buch of kapitals?
      Visionary: Yeah, yeah, totally. You know, for coffee tables and stuff. Something for the opium dens. Like, way cool.
      Marx: I...I not so sure...but I am liking ze title...

      Or something. I've been smoking a lot of crack lately, which may explain the above.*

      iqu :P

      (* I haven't really.)

    4. Re:Capital, not Capitol by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 2, Funny

      Odd thing is that the submitter was simply quoting the original article, yet the article had the correct spelling. I can excuse a submitter for not being able to read and not being able to spell - I don't expect such skills on slashdot. But not being able to handle a simple copy and paste? Come on!

    5. Re:Capital, not Capitol by i_am_db · · Score: 1

      Does that dictionary have a definition for oxymoron? Might it offer "British humor" as an example? Sorry, couldn't resist, but this was to be playful, as well.

  42. 5-year-olds Register to Vote by nagora · · Score: 4, Funny
    Having established that children are competant to make decisions and understand the issues about extreme sex and violence in the media, Ars Technica has started action to get "any child who can make a mark" signed up for voting.

    A spokesperson said "It is a basic fact that any adult who says someone under the age of 17 can't do something is a fucking fascist bastard and should be hunted down like a dog."

    They added that a more reasonable way of handling any problems parents might have about what material their children are viewing is to follow them around 24 hours a day and engage in random searches of their rooms and clothing. "That's taking your responsibilities seriously and not just handing them over to the Police State", he said.

    Next week Ars Technica will be reviewing conversion kits which allow children to operate up to compact-sized cars and discussing plans to "get The Man out of kids' faces" when it comes to driving licencing.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, try reading again.

      The ban is against violent video games, period. It makes no mention of making violent video games legal for children to buy.

      It would be similar to a flat ban against all porn, and we can see how successful that has been through the years.

    2. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by nagora · · Score: 1

      The ban is against violent video games, period. It makes no mention of making violent video games legal for children to buy.

      You mean apart from the bit that says "The State Senator is proposing legislation that would restrict the sale of video games to minors,"?

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    3. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A spokesperson said "It is a basic fact that any adult who says someone under the age of 17 can't do something is a fucking fascist bastard and should be hunted down like a dog."

      You were being satirical, of course, but you've hit upon a grain of truth: most of the restrictions placed upon young people have no basis in fact. There is no evidence, for example, that choosing to play violent video games or view pornography are harmful to minors - a lot of people have the gut feeling that they are, but go ahead, try to find some actual scientific data to prove it.

      There is no evidence that 18 is a better choice for the voting age than 16 or 21, no evidence that 16 is a better choice for the driving age than 14 or 18, and no evidence that 21 is a better choice for the drinking age than 18 or 30. There is no evidence to back up the legal requirements that the President be 35 years old, Senators be 30 years old, and Representatives be 25 years old.

      All these restrictions are essentially based on no more than gut feelings, some of them going back hundreds of years. Look at how far medicine, science, and even other areas of the law have evolved since then. Isn't it about time to reconsider where we've drawn the line between "adult" and "child", and the rights and responsibilities associated with them?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by nagora · · Score: 1
      Isn't it about time to reconsider where we've drawn the line between "adult" and "child", and the rights and responsibilities associated with them?

      That's a different argument from saying there's no line at all.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    5. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a different argument from saying there's no line at all.

      You don't need much of an argument to prove that claim; it's obvious if you think about it for a moment. Human growth is a continuum, everyone develops at a different rate, and there's no way to draw a line that won't leave some adults labeled "children" or some children labeled "adults". Furthermore, human growth doesn't only proceed along a single axis: one person might be capable of voting or holding office but not handling alcohol, while another might be the reverse.

      Sure, we can choose to draw a line in law because it's simple and objective, but we're trading away accuracy, and therefore justice.

      The principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty is important enough to us that we go to the trouble of having trials, even in cases where statistics might show that the defendant is probably guilty. I believe guaranteeing everyone's rights is also important enough to go to the trouble of determining, on an individual basis, whether a given person is ready for various rights and responsibilities.

      And just as guaranteeing an innocent man's freedom is important enough to let a guilty man go when there's no evidence to convict him, I believe guaranteeing an adult's freedom is also important enough to allow minors to vote (for example) when there's not enough evidence to prove they're immature.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by nagora · · Score: 1
      Human growth is a continuum, everyone develops at a different rate, and there's no way to draw a line that won't leave some adults labeled "children" or some children labeled "adults".

      However there is no agreed method of measuring this so age is the least-worst approximation. Regardless of this, the article and a lot of the /. postings are taking the line that there should be no restrictions other than what parents can enforce by some method of total surveillance. That seems to me to be utterly moronic and unreasonable, not to mention oppressive.

      No system is perfect and some innocent people go to gaol and some guilty walk free but is it worth the same effort to prevent a slightly immature person from voting or allow a mature child to vote early as it is to ensure the right people are locked up? Probably not. So, pick an age and dry your eyes; you'll be past that barrier and looking back soon enough. And I say that with the experience of age ;)

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    7. Re:5-year-olds Register to Vote by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, pick an age and dry your eyes; you'll be past that barrier and looking back soon enough. And I say that with the experience of age ;)

      That sounds awfully patronizing; I hope I've only misunderstood you.

      I've passed all the age restrictions that matter (I don't plan on running for president anytime soon), and looking back at them, they don't seem any more reasonable than they did when I was on the other side.

      They don't directly affect me, but frankly I think it's vile that so many people are willing to look the other way the moment they stop being directly affected. "If I had to put up with it, and I lived through it, then it's good enough for the next generation to put up with too," they say. That is the self-reinforcing nature of age restrictions.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  43. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by leereyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights."

    They can, its called election day.

    Unfortunately there are far too many people in this country who are all too willing to violate the rights of others. They don't care if some "other" gets stepped on as long as they avoid the boot. When individuals and groups fight for their rights, and enjoy adequate political representation to ensure that their rights are protected, then everything is fine. The problem is that those groups that do lack adequate political representation will subsequently suffer from a lack of legal protection. It doesn't matter if you're talking about young people, black people, American Indians, or any other group. Jim crow laws existed specifically because blacks in the south lacked the political power to prevent and overturn them. Likewise the legal drinking age is 21 in every state except Louisianna because 18 year olds lacked the political representation to prevent MADD from usurping their rights as adults. Jim Crow ended not because some white liberals from the north decided they wanted to change things. Jim Crow came to an end when blacks in the south decided that things had to change and began working to secure and defend their rights as citizens of this country.

    The only way that your civil rights are ensured is through political power and the political action that creates and reaffirms that power. So if some politician tries to strip you of your rights and freedom, the answer is not to expect some external agency to hold him or her to account. The answer is to organize against this politician and work to have them thrown out of office.

    Remember, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to fight for it, then you've already thrown it away.

    As for actual impeachment, what you're talking about is possible. If a politician supports a bill that violates the rights of his or her constituents, then he or she is violating his oath of office. Now convincing people that this politician should be impeached is of course a different story. But calling for impeachment, and screaming loud and clear exactly why you want them impeached, is a very good way of ensuring that even if they do manage to get re-elected they won't try to pull that kind of crap again.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  44. Re:I live here and by hobbesx · · Score: 1

    Heh, reminds me of something I heard years ago:

    Q: What's the best thing to come out of Indiana?

    A: Interstate 80

    --
    This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
    Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  45. Re:I live here and by djkuhl · · Score: 1

    According to my former statistics professor 2 years ago, Indianapolis is the most statistically average city in the entire country. There is an entire statistics prediction economy there wanting opinions. If you visit the state and go to a mall around Indianapolis, you may find a few people handing out surveys. There is a very high number of universities to populace ratio in Indiana. Considering your typing, grammar, and spelling is below average, where do you think you lie in the average?

  46. Re:I live here and can't buy medicine by ebooher · · Score: 1

    This law is about as stupid as the law requiring my pharmacist to write down my Driver's License number to sell me Day-Quil to verify that I am, in fact, not a drug crazed meth head trying to score some more dope but a law abiding citizen looking to get my sinus headache to go away.

    So now all the meth heads are still making meth, with different and maybe even more volatile chemicals and the rest of us can't buy over the counter drugs over the counter anymore.

    Next I won't be able to buy video games over the counter. They (being Big Brother) will track my every game purchase and decide that because I bought Fluffy Bunnies in Space and Grand Murder Chainsaw: Bob's Island that I must be in fact teaching myself how to kill rabbits with chainsaws and that I must be stopped.

    The hilarious thing is I heard this on the radio on the way into work tonight and the media blitz is attempting to spin it like "those Godless Heathens at Wal Mart that have no Moral Base for what they do are selling your kids shotguns and tools to teach themselves to kill everyone in your family over the counter for $5."

    Ok, so that wasn't the actual blurb, I paraphrased. But the gist is still there. "Won't someone think of the children?"

    Oh, and I do by the way. Think of the children. When my daughters want to buy a shotgun and play with it in the house, I tell them no. I *gasp* watch them and interact with them in their daily lives!

    --
    "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
  47. Re:My Take,,, by xxltjx · · Score: 1

    Precedent?

    Who's to say that ten years down the road, an ultra-conservative government won't try to ban violent video games to EVERYONE?

    Adults commit violent crimes, too. Who's to say people won't begin to question a connection between adult violence and video games?

    These are questions we need to ask ourselves, before it's too late.

  48. I think TISM said it best ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "everyone else has had more secks than me"

  49. Geez, upon reading it the whole thing is dumb by hurfy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is really only gonna be M and AO which is very few. Everything else appears to be exempted.

    So if it is so bad to sell a game for 18 year-olds to a 17 year-old, why is it ok to sell a game for 13 year-olds to 12 year-olds or 9 year-olds ??

    Love the sexual definitions using community standards. It seems to include: "patently offensive to minors" Hell, there ain't no sexual content that most minors would find offensive ;)

    Anyways, it won;t go far nor would it stay there long if it does.

    1. Re:Geez, upon reading it the whole thing is dumb by tepples · · Score: 1

      Love the sexual definitions using community standards. It seems to include: "patently offensive to minors" Hell, there ain't no sexual content that most minors would find offensive ;)

      True, but given how the USPTO isn't doing its job, some of the patents in video games would offend even a minor.

  50. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative


    "They can, its called election day."

    Even when successful, they are free to mingle in society, and able to run for office again. What about the concept that a violation of the peoples' rights by a lawmaker or official would make that official risk death, life in prison, forfeiture of assets, that sort of thing?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  51. As Dr Dre would say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I'm smellin like Indiana

  52. Re:Reason #1 to pass this law by ebooher · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, and this is more of an anecdote than a post guess I'm in blogging mode, anyway. Oddly enough, I've felt ever since I was a child that I would live to see another U.S. revolution. I've looked into moving to Canada, and I *hate* snow, just because I have such an intense feeling. I do not want to be here when it happens.

    But, I'm just a crazy Hoosier, so what do I know?

    --
    "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
  53. The real problem is the parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why make a bill against violent games? Isn't that why ESRB ratings were developed?

    If parents actually looked at the game rating before buying 10-year-old Johnny GTA3 for his birhtday, they wouldn't be shocked by what the game offers after the fact. When I worked at a retail job, this sort of thing actually happened while I was manning the video game section. Thank goodness they had me looking out for Johnny :) I told good ole dad to get a game without guns and prostitutes.

    A better law for legislation would be for parents to be held responsible for what their kids do. What happenned to the old days - I'm 28 BTW :) - when parents would beat their kids to within an inch of their life for doing something stupid, like smoking or being out late, or perhaps buying that crappy "50 Cent' thug life video game (would like to see 50 Cent do that crap in RL and catch a slug in has @$$)?

    Make a law to fine lazy parents that let their kids run wild! Such a law, just like a law banning violent games, would be just as silly as a law that outlaws alcohol- I think we all know what happened with that...

    On the same note (this will probably get modded all to hell, but what the hey...), why don't they just put the same age restrictions on Mature video games that they have for tobacco and alcohol? What to by Johnny for his 18th birthday? GTA4 with bazookas and ultraporn!

  54. Re:Reason #1 to pass this law by dada21 · · Score: 1

    People have asked me (many times, in fact) if I advocate open armed revolution. I do not. I believe Lincoln prevented a peaceful secession, and I believe that won't happen either.

    The only real long term solution to tyranny is to just let it drive itself into the ground, and to attempt to live as freely as you can. It isn't easy making it through the day avoiding taking advantage of what the State has provided (through robbery and coercion), but I try. Set an example, and wait. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I can at least set a good example for those who want freedom over tyranny.

    If there is armed or peaceful revolt, I won't move. I'll continue to live my life as freely as possible and avoid those who want violence -- I don't advocate violence for any reason. I don't use US dollars anymore except for direct transactions (not as stores of wealth). I don't support stock markets, banking institutions and other support structures used to enslave the citizen base. You'd be surprised how much less stressed you can be when you don't have to worry about affording your future as you do every day -- by living as free as possible.

  55. Re:My Take,,, by Matt+Ownby · · Score: 1

    I can explain it to you. The explanation is that any time there is a news story that threatens porn or violent video games, Slashdot will post it in order to generate the maximum # of comments (preferably angry ones).

    Being over 18 myself, and not a resident of Indiana, I am 100% with you.. this news story is very unwelcome.

  56. Most major retailers do ID by wilgibson · · Score: 1

    Living in northwest Arkansas, home of Wal-Mart, I know for a fact that they do ID you for software that is rated MA 17+(my firend went to purchase Diablo 2 after the rating was changed, he was carded right in front of me... all he could say was WTF!?!?!). Other stores, such as EB Games and Gamestop, have carding policies if the clerk has reason to believe you aren't 17 or older. It doesn't stop someone from getting what they want. Like others have said, the only thing this actually does is force minors to procure mature rated software some other way... Over the net(the anonymity of the debit card), through parents, older friends. Laws such as this won't stop children from getting them and it annoys the hell out of me.

    I'm 23 you ***damn idiot, give me my copy of "Murder, Rape, Pillage" before I cut you head off!

  57. Freaking Politicians by Agarax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason I left the Republican party to join the Libertarians is because of bullcrap like this. Every damn politician seems to feel the need to legistlate morality from the capitol.

    Why not just encourage the ESRP ratings? Organize a email campaign to Best Buy et al to have them voluntarily follow the ratings. It's not unprecidented.

    When you go to a movie theater, and they have it rated as PG-13 or R, it's not because Congress mandated it. It is a voluntary action.

    That's right, voluntary.

    Movie ratings are entirely voluntary for theaters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_ratings#United _States). The reason it is universal is because the MPAA (remarkably, for once) listened to its customers and did business in a way to keep them happy. They tacked a rating onto each movie that asked for one and passed it onto the theaters, requesting that they display it and follow the recomendations.

    Now most theaters in the US lists the ratings because they feel it's expected and normal, not because some stuffy politican demanded that they do it with laws and tedious regulations.

    No laws, no regulations, just good business.

    It would be good if these damn crusading politicians realized this for once and stopped adding crap to the lawbooks that doesn't need to be there.

    --
    Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
  58. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by SubliminalVortex · · Score: 1
    It's even more interesting to note that sometimes the 'judicial review' cannot even get anything right. Consider the case of the woman recently (who seems somewhat imbalanced) that had a judge issue a restraining order against David Letterman, of which he later rescinded. Now that is one rather interesting SNAFU. But then again, it does prove that perhaps his interest (or disinterest) in David Letterman allows him to be more subjective.

    However, more on topic is the proverbial "can of worms" that could be opened up by passing such a law that declares a 'video game' to be a cause of violence. I imagine once such a law was passed, every attentive lawyers' ears would be pricked to capture any lawsuits that might unfold from any "naturalists" views that "Centipede" was a violent game in that it promoted the death of nature; or yet, perhaps if there were a day that we, as a human race, met any benign 'Aliens', that perhaps they would sue the entire human race for a game like "Space Invaders" that taught people how to shoot down all of their ships, when all they were trying to do was set down and say "Welcome People of Earth!"

    There are too many video games of the past that could be consider *violent* on many different views and fronts, that it would be a judicial nightmare that will clog up our courts with absolutely idiotic frivolous lawsuits on how a person's twisted imagination (which will still exist in the absence of technological advances that portray them) affected society in such a manner that it ruined our way of life.

    Perhaps if the game contained all the elements of picking up a torch and a pitchfork, spreading rumors around town, then selecting a 'witch' for which to burn down their property, take them to the river for a interrogative 'dunking' and finally burning them at the stake, we might actually have a game that would be acceptable to the litigious crowd.

    I think that video games give people more freedom than they have in the real world, trying to restrict them in the virtual world (even if exposed to the real world) really chaps my buns. I do have to wonder at times, is it really the 'video game' that causes violence or is it a lack of a system of 'punishment' absent of that of 'reward' for those who play them? Only the parents truly know the answer to that question. Perhaps it is worth pondering.

  59. Re:I live here and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering your typing, grammar, and spelling is below average, where do you think you lie in the average?

    Below?

  60. video games are responsible? by c0n0 · · Score: 1

    So violent videogames is an issue?
    that's very interesting, considering the fact that each and every time I turn on my TV or listen to the radio, I see/hear something about war in Iraq.

    But hey, they must be right, it gotta be the videogames that incite all the violence we see nowadays......pfftt

  61. I think we're missing the point... by tallguy81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, we *could* keep M and AO video games out of the hands of minors, at the request of the government. But think about that for a moment. Government would then be deciding what's best for our children, rather than parents. And if you agree with this law, then should government pass a similar law involving books?

    One of my favorite books is Slaughterhouse Five. It's violent, sexual, but has a strong message. And I read it when I was fifteen. If Slaughterhouse Five were a video game, this law would prevent minors from buying it.

    If we can restrict video games from minors, we can restrict movies, books, and other forms of entertainment and culture from minors. And then, we can control what the future generation thinks, and how it acts. If you hate Big Government, you should hate this law. If you love freedom, you should hate this law.

    1. Re:I think we're missing the point... by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1
      Yes, we *could* keep M and AO video games out of the hands of minors, at the request of the government. But think about that for a moment. Government would then be deciding what's best for our children, rather than parents.

      Its even more basic than that, and the basis of the overwhelming continual defeat of these types of laws. Keeping M and AO videogames out of the hands of minors gives censorship and governmental powers to a private industry group (The ERSB) which provides these ratings to begin with.

      As a citizen of a state which tried to pass one of these horrendous laws (Michigan) I'm appalled that they keep coming up. The fact that Indiana has already gone through this seems to fit the definition of insanity (trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result), and a number of legislators IMHO should be removed from office due to imcompetence.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
  62. Indiana wants meee... by simonbp · · Score: 1

    Indiana wants meee...

    But I can't go back there...

    'Cause I'm a minor-who-just-bought-a-metric-tonne-of-AO-games-w ithout-telling-my-parents; I-hope-I-won't-get-in-troubleeee...

    Simon ;)

  63. As a local, I feel entitled to respond ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    "Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures"

    -- Actually, it's more of a solidifying of our position in that grouping.

    If you examine the state rankings in various categories (education, income, employment), you will consistently find The Hoosier State struggling to get off the bottom. Most of the major employers have departed the state over the past several decades, and the mindless politicians looted the budget surplus of a few years ago when nobody was keeping track of outgo vs remaining balance -- this played nicely into our current budget deficit.

    That said, I take this with a grain of salt, as we are heading into off-year elections next year, and politicians have this overwhelming desire to get their names out in front of the public. There have also been noises about our state joining the Intelligent Design circus.

    1. Re:As a local, I feel entitled to respond ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...I don't know about "bottom". Last I checked Indiana placed pretty much smack in the middle in terms of education/income/employment/etc. Being 25-28th out of 50 though isn't exactly impressive however.

      The main problem with this state is the budget, or more specifically, the people handling it. We haven't had a true fiscal conservative in who knows how long.

    2. Re:As a local, I feel entitled to respond ... by soundonsound · · Score: 1

      I really don't know what you're talking about. Indiana is one of the most progressive places in the country! Why, just look at some of these pieces of progressive legislation that would make "blue" states like New York and California proud!

      http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billi nfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB &docno=1087 House Bill 1087, concerning the Squirrel hunting season

      http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billi nfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB &docno=1135House Bill 1135, requiring retailers who happen to sell booze display it in a separate room so the Godly don't have to look at it

      http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billi nfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB &docno=1159House Bill 1159, making sure that you can't vote if you are unlucky enough to lose your Driver's license on Election Day

      And finally...
      http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billi nfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB &docno=1096 House Bill 1096, making abortions a Class C felony

  64. just install Linux on their computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    POOF!! no more game worries!

  65. A Proverbial "Can of Worms" by SubliminalVortex · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I tend to think that trying to legislate that video games are 'violent' is going to open up as much a "can of worms" as passing legislation that would make abortion 'murder'.

    Video games, from the days we were destroying 'aliens' in games like "Space Invaders", or enemy helicopters in old school games like "*M.A.S.H*", destroying living organisms in the game of "Centipede" or what have you, would be the kind of arguments that all lawyers would love to make money on contesting cases against the Plaintiffs who *might* have indulged into those games at a younger age.

    I tend to think that violent games, while they may provide ideas of the 'real' or 'imaginary' world others have seen, they still do not define the person that experiences them. That is usually the reward/punishment system that is supposed to be provided. Their reward was probably the game system on which they were given to play the game, but where did the 'punishment' come in? Perhaps the parents should be aware to that.

    If the game industry is actually supposed to be the source of punishment as well, maybe a game system that refuses to turn on for a specific amount of time after a player did something "too violent" would be in order, but I'm not sure I see that happening in the near future.

    Parents need to realize that the television and the game console is not a babysitter; their children need to be raised by responsible parents.

  66. Obl Short Round quote by Kelz · · Score: 1

    Hey, lady! You call him Dr. Jones!

  67. Re:My Take,,, by SQLz · · Score: 1

    You bit but missed totally, the post below yours was the answer I was looking for. Also, I seriously doubt that video games will bring about the end of free speech as we know it. As I see it, this is not even a free speech issue. If anything is the same as carding a minor before they enter a rated R movie.

  68. Well, I'm not surprised. by DnasTheGreat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Considering that we _were_ the ones who tried to set the value of pi.

    http://www.acc.umu.se/~olletg/pi/indiana.html

    Us silly Hoosiers. :-)

  69. Minors SHOULD NOT have equal rights. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    I, personally, would like to know why it is considered legal to sell anything to a minor, considering that minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts (in the general case, not counting underage emancipation). Without the use of a binding (though implicit) contract, how can a minor buy or sell? It seems strange that minors are unable to enter into formal contracts, yet are entrusted with ownership of property and the ability to buy and sell, which are derived from contract law. If the laws were consistent in this regard, then there would be no need to worry about kids buying "inappropriate" games/movies/books/etc. without their parents' knowledge, because no store would take the risk on a non-binding exchange involving property known to belong to a third party (it can't belong to the minor).

    A number of people would probably object to the idea that no one under 18 can own property, but in my opinion that is an issue with the age of consent and not the principle expressed above. Eighteen years is far too long to remain a minor in modern society. It is ironic that despite being trusted to drive a car by 16 in many places (Indiana included), minors are not trusted to make their own moral choices until they turn 18. Driving poses far more direct, demonstrable danger to others than purchasing a violent video game.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    1. Re:Minors SHOULD NOT have equal rights. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I, personally, would like to know why it is considered legal to sell anything to a minor, considering that minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts (in the general case, not counting underage emancipation).

      What fool told you that? A minor can renounce any contract without penalty, but a simple purchase has nothing to renounce. The money has already been traded for goods.

      A number of people would probably object to the idea that no one under 18 can own property, but in my opinion that is an issue with the age of consent and not the principle expressed above.

      Who says that they can't and why would that involve the ability to consent to sex?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Minors SHOULD NOT have equal rights. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      That a contract is required for transfer of rights is a basic principle of noncoercive (free market) economics. There are two ways of acquiring rights to property (in any system of economics) that do not involve coercion: homesteading (appropriating a previously-unowned property right) and contract (the previous owner willingly transferring a property right). The only other way to acquire property is by theft (previous owner forced to forfeit the right). Buying and selling occur frequently enough that most people place them in a category by themselves, but they are fundamentally based on the willing transfer of property rights, which is (by definition) a contract.

      If the minor can renounce a contract, then he/she can renounce the transfer of his/her (parents') money to the store; the purchase cannot be binding. Clearly, to be fair, the store's property would have to be returned as well. This is different from a refund in that refunds are given at the store's convenience; they are under no obligation to do so. However, if the minor renounces the implied contract, then the store is holding his/her (parents') money and retaining it would qualify as theft, as only the implied contract gave them rights to it.

      By "age of consent" (which is probably the wrong term) I merely meant the age at which a person is assumed to have obtained the capacity to think and act for him/herself, independently of his/her parents or guardians, and was not referring to any particular choice, although your example would probably qualify.

      Ignoring all of these confusing terms, the point that I was trying to get across was that society should either consider someone a minor, lacking the ability to make his/her own decisions, or an adult, possessing such abilities. The point at which the transition from minor to adult occurs is open for debate. It simply seems foolish (IMHO) to grant minors ownership of property of any sort, since by definition minors do not possess the experience necessary to guide their choices; any interaction with adult society must occur through their legal guardian(s) or not at all. To do otherwise places on them responsibility for choices that they (by definition) are not qualified to make.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  70. Re:My Take,,, by SQLz · · Score: 1
    Why do you care so much about retailers? Its the retailers fault when a minor buys booze, smokes, pron, gets into a rated R movie, etc.

    Once there is a law that is being broken, you have a reason to sue. This will be much easier to pursue in court than the 'video games made my kid do it' tactic, which has repeatedly failed

    I agree with you on that. Having a law on the books does seem to lend that old 'the game made me do it' argument more credit than it deserves.

    The law will undoubtedly.....

    That is just speculation so, not really a reason the common man should care

    The other angle is that the legislation wants to require Mature games be treated like Adult-Only material, in which case major retailers (WalMart) might stop carrying the stuff rather than deal with the extra hassle.

    I guess thats possible but unlikely. The hassel involves marking any game with a 'rated M' or above title to require a photo ID. Since Walmart sells smokes and booze and their POS system supports this feature, it would be trivial to require the same for games. I never go to wallmart since they are too expensive. There are a couple places on line that sell new titles for $30 which is much better than the $50+ the big retailers charge.

  71. Re:Indiana! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Indiana Jones reference +1 Funny, plz.

  72. Re:My Take,,, by SQLz · · Score: 1

    Wow, modded down to troll for daring to disagree.

  73. Posting as a Hoosier Native by waspleg · · Score: 1

    Let me say that our state has a long and proud tradition of ME TOO laws, usually stemming from some stupid bullshit laws passed in either of the Costal meccas. Indiana sucks, if you're considering moving here it's probably because your lobotomy was successful or you like things so mundane they make eating lima beans look risque.

    rupert from Survivor is now a local celebrity.

    anyone want to donate to my paypal account so i can not only leave this morass of mediocrity but the country that spawned it?

  74. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by goodie3shoes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if the vast majority of a politician's constituents DO want to suppress the rights of a minority group (of any kind; ethnic, religious, hobby etc.) Then the elected individual WOULD be fairly respesenting the wishes of his/her constituents. It's only the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect such a minority from the "mob" - majority rule is rightly limited.

    --
    BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
  75. oh man by Brightest+Light · · Score: 1

    as a fellow hoosier, i can assure you that if indiana adopts the ID lunacy, I'll be hitting the US-Canada border as soon as I'm done with my undergrad at IU, and I'll deal with the postgrad stuff up north

  76. The real solution by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

    We need to place an RFID chip in everyones dominate hand. The mouse would communicate at low power with the RFID chip. This would communicate SSL over the internet to a database at the Department of Homeland Security. When I go to launch GTA3, Postal2, that Ghetto Boys CD, or even an X rated video the computer will reference my age and either allow or deny me access.

    Granted, if there is a minor over my sholder then that is a problem. So maybe the mouse can read all chips in the room?

    Then again, I am in "The Right." God gave us free will. He wants us to make the right decisions of our own free will, not by force. If parents buy GTA3 and give it to their 13 year old kid even though it says MATURE right on the packaging, then shouldn't complain when there is mature material in the game.

    There is nothing wrong with the current system. The government can't take parenting out of parenting no matter how much they keep trying.

    Besides, most gamers are now over 18.
    http://www.games-advertising.com/demographics.html
    http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/releases/02. 11.06-gamerep.html
    http://www.nforcershq.com/article2724.html
    http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20051205/BUSINESS01/512050302/1066/BUSINESS 01

  77. Misleading blurb again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bill hasn't traditionally been squashed in the past. What's happened was that they were suspended pending the videogame companies's appeals. That means that they bills are the default state for the law. No, they aren't active now because they would adversely affect the video companies that are challenging the laws. But they are valid laws and will need something to be pulled rather than needing to be drafted in the first place.

    Fine line, but important.

  78. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    What's funny is the lady making the stink about this (at the state level). She was originally the mother-in-law of Tom Griswold, 1/2 of Bob & Tom. The guy who originally wanted B&T off of the air was preparing for a lengthy[1] polical career. B&T were on the air and the school buses were airing the show. Instead of asking the school association(s) [specifically, the one which his children attended] to turn it off, he decided trying to tar & feather B&T would get more air time for him and do the world a lot of justice.[3] It got him air time, but not as a candidate: a target. Bob & Tom decided to host their show the next morning in the parking area of the strip mall where Candidate Price worked (and doubled as a campaign office).

    It was so bad so fast Godwin's Law didn't have a chance and Price, esq decided against going into work that morning as he was told about the crowd waiting for him. The cops finally came in to quiet things down because most of the customers didn't mind it, but they couldn't find a place to park.
    I think Price is taking on cases about the same level as the attorney who originally ran the Indiana State Lottery and was found to have been diddling his assistant. She got a winning lawsuit, he descended into the virtual depths where the only clients you get are when someone cuts the finger off, fries it like a sausauge link and downs it with an improper wine.

    The junior Senator (as in Federal, not state) is trying to stay in the news as he needs to deal with the label "fiscal conservative"[4].
    _________________________________

    [1] notice the distinct avoidance of MILF
    [2] How long can you hold your breath? That's about how long as his campaign lasted.
    [3] I believe George Karlin once pointed out TVs have two dials: one to turn it on|off, an another to change the channel. IIRC, he wants a brown sticker (like all of the ones people are displaying). He wants a brown one, telling everyone: esad.
    [4] Which party uses this label?


  79. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by leereyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with that idea is that it would shut down the government. We elect our legislators because we WANT them to pass GOOD laws. If passing a law meant risking the gallows, then not only would congress sit on its hands and do nothing, but no one would want to run for office in the first place.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  80. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by maxpublic · · Score: 1

    It happens on both sides with equal frequency. Usually the leftie excuse is that the law is necessary for "the greater good", while the right claims they're acting "for the children". Although sometimes they swap positions when they get bored.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  81. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  82. Of course it's struggling; it's a Red State. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We mock and make fun, but there's plenty of statistical evidence suggesting that the Red States are really, really retarded on many of those various categories.

    Example: Lowest divorce rate? Massachusetts.. one of the blues states out there.

    Trivia question: which group of states gets more federal money than it pays in taxes.. red or blue?
    Answer: The Reds. Blue States pick-up the tab, while lazy Red States mooch.

  83. Virtual Violence by noidentity · · Score: 1

    As a reminder, video games (and movies and music) all involve at most virtual violence. Virtual violence is imaginary, and thus does not actually harm anyone. If video games involved real violence, people would be assaulted daily by them (playing CD frisbee doesn't count).

  84. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by avasol · · Score: 0

    The U.S is fucking retarded and everyone outside your borders and thankfully a few Americans know this.
    Let's sum it up.

    Guns in every citizens hand. A so called right to, protected by people with guns.
    Highest homicide rates in the world. Highest amount of fear, insecurity.
    Your civil liberties that you so viciously protect are a farce. You're not free. You're slaves to your system. You're being run by a single guy, who is a fascist, fundamentalist, extremist, isolationist dumbass, not to mention a Republican - which means that his job is to steal your money and put it in the hands of his masters - the wealthy and powerful elite.
    Your education system is laughable. Your religious doctrines have gone so far in legislation that you're close to Shia-law in the US. American Scientists value in the field have dropped by exponential factors since the US is quickly becoming the most infertile land in the world for any type of research. Not to mention how you educate the dumb - which is to say you're not. To point out obvious flaws that any other compassionate person would put first on the list of items to correct it would be your healthcare. But on the other hand, your country is so indoctrinated from birth by the same stuff Herman Göring filled his people with - patriotism, that people are lining up for bread and ammo at the selective service office. How anyone would want to die in Iraq because of his fascist leader is beyond me. I guess I've evolved - but you don't believe in that either. Your world is too small to comprehend God as bigger than both ID and evolution. Ants trying to make their situation liveable - are just ants.

    So on another note, how's your new Xbox 360? Found a reason why you bought it yet? Don't come contradicting me with your bullshit either. I'm not listening, I'm *telling* you that meme-driven virus-infected minds like yours need to snap out of it and regain control of humanity's destiny through some other path than the one currently chosen. It's just a choice, but that choice is truly the only thing you leave behind after you move on and out of life. Please, work for a better society instead of spreading your virus. We don't need guns. We don't need people who protect other people having guns. The world needs food and clothing, not scared fuckers with guns.

    Yeah I'm used to it. Mod me down. Negative Slashdot kharma is just proof that you're saying something that should be said.

  85. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that politicians would suddenly become wise and considerate if they had the power to pass any law they wanted, and make it stick? If that were the case, then totalitarian regimes would have by far the most carefully-considered and fair laws, because they do not have a review process of any sort.

    --
    I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  86. As A Parent... by TheZorch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a Parent from the state of Michigan.

    My kids play games, some of them online. Mostly its E rated stuff on the Gamecube but they have some T rated stuff and they've played one or two M rated games on my PC like Unreal Tournament 2k3 and Doom 3. I've seen nothing to suggest they're learning violent behavior from it at all.

    A recent study that was done says that there is no connection whatsoever between violent videogames and violent behavior at all. My kids used to watch Power Rangers when they were little and it didn't do anything to them at all. Yes, children are impressionable and they tend to act out what they see but how much of what they see really does truly effect them on a long-term basis. So far from my own observations violent games have NO EFFECT at all.

    In fact, my kids learned their primary colors from the Power Rangers, learned how to manage money from playing Kal Online (a free MMORPG at www.ganengane.com), and are learning to be better readers from ANIMAL CROSSING (an E rated title and probably one of the best game titles ever made for the Gamecoube IMHO). They actually play very few M rated games because I myself have very few. I have Vice City, I caught them playing it one time when my back was turned, but they got bored with it really fast and moved onto Leggo StarWars which they played like crazy. Just goes to show that when they are given an M rated game to play doesn't mean its the only thing they'll like to the exclusion of all else. My oldest son used to play Unreal Tournament a lot before we got Animal Crossing. Now its the only thing he plays and I had nothing to do with this shift at all. He made the choice to switch to the less violent game HIMSELF. Parents have to trust in their children's own sense of judgment. They know what is good and what is bad better than some adults do. This is something I think a lot of us adults have forgotten. Just because the law says someone under the age of 18 is considered a minor doesn't automatically mean they don't understand what is and isn't in their own best interests. On the contrary, I know a lot of young people who know what's in their best interests very well.

    --
    Michael "TheZorch" Haney
    thezorch@gmail.com
    http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
  87. Playing along by tepples · · Score: 1

    [Hitler played] Tetris.

    [Within this hypothetical,] I thought Tetris was Joe Stalin's game, and Hitler and Stalin were mortal enemies. Or is that part of the joke?

  88. Is the DVD CSS license that expensive? by tepples · · Score: 1

    you need to pay licensing fees to have CSS in your product.

    Then how does Mozilla Firefox, a free and Free product, get away with implementing CSS better than IE?

    But seriously, though DVD CSS is subject to a paid license, you also need to pay licensing fees to have DVD physical media, MPEG-2 video, and Dolby Digital audio in your product anyway. What's CSS on top of that?

  89. Ratings for independent works? by tepples · · Score: 1

    [The MPAA's CARA division] tacked a rating onto each movie that asked for one

    Really? Is CARA's film rating process structured that it is affordable for studios other than MPAA members (Disney, Time Warner, Sony, Viacom, News Corp, or GE)? Is ESRB's video game rating process structured that it is affordable for publishers other than ESA members?

    1. Re:Ratings for independent works? by Agarax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A) It hasn't seemed to hurt small budget films so far. Even The Blair Witch Project and Clerks, which only cost $25,000 and $30,000 to make respectivly seemed to be able to aford getting a rating.

      B) You don't have to get a rating. You only really need one if you want to have a fighting chance of getting theater owners to show your movie.

      C) Even if you don't get a rating, there are still a number of theaters who may decide to show the film anyway, as seen in the documentary The Aristocrats which declined to get a rating.

      --
      Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
  90. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by nharmon · · Score: 1

    In theory, yes, representing their constituents is a politician's job. But guess what gets him/her re-elected?

  91. Supervision by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They will fail again and the primary reason being for this is the fact that there is already ratings on the games, supervision of kids is the key to this, not banning kids from buying games. Why do parent's complain when their kids go looking for porn on the net and find some? why was the parent not supervising what they were doing. Why do parent's complain about kids watching violence on tv? same thing, why where they not supervise. It seems the parents are lazy and want the government to do their job for them.

  92. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by rpillala · · Score: 1

    The "base" for a particular politician may be spread out across the country, not all located in their district. So if a Democratic congressman panders to people like me even though I don't live in his district, I'd say he's doing his constituency a disservice.

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  93. You sick S.O.B. by Supurcell · · Score: 1

    You are a deeply disturbed individual! You represent everything that is wrong with society! There should be a law against it or something! I mean, what manner of sick and twisted mind would actually buy a playstation portable? Shame on you.

    1. Re:You sick S.O.B. by maynard · · Score: 1

      The kind that on launch looked at that big screen and went,"ohhhh... shiny new toy... must have shiny new toy" with eyes glazed over. Never mind it took nine months to deliver more than a few games worth owning... *cough!*

  94. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, representing their constituents is a politician's job.

    What country are you from? I'm from America, and in America it is a politician's job to pass laws that are in the best interest of the people, even if the people don't like those laws or those laws really aren't the in the best interests of the people.

  95. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by leereyno · · Score: 1

    Resentment is the sincerest form of flattery.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  96. British Humor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an american who gets BBC America and watches the occasinal british show. I think you are mistaken. British Humor only involves that funny song as people run around in conga lines being chased by the Bobbies SP? and stuff. they go into to different doors and sometimes they mess up the order and what not. Do DO Do Do do, do Do Dee do de do Duh. I cannot express the tune in words but you know what it is

  97. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    If guns = crime why did the murder rate / crime rate in Texas go down after concealed carry was approved?

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

    And please support you position that "you're close to Shia-law in the US"

  98. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by avasol · · Score: 0

    Resentment is also the basis on which you live on/for/through. Thought it might go through. I was wrong.

  99. Power? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    A person seeking worldly power may be working for a greater being, but it ain't Jesus.

    I assume by greater in this sentence, you mean more powerful, no?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  100. Re:It's cheap for politicians to pass an invalid l by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    "If passing a law meant risking the gallows, then not only would congress sit on its hands and do nothing, but no one would want to run for office in the first place."

    They had hundreds of years to get it right. The idea that they need to make new laws either implies the old ones are flawed or else a requirement for them to look busy.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.