Slashdot Mirror


Award-Winning Ad Taken Off Air In Australia

bol_kernal writes "An award-winning advertisement on Australian TV for the new Hyundai 4WD has been pulled from being broadcast after stations received 80 complaints from concerned parents. The ad consists of a small child, age around 2 years, cruising down the road, window down, arm out the window, in his new Hyundai 4WD. He sees a girl of the same age standing on the side of the road, pulls over picks her up, and they go to the beach together. All in all it's cute, funny, and very well done. The ad aired late in the evening (8:30 pm or later), but it was pulled due to concern from parents about the copycat risk. What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone? Is the world becoming so serious — or so frightened — that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

471 comments

  1. Simple answer: YES by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Geezus, we even had folks complaining about a *robot* who had a *nightmare* about suicide.

    1. Re:Simple answer: YES by vivekg · · Score: 0
      --
      The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
    2. Re:Simple answer: YES by cdrdude · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your link is broken, you've got an extra character in there. This should be right: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6GfdyIZcRH4

      --
      This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
    3. Re:Simple answer: YES by bernywork · · Score: 1

      Lets try that again shall we?

      Youtube link fixed

      --
      Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    4. Re:Simple answer: YES by smaddox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way I see it, with the amount of time it took to complain to the network about the commercial, the parents could have easily talked to their children and made sure they understood not to copy it.

      For some reason, these parents think ignorance is better for their children than knowing about and understanding an issue.

    5. Re:Simple answer: YES by digitalhallucination · · Score: 1

      I thought that it was complaints about an *android* who had a *dream* about electric sheep?

      --
      digitalhallucination... now phosphate free!!
    6. Re:Simple answer: YES by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even better, they could've maybe kept those small, choking-hazard car keys out of reach of their kids...

    7. Re:Simple answer: YES by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Okay, first of all, those keys were not that small.

      Second, can't we just give all the kids who would be stupid enough to choke on stuff like that Darwin awards and move on?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Simple answer: YES by Punch-Drunk+Slob · · Score: 3, Funny

      tahks mister i m 2yrs old i wil try too sneek out my dads suv too niyt love,justin

      --
      By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes: Open, locks, whoever knocks!
    9. Re:Simple answer: YES by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah. My nephew loves playing with keys. And there is no way to choke on a keyring full of keys plus an alarm gadget and logo gadget. I've tried, it's too big for even an adult to choke on. Try again. At worst they might poke themselves in the eye... but really, having acheived the ability to walk, mastering the art of not sticking pointy things in your eye is a cakewalk, unless your kid is a tard.

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
    10. Re:Simple answer: YES by x3rc3s · · Score: 1

      For some reason, these parents think ignorance is better for their children than knowing about and understanding an issue. No its just easier for the parents.
    11. Re:Simple answer: YES by dosius · · Score: 1

      This is the "All By Myself" CM from the Super Bowl on that YT link, right?

      704x400 AVI, MPEG-4, 6.7 MB (from my own rip of the SB commercials)

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    12. Re:Simple answer: YES by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I don't get is how this is different than any other car commercial where they do crazy shit with the newest hottest sports car. Like driving 100MPH down twisty country roads, or spinning around mercilessly on flat rainy roads, or doing a little fade-skid to stop at the very end of the commercial. Oh yeah, in tiny print at the bottom they say "Professional driver on closed course." like that makes it OK. If there's one thing car makers do NOT advertise it's how to drive safe. So just put a disclaimer at the bottom "This is really a 30-year-old man dressed up like a 2-year-old, on a closed course" and all will be well...

    13. Re:Simple answer: YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same parents that have their asses wiped for them by Daytime Running Lights and Twilight Sentinel, instead of having the intelligence to know when to turn on lights for conditons.

    14. Re:Simple answer: YES by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

      First you probably are not a parent and trying to explain to a two year old the difference between what's real and what,s not is a little bit tricky.

      For sure at 8h30 in the evening the 2 year old should be in bed but what about the 3,4 5 6 year old who might try to get the car keys and get into the car. This has happened and some with serious consequences.

      If you look back at your own childhood, i'm pretty sure you can find some stuff your parent told you and explained to you not to do but given the chance you would have done the exact opposite so dont blame all the parents, you can teach and explain your kids about danger and death but they dont grasp that until they are a little bit older.

      I'm not saying it's just the broadcaster's fault but when the television is open and your kid is watching it, you cant control everything that pops on that screen because your not always in front of the screen with them.

    15. Re:Simple answer: YES by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Laugh all you want, but do you really want the nation's depressed robots getting ideas from this commercial?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    16. Re:Simple answer: YES by sportster · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't have a two year old child. They learn by repeating what they've seen a lot more often than listening to what they are told.

    17. Re:Simple answer: YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm no armchair psych... ugh person, but I believe it has something to do with detachment. People today, well most people I've run across, have a hard time with detaching themselves from reality and letting the mind wander. Be it in movies, books whatever, but it seems the deflated content of the modern entertainment medium, has broken people of their ability to imagine and fantasize. They can't open up their mind, thus you see things like complaints about 'a robot contemplating suicide' as the OP pointed out.

      Now personally, I've taken my fair share of, ugh, pharmacologicals, so I really have no trouble with detachment. I like to call it another 'degree of freedom' for those familiar with the term.

    18. Re:Simple answer: YES by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      What about those who did not complain and never explained anything to their kids and which could lead to some snotty kid, firing up the family car and wrecking havoc. Happened before and will happen again.

      And it's obvious from your comment that you are NOT a parent, your probably have not even gotten laid yet. Kids are good at mimicking and they do NOT have the ability to understand the consequences of what they are doing,

      The commercial should never have been aired in the first place, it shows so much bad judgment that it is sickening.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    19. Re:Simple answer: YES by iago-vL · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, with the amount of time it took to complain to the network about the commercial, the parents could have easily talked to their children and made sure they understood not to copy it.
      It'd be interesting to hear that conversation...

      Mom: You know you aren't supposed to cruise around and pick up girls, right?
      Son: Uhh... what?

    20. Re:Simple answer: YES by javamann · · Score: 3, Funny

      "unless your kid is a tard." This coming from someone who tried to choke themself with keys.

    21. Re:Simple answer: YES by operagost · · Score: 1

      If you can explain to me how a kid who can barely figure out how to use a potty can start a car and put it in gear, let me know.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:Simple answer: YES by green1 · · Score: 1

      kids mimic... but do you know who they mimic the most? it's not other kids, it's their parents! so if the kid is going to get the idea to drive, they are unlikely to get it from the commercial, they are most likely to get it from watching their parents drive... do you advocate stopping all parents from driving?

      the correct way to deal with this is with responsible parenting, but that has gone so out of fashion these days....

    23. Re:Simple answer: YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have kids?

      think of 8 year old, who happens to see this popular ad again and again on multiple channels, you may be explaining about the ad once or twice using the poor sound/language protocol, but the kid will be seeing the ad with beautiful sound and animation which is close to his heart ... some how it MAY BE burned into his brain...

    24. Re:Simple answer: YES by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Your response makes sense, but let's not forget that most people are ignorant, uneducated, stupid, or combinations thereof.

      Instead of trying to change these folks, it would perhaps be more effective to manipulate them so they perceive they get what they want (for example, broadcast TV directed at the lowest common denominator) while we move to segregated, freer, better media. Some fear-freak housewife should be able to watch Lifetime TV 24/7, and never see anything else if that is what she wants. I don't go there so I don't care.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:Simple answer: YES by Sultan · · Score: 1

      Was this really about copycat kids driving a car or copycat kids surfing? :)

    26. Re:Simple answer: YES by cheezit · · Score: 1

      Does your nephew like the taste of the lead that is in many house keys? Older ones especially are quite rich in lead-y goodness.

      --
      Premature optimization is the root of all evil
    27. Re:Simple answer: YES by Zenix · · Score: 1

      Lol, they played that ad here a while back (couple of months?) and the first thing my old man said when he saw it was, "Well, they'll be banning that next won't they?".

    28. Re:Simple answer: YES by Wolfbaine · · Score: 1

      That's largely the point - it's illegal to show a car doing any of these things, closed course or not , in an Australian advert. There was a Toyota ad where a family car drove through a city that morphed into a number of safety cones - it was banned along with others for "promoting the wrong behavior". This is part of a larger cultural move in Australia against "young hoons" and includes vehicle confiscation and license bans for minor infractions.

    29. Re:Simple answer: YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to work with religion. [astroperson runs and hides from republican religious right onslaught]

    30. Re:Simple answer: YES by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is how this is different than any other car commercial where they do crazy shit with the newest hottest sports car. Like driving 100MPH down twisty country roads, or spinning around mercilessly on flat rainy roads, or doing a little fade-skid to stop at the very end of the commercial. Oh yeah, in tiny print at the bottom they say "Professional driver on closed course." like that makes it OK. If there's one thing car makers do NOT advertise it's how to drive safe. So just put a disclaimer at the bottom "This is really a 30-year-old man dressed up like a 2-year-old, on a closed course" and all will be well...

      Heh, reminds me of one of the new mini commercials. Has these guys driving around through some sewer system and on the bottom it says "this was filmed at a closed location". Well DUH. If you're going to be stupid enough to emulate this and take your car down a sewer, you shouldn't have been given your driver's license in the first place. Seems to me there's a certain point where people need to take responsibility for themselves (and their children) instead of expecting society to do it for them. I'm sure the guys who made the commercial put that in there to not get sued, but why should you have to? If you get yourself killed in a sewer somewhere it's your own damn fault.

  2. I for one am glad it's gone... by Alicat1194 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It wasn't sweet, or cute, it was disturbing, and wrong on so many levels... (apparently small, unnaturaly placed children disturb me)

    --
    You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    1. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't help the two kids were supposed to be boyfriend and girlfriend.

    2. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. She was hitching a ride. And he was probably going to rape her.

      You've got no fantasy ;)

    3. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by pembo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you should see a doctor about that.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by dont_run · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe. But if the ad should be pulled, then maybe children should be blindfolded to ride on cars, right? Otherwise, they will see a parent driving the car and will get "ideas"...

      Kids regard their parents as models much more than something from the telly. Even bad parents.

    5. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by AGMW · · Score: 5, Interesting
      What if more people now complained that the Ad had been removed? Would they have to start running it again?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    6. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else get the ad for the Santa Fe on the linked site? Any advertising is good advertising (as Dick Smith always said).

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    7. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

      Bingo! Now people who would have been raiding the fridge while the ad was on will hear about it on the evening news, the car radio, and the morning paper...

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
    8. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Maybe advertising should just be truthfull. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. No 'acting' endorsement (lies), not unrealistic uses or benefits, not exagerations of product quality, just the plain boring truth, I know it wont sell product, but seriously, so fucking what.

      Any mention of a product should be clear and straighford so that the consumer can make an informed choice, any time that any manufacturer makes any false misrepresentations of the product in any way shape or form, the add should be pulled and the manufacturer should pay a suitabley large fine and be forced to provide full refunds, plus costs, for anybody who purchased the products based upon those adds.

      Should adds be etertaining or just truthfull.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      >It wasn't sweet, or cute, it was disturbing, and wrong on so many levels... (apparently small, unnaturaly placed children disturb me)

      Hell, the kid was wearing a seatbelt. I thought he was setting a very good example. Maybe that's what the Aussie's were concerned about.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    10. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by Monkey · · Score: 1

      Now if the kid had chugged a six pack of Foster's and gotten behind the wheel, I may have taken issue with it.

    11. Re:I for one am glad it's gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ads should adhere to the laws of the society where they are made/aired, showing illegal activities should be frowned upon.
      Its not the 2 yr olds that are the problem, its the 7,8...14 yr olds who see the ad and think its possible, or even ACCEPTABLE.

  3. Complain! by arlo5724 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hypothesizing about fantasy amounts to fantasizing! I move to have this story removed from /. Sign below.

    1. Re:Complain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK.

      ~Below

    2. Re:Complain! by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      -- Below

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    3. Re:Complain! by sulfur_lad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kids, kids, kids; this commercial, while cute and benign in nature should be taken as a warning. I saw that Monkey (I know it's an ape) drving the Jeep in 'Grandma's boy' and let me tell you, before too long you'll all be looking at this ad with a more reflective mind. Babies and monkeys are silently gonna take the roadways...

  4. From the Only in America dept. by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In case you hadn't noticed, Australia is a de facto state of the USA now.

    1. Re:From the Only in America dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  5. Yes by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is the world becoming so serious -- or so frightened -- that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

    With one caveat. If it involves wealthy actors who play married hitmen trying to kill each other with everything from knives to rocket launchers, it's ok. Same thing with movies depicting armies systematically destroying each other with machine guns, bombs, flamethrowers, etc. Basically, the bigger the magnitude of the killing, destruction, and carnage, the more acceptable. The smaller the scale, the more freaked out people get.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Yes by omeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The smaller the scale, the more freaked out people get.

      Well, APPARENTLY! Did you see how many complaints they got? OVER 80!!! That's no less than over 0.000004% of the population!

    2. Re:Yes by catwh0re · · Score: 5, Informative
      In Australia we have a law against advertising which involves displaying driving activity which is technically illegal.

      The law was made because the major "australian" car manufacturer and their primary opposition (ford) were both glamourising speeding, burn outs, doughnuts etc. in car advertisements. I doubt the law was ever meant to cover situations which are technically difficult to reproduce.. afterall hyperbole is permitted in advertising (as long as it's evidently hyperbole and thus not misleading.)

    3. Re:Yes by nkv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If parents don't want their kids to watch stuff like this, they should stop their kids from watching stuff like this, not call the TV station to take it off the air. They're "parents". That's a title that entails some amount of responsibility.

      There is a better option which is to throw the TV out the window and get it over with. Almost everything that comes on it is not worth watching anyway but that's a suggestion that'll most probably get me branded as a luddite.

    4. Re:Yes by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Well, Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) once said: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic". Apparently, he was right.

    5. Re:Yes by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Basically, the bigger the magnitude of the killing, destruction, and carnage, the more acceptable."

      Hardly surprising. A two year old is more likely to grab the keys to the car than to wield a machine gun. Now, the kid reaching the brake pedal to shift into drive...

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:Yes by fufubag · · Score: 0

      "If parents don't want their kids to watch stuff like this, they should stop their kids from watching stuff like this, not call the TV station to take it off the air. They're "parents". That's a title that entails some amount of responsibility."

      No no no, not in a liberal government society... You don't need personal responsibility, that is the job of the government and corporations... duh!

    7. Re:Yes by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      ..and if you weigh in the generous figures that:
      10% of the population are letter-writing grandmas
      20% of the population are poor parents that write letters of complaint
      30% of the population couldn't have fun if they tried, but do write letters of complaint

      then the statistic is proves that even the narky people don't care!

    8. Re:Yes by FromellaSlob · · Score: 1

      Surely it has to be *real* driving activity, or that braindead law would outlaw every movie with a car chase.

    9. Re:Yes by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

      If parents don't want their kids to watch stuff like this, they should stop their kids from watching stuff like this ... There is a better option which is to throw the TV out the window and get it over with.

      I agree that not watching TV is a wonderful idea in general, but as another poster said, TV ads don't have pre-announced schedules. If you want to avoid one ad, you have to avoid TV altogether. I think its unrealistic to expect parents to tell their kids "I'm sorry, you can't watch TV at all until you've reached legal driving age because you might see one ad that would give you bad ideas."

    10. Re:Yes by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      What are little kids doing watching TV at 8:30 anyway?

    11. Re:Yes by name*censored* · · Score: 1

      **OR**, you could explain to your child why it's a bad idea to immitate that ad (if not by reason, just make up stuff like "You can only drive if you eat a million brussel sprouts, that's the law"). Children have very little tolerance for delayed gratification (I'm not trying to insult children, it's a fact that the concept of delayed gratification takes a while to understand) so making them do an extremely unpleasant task would stop them. Obviously they can't do it without your permission, since as a good parent you would keep your keys somewhere safe as you would with the poisons, knives, (guns?), electric powertools, exposed electric circuits etc. If you child is really so stupid to not understand why it's a bad idea, then there's little doubt s/he would be able to get a car moving.

      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    12. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like how a lot of car advertising includes cars skidding sideways to a stop... Sorry, i want my car to stop without skidding. Thanks.

    13. Re:Yes by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      **OR**, you could explain to your child why it's a bad idea to immitate that ad

      Newsflash: children don't always do as their told, and can't be monitored 24/7 (parents have to sleep sometime).

      so making them do an extremely unpleasant task would stop them

      No, it wouldn't. It would compel them to do it in secret.

      Obviously they can't do it without your permission, since as a good parent you would keep your keys somewhere safe as you would with the poisons, knives, (guns?), electric powertools, exposed electric circuits etc.

      I'm not a parent, myself. What you say is a good idea, but one that not everyone will follow. Children are notorious for finding things that their parents think are well hidden, and it's hard to expect every parent to stick their keys in, say, a combination safe every night before going to sleep.

      What would you think of an ad that depicted small children apparently having fun while playing with poisons, using knifes, shooting firearms, operating power tools, or installing an electrical outlet? Does that sound like a good idea to you? I'm all for personal responsibility in most things, but children don't always have adequate judgment, so I think the world is a safer place if we don't encourage them to do dangerous things.

    14. Re:Yes by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      the major "australian" car manufacturer

      What, GM (i.e., Holden)?

      Incidentally, this situation reminds me of a commercial they showed here in the States -- I think it was for a Corvette, being driven by a child -- that people complained about for exactly the same reason. I don't think they pulled it, though.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:Yes by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      RTFPP. Advertising != movies.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    16. Re:Yes by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      What would you think of an ad that depicted small children apparently having fun while playing with poisons, using knifes, shooting firearms, operating power tools, or installing an electrical outlet? Does that sound like a good idea to you? I'm all for personal responsibility in most things, but children don't always have adequate judgment, so I think the world is a safer place if we don't encourage them to do dangerous things.

      Have you seen Home Alone? Roadrunner cartoons? The Three Stooges? Spy Kids? Malcolm in the Middle? The Simpsons? Kids are impressionable, but not stupid. They know they can't do anything thay see on TV, and are especially sceptical of ads. (Just because they say "I want that!" doesn't mean they have been brainwashed, they're just naturally greedy.) I have a 9-year-old myself, so I feel qualifed to have an opinion here. Besides, kids see people driving cars every day of their life.

    17. Re:Yes by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Hardly surprising. A two year old is more likely to grab the keys to the car than to wield a machine gun.

      A two-year-old is more likely to eat the keys than a machine gun too. For that reason alone, keep your keys out of their reach.

      I've never understood why so many people immediately take out their keys when they get home, or to their office. Are they afraid of spoiling the line of their suit? I just keep my keys in my pocket except when I'm using tehm. I've seen my boss lock himself out of his home several times because he left the keys on his desk and had to call someone to let him in.

    18. Re:Yes by maxume · · Score: 1

      Really?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Yes by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      And moreover... how is a 2-year-old going to reach the pedals?

      On my car I doubt he could even get the parking brake off.

    20. Re:Yes by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      "a death is a tragedy, 10 million deaths is a statistic" -- command and conquer red alert

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    21. Re:Yes by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1
      In Australia we have a law against advertising which involves displaying driving activity which is technically illegal.

      The law was made because the major "australian" car manufacturer and their primary opposition (ford) were both glamourising speeding, burn outs, doughnuts etc. in car advertisements. I doubt the law was ever meant to cover situations which are technically difficult to reproduce.. afterall hyperbole is permitted in advertising (as long as it's evidently hyperbole and thus not misleading.)

      Good point. And I can sort of agree with a law preventing car companies from advertising dumbass and dangerous driving. (In the US, they just throw up a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer, which avoids showing law breaking behaviour.)

      But can a toddler in diapers be charged with driving without having a license? So is that technically illegal? (Maybe it represents child neglect on the parent's part :) Also, can someone that young even perform a "copycat" act that significant? I think the whole "reaching the pedals" thing would make that argument moot.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    22. Re:Yes by kalirion · · Score: 1

      FCC Suit 1: Gentlemen, we got 20 calls about the David Hyde-Pierce incident. And as you know, one call equals a billion people, which means 20 billion people were offended by this. Needless to say, something must be done.
      FCC Suit 2: Perhaps we should ask the chairman.
      FCC Suit 1: Good idea. (to the chairman) Uh, sir, we're wondering what course of action you recommend regarding the Hyde-Pierce incident.
      Cobra Commander (the chairman): You have to censor television, you fools!! Now, follow my orders!

      -Family Guy, PTV

    23. Re:Yes by Firefly1 · · Score: 1

      Basically, the bigger the magnitude of the killing, destruction, and carnage, the more acceptable. The smaller the scale, the more freaked out people get.
      You might be interested to know that there is at least one study that corroborates your statement, according to this article. See also the famous quote oft attributed to Stalin: "One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic."
      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    24. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the more obviously it's a special effect, the more acceptable it is. The smaller scale fantasy is usually more realistic, and harder to identify as a special effect.

    25. Re:Yes by Hamoohead · · Score: 1

      I'm not a parent, myself.

      I am a parent and it never ceases to amaze me how quickly someone with absolutely no experience in an area suddenly wants to be perceived as knowledgable. Bottom line: unless you have done a thing you can't truly know a thing.

      Here's an idea: Go raise a kid or two, then come back in 15-20 years and tell us what you would do differently.

      --
      "If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
    26. Re:Yes by paulmer2003 · · Score: 1

      One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic. -- Joseph Stalin

    27. Re:Yes by EvanED · · Score: 1

      This post is SOOOO off topic, but I don't see another way to contact you 'cause your email's not public. I saw this post by you about doing a Windows port of FUSE. I don't know if I'll be able to help out or not, but I at least have some questions about it.

    28. Re:Yes by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      In Australia we have a law against advertising which involves displaying driving activity which is technically illegal.
      Yeah, that deliberate loss-of-traction at 38 seconds is definitely going to give my kids the wrong idea about driving.
    29. Re:Yes by si618 · · Score: 1

      That law certainly isn't being enforced...unless it's legal for cars to jump over and park on rooftops of buildings.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion
    30. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, there is a good chance that you might think it's okay to go around skidding your tyres - especially when the TV commercial demonstrates how easy it is to do. In Australia (and most countries) you can get a ticket for doing a burn out, or worse still, get a charge for negligent driving.

      At this stage I'd like to point out that Australia's yearly road toll is roughly 3% of the USA road toll.. this is despite having similarly long country roads, a similar traffic density in cities and Australia having approximately 10% the population of the USA population. (Australia has roughly 1500 road-related fatalities a year, USA has roughly 44,000 a year.)

    31. Re:Yes by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      catwh0re (540371) "In Australia we have a law against advertising which involves displaying driving activity which is technically illegal."

      response by FromellaSlob (813394) "that braindead law would outlaw every movie with a car chase."

      Why don't you learn a new word - try "context" - insteady of trying to be a smartass?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  6. Irony... by debest · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... that the article is accompanied by a Flash ad for Hyundai, featuring the exact same kid from the ad that was pulled.

    --
    Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    1. Re:Irony... by Napoleon+The+Pig · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's actually the very end of the television ad that was pulled.

  7. Youtube link by physicsnick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the ad on Youtube:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=g37Z8Scbj8E

    1. Re:Youtube link by AnonymousCactus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Darn it! I got beat!
      Mine's way cooler though: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1LybpnekIo
      Fine, it's actually exactly the same. You'd think I'd have something better to do, but no.

    2. Re:Youtube link by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Some thoughts from a parent of two children. One, that child should be in a bed, not a crib. Two, just the thought of one's child picking up a set of car keys is chilling on to many levels to discus here. Three, who ever GIMP'ed or Blender'ed the surfing scene should look at surfers surfing, and do that part of the commercial over. Overall, coooooooooool surfing commercial; But I will stay with my Discovery Series II.

      Cheers Mate

      "I LOVE, MY CAR" - A. Schwarzenegger

    3. Re:Youtube link by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      That was cute and really well done. I guess stupid people will always find *something* to bitch and moan about.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  8. So you're the ones by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always wondered where all the Bush voters came from.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:So you're the ones by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always wondered where all the Bush voters came from.
      Nah; folks in the Bush don't vote much.... it's the ones in the cities you've got to worry about, mate!
    2. Re:So you're the ones by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

      Voting is compulsory in Australia. The electorates are gerrymandered so the bush-dwellers get more reps per head than city-dwellers...

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
  9. Things are way out of hand by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All in all it's cute, funny, and very well done. The ad aired late in the evening (8:30 pm or later), but it was pulled due to concern from parents about the copycat risk. What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone? Is the world becoming so serious -- or so frightened -- that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

    Let me preface this by saying that I am a conservative Christian. Now, I have done some research and found out that most electronic devices that emit photons and audio waves have a switch which allows me to turn them off. The effort required to do that is even less than it is for me to get incensed and make a complaint. Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

    1. Re:Things are way out of hand by blue.strider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are more shades of grey in the world that just completely shutting off the TV. The shade of grey missing here is that ads have no pre-announced schedule. If one sees the War-Of-Worlds in the TV Guide, one may keep his/her kids away of the TV for the duration. But the ads may come our of the nowhere in the middle of any random program, and effectively prevent one from choosing between individual TV programs.

      (Side discussion: This also indicates a certain fundamentally dishonest nature of ads, which is implicitly admitted by the perpetrators as they avoid to be fully open about the ad schedule).

    2. Re:Things are way out of hand by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me preface this by saying that I am a conservative Christian. Now, I have done some research and found out that most electronic devices that emit photons and audio waves have a switch which allows me to turn them off. The effort required to do that is even less than it is for me to get incensed and make a complaint. Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

      My guess is it's the people who leave their kids with the TV all night and always leave their keys in the car (possibly in the ignition) who are the most irate. "What if junior craws into the garage and starts the car because of what he done seen on teevee?" Turning a free babysitter off or remembering where they put their keys are things that are fundamentally beyond the intelligence of the type of people who are complaining.

      While I don't mind seeing stupid people die, their children shouldn't be doomed to the same fate. Statistically, only 50% of stupid people's children are themselves stupid, so we should at least protect the 25% of smart children with stupid parents, hmm?

    3. Re:Things are way out of hand by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 1

      First let me say that I think pulling the ad was over the top. But,

      it seems obvious to me that these people actually do want to watch television. And possbly they want to let their children watch it occasionally without (full-time) supervision. So instead of entirely avoiding it because of a small flaw they try to improve it. Sounds like a more reasonable approach then turning it off completely. Even if that takes an extra efford.

      Also, it is likely that some people don't only care about their own children, but also about other peoples children. If they think that it is wrong for children to watch the ad, switching the tv off won't help because there are many more tv's and children in the world.

      Now I realise that this concept is offensive to a lot of people, especially on slashdot, but some people consider it "good" to take responsibility for things that don't concern them directly. In this case I don't agree with the result, but it is hardly "way out of hand". In fact it's good that people try to be responsible, even though they are pushing it too far sometimes. And I'm not even a christian.

    4. Re:Things are way out of hand by the_womble · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Its because the parent are too addicted to the TV themselves to turn it off.


      People are astonished that we do not have a TV. It is good for us, and good for our daughter. However, most people would no more give up their TV, any more than a heroin addict will give up their drug.

    5. Re:Things are way out of hand by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

      That's a very good point, and the line that I take with stuff on TV I find offensive. However, it's not that this is offensive - what we have is the *exact opposite* of all those public safety films that we grew up with saying "Don't get into cars with strangers". You remember this don't you?

    6. Re:Things are way out of hand by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

      It really is that simple. People are idiots.

    7. Re:Things are way out of hand by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 4, Funny

      but what about all those hundreds or thousands of other kids that might be seeing it? I, as an innocent bystander can be driving around minding my own business and get rear ended by a damn 2 year old going to the beach with his girlfriend, all because that ad was on the air.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    8. Re:Things are way out of hand by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me preface this by saying that I am a conservative Christian. Now, I have done some research and found out that most electronic devices that emit photons and audio waves have a switch which allows me to turn them off. The effort required to do that is even less than it is for me to get incensed and make a complaint. Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

      Most of these people complaining are not doing so by their own violation, but rather, they are doing so after being told/commanded to by their social and religious leaders. Simply put, they're told about the ad/book/game/tv show/etc in church, around the coffee table, by their old friends, etc, and the Alpha of the group has them all write letters off to whomever they think might cowtow to them, trying to essentially blackmail the stations into submission.

      The truly sad thing is that it works -- and that the attack drones don't even have to have ever seen the show to begin with. (Or do you really believe a few hundred thousand conservative Christians listen to Howard Stern and got upset about it?) It's rather sad that the Moral Majority has been reduced to trained howler monkeys, ready to fling poo on command, but, well, there ya have it.

      They do the same thing with pretty much anything they don't like. Music, video games, websites, you name it. And it's only going to get worse now that they succeeded once against Howard Stern.

    9. Re:Things are way out of hand by TCM · · Score: 1

      Easy, just pirate all the shows and movies you want to watch, ad-free. Teach it to your kids as well.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    10. Re:Things are way out of hand by dreamlax · · Score: 1

      Well said. Hundreds of TV channels to choose from, and when something they don't like comes on they decide to watch it rather than change the channel. Had it been a movie they didn't like, they would have changed. TV program? Changed. News presenter? Changed. Unfunny American sitcoms? Changed. Probably any other commercials? Changed. This one particular commercial? Nup, let's watch it! Let's watch it enough times so that we get disgusted enough to write a complaint.

      I don't get it. Heaps of things disgust me on TV (like Fear Factor . . . I can't stand watching people eat cockroach pizzas [and how does that mean reality TV? How many people in reality eat cockroach pizzas]), what do I do? Watch something else. Do something else. Turn it back when the show is finished. Not a big deal.

      If the ad pisses you (pl.) off that much just don't buy a fucking Hyundai.

    11. Re:Things are way out of hand by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      I probably would not have a TV either, except I need it to play my consoles - otherwise, it stays off (except for the occasional Family Guy, and Local news if something interesting is happening)

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    12. Re:Things are way out of hand by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Most of these people complaining are not doing so by their own violation
      *cough*
    13. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see where you'd get the 50% statistic from (2 parents), but it falls apart when you realise that stupid people are inclined to marry other stupid people (smart people would probably not relate to stupid people). Also, if one of the parents IS smart, then they will probably stop the stupid one from endangering their children for the most part ("honey, did you remember to put the park brake on? little johnny is playing in the driveway" etc).

    14. Re:Things are way out of hand by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While I don't mind seeing stupid people die, their children shouldn't be doomed to the same fate. Statistically, only 50% of stupid people's children are themselves stupid, so we should at least protect the 25% of smart children with stupid parents, hmm?

      I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting here. By definition, aren't the 25% of kids worth saving smart enough to take case of themselves?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:Things are way out of hand by strider44 · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how easy it is for people to give up TV once they find something better to do.

    16. Re:Things are way out of hand by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 1

      Turn it off...OR have the common sense to see that no kid with those short ass legs would ever reach the door-handle or pedals of the SUV so problem solved. What is the worst that could happen - kid scratches car...

      --
      Nothing witty
    17. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A television is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Just because you cannot either control your use, or find quality programming, doesn't mean it is a terrible thing.

      Whenever I hear of people proudly proclaiming they "don't watch/own a tv", I think of people saying things like:
      I don't read books!
      I don't use electricity!
      I don't own a watch!

      Don't make out television to be some great evil, and don't pat yourself on the back because you don't make use of it properly.

    18. Re:Things are way out of hand by Skraeling2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, is this like a DoS attack or what? Put this in terms we can understand!

    19. Re:Things are way out of hand by DanAndDusty · · Score: 1

      I remember those old public service announcement films.. (the old "Learn to Swim Young man, Learn to swim" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9FsEi2us88 is a classic).

      It always makes me laugh when people say "There were never Paedophiles around when I was a child".. Yes there freaking were, they even made programs warning you about them....

    20. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Howard Stern's audience is mind numbingly stupid, it's entirely possible that Howard Sterns audience is primarily Christian Conservative.

    21. Re:Things are way out of hand by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd be surprised how easy it is for people to give up TV once they find something better to do.

      Yeah. That is a tricky one.

    22. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is because the parents have been conditioned to turn to government instead of taking reposnsibility for themselves.

      That is the natural, predictable result of big government. The Australian power elite have been slowly but surely expanding their power, revenue, and yes, "responsibilities", just as nearly every other government in the world does throughout its lifetime.

      The math is simple. The bigger the government, the less personal responsibility. Governments around the world (including Australia) are now bigger and more powerful than ever before, hi-jacking many of the personal responsibilities that human nature originally bestowed on individuals (not organized coercion).

      For example, it's not your fault for being careless when you slip on your neighbor's wet driveway; it's his fault for not preventing or warning you of the "danger".

      It's not your reponsibility to know that McDonald's is unhealthy and makes you fat: that's what government and their trillion-dollar revenue stream is for.

      It's not your reponsibility to question your neighbor when you take issue with his loud music, or his boat parked in the street: simply call the cops on him, as if he actually initiated force against you.

      The list goes on and on. People call on government at the first hint of a problem for a reason: because that's exactly how government brought them up. You didn't think that kids were raised by that antiquated concept of "parents" anymore, did you?

    23. Re:Things are way out of hand by ZetSabre · · Score: 1

      Shut up! I can stop any time I want to!

      I - I just don't want to right now okay?!

    24. Re:Things are way out of hand by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Get one of those devices that allow you to skip ads then?

      Or stick to buying DVDs or downloading videos so that you have better control.

      It's not as if most ads are worth watching.

      If there's a great ad you just have to see, I'm sure someone would put it on youtube, AND the advertisers who created it wouldn't object to you downloading it and watching it.

      --
    25. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The saddest thing is that these "religious" leaders show no evidence whatever that they have even read the New Testament. Look at Pat Robertson, for example. The man wears $4,000 suits, a necktie (Satan's leash, the symbol of money and power), and calls for the murder of foreign leaders.

      Jesus would not wear a suit, NOT wear a tie and most certainly would NOT call fro the murder of anybody. You never heard about the adulteress that was about to be stoned? These men are the "wolves in sheeps' clothing" Jesus warned you all about.

      "Conservative Christian" is an oxymoron. A Christian is supposed to house the homeless and feed the hungry, not give tax breaks to millionaires while cutting funding for programs that help the poor.

    26. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eh? I'm hacking together a linux driver for my new USB DVB-T receiver, and now I'm supposed to not watch TV?

      I suppose you've never watched a YouTube video, either?

    27. Re:Things are way out of hand by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

      Shoot, "War Of The Worlds" you say? If it's the remake, my kids can watch it when their grown and have moved out!

      A child driving a car is one thing, but Tom Cruse, that's where I draw the line. :)

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    28. Re:Things are way out of hand by ozbird · · Score: 1

      "What if junior craws into the garage and starts the car because of what he done seen on teevee?"

      Junior doesn't need the keys - he's seen how to hotwire cars on TV, too.

    29. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot cowtow . Unless he was, of course, towing a cow...

    30. Re:Things are way out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of these people complaining are not doing so by their own violation, but rather, they are doing so after being told/commanded to by their social and religious leaders. Simply put, they're told about the ad/book/game/tv show/etc in church, around the coffee table, by their old friends, etc, and the Alpha of the group has them all write letters off to whomever they think might cowtow to them, trying to essentially blackmail the stations into submission.

      WTF? How do you know this? Are you privy to the personal details and circumstances of each person that complained? Or are you pulling all this out of somewhere smelly? As a semi-conservative atheist, I think you're full of it.

    31. Re:Things are way out of hand by toddestan · · Score: 1

      And I don't get the reactions from people who I tell that I don't have a TV. Much like the original poster, I don't say it's evil or anything, though I do believe that there are a good number of people who watch too much of it. I just find that TV is a lousy source of information, and a lousy source of entertainment. I might watch a little, but I cannot justify the cost of cable/satellite for what would amount to a few hours a month, so I just do without instead. If you enjoy it, fine. Just don't call me a freak or something because I don't.

  10. kids these days... by RelliK · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't give those crazy 2-year-olds any ideas!

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:kids these days... by sasha328 · · Score: 1

      Actually, my concern is not for the 2 year old. They won't be able to open the car doors. I'm more concerned about the 9 year olds or such. I have had a friend of mine, a long time ago, when I was about 11 or 12, who got into his dad's Beetle, managed to roll it down the driveway (a bit steep) and roll it in a neighbour's paddock. Fortunately, he ended up with only some broken ribs and a broken arm.
      Yes, I think the ad is cute, and silly, but I also think they could do better. The cliche "think of the children" is quite appropriate. Most of the time they can't think for themselves.
      As an aside to the people who say, ah, but shouldn't parents switch off the TV. Gee, since when do you switch off the TV when a cute ad that you happen to like come up?

    2. Re:kids these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big different between thinking of the children and thinking for the children. If they can't think for themselves, their parents should think for them...not just of them.

    3. Re:kids these days... by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Was that before or after the ad in question was aired?

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    4. Re:kids these days... by binford2k · · Score: 1

      When I was 8 and my brother was 6, I started my Dad's old pickup with a screwdriver. I steered and my brother pushed the gas pedal and we drove around the block before finally running over the curb and stalling it. It was an old '66 Chevy with a granny gear and a broken clutch interlock, so it started right up in first gear.

      We had a blast, but I think my mom shat herself.

      Oh, and it wasn't a TV ad that gave us the idea either.

  11. stalkers by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    When it said copycat I thought they were worried that some stalker would get the idea to pick up a two year old girl and take her to the beach. Which is kind of a stretch, but somewhat understandable. But that's not it at all.....the parents were worried that two-year-old kids will see it then try to drive the family car.

    I don't get this one at all. If you are worried about your kid playing with the car (which is understandable), why not teach your kids NOT TO PLAY IN THE CAR? The kids are eventually going to want to play in the car whether they see it on TV or not. And if you are really worried (because kids don't always do what you tell them to) then lock your car and keep the keys out of reach. Maybe won't work in every case, but it will have a much greater effect than removing a commercial from TV (and what kid old enough to open a car door would actually want to copy a two year old? By the time I was 4 I thought of 2 year olds as babies. I sure didn't want to copy them)

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:stalkers by k8to · · Score: 1

      Yeah, kids are going to want to try driving the car because they see dad and mom do it, regardless of the advert. I certainly managed to start the car and back it up about 4-5 feet in a parking lot completely accidentally. I was "playing" at driving it, never having intended to actually put it in gear. I couldn't tell you how I managed it either. I was probably around 6.

      I think this is about as normal as kids cutting their own hair. Which happens with humourous and ugly results. The difference is the driving experiment is more dangerous.

      One of the best prevantatives is to treat the car seriously. Take driving seriously. Don't fuck around while doing it, and don't convey that driving is lighthearded by your actions. Of course that goes against the cultural grain, but it's a grain we could really seek to change.

      --
      -josh
    2. Re:stalkers by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The best solution is clearly to teach your kids how to drive responsibly as soon as they're physically capable of operating the necessary machinery.

    3. Re:stalkers by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Well then, the solution is obvious.

      Ban parents from driving until their children are 16.

      It should also help with the screaming children in restaurants and theaters problem.

  12. It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by zappepcs · · Score: 0, Troll

    IMO, those people that complain like that will be the first to help empty the shelves of libraries to burn the books that would corrupt little christian children. While that is an overstatement, the idea is that they want the government and everyone else to be responsible for their kid's behaviors, rather than take their own responsibilities to heart. We know that violent games aren't causing school shootings now, and many other myths have been busted too.

    There is also this 'entitlement' notion that causes people to complain about christmas trees in an airport because there are no jewish symbols also, or schools that don't sing christmas carols anymore because it might offend someone.

    There needs to be a very definite separation of church and state as well as a very well defined definition of what is acceptable WRT public behavior and displays that are religious in nature. I think the athiest movement has a pretty valid point lately. Soliciting door to door for religion is still soliciting. Churches should not be tax exempt institutions. They have proven that their morals behind the smiling faces are no better, if not worse, than politician's.

    If any religion is allowed to make laws and set public policy, it will end up being the wrong religion. If we let people's religious morals decide public policy, we have lost the battle for democracy to the ever increasing ferocity of theocratic movements.

    I think that when we hear people complaining about such things as this, we have a perfect target for public scrutiny of sorts. Ralph Nader had evidence to back up what he was pushing. Do these people that complain have any evidence? I don't think so. Perhaps we need a social web site to help debunk such complaints and direct people toward creating standards for such complaining to avoid the hype and dangerous aspects of such behavior?

    Just a thought

    1. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by revolu7ion · · Score: 1

      what on earth has parents being worried about their kids, the Santa Fe and advertising in Australia have to do with religion?

      --
      Jesus Saves
    2. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't know how you got modded insightful. Maybe 3 sentances in your entire rant discussed the issue in TFA/Summary.

      This happened in Australia, so all your talk about religion, sep of church & state, etc. is so far off base I don't know where to begin.

      Anyways, here's what TFA says

      "But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code.

      "Many of the complaints were from parents concerned that the ad would encourage copy-cat behaviour in young children and might lead to accidents."

      The board also found that the fact the toddlers were wearing seatbelts - instead of approved child restraints - also breached safety recommendations.

      So, if it was just the complaints, it is likely that nothing would have happened.

      BUT, as it turns out, a literal reading of the applicable Code suggests to The Advertising Standards Board that the complaints are legitimate.

      This is exactly why there are government agencies who do such investigations.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by TodMinuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with religion. This is a bunch of do gooders who think they are smarter than everyone else, and therefore, have the duty to step into the lives of others. It's called "Liberal Fascism" and seems to be growing by the day.

      --
      I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    4. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      what on earth has parents being worried about their kids, the Santa Fe and advertising in Australia have to do with religion?

      Absolutely nothing. But that's not going to stop folks like the parent poster from screwing on their tinfoil hats too tight.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with religion. This is a bunch of do gooders who think they are smarter than everyone else


      I'm sure religion can dig up prior art.
    6. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by k8to · · Score: 1

      "do gooders" thinking they know better than everyone else and have the duty to step into the lives of others. Sounds like the christian church to me!

      Not that they have a monopoly on this, but they seem the *ahem* canonical example.

      --
      -josh
    7. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by pla · · Score: 1

      But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code.
      [...snip...]
      BUT, as it turns out, a literal reading of the applicable Code suggests to The Advertising Standards Board that the complaints are legitimate.

      Two biiiiiiig problems there...

      First, you quoted an ambiguously self-referential standard there: Under the code, you can't do foo if it "undermines" the code. By that reasoning, you can say that anything violates some subjective interpretation of the intent of the code. The word "fantasy" just adds color without any real meaning, as anything short of a documentary would tend to fall into that category.

      Second, the phrase "Voluntary Code of Practice". Voluntary means, in both the legal and logical sense (which rarely coincide, but in this case they do), "ignore this". Just a distraction from real rules, the sort that have teeth.
    8. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it's a voluntary code of practice, then the ASB has no jurisdiction. If it's not voluntary, it's prior restraint... Unfortunately, we don't have the First Amendment here in Oz.

    9. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Father Knows Best" isn't exactly a classical liberal ideal.

    10. Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
      It's called "Liberal Fascism" and seems to be growing by the day.
      And yet, strangely, the loudest calls seem to be coming from the conservative camps.
      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  13. Obvious flaw by mainform · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How on earth is a toddler going to reach the accelerator and brake pedals in any regular car, let alone a 4WD, whilst being strapped in to the driver's seat, especially given there's no way he could have been able to see over the dash board without sitting on a cushion or something?

    1. Re:Obvious flaw by skelly33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All it takes is a toddler with the idea that "releasing the parking brake would be fun" to cause a problem. But paranoia will not make the world "safe" for children. The world, and Universe on whole, is a hostile place and parents need to come to grips with that and, as a previous poster mentioned, take responsibility for teaching common sense themselves. I say down with the easily offended.

    2. Re:Obvious flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been there, done that - roller door destroyed...

      And I didn't even have the luxury of seeing another kid driving around on TV, I just thought it'd be fun to take my cousins for a drive. Ahh the joys of being a toddler.

    3. Re:Obvious flaw by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

      As the other reply said, a toddler need only release the parking brake - neither being able to see over the dashboard nor being seatbelted in are prerequisites to causing a car wreck. And it isn't just toddlers who might cause problems - children of any age could see this and think it's a good idea.

    4. Re:Obvious flaw by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      In my country the handbrake requires the dual action of pressing a button and engaging the lever, I can't imagine that a child below the age of 9 would have the strength to disengage the brake. How do handbrakes in the US work, from what I've seen via Hollywood it's just another stick under the steering wheel, perhaps residents inthis country should be petitioning for safer mechanisms. I also don't know what a handbarke looks like in AU.

    5. Re:Obvious flaw by Skater · · Score: 1

      There are two major types in the US: One like you describe (push the button and move the lever down), and like you said it does take some strength; most smaller cars have this. The other option is a pedal on the left side by the door; most larger cars and pickups/SUVs have something like this.

      I'm not sure about this "stick under the steering wheel" you describe - sounds like the gear selector when it's in an automatic.

    6. Re:Obvious flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because children are not known to experiment with the world around them and none of them will EVER get the idea that pulling or pushing buttons/sticks/levers in a car would be awesome.

      People should read their own comments and THINK...

    7. Re:Obvious flaw by Nimey · · Score: 1

      BTDT, got a $1500 insurance settlement that went towards college. Car was still drivable, what did I care if both sides were dented from being sandwiched between $VAN_WITH_BORED_KID and another parked car?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Obvious flaw by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

      Right. Because children are not known to experiment with the world around them and none of them will EVER get the idea that pulling or pushing buttons/sticks/levers in a car would be awesome.
      Are you saying that children should be actively encouraged to try dangerous things because they're going to try to do them anyways?
  14. A disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's sad that we're seeing this kind of braindead parental nonaccountability, invented in the US, spread like a disease to other countries. Cultural evolution will officially come to a screeching halt when nominally immune countries like Japan show signs of infection.

    1. Re:A disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chief, you just won this argument with your impeccable logic. And keep breeding! The world will always have room for blue collar labor.

  15. This is getting pathetic... by GFree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People getting scared, frightened about the most innocent things.

    There is a saying I've heard many a time: HARDEN THE FUCK UP. Seriously, if people keep raising hell about such trivial matters, soon there won't be any imagination, any creativity, any fun in the world. People will be afraid to do ANYTHING due to lawsuits.

    It will be a truly dull place to live in.

    1. Re:This is getting pathetic... by jonfr · · Score: 1

      Nature will figure something out to prevent that from happening.

    2. Re:This is getting pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Chopper?

    3. Re:This is getting pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. VERY dangerous to children by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! I think we're all missing the point here, folks! It's not the kids driving and picking up kids, but how they're driving.

    Two-year olds driving, yeah, that's cool, but what if they start acting out what they see on TV and driving on the left side of the road? Trying to steer the car from the passenger side? What kind of example is the media setting for our kids?

    Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!

    Crazy foreigners, corrupting our American youth...

    Yes, I realize non-U.S. citizens read /.

    1. Re:VERY dangerous to children by Bob54321 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I realize non-U.S. citizens read /.

      I think we need a mod that is something like +/-1 "it was not funny enough to be not mistaken for flamebait so needed a disclaimer". I wasn't sure whether these sorts of comments deserved to go up or down a point.

      Yes, I felt in the need for a rant today (not a disclaimer...)
      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    2. Re:VERY dangerous to children by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      You know, I think you've got something there. The GP was certainly not my "best work", if you will, but disclaimers seem necessary on Slashdot.

      Then again, disclaimers can serve a purpose - if a post is off-topic, for example, clearly mentioning that in the subject should be enough to ward off those looking for conversation that is on topic.

      But, from time to time, even a disclaimer is no good. For example, this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216756&cid=175 97552

      I clearly marked it as off topic - I didn't try to hide it at all - but was moded down (penalized, in a way) for being - surprise, surprise - off topic.

      In addition to rewarding those who do quality posts, moderation should serve as a way to make certain kinds of posts easier to find.

      Disclaimer (yeah, I know, I know...) - it's late, so this might not make sense...

    3. Re:VERY dangerous to children by serialdogma · · Score: 1

      The purpose of moderation on /. is to filter out all the crap, trolls and yes off-topic posts, it is not intended to act as a punishment but rather more like a spam filter. (and yes, the karma system is done in the same vain)

    4. Re:VERY dangerous to children by Bob54321 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Tips and tricks for posting off-topic comments: 1. Do not use you karma bonus. Not only will mods overlook an off-topic post with a score of 1 but it limits your karma loss... 2. Hadn't thought this far when I started the post. Now, should I listen to my own advise?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    5. Re:VERY dangerous to children by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      You're right about not using Karma bonus on off-topic posts. I'll do that in the future.

    6. Re:VERY dangerous to children by Dersaidin · · Score: 1
      I'm an Aussie, I thought it was a pretty good add. I smiled when I saw it.

      Perhaps they should consider that 80 people is a relatively tiny portion of the viewers.

      And for the record that baby is a pretty skillful driver.

    7. Re:VERY dangerous to children by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Funny

      Alright, which one of you moderators thought that would be funny?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    8. Re:VERY dangerous to children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the vast majority of the world drives on the right side of the road, so it's not just the U.S. :)

    9. Re:VERY dangerous to children by bakes · · Score: 1


      I thought the 'vain' part was funny... If I had moderator points I would have modded it up too!

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    10. Re:VERY dangerous to children by lsetia · · Score: 0

      but what if they start acting out what they see on TV and driving on the left side of the road? In Australia we drive on the left side of the road, you insensitive clod!
  17. I'd have banned the ad.. by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

    ..for the horrible CGI of the baby surfboarding.

  18. Copy cat? by Motley+Phule · · Score: 3, Funny

    We had the ad screening here for quite a while in NZ. It's a two year old driving a car, for pete's sake. How can they be worried about copycat crimes? Two year old's still think throwing poo is fun... which it is... but that's beside the point.

    1. Re:Copy cat? by astromog · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ad received 60 or so complaints in NZ, and wasn't pulled. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid =000019F4-D247-15DE-ADCE83027AF10110

    2. Re:Copy cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here here!!

    3. Re:Copy cat? by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      "Two year old's still think throwing poo is fun..."

      I ran away from home with the girl next door before I was two years old. I couldn't even talk and she could only say her name. But we still managed to get two or three miles away before we were found. I remember the incident,(and my parents do too) so maybe some two year olds have risen above poo throwing. ;)

    4. Re:Copy cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because unlike in Australia, if you complain in New Zealand, nobody listens, no matter how valid your complaint is.

      That is, unless you play the "homophobia" or "paedophilla" card.

    5. Re:Copy cat? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Before you were 2? What are the odds that you constructed the memory based on accounts from your parents? (they are pretty good...)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Copy cat? by UncleCrappy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'd like to meet this two-year-old who is swift enough to find my car keys, choose the right key, open the drivers side door, put the key into the ignition, turn the engine over, apply the brake with 12-inch legs, take the car out of gear, press the accelerator with 12-inch legs, and motor on down the highway. I'd adopt her, becuase she's a genius and would be able to support a comfortable retirement for me.

  19. It's an Aussie thing by Cyanara · · Score: 1

    Bugga

    1. Re:It's an Aussie thing by oneade · · Score: 1

      Bugga

      A little more context to the previous comment... http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMwZlINNtgw

    2. Re:It's an Aussie thing by Bob54321 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the ad you link to is a New Zealand one, not an Aussie one? It even says so in the bottom left corner about 4 seconds into the clip...

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:It's an Aussie thing by Cyanara · · Score: 1

      Of course. But we just like to let them pretend they're their own country. Keeps the plebs happy.

    4. Re:It's an Aussie thing by Bob54321 · · Score: 1

      Not biting...

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    5. Re:It's an Aussie thing by doktorjayd · · Score: 1

      just like dick chaney lets us think we still run australia.

  20. Then Simpsons shouldn've been banned long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you know the opening scene where maggie plays with the toy steering wheel on the passenger side

  21. 80 complaints ? by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 1

    Is that all it takes to get something censored ?

    1. Re:80 complaints ? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      indeed, only 80 idiots with children easily offended for irrational reasons out there? I would have thought many more.

    2. Re:80 complaints ? by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 1

      So if 80 people complained about ACA and TT, then it may be taken off the air ???

      Does anyone else smell a petition ?

    3. Re:80 complaints ? by Spad · · Score: 1

      They received 80 complaints and as we know, one complaint equals a billion people, so that means 80 billion people were offended.

    4. Re:80 complaints ? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Actually it only took two to get "Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure" banned in Australia. The situation is pathetic.

    5. Re:80 complaints ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there 80 /.ers who can complain about John Howard?
      Please?

    6. Re:80 complaints ? by Builder · · Score: 1

      unless you're filling in a petition in Britain... In that case, 100,000 signatures equals one response because, well, just because, ok?!

  22. I was going to compain by bug1 · · Score: 1

    I was pretty upset about that that commerical as well, those damn 4WD's are everywhere, they are a menace !

  23. Re:Then Simpsons shouldn've been banned long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's a *cartoon* where people have four fingers. So that's OK.

  24. Fantasy is fine by ghyd · · Score: 1

    Fantasy is fine, but you know there's all kind of people watching tv. So, stop it, now.

  25. Why defend an advert? by Deb-fanboy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In general I dont like being subjected to the advertising industries little fantasies anyway. They will use every trick in the book to manipulate us.

    So even though the advert in question is pretty innocuous I am not too disturbed if it has been pulled. As I see it, whats the downside, an advert is pulled. Whats the upside, a very unlikely (IMO) copycat event is prevented. I can live with that.

    1. Re:Why defend an advert? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You realize another ad is only going to take its place, don't you? Considering that, I think the censorship and encouragement of people who have no common sense are pretty fucking big downsides!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Why defend an advert? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      They will use every trick in the book to manipulate us.

      By manipulate I take it you mean make us wanna by the products they're advertising? Oh my God! McDonald's has messed with my mind and manipulated me into eating their new hamburger (which was by the way very tasty, but I'm sure the feeling of tastiness was part of what they did to my brain) by screening me TV commercials depicting said new hamburger! Oh my God!!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Why defend an advert? by Deb-fanboy · · Score: 1

      You realize another ad is only going to take its place, don't you?

      true, yes thats a bugger isnt it

      Considering that, I think the censorship and encouragement of people who have no common sense are pretty fucking big downsides!

      well I think that we have to balance between advertising just another car against the concerns of some parents who are worried about their kids safety. And there are some concerns, I dont share those concerns for me and my kids, but I can see what people are worried about. Even just encouraging the little darlings from taking the keys is annoying.

      So I think that I would be reluctant to make this my stand against censorship.

    4. Re:Why defend an advert? by Deb-fanboy · · Score: 1

      Oh my God! McDonald's has messed with my mind and manipulated me into eating their new hamburger

      ever seen the movie Supersize Me?

    5. Re:Why defend an advert? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      well I think that we have to balance between advertising just another car against the concerns of some parents who are worried about their kids safety.

      See, I think just the opposite: that we should explicitly reject these parents' concerns as the overprotective nonsense that they are. They aren't even worth seriously considering, and the parents should be ignored or maybe even penalized for suggesting such an absurd thing. In fact, another post even suggested using it as evidence that the parents were incompetent and unfit and taking their children away. Of course, this is rather extreme, but it's in the right direction. After all, how can you be fit to raise a kid if you're too stupid to turn off the TV?

      These people should at least simply be ignored, just like all the other nutjobs (e.g. people that think "intelligent design" is scientific, people that think the government is putting mind-control serum in the drinking water, etc.).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Why defend an advert? by Deb-fanboy · · Score: 1
      Reading further it appears that all there is is a voluntary ban from Toyota to play the ad after 8:30 in the evening.

      So this is not really much of a story. Hardly worth discussing IMHO.

      :-)

    7. Re:Why defend an advert? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      ever seen the movie Supersize Me?

      Oh my God! Eating nothing but large quantities of fries and hamburgers and stopping exercizing makes you fat! No way! McDonald's is so evil! As eating nothing but healthy food like brocolis is so good for health. If you eat nothing but brocolis for a whole month you'll be like in super shape!

      Seriously, if you have a problem with McDonald's for what you saw in this movie, please die. One less hippie.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  26. Won't someone please welcome by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1

    our CGI, video-composited, fake children overlords?

    Ugh. Since everything is done with the 'children' in mind, they are in fact becoming our overlords.

    Seriously. Can't you just hang your keys higher on the wall? Tell your kids the difference between TV and Real Life? Put a kill switch on the vehicle?

    I know this is a commercial and all, but really. Why does the extent of my life's experiences have to be dictated by your inability to parent your children?

  27. Ikea Lamp Ad by fyoder · · Score: 1

    Is the world becoming so serious -- or so frightened -- that fantasy is no longer allowed?

    It's allowed, but human irrationality has to be taken into account. Playing on that is what makes this Ikea ad so effective. Putting babies in danger even in fun was perhaps ballsier than the ad creators realized.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  28. Ad shows illegal activity by pavium · · Score: 0

    Surely it was pulled off-air because driving with YOUR ARM HANGING OUT THE WINDOW is against the law.

    We can (and do) show illegal activities in the breaks between commercials, but in the name of all that's holy (ie, the mighty dollar) we can't show illegal activity during commercials.

    And besides ... the kid was too young to have a licence!

    Talk about a flagrant disregard for the law!!

    1. Re:Ad shows illegal activity by tumutbound · · Score: 1

      Actually, at least one of the complaints was that a child of that age should be in an approved child car restraint, not a standard seatbelt. Given the press on this, I'd say it was a successful advertising campaign.

  29. Look Who's Talking by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Maybe these people have never seen Look Who's Talking or or the either of the other two sequels - those baby's did a lot more interesting things.

    Besides that, I am curious as to how a baby would be physically capable of copying that ad

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  30. Nothing has changed by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The ad aired late in the evening (8:30 pm or later), but it was pulled due to concern from parents about the copycat risk. What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone?

    Where has the responsibility of parents gone? Nowhere. Responsible parents were concerned about the ad - and voiced their concerns. The Advertising Standards Board responded to those concerns by pulling the ad.
     
    I wish Slashdot reader would grow the hell up and realize parental responsibility covers a lot more ground than blindfolding little Stevie and locking him in his room, or handcuffing little Susie to the parent's hand.
    1. Re:Nothing has changed by TodMinuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Responible parenting means taking responability for parenting your child. It does not mean having the Government step in and do it for you.

      Instead of complaining about the ad, it would have been better to talk to their children about it.

      --
      I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    2. Re:Nothing has changed by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you had a child who, after seeing this ad, decided to run out and take off in your SUV, and was able to get away with it, there are problems with your parenting so deep and serious that it doesn't matter how many commercials you manage to have banned; your kids are fucked.

      responsible parenting has gone somewhere; in the process, it also grabbed hold of some of our liberties and took off with them.

    3. Re:Nothing has changed by sasha328 · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't have kids.

    4. Re:Nothing has changed by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Funny

      To be honest, if you've got kids that age who know how to get into your 4WD, start it up, have the strength to pull the handbrake off, and can drive stick... they should really be in a circus.

    5. Re:Nothing has changed by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Responible parenting means taking responability for parenting your child. It does not mean having the Government step in and do it for you.

      Had the goverment stepped in - you'd have a point. But it didn't. The goverment responded to concerns, which is very different from 'stepping in'. (I shouldn't have to point out that responding to the concerns of its citizens is one of the basic functions of goverment.)
    6. Re:Nothing has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Responsible parents were concerned about the ad

      As a parent of three young children, let me just say that
      - responsible parents don't give their two-year-old children the opportunity to get their car keys;
      - responsible parents don't let their two-year-old kids play in their cars;
      - responsible parents don't let their two-year-old kids play out on the road unsupervised;
      - responsible parents put their two-year-olds to bed at an appropriate time;
      - responsible parents supervise/monitor what (if anything) their two-year-old children watch on tv and change the channel if they think it's inappropriate.

      Responsible parents come in all shapes, sizes, colours, and creeds; they have done so for millennia.

    7. Re:Nothing has changed by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you had a child who, after seeing this ad, decided to run out and take off in your SUV, and was able to get away with it, there are problems with your parenting so deep and serious that it doesn't matter how many commercials you manage to have banned; your kids are fucked.

      A typical slashdot response to a position or statement that they cannot discuss rationally - throw FUD and accusations against the parents. It plays well to the audience and gets you nearly automatic karma.
       
       

      responsible parenting has gone somewhere; in the process, it also grabbed hold of some of our liberties and took off with them.

      More of the same.
    8. Re:Nothing has changed by clonmult · · Score: 1

      No decent parent in their right mind would even begin to believe that such an advert would cause issues. Come on, get a grip on REALITY.

      My son, now 5 years old, would just see that ad and think it was funny. He would NOT think its a reason to grab our keys and take the car for a spin.

      The advert is fictional, any parents complaining about the advert are obviously somewhat retarded, and would complain about anything. Its absolutely pathetic for those individuals who complained to believe that the advert was any form of threat. Bunch of complete and utter retards.

    9. Re:Nothing has changed by clonmult · · Score: 1

      And another typical slashdot answer that just beggars belief.

      Its true though - the responsible parents wouldn't get themselves into such a stupid situation in the first place, this is nothing about throwing fud and accusations about the parents, its an obvious mention of the truth, and it appears that you have issues with "the truth". Does it hurt?

    10. Re:Nothing has changed by johnw · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't have kids. From the content of the parent post I would have drawn the opposite conclusion - that the poster does have children. If you really are in the position where your children might be influenced by this then yes, your parenting is seriously fucked up.

      And yes, I do have children.
    11. Re:Nothing has changed by popoutman · · Score: 1

      In the ad, it's an automatic gearbox! And I could drive stick at about 6 years old. One of the advantages of having a countryside upbringing and well-supervised driving of tractors around a field.

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    12. Re:Nothing has changed by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Huh....isn't that blindfolding what you are welcoming here? How do you think, if they can see this ad in YouTube or somewhere else, heck, let's be sure, let's ban everything we can?

      It is not responsibility, it is decreasing time for educating your childrens what is fantasy, what is reality, you know, that kind of stuff you should learn your child. It is "phew, no more stupid questions about that stupid ad, let's go watch next CSI episode." type of attitude.

      Ohhh, you have no time for educating your children because you have to feed them, etc want your own life? Then you fighting wrong and already lost fight. Growing children also brings responsibility to educate them, no more or less. They see sex - you should talk about them, of course in different levels in different ages. They see violence - they should understand why this is violence, why it is fake in movie, and WHY in real life such violence could get you (or someone else) killed.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    13. Re:Nothing has changed by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Responding to the concerns of its citizens" also got us the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, "blue laws," Jim Crow laws, and all kinds of other stupidity over the course of history. Hell, the Roman Empire destroyed itself by "responding to the concerns of its citizens" by giving them too much bread and circuses!

      In other words, the fact that some citizens are concerned about an issue does not mean those concerns are valid! (I shouldn't have to point out that distinguishing between valid and invalid concerns is (ideally) also one of the basic functions of government.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Nothing has changed by Secrity · · Score: 1

      TFA said that the ads were aired after 8:30; why would a responsible parent allow an impressionable child to be watching TV After 8:30 PM?

      The Advertising Standards Board acted in a wanker-like fashion in this case, they seem to be worse than the US FCC.

    15. Re:Nothing has changed by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the biggest problem in child rearing today is treating toddlers and young children like adults. You don't talk to them about it. You just tell them not to do it and then you supervise them. Remember if you cannot reach out and grab your toddler they are too far away.

  31. 80 callers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see stupid people, walking around like normal people.....

  32. Same thing happened to an American ad a year ago by SpecialAgentXXX · · Score: 1

    There was a car ad a year ago (maybe it was for the Superbowl 2006?) featuring kids driving flying cars on buildings, across jumps, etc. all in slow-motion. I think the idea was that the cars were so quiet and comfortable that even the kids were enjoying the ride. Anyways, a group of parents complain that it sets a bad example showing underage kids, god forbid, driving and it was pulled.

    I would just like to say a big FUCK YOU! to every moron who gets offended.

    Remember one of the early South Park episodes where everyone in the city gets offended by the Christmas play that everything about the holidays gets removed and it ends up being a very dull and boring show? Everyone in the audience then complains and about it and then they get a lashing from Chef telling them how it was them that wanted it all removed? Dammit, have we as a society gotten so lost & midguided that we are now living in the real-life version of fictional cartoons that are supposed to be unrealistic? Whatever happened to common sense?

  33. Australia has 20,555,300 people... by RichPowers · · Score: 1

    And all it takes is 80 unhappy parents to get the ad pulled? That's 0.0003% of the total population. Someone out there will be offended no matter what airs on TV. What if a company used animals in their commercials and PETA & Co. called and complained? Will it only take 80 of them to get that ad pulled?

    During the 2006 Emmys, Conan O'Brien was in a skit that featured a plane crash. Earlier that day, a plane actually crashed in Kentucky. By Australia's logic, Conan's skit would have to be pulled because hundreds - if not a few thousand - people from the Lexington area thought it was in bad taste.

    Honestly, if there were thousands of angry calls, then we could talk. But even then the whole thing would still be stupid.

    1. Re:Australia has 20,555,300 people... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      I think the main point here, is that the ad was already technically breaching a (not necessarily good) law.
      In recent years it has become illegal to have ads for cars that show illegal driving practices. So it probably would have only taken a few complaints to have it removed.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    2. Re:Australia has 20,555,300 people... by Gregory+Cox · · Score: 2, Informative

      But it didn't get pulled just because there were 80 complaints. Because there were complaints, it was investigated by the Advertising Standards Board, who ruled that it broke existing rules by showing illegal driving activity. Since it was found to break the rules, it was banned. (This is all from the article.)

      Now, you can say the rules are stupid for banning ads like this, or that the 80 people were stupid for complaining, but I don't see how you can argue with a system which only punishes ads if

      (a) they break rules that were in place anyway, and
      (b) only if someone complains about them.

      --
      If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
  34. I suppose you don't watch a lot of movies, play computer games, read books. You can (easily) find all possible kinds of fantasy there. That there are some people who try to also protect children (whether or not they did the right thing here is another question) hardly means that fantasy is no longer allowed.

    The world becoming serious? The world has always been a serious place, and I don't think that ever in the history of the planet a place has been so free and playful as modern Australia, USA and Europe. You're seriously missing perspective if you think the world is "becoming" serious or frightened.

    And yes, if something is less realistic, for example because of exaggerated scale, it's more acceptable, also to me.

    1. Re:No by maxume · · Score: 1

      Context is what you make of it. At this point, movies commonly contain advertising, to the extent that it is pretty much up to the individual viewer if a given movie is an 'ad' or not, even when they pay $8 to go see it on a big screen with loud speakers.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  35. It was a creepy ad, glad its gone by Maso · · Score: 1

    All in all it's cute, funny, and very well done.
    Not for me, i found it creepy and disturbing. Did not find it the least bit funny either, but then i am very grumpy. Glad its gone, maybe now we can complain about every ad and get our tv for without any at all.
  36. Solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get 80 complaints about every ad and we won't have to sit through the ads at all! :)

  37. repulsive by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    it might have been "cute" and "well done", but it certainly wasn't "funny".

    "repulsive" was the first word that occurred to me when i saw it on TV.

    1. Re:repulsive by Scoth · · Score: 1

      I have the same opinion about commercials that put children into adult situations. Not the pr0n sort, just making them say and do things that kids don't say and do. A gosh-darn-cute 4 year old giving a long, well-thought-out monologue about why they prefer some product over another just doesn't sit well with me. I've also noticed that occasionally the script doesn't match up with the casting. You'll have a kid speaking lines that are clearly intended for someone quite a bit younger. And then there are ones that are just plain exploitation; I saw one recently where a kid was extolling the virtues of a particular credit card because it helped her mommy buy her the most and best toys. Actually rolled my eyes at that one.

      Anyway, curmudgeon-mode off :)

  38. Please pull this story... by no_mayl · · Score: 1

    ... I'm afraid my kids will read this and grow up to be offended by everything.

  39. Re:Then Simpsons shouldn've been banned long time by serialdogma · · Score: 1

    So your saying that The Simpsons should be banned as it promotes two years olds chopping off their thumbs?

  40. Do they verify? by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    So do they verify that all these complaints are legitimate - or is this an easy way for a rival car company to screw up your advertising campaign - or for an ecological movement to hit back at gas-guzzling 4WD vehicles?

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  41. I am deeply concerned about those ads ... by jopet · · Score: 1

    no not this one, but the ones where children eat all the sugary crap stuff ... or the ones where children eat all the junk food ... or the ones where children spend their time doing useless and boring stuff like playing with totally idiotic toys. Can I get pulled those ads too, please?

    Being from a different region of the world, I do not know the ad mentioned, but whatever they show: why do those concerned parents let their children watch TV at "8:30 pm or later" where they can see those ads in the first place?

    I am most concerned about these concerned parents.

    1. Re:I am deeply concerned about those ads ... by ACDChook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally I think that they should have tracked down every one of those 80 complainants and removed their children from their care. If they feel that they are unable to prevent their kids from copying something like that off tv, then they are obviously not providing a safe environment in the home, and should not be allowed to continue raising their children.

    2. Re:I am deeply concerned about those ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tracked down every one of those 80 complainants and removed their children from their care

      Like they do on TV?

  42. Copycat? by telso · · Score: 1

    The ad consists of a small child, age around 2 years, cruising down the road ... concern from parents about the copycat risk.
    Copycat? Do people actually think a toddler could drive a car? This kid is not even potty trained (note the diaper), and people think their kids would be able to get the keys, get out of the house, unlock the car, get up to the seat in an SUV, get the key in the ignition and do that push-in-twist-then-pull-out thing to start it that still trips me up sometimes, figure out how to get the car out of park, have the strength to disengage the handbrake and then be able to reach the pedals while driving? The only way anyone could think this is even remotely plausible is if they were smoking the same highly potent stuff they would have to be smoking when they weren't paying attention to their toddler as their kid did this!

    Find me a kid who can actually do this and I'll find you the number to the child welfare office. And the crown prosecutor (district attorney).
    1. Re:Copycat? by Scoth · · Score: 1

      While I will definitely grant the complete setup is highly difficult and improbable, it has happened and continues to happen where people leave kids unrestrained in a running car while running into a store or something, and the kid manages to get the car into gear.

      Still, silly to complain about the commercial. Any kid smart enough to figure it out is either going to need help from a stupid parent (see above) or is going to do it anyway, regardless of a commercial.

  43. Oh, Maude Flanders... by Perseid · · Score: 1

    ...where are you when we need you?

    1. Re:Oh, Maude Flanders... by Builder · · Score: 1

      She's dead. Good riddance too!

  44. I'm impressed. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Funny

    First I thought the U.S. was becoming the ultimate pussy nanny-state (oh no, we can't see boobs!).

    Now Australia did take their peoples guns away, now they're pulling a commercial we would probably allow in the U.S. Let the race to see who can be the biggest pussy begin! Hey! No running! Somebody might get hurt!

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:I'm impressed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England is the ultimate pussy nanny state, followed by Australia, followed by the U.S., followed by Canada. I suspect that some of the Scandinavian countries are turning into pussy nanny states as well, but there is a language barrier so I can't say for sure.

  45. Re:Only in your dreams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't many US states penal colonies full of Irish convicts anyway?

    That's why they started shipping them to Australia... because the US got all uppity and had a war of independence, so they needed to find somewhere else to ship the Irish revolutionaries.

  46. Re:Only in your nightmares. by chiefnewo · · Score: 1

    That's a relief.

  47. Think of us adults! by jkrise · · Score: 1

    If kids are gonna be driving cars.... I don't want to be in Australia.

    Besides if kids start dating at age 2, what happens to poor Aussie slashdotters ;-(

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Think of us adults! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Besides if kids start dating at age 2, what happens to poor Aussie slashdotters ;-("

      They get laid?

      I am going to hell, I know....

  48. Something noone has mentioned.. by mongrol · · Score: 1

    The complaints and fears may have something to do with the fact that 2 children in the last 2 months have died in Australia from accidentally locking themselves in cars and not being found until a couple of hours later by which time their little are well and truly toasted (temps get up to 70C in a locked car here). It's probably a fear of the ad teaching the kids its ok to go and get in mums car rather than people thinking they'll drive off with it. Let's be rational here.

    1. Re:Something noone has mentioned.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Rather than getting outraged maybe people should consider locking their cars and putting their car keys out of reach of their kids. Might be worth checking on your children if you haven't seen them for a while too. Am I expecting people to think about what they are doing and take responsibility for their actions again? Stupid me!

      These people are either "think of the children" reactionaries or people who believe they have a right not to be offended. Either way stop making excuses for them.

    2. Re:Something noone has mentioned.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some parents just shouldn't be allowed to have kids, and so if they are unsuccessful in completing the cycle that'll be close to a Darwin Award- reduces the odds of having more people like them.

      Sure it's sad, but hey many people think abortion is a good idea too.

      Stupid parents + unlucky child => fewer people like those parents.

  49. Easy by Pliep · · Score: 1

    It is of course always easier to file complaints and blame corporations (or the government) than to talk to your own kids and teach them about life, TV ads, fantasy and the real world. Oh and tell them to go to bed at seven.

    Why? Because filing a complaint is much easier and more efficient than expressing love, giving attention and spending time to teach important things to kids. Time is money you know!

    1. Re:Easy by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Yes, obviously these kids should be kept at watch 24/7 by their parents until the age of 35. God forbid corporations actually do something other than look for ways to gain a few more cents in profit by turning everything into a fucking deathtrap!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  50. Re:Same thing happened to an American ad a year ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    common sense is not that common.

  51. Hope they continue to screen in New Zealand by phobonetik · · Score: 1

    These ads screen in New Zealand; I hope they continue to do so!

  52. Flawed System?? by gundersd · · Score: 1

    And all it takes is 80 unhappy parents to get the ad pulled? That's 0.0003% of the total population.

    That's a very good point. By the sound of it, from the Australian /. crowd alone we could gather 80+ people who actually liked the ad and would like to see it stay around.

    It seems to me that the problem is that the TV standards system is unfairly unbalanced in favour of "modding down" content - and could do with a method of modding things up to balance out all the prudes.

  53. Having actually seen the add.. by node159 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having actually seen the add I can tell you that the presentation made me want to go shoot some babies, honestly, I'm glad its off the air, pity it wasn't for the right reasons (Cute enough to want to make me scratch your eyes out obscenity). As for the actual reason, there was something in the presentation that made it not right, and yes I can just see some 4 year old grabbing mumies keys while she is topping up the Prozac, and attempting to have some 4 wheel fun.

    Pity they don't let evolution run its course now days...

    --
    GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
  54. Bugger by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

    As an Aussie may I be the first to say "bugger!".

    Yeah we are like the states, in that we are also continually embarassed by our official representatives. They played the ad on the (after hours) news and talk shows the other night, I doubt it will stay banned for long. Besides, it doesn't really matter now since more or less all 20 million of us have paid some attention to it for free.

    My hunch is all 80 of them belong to the bunch of neo-nazi's that call themselves the "Family first" party.

    It's also interesting to note that this happened on the same weekend that Dick Chenney came to town. Security ground Sydney to a halt while Dick enjoyed a taxpayer funded $2M "beer with the PM", and (with not a little irony), pontificated about "violence and disruption".

    "We want David Hicks back.": Our PM and AG will "do everything they can" except utter those five words since well they would...ummm....hand him over, as they have for every other nation after the US supreme court desicion was made a few years ago. This and several other issues has now made the PM's own seat in parliment very vunerable in the next election, (4% swing is required to unseat him). BTW: Please don't use the above information to infer the opposition are in any way more competent than the current crop.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Bugger by evilgrug · · Score: 4, Informative

      Despite what the link says that commercial was not banned in Australia or New Zealand.

      In Australia it received a very small number of complaints. It did get upgraded to a PG rating meaning it could not be aired until 7:30pm, however. New Zealanders appeared to be a little more upset about it, but it wasn't banned.

      Toyota voluntarily restricted the airing of the commercial until after 8:30pm in both countries.

    2. Re:Bugger by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Sorry, random link syndrome. I agree "bugger" was the proverbial "storm in a tea cup" but I think you missed my point.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Bugger by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I doubt it will stay banned for long. Besides, it doesn't really matter now since more or less all 20 million of us have paid some attention to it for free.

      My hunch is all 80 of them belong to the bunch of neo-nazi's that call themselves the "Family first" party./blockquote
      Or just maybe all 80 of them are just one guy working for Hyundai's PR firm.

      After all, if the entire population (more or less) has paid attention to the ad, that's the kind of exposure that you just can't buy the normal way.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Bugger by BrightBlade · · Score: 1

      Toyota voluntarily restricted the airing of the commercial until after 8:30pm in both countries. Toyota did huh? Are you sure about that?
    5. Re:Bugger by Hikaru79 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Toyota voluntarily restricted the airing of the commercial until after 8:30pm in both countries.

      Wow! That's very generous of them! Especially since the ad is for Hyundai's product. I wonder why no other company has thought of this before? "In other news, McDonalds has voluntarily restricted the airing of the latest Burger King commercial, citing concerns that people may actually go and eat there."

      ;) Sorry, just being an ass.

    6. Re:Bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, it's spelt Toy-Yoda. Secondly, the car in that ad isn't one.

    7. Re:Bugger by Larus · · Score: 1

      The rumor of banning probably made the ad more popular. I find it unique but still... bland.

      So there's our lessons learned: if your ad is offensive to someone, milk it, use it, fan it for awareness. If it's not borderline offensive yet, engineer some into it.

    8. Re:Bugger by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Umm... the "bugger" ad mentioned in the comments you replied to was a Toyota ad from a few years back (ie not the recent Hyundai ad the main story is about).

  55. Bloody Dianne Lamb strikes again!! by shaddo · · Score: 1

    Bloody Dianne Lamb strikes again!!
    Why oh why can't she keep her head in!!
    She always complains about everything on the TV!! I wish she would go crawl in a hole and not come out
    If you don't know she is a person from Bendigo who complains about everything

  56. Not the first time for Hyundai by svunt · · Score: 1

    Hyundai had this ad pulled as well, a while back. Poor guys, I found both ads quite amusing. Wowsers run the world, though.

  57. as a parent, non-issue by mqx · · Score: 1

    I'm a parent of a 2 year old. I weigh the issue up like this: is a funny advertisement more important than the risk (whether actual, or potential - no matter how small) of a child imitating any of this and being hurt? There are many ways to make a funny advertisement, why not choose one that doesn't have this risk? Do we consider freedom of expression in an advertisement so important that we put it above this risk? If so, I'm a little worried about where we put our priorities in society.

    1. Re:as a parent, non-issue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Kids hopping in the car to imitate what they see on TV or what they see their Mom and Dad doing everyday is extremely common. Make sure you leave your car's parking brake on whenever you are not in it, and don't leave your keys out where a kid can get at them for even a second.

      Not to sound like some paranoid person. But the last thing you want is some little kid who doesn't know what he is doing driving into the neighbor's house and hurting himself or someone else. If some little kid runs over someone and injures them, it is the parents who must take the legal responsibility, not fun for anyone involved.

      1. a tv ad with kids driving is probably not okay for a little kid to see.
      2. children imitate their parents as readily as they imitate people their own age. especially very young children.
      3. parents [usually] drive cars, so the risk of a child taking the Toyota out for a spin is high. Please take the appropriate precautions.
      4. kids like to just "play" with cars and pretend they are driving, but may not realize they did something to put the car in neutral. then you have a car rolling away without it even being turned on. (generally this is almost impossible to do with automatics, but it is very easy to do with stick shifts)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:as a parent, non-issue by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 0

      What about the risk of your kid imitating you driving your car?

    3. Re:as a parent, non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's try asking a simpler question.

      Do we consider freedom of expression so important that we put it above this risk?

      My answer to that would be:

      Absolutely.

      Your weighting of risks is positively ridiculous. If your standard is any risk, whether actual or potential, than I'd say that damn near every communication of someone doing something stupid poses meets your standard. You are advocating quashing everything from Tom and Jerry cartoons to televised sports, for the children. If your only qualification of this stance is that the communication in question is only an advertisement, I submit that your line is far too fuzzy for me to feel comfortable with. After all, it's only a movie, only a novel... Show me why this should not slide down the slippery slope, given that there are so many unscrupulous individuals who would dishonestly use your reasoning for their own purposes.

      Frankly, I'm worried about society when it produces people with priorities as skewed as yours. Tend to your own rugrats in whatever way you see fit. If you think, however, that you've the right to make the world in which those of us who survived childhood live a dull, gray, nannied-over place governed by peremptory fear of there somewhere existing a one in a million chance of some kid getting hurt, you had better guess again. Your kids are not our responsibility - you made them, and you should take responsibility for them. They are no one else's priority, and they shouldn't be - no matter what a bunch of doubletalking elected officials may say.

      In summary: if you believe that enabling an oppressive nanny state is worth your having peace of mind re: your kids, your priorities are the ones that need fixing. Principles of good (i.e. restrained) government and societal organization are worth lives - and I say the young lives of Darwinian failures who meet their ends on account of a car ad are among them. Do what you can to make sure that your brood fares better.

    4. Re:as a parent, non-issue by TheLink · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is always risk. If you or your child can't deal with the risks of the real world, you might as well prepare to face it early. Otherwise you shouldn't even be driving a car.

      This advertisement doesn't really increase the risks significantly at all, since all kids want to pretend to be like mommy/daddy.

      Basically, your child is going to copy you and other people. If you do things right, your child will be copying you primarily, doing things right.

      I remember pretending to drive a car when I was very very young. And at one point in time I also had a toy steering wheel which I was allowed to use in the car. At no time was I allowed to touch the _real_steering_wheel_, the gear shift, parking brakes or anyone busy driving a car.

      Lastly, the chances of dying in life are 100%. So if you are risk averse maybe you should sign up for one of those eternal life assurance deals ;)...

      --
  58. I guess being American is slightly less bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Being an Australian is terribly embarrassing. Our accents are horrendous, but they can be very useful. I once stripped the paint off an old truck with just my voice! HAHAHAHA!

    Anyway we've done all we can to imitate yanks, so now we must sit back and pray they finally notice us. Then our days of shame will be at an end.

    "Tie me kangaroo down sport, tie me kangaroo down! Crikey, stone the flameeeeng crows, mate!"

  59. Voluntary by vivaoporto · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    "But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code."

    So, this is what censorship is called down there nowadays? Voluntary code of practice? Everytime they bring this subject on Brasil, "media self-restraint", "voluntary code of practice", "independent content review" a cold chill travels through my spine, remembering the (NOT) good old times of censorship there.

  60. This never got complaints in NZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This advertisment never got any complaints in New Zealand. It was designed for NZ and I would assume they started playinng it in australia after it won the NZ Fair Go Top Advertisment award.

    Here the only complaint we ever got was the fact that it got boring after you saw it for the first time and they wouldnt stop playing it.

    1. Re:This never got complaints in NZ by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Actually the Advertising Standards Authority received about 70 formal complaints about the ad. They had a hearing and dismissed the complaints (Decision 06/259).

  61. Off Topic but an Update to a Slashdot Story. by bmo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    'Display Eater' writer admits hollow threat

    Code will not eat your Apple

    By Nick Farrell: Monday 26 February 2007, 06:43

    THE WRITER of the Apple software Display Eater has admitted that his licence contained a hollow threat when it threatened to destroy the personal file of any one who installed it with a dodgy code number.

    On Friday we wrote how Karsten Kusche, who works for another Apple software maker Briksoftware, discovered that Display Eater's licence threatens that if you try to use a pirated serial number with Display Eater, the software will delete your home file.

    If you go to the webpage of Reverse Code [http://reversecode.com/], which makes the software, the developer says that the whole purpose of the licence was to create a scare campaign. He though that if people feared sticking in a pirated licence code number he would not have to waste time writing copy protection routines to be broken over and over.

    He admitted that the whole idea was a mistake. Some people started buying multiple keys, which he never intended, and when the protection was in place, people who did not even know they had committed piracy or what piracy was were left in the dark.

    Legitimate and prospective users started fearing the program, which he never imagined. He said he now has plans to make the software free, and or open source. He has since released a free key which will not eat your Apple.

  62. I have to rethink my parental skills!!!! by jes88 · · Score: 1

    Crap! I'm one of those lousy parents. I let my son watch waaaaaay to much television! He's 5 now and this has been going on for some time. He plays Simpsons Road Rage on xbox while unattended too (it's a great babysitter). I suppose it's only a matter of time before he jumps in the car and......oh......wait......OMG.......he uses Microsoft Train Simulater.......WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!!!

  63. Same thing happened in the US with a Corvette ad by Stop+Or+I'll+Noop · · Score: 1

    A kid driving a car around is just too suggestive I guess. Despite the text of the commercial saying, "This is a dream. Do not drive without a license. Obey all traffic laws."

    YouTube link.

  64. There is truth in The Onion by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its high time that the sterling advice to be found on The Onion were taken more seriously by parents:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/child_safety_ experts_call_for

    Kenneth McMillan is a hero of the American People!!!

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  65. There IS actually a risk . . . by brain_not_ticking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone laughs that parents are concerned about a copycat risk, but let me be the first to say that this risk is real. At the age of two I managed to get a hold of my mother's car keys. I decided I would do her a favor and start the car for her. Lucky for me, the car had a manual transmission and happened to be in gear. So as soon as I started the car, it slowly began to drive down the street. I wasn't quite strong enough to turn the wheel, so I soon found myself headed straight for a telephone pole. I got scared so I tried to stand on the pedals (at the time I didn't know which was which). After a couple of tries, I managed to find the brake. The car stalled about a yard away from the telephone pole. Oh, and did I mention, my baby sister was in the back of the car, in her car seat? Well, she was. Anyway, neither I nor my sister were hurt, but we easily could have been. Some children are already a handful; they don't need any more ideas. NB: this is a true story.

    1. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehehe, reminds me of the time that I was playing in a park with a friend at the age of 6 or 7 and found a small steam roller (small enough for us to climb around with ease). We decided to use it as a prentend car in the game we were playing, and naturally went through all the motions we'd seen our parents do - most importantly, turning the key that had been left in the ignition.

      I have no idea what we were thinking when, instead of turning it off after getting past the shock of the engine turning on, we decided to keep going and pushed the lever into the forward position.

      Fortunately, we did end up figuring out how to stop it before we crashed into something. A rather vivid memory nonetheless, though.

    2. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I decided I would do her a favor and start the car for her. Lucky for me, the car had a manual transmission and happened to be in gear. So as soon as I started the car, it slowly began to drive down the street.

      I think you mean "automatic" transmission; a manual would have lurched and stalled.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by multiplexo · · Score: 2

      So your mom sucked at parenting and left you, at the age of two, and your baby sister, in the car with the keys. Your mom is a lousy parent. Also I doubt that seeing a 30 second ad spot is going to make as much of an impression as seeing mommy and daddy driving the car every single day.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    4. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      And did you see such an ad prior to doing this? ;-)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    5. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      This ad is no more a risk that Star Wars is a risk (kids fighting with "lightsabers" filled with gasoline"), Superman is a risk ("kids jumping out of windows")... In virtually anything fun, there is something that can be imitated by a child to ill effect.

      The difference is that 20+ years ago people understood that kids do crazy stuff, and need to be watched... where as now, people have lost all sense of reality and are willing to go to any totalitarian extreme to avoid actually watching their own kids.

    6. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by brain_not_ticking · · Score: 1

      No, I do mean manual, not automatic. My memory of the event is not perfect, but I am certain the car had a manual transmission.

      I have since driven many vehicles with manual transmissions, and it has been my experience that they do normally lurch forward and stall if the clutch is engaged (the pedal has not been pressed). My only thought is that maybe the clutch was very worn.

    7. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by brain_not_ticking · · Score: 1

      She left my sister in the car, not me. She didn't leave the keys in the car either. I guess you didn't read my comment very well.

      I found her keys in the house, let myself into the car, put the keys in the ignition myself, and started the car.

      The point of my original comment was simply that some children are impossible to control.

    8. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by brain_not_ticking · · Score: 1

      The difference is that 20+ years ago people understood that kids do crazy stuff, and need to be watched... where as now, people have lost all sense of reality and are willing to go to any totalitarian extreme to avoid actually watching their own kids. I couldn't agree more.
    9. Re:There IS actually a risk . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have since driven many vehicles with manual transmissions, and it has been my experience that they do normally lurch forward and stall if the clutch is engaged (the pedal has not been pressed). My only thought is that maybe the clutch was very worn.
      My thought is that you don't remember the event well at all, and it didn't happen anything like you're claiming.
  66. I dont know about Australia by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    but in the US, Democrats think the government should take care of their every need. Which basically means taxing their neighbors because they dont want to personally put in the necessary effort.

  67. Where the bloody hell .... by matticusflinch · · Score: 1

    > What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone? Of course what you mean to say is .. Where the "bloody hell" has the responsibility gone? We get our ads banned overseas because of apparent bad language - and this gets banned because a 2 year old watching The OC may see it during the break and go for a stroll to the garage?

  68. MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or would that ruin the story?

  69. Dolphin slaughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING!!!

    The link below contains very very strong images of hurt animals

    http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin

    Please, help stopping that madness!!!

  70. The ad first aired in New Zealand. by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1
    The ad was originally made for New Zealand television, and while it had a similar number of complaints when it first aired it remained on the air. The Advertising Standards Authority in New Zealand heard those complaints and dismissed them as shown here.

    Personally I don't really like the ad, but I don't see how the ad promotes unsafe driving practices when it is quite obvious the ad is not intended to be serious. I highly doubt any toddler that might see the ad (despite it screening later at night) would try to copy what they see.

  71. It's not only fantasy. Parents are paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You would think educated parents would have a clue. But they are getting frightened to hell and back and reacting completely irrationally. One of my kids has a child of 3. They live in a very safe (read expensive, upper middle class) suburb of a large city. The house is like Fort Knox. She is terrified that the house will be burgled and the child harmed. She is convinced she needs not one but two babysitters because one alone could not look after the children and deal with an "incident". She will not allow her child, already a good swimmer, on a boat because he might fall in unless he is watched literally every minute. The child goes everywhere by car.

    Paranoid you might think, but she gets it from other people at work who are convinced that the crime rate is many times higher than it really is, that there are pedophiles everywhere, that the number of children killed in accidents is many times higher than reality, and that they need not only a full time nanny for the children but a babysitter if they are out of the house leaving the nanny alone after 6p.m., I guess because of over-publicised and extremely rare cases where nannies have been accused of maltreating children. A lot of people seem to be playing on these irrational fears to exacerbate them, in the hope of getting political clout and leverage. Meanwhile the lives of the parents are made unnecessarily fearful and stressful and I am sure this communicates itself to the children.

  72. One of the complaints... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...apparently reads as follows:

    Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed review board, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this ad? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this ad! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a concerned parent, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Advertismatation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must PULL THIS ADD! The defense rests.

  73. on undermining the common sense of children by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

    I like your post. I am curious, though, why you thought pulling the ad was over the top. To me it seems like common sense, given that a) children have poor judgement, and don't always do what they're told and b) parents can't watch them 24/7.

    It seems perfectly plausible to me that some kid somewhere is going to wake up in the middle of the night, remember that cool commercial they saw earlier that day, sneak into his/her parent's bedroom and steal the car keys from atop the nightstand or inside a desk drawer, and then go downstairs, start the car, and, if they're lucky, drive into a ditch. I'm all for personal responsibility in most things, but children don't have the judgment to act responsibly in all cases, and it seems unwise to encourage them to do dangerous things.

    Since it has become popular in this thread to mention religious affiliation, I will also disclose that I am a Christian, and (to preempt anyone from accusing me of being a lazy TV-addicted parent) add that I don't have kids and I don't watch TV.

    Does anyone have any statistics on the number of car wrecks caused by underage drivers? I doubt it's a terribly uncommon occurrence.

    1. Re:on undermining the common sense of children by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of where to draw the line. Some responsibility should still be with the parents. The commercial was broadcasted in the adult time slot and shouldn't even be seen by a young child. He should not be able to leave the house in the middle of the night. He should not be able to get the car keys and shouldn't even know how to start a car. If it still happened, it would most likely not cause a severe accident, and in any case I would classify it as a freak accident.

      I agree with your points though, and it is a matter of which wheigh more. I suppose this is a gray area; more white to me, but black to you.

      I don't think your religion should matter. It annoys me when people mention their christianity to strengthen their argument. As if they have the authority to say "This amount of compassion and responsiblity is enough."

    2. Re:on undermining the common sense of children by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

      I suppose this is a gray area; more white to me, but black to you.

      I agree it's not really black and white, it's just that the objections to the ad to me seem very reasonable, and I don't think it's any great loss if an ad gets pulled off the air (although I suppose I should mention that I have a bias against advertising in general). I'm kind of surprised how few people are sympathetic to the idea that the ad could be harmful. And it isn't like I expect every kid who happens to see the ad is going to go on a joyride; however, it seems entirely likely that a few might do so and injure themselves or others. While this might reasonably be classified as a freak accident, I think it is prudent to minimize the number of freak accidents when doing so is not terribly inconvenient.

      I don't think your religion should matter. It annoys me when people mention their christianity to strengthen their argument.

      I think the poster that mentioned he was a conservative Christian did so only to provide some insight for anyone who is wondering why a person might come to the conclusions that he did, rather than to present some sort of moral credentials. In other words, its easier to write "I'm a conservative Christian and I don't watch TV" than, say, "I think television is an unnecessary distraction and/or hindrance to fulfilling God's plan for my life", even if the later is a bit more informative (I don't know if it sounds less condescending to non-Christians).

  74. all i can see is this by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    advertisement on Australian TV for the new Hyundai 4WD has been pulled from being broadcast


    and I feel nothing but good. I know that it will be replaced by more stupid ads, but my first emotion was deep satisfaction.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  75. Copycat behaviour by harryman100 · · Score: 1

    Children copy everything they see, this has always been the case. But a small amount of proper parenting can avoid any issues here... Please not, proper parenting does not involve complaining to other people! As a parent you can do any of the following:
      - Turn off the TV (if you're whinging about the fact you don't know the schedule for ads, WTF is your 2/3/4/5 year old doing watching TV that late in the evening without you there as well!)
      - Teach your children that cars are dangerous, do them a favour and try and give them a little bit of common sense.
    Finally, the killer one...
      - KEEP THE KEYS SOMEWHERE SENSIBLE! If you're worried about your child driving your car, don't provide them access to the keys.

    On the other hand, if what another person said is true about an australian law banning car adverts portraying illegal activity is true, then I can understand them pulling it - but the complaints are just retarded...

    --
    .sigs are for losers
  76. Commercials because you deserve it by Steeltoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These commercials are incidious. Just like you dont get handsome, smart, creative and out-going from drinking Coca-Cola, but rather you may get more pimples, the sugar/caffeiene rush may boost you for a few minutes, and then over the longer run you get more dull and slow-witted.

    You will be sure some kid will try this because it is shown on TV. Its not the parents job to foresee everything the child might do due to watching TV.

    Rather, it is the parents duty today to bring up the kids without resorting to the TV and videogames.

    Upbringing based on real-life, with real risks and real pain. Talking doesnt help when youre already living in a virtual reality. People talk about things all the time, complain about what should be done in the community. Talk is cheap. If you believe you have only one life, you better start to really live it.

    1. Re:Commercials because you deserve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These commercials are incidious.
      You're an imbesile.
    2. Re:Commercials because you deserve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shaddup Bacil ;-)

      Rather then goin nuts over speling, you ought to check out that reality-fling.

    3. Re:Commercials because you deserve it by ucblockhead · · Score: 1
      No shit. Over the Christmas holidays, we let our four-year-old watch "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer". Half way through, he looks at us and says "why does the movie keep stopping!?" He was confused, because he'd never encountered a commercial before. (We limit his TV and what he does watch is almost entirely personally vetted DVDs.)

      There is no reason why a parent of a toddler cannot have complete control over everything that child sees on TV. It just takes will. We took our child out of his original day care because they were showing fucking Power Rangers to the kids.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    4. Re:Commercials because you deserve it by AIFEX · · Score: 1

      Upbringing based on real-life, with real risks and real pain.

      +1 to that. When I was younger, I took the resister from a "plug light", plugged it in, turned it on and reconnected the break using a gold screw - by hand. The blinding flash and burnt, numb, figures resulting from the 240v surge consequently taught me never to fuck with the mains electricity again. Of course my parents taught me all about it and what I shouldnt be doing, and I certainly dont condone kids playing with the mains, but sometimes people just have to find out for themselves - its called life experience. And without it, weaker, more naive societies are created.

      You CANT control kids, no matter how much you think you can. We all know that the more we're told no, the more we want it. The key is education.

      I started a Kungfu instructors course a few years back and I ask my instructor how the hell he managed with the kids classes. He told me to think of the kids like sheep. You dont tell them what to do, because they wont, you have to guide and steer them in the direction you want.

      --
      Biomech
  77. mcdonalds advert by A3gis · · Score: 1

    There is a McDonalds advert airing here (Australia) at the moment which I'm sure has counterparts in other countries around the world, basically what happens in it is adults walking around freeze - then THEIR CHESTS HINGE OPEN and CHILDREN climb out to go get them Maccas! And they aren't worried about THIS advert being copycatted?? I fricken am! Haven't they SEEN Alien/s?!?

  78. It's not news for nerds, it's Fark.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I *really* want to know is.... what the FUCK is this story doing on Slashdot?

    Presenting a story about an (admittedly stupid) ban on a TV advert in Australia it as "your rights online" is really stretching things. I'm willing to bet someone out there will present a contrived argument as to how this really is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.", but you could do that with a story about cute kittens if that was your aim.

    This would be more at home on Fark.com, where the story would get an "Asinine" tag. Here, it also deserves an "Asinine" tag, not for the story itself, but for its inclusion here.

    1. Re:It's not news for nerds, it's Fark.com by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      What I *really* want to know is.... what the FUCK is this story doing on Slashdot?

      Presenting a story about an (admittedly stupid) ban on a TV advert in Australia it as "your rights online" is really stretching things. I'm willing to bet someone out there will present a contrived argument as to how this really is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."


      Well most slashdot stories are designed to trigger a load of misspelled comments from nerds about how dumb 'ordinary' people are. To work, the story needs to have a target group which is not well represented on slashdot. This one is couples with kids who watch TV and complain about adverts. Obviously, only a very, very small percentage of slashdotters have kids, and admitting to watching TV seriously uncool here. Real slashdotters spend their evening sitting and watching the build logs from Gentoo scrolling past, with Golum-like dilated pupils in their pitch black basement apartments. And people who call in to complain about anything are supporting censorship, like Hitler did. So the people that complained about the ad are actually an ideal target for the slashdot two minute hate.

      Ordinary people are teh stoopid BTW, and did you notice my Orwell wiki link?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:It's not news for nerds, it's Fark.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Much as I'll criticise Slashdot and the groupthink that sometimes occurs here, your explanation:-

      Well most slashdot stories are designed to trigger a load of misspelled comments from nerds about how dumb 'ordinary' people are. To work, the story needs to have a target group which is not well represented on slashdot. This one is couples with kids who watch TV and complain about adverts. is still a better description of Fark and its audience than it is of Slashdot. :-/

      Ordinary people are teh stoopid BTW, and did you notice my Orwell wiki link? Yes, you get the clever prize for today!
  79. Explain to a two year old? by sjmac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here are some things I've noticed about my two year old:

      - At her own whim, she will copy almost anything that she sees or hears
      - The distinction between saying "You must try to drive the car" and "You must not try to drive the car" is VERY subtle to her toddler brain
      - Controlling her actions is very different from the type of programming I usually do
      - Like other two year olds, she does things that she knows her parents will not approve of
      - She already pretends to drive our car, and has worked out how to sound the horn

    I'm sure seing someone "like her" driving a car would be quite a powerful image to her.

    Personally, I have no problem with 80 parents choosing to complain about this ad. You don't choose the adverts that are injected in to the programs you watch. Though my wife wouldn't approve, I can imagine a scenario where I was watching (what I considered was) an appropriate program recorded late at night with my daughter in the room.

    1. Re:Explain to a two year old? by sjmac · · Score: 1

      And now I've watched the ad, I'm not too keen on the "jumping out of your cot" tutorial in it either - I'm hoping for a couple more weeks before she starts bangin me on the head to wake me up in the morning ;-)

    2. Re:Explain to a two year old? by LucidBeast · · Score: 1

      I doubt that your two year old can get the car started since she can't get out of her cot... I recommend getting a lower bed before she does though.

    3. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have no problem with 80 parents choosing to complain about this ad.

      80 people too dumb to turn off a TV, yet able to operate a telephone... go figure.

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
    4. Re:Explain to a two year old? by sjmac · · Score: 1

      I see it more like 80 people clever enough to realise that if they get the ad pulled then they won't have to keep reaching for the remote.

    5. Re:Explain to a two year old? by sjmac · · Score: 1

      She'd also have trouble working the clutch. I admit that I'm really not worried about her taking and driving away.

      I was just trying to point out that "talk to your children about what they see on TV" isn't an instantly helpful suggestion.

    6. Re:Explain to a two year old? by noigmn · · Score: 1

      If you don't teach her to start the car you should be safe...

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    7. Re:Explain to a two year old? by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see it as 80 people who shouldn't have been allowed to breed.

    8. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Funny

      Uh, you know this is /. right? Consider the probability of the posters here having:

      1) Being old enough to have had children.
      2) Being unselfish enough to have had children.
      3) Having had sex.

      I mean, read the posts already generated about reasoning with a 2 year old.

    9. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Reading your comment I find it hard to tell if you are being serious or satirical. If you are serious:

        - How can your two year old reach the pedals?
        - Why does she have the car keys or why is she in the driving seat while the keys are in the ignition?
        - Why is your child unsupervised in the car? Cars are dangerous machines.
        - You can use phrases that clearly say she can't do something rather than ones that can be misunderstood.

      My daughter typically doesn't watch ads on TV and the ads in any case are shown after 8:30 PM when children should be in bed, if you are watching a pre-recorded program then you can skip the ads. The few occasions my daughter is she will be watching one of her own videos, not watching TV with me. My daughter is quite capable of understanding the difference between what is real and what is pretend especially if I tell which is which, though my daughter is a bit older (3 years old).

      Something all parents should learn is that they can never control everything their child is exposed to, especially after they go to school. So just teach your child what is and isn't appropriate to do, make sure they are disciplined every time they do something wrong. If you are concerned about something your child has seen/heard then explain why and what is wrong with it and why they shouldn't copy it. Don't be a control freak, it's not good for your child.

      Bringing up children can be hard work and tiring, but it isn't rocket science. Why do so many parents have a hard time figuring out how to do it? It seems to be mostly common sense to me, but I guess it isn't given the number of people that seem to have problems.

    10. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Vexorian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmn I do know something about children, you know I was a baby once. I have had brothers and some of my cousins currently have babies... But even in my totally away from parenting position I do know something: You don't leave 2 years old, ALONE, in a car with the KEYS ON, and grandparent post seems to be afraid that after seeing this commercial his/her baby will try to imitate that, possibly the only way for it to happen is that you are an irresponsible parent.

      PS: There is nothing *unselfish* about having children

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    11. Re:Explain to a two year old? by dal20402 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      2) Being unselfish enough to have had children.

      Right... so it's the people who have better attendance and productivity at work, pay more taxes, consume less resources, don't cause noise pollution and chaotic mess everywhere they go, and don't jabber all the time about how much better their own kids are than everyone else's who are somehow not "unselfish."

      God, or anyone who's had the misfortune of flying in the last few years, knows there's no shortage of kids (and their totally self-absorbed parents.) In today's world, having a child is almost always about ego gratification. (That's why today's poor kids are being maniacally scheduled to build resumes of steel... it's so the parents can brag; most of the kids would rather aimlessly horse around with friends, and they would arguably learn just as much by doing so.) Even the few parents who have kids because they actually want kids are often the most selfish people -- as soon as people become parents, they automatically assume their needs are more important than everyone else's.

      Back on topic, are people really leaving their car keys where two-year-olds can find them unsupervised? That's only marginally better than leaving guns and ammo in the same room. A really cute and clever ad (or any other speech) shouldn't be censored by parents who are only concerned because of their own sloppiness.

    12. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      At her own whim, she will copy almost anything that she sees or hears

      So, do you, for example, let her watch Peter Pan? Or Dumbo?

      Trying to fly seems like a very dangerous activity to copy, and she's much more likely to be able to do that than drive away a car.

    13. Re:Explain to a two year old? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Here is something I've noticed about my 2 year old nephew. He doesn't know how to start a car, release a handbrake, or put in a car in gear. Nor would his feet even reach the peddles, should the urge hit him to drive to the beach.

      If there is a 2-year-old out there smart enough to start up a car and drive it to the beach, I say let them go. They've earned it.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      Actually with many cars today, you only need to have the remote in your hand, or pockets, and it will unlock the door. Once you get in, you just have to press the start button. You don't ever have to actually operate the keys. So even if the car isn't left running, a child could start it merely by having the remote on its person. Now depressing the brake or clutch to put it into a drive gear might be beyond the child, but starting a car is, well, child's play.

    15. Re:Explain to a two year old? by ktappe · · Score: 0, Troll

      2) Being unselfish enough to have had children.
      On the contrary, having kids is about the most egotistical thing you can possibly do in your lifetime. Doing so requires that you:

      A. Consider yourself fuckable,

      B. Consider your genes worthy of passing on to another generation,

      C. Consider your parenting skills worthy,

      D. Expect your employer to pay you for being out of work for an extended period of time and save your job until you return,

      E. Expect your employer to give you extra time off over the next 18 years as you attend to sick kids, parent-teacher conferences, etc.

      F. Expect the government to give you tax breaks/credits,

      G. Expect your friends and family to all make allowances for you and to give you baby shower gifts, new parent gifts, and birthday and holiday presents for the rest of their lifes,

      H. Expect everyone around you in public areas (stores, airplanes, restaurants) to just accept your kid screaming & misbehaving without complaint,

      I. Expect the government to educate your child (exceptions made on this one for those who send their kids to private schools).

      And this is just off the top of my head. "Unselfish"? Hardly.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    16. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allowed to breed? I'd say YOU and anyone else who is pro-eugenics and anti-human rights shouldn't be allowed to breed.

      I'll bet you're against free speech, too.

    17. Re:Explain to a two year old? by jcgf · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your car, but pressing the start button on the remote starts mine, then when you press the brake or try to put it into gear without the key in run position it shuts off.

    18. Re:Explain to a two year old? by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Funny


      Ever stop and thank your parents for putting up with you?

    19. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even the few parents who have kids because they actually want kids are often the most selfish people -- as soon as people become parents, they automatically assume their needs are more important than everyone else's.

      Survival of the species. Of course my own offspring are more important than everyone else. In nature, even in species with very strong social values, it is not uncommon for a parent to sacrifice themselves or other members of their troop to save the life of their own single child. I would gladly throw a half-dozen complete strangers or myself in front of a bullet to save my kid.

      --
      Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
    20. Re:Explain to a two year old? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a pro-eugenics stance. It's a pro-evolution Darwinist stance. That's even less acceptable in today's political climate. These days, the smart exist to keep the dumb from dying before they can breed.

    21. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/10-year-old_child_take s_grandmother's_car_for_85_Km_drive

      And there was also another incident a little while back in Australia involving a young girl climbing into the drivers seat, which released the hand brake and ran over her mother while slamming into the house across the road. Not fun.

      Sure the ad wants to point out the 'next generation' is here today.. but geez, its not that clever. Its just ad marketeers suffering from look what we can do with technology and little creativity.

    22. Re:Explain to a two year old? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I guess the solution is having a 1930's vehicle to start. No two year old is going to know how to adjust the spark advance, pull out the choke, depress the clutch, engage the ignition, readjust the spark, shift into gear, ease out the clutch, and push in the choke once underway. Bonus for a hand-cranked model. Of course, I kinda think that the fact that all modern vehicles require the kid to either push in a clutch pedal or the brake while starting the car would be enough to prevent someone about three feet too short from hurting himself.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    23. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you stick to killing only yourself to protect your kid. As for myself, I have plenty of things to do that are more worthwhile than dying for your offspring.

    24. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Malakusen · · Score: 1

      C.M. Kornbluth's short story "The Marching Morons" is a good read.

      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    25. Re:Explain to a two year old? by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      Being a parent doesn't mean you have to be a total asshole, like the strawman you just constructed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    26. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well some don't even need to see that ad to get the carmoving. I have a little cousin who, as a 2 year old, was ablt to get himself up into the family's minivan, put the key in the ignition, and then pull the shifter down from the park -> neutral position. The van rolled down the driveway backwards and hit a parked car across the street. He probably learned to imitate his parent's starting up the van. Fortunately nobody was hurt.

      but still, a commercial had nothing to do with it.

    27. Re:Explain to a two year old? by enjerth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fortunately, your opinion doesn't count for squat.

    28. Re:Explain to a two year old? by nanojath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem I've got is with the notion that the way to keep your toddler from driving is to make sure s/he doesn't get exposed to the idea that it is possible.

      I apply what I feel to be a sounder principle, in that I do not give my 2.5 year old access to our car. It works like a charm. I parent with this crazy notion that, being full of fast and heavy and sharp and hot etc. etc. objects, the world is an intrinsically dangerous place and keeping my toddler safe in it is (gasp) my responsibility, which I achieve through (shock! horror!) paying attention to him.

      I don't have a problem with these people protesting either, because, you know, free speech and everything, but they're still morons, and pulling the ad is typical knee-jerk BS which will do absolutely nothing for anyone anywhere ever.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    29. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "2) Being unselfish enough to have had children."

      Minor corrections:

      - Having children is not "unselfish." Having children is selfish. (I suppose you can claim you only had a child because your spouse wanted one, in which case it's less well-defined.)

      - Raising your own children is your responsibility; don't act all high-and-mighty for doing what you should be doing in the first place.

      - Raising other people's children is unselfish.

    30. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Bentas · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with 80 people complaining, people can do whatever they want, but I have a problem with people like that shaping the culture for the rest of us. That's what's happening. The idiots are streamlining the world into a big LCD equation. I have a 2 year old as well. She'd have never seen the ad because it only aired after 8:30pm which is past her bedtime, and even if she had...what was going to happen? We keep our keys away from her reach because she'll set the car alarms off. She wouldn't have the slightest conception of how to do it. Even if she had seen the commercial I wouldn't have minded. I wouldn't have to explain anything. What's she going to do? Where's the harm? People like this complain about everything from ads on TV to their kids teachers in school and it's destroying our society slowly piece by piece.

    31. Re:Explain to a two year old? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      I see it as 80 people who shouldn't have been allowed to breed.

      Good grief. +5, Insightful? Did three or four someones misread that as "inciteful"?

      You've obviously never had a young child. What you and apparently thousands of others (or at least three or four) here fail to understand is that you cannot control your children. This is an awful double standard: insisting that teenagers can't be controlled (and therefore you shouldn't try), and then insisting that parents should control their younger children...

      As small as they are, they're their own people. They make their own little decisions, maximize their own expected utilities, based on nothing but partial and not-very-well-understood information. (As an earlier poster said, the difference between "do" and "do not" is very subtle to them.) The only way to guarantee that your child won't copycat something - say, get into a car with a stranger because he might take you to the beach - is to make sure your child never sees it in the first place.

      It's fine to not agree with this tactic, but it makes me ill to see that Slashdotters in general can't bend their minds around someone else's point of view, to the point where they vilify (or stupidify, if that's a word) the people who hold it. This doesn't usually bother me, but, contrary to popular belief, most of you (or at least three or four) will be parents, and will grapple with these very issues. (They'll be very personal then.) Completely shutting yourself off to possible good solutions is fairly stupid.
      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    32. Re:Explain to a two year old? by MrHops · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know you this was meant to be funny, but it hits a little close to home. For all of you who think you have your kids under control, I offer this true story:

      Our 2 1/2 year old, in the space of about five minutes (or less) managed to get the keys from the hook where we keep them (about 5' from the floor), crawl through the doggie door into the garage, chirp the car open (keyless entry), get into the car and start it up. Our first warning was the engine starting, at which point we ran into the garage to see him extremely happy, with hazard lights and windshield wipers going to beat the band.

      Very unsettling.

      Luckily for us, he understands and obeys us when we absolutely forbid something. (Playing with power tools, going near the road, starting the car, starting the tractor, etc)

      For those of you ready to flame me for my lack of preparedness, I keep the circuit breaker for the power tools off, the keys to the car and tractor are on hooks (in different places) at least 5' from the ground, I have put up a 4' no-climb fence around our yard, and generally keep the house reasonably safe. The main problem is that the use of stools and ladders present little difficulty to this adventurous inquisitive child. :-)

    33. Re:Explain to a two year old? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1
      There is a big difference between controlling a teenager and preventing a toddler from going on a joy ride in an SUV. "Control" is a very strong word, and anybody who seriously uses it in terms of child-rearing is scary.

      The only way to guarantee that your child won't copycat something - say, get into a car with a stranger because he might take you to the beach - is to make sure your child never sees it in the first place. True, that is the only 100% foolproof way to prevent a kid from making a bad decision: don't give them the chance. But even for a toddler, you need to show a little bit of trust, if only for the sake of the parent's sanity. If you can't take your eyes off the kid, you are in a bad situation.

      Even for somebody too young to have anything but a self-centered view of the world and an incomplete set of reasoning skills, controlling their life is not the only way to keep them out of trouble. Being so protective that your kid never sees anything bad is probably worse than being a drill-sergeant style of parent.
    34. Re:Explain to a two year old? by ibbey · · Score: 1

      Well some don't even need to see that ad to get the carmoving. I have a little cousin who, as a 2 year old, was ablt to get himself up into the family's minivan, put the key in the ignition, and then pull the shifter down from the park -> neutral position. The van rolled down the driveway backwards and hit a parked car across the street. He probably learned to imitate his parent's starting up the van.


      So I say that we should ban all parents from driving. We can't have the kids seeing something that they could imitate, now can we?
    35. Re:Explain to a two year old? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      You've obviously never had a young child.

      Wrong. And remarkably, she's survived, despite my parenting skills.

      Completely shutting yourself off to possible good solutions is fairly stupid.

      Taking yourself too seriously is extremely stupid. And it's not a "good solution". It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

    36. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the fact that you have a two year old, you seem to have given up on them already. You absolutely need to talk to them about what they see on TV, or else they will think that all truth comes from TV. You still need to do so, and it will make more of a difference then you think. Your child is not as dumb as you want them to be.

    37. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief. +5, Insightful? Did three or four someones misread that as "inciteful"?

      I know of at least 4 who shouldn't be allowed to moderate anyway.

    38. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      but pressing the start button on the remote starts mine, then when you press the brake or try to put it into gear without the key in run position it shuts of

      That is one car. How about a stick shift with no keys in the ignition? Just taking it out of gear with it facing a small uphill slope in the driveway is enough to start it rolling right into traffic. And if my niece could make it up to the cookie jar at 2, she could make it into a car for sure.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    39. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone assuming the 2 yr old has to actually start the vehicle and drive it for this to be a problem? Mentioning clutch in your statement assumes stick shift. Stick shifts can be EASILY put into neutral by just pulling or pushing on the stick slightly.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    40. Re:Explain to a two year old? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Now, there is a kid that's motivated to get out into the world! At least you won't have him mooching off you way past his welcome. I've got a younger brother who's pushing 30 and my parents still can't get him to leave the house.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    41. Re:Explain to a two year old? by ibbey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've obviously never had a young child. What you and apparently thousands of others (or at least three or four) here fail to understand is that you cannot control your children.


      I know an awful lot of parents of well-behaved children who don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps it is YOU who can't control your children?

      Regradless, you seem to be ignoring something important here. There are MANY things in the world that children could copy & end up hurting themselves. Should society ban all of them? In the car, they are much more likely to try to emulate you driving than the TV characters, so should you be banned from driving? Bugs Bunny drives-- without a seatbelt & often well over the speed limit even. Should Looney Tunes be banned? As another poster pointed out, should Peter Pan be banned since it makes children think that they can fly? Where do we stop?

      No matter how carefully you try to avoid it, sooner or later your children will be exposed to a situation where they have to use their reasoning ability to make sure that they stay safe. All you are accomplishing by banning this ad is eliminating an opportunity to explain to your children why this behavior is bad and helping them to refine their critical thinking.

      But if actual parenting is to much work for you, perhaps you should just put your two year old to bed before 8:30 PM? Then the entire problem goes away and no censorship is required.

    42. Re:Explain to a two year old? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      This is a very practical and well reasoned idea. I think it should be adopted by all people everywhere. And I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    43. Re:Explain to a two year old? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      So, do you, for example, let her watch Peter Pan? Or Dumbo? Trying to fly seems like a very dangerous activity to copy. Obviously you let her watch Dumbo because the message of that movie is that it is OK to fly IF YOU ARE EN ELEPHANT which obviously she isn't.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    44. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a problem with these people protesting either, because, you know, free speech and everything, but they're still morons...
      I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're a liberal since you think those who don't agree with you are morons and didn't give any evidence to your point of view.

    45. Re:Explain to a two year old? by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      I have a four year old. Here's what I notice about him: He's always under the care of a responsible adult and never has the opportunity to attempt to drive a car.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    46. Re:Explain to a two year old? by eam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > The only way to guarantee that your child won't copycat something - say,
      > get into a car with a stranger because he might take you to the beach -
      > is to make sure your child never sees it in the first place.

      Wait! I came up with another one. How about: keeping your children under adult supervision!

      I've got three kids. Oldest is 8 years old, youngest will be 4 in April. This may come as quite a shock, but all three kids have never been unsupervised in their lives! I know it is amazing, but it is true. That's how my mom did it. I'm sure my life would be easier if I would just trust the TV to take care of them, but I feel like I might have an obligation to raise my children myself.

      Obviously the level of supervision required for the 8 year old differs significantly from that required for the 3 year old, but the concept is the same. You don't have to stand over them watching every thing they do. However, if a three year old can grab the keys and take the car for a spin, you aren't doing your job.

      I think it works out well. So far none of them have taken off in the family car.

      Other things my kids haven't managed to do:

        cut themselves with sharp knives,
        burn themselves on the stove top,
        cut arms or legs off with power tools,
        electrocute themselves,
        drown in the bathtub,...

      Actually, the list just goes on and on. Those are all things they could easily do if they didn't have someone watching them.

    47. Re:Explain to a two year old? by sjmac · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, of course I talk to her about what she does, and what we do together. Like about her kite getting stuck in a tree in the park on Sunday (because she didn't stop when I called her), and who she plays with at nursery. And she doesn't get to see much TV, and I pretty much don't have time to watch any, recorded or otherwise.

      But the episode of The Simpsons where Marge campaigns about violent cartoons just makes soo much sense to me now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itchy_&_Scratchy_&_Ma rge. "Monkey see, monkey do", to quote Marge. So if 80 people see fit to find something to complain about in a particular advert featuring a photo-realistic toddler scrambling out of a cot, walking out of the front door, and driving away in a car, that is beamed unsolicited in to their homes, fair play. And that a regulator considered the 80 complaints and pulled it from broadcast. No problem.

      I don't think that's censorship, it's just society at work.

    48. Re:Explain to a two year old? by kalaf · · Score: 1

      I have a young child. Not that it really matters because my opinion hasn't magically changed since becoming a parent. I personally don't think the "you don't know because you don't have kids" argument is kinda stupid, especially here, where people typically have a better than average ability to consider alternative perspectives.

      That said:
      a) don't let your two year old watch television. It serves no basic need aside from appealing to lazy parents as a cheap babysitting aid.
      b) if you ignore point a, don't complain about what your kids see on TV. Also, see point a.
      c) when your kids do watch television, make sure they understand the distinction between what happens on TV and in reality. If you don't, they'll end up believing things they see on Fox News. This will end badly.

      I'm sick to death of people blaming the problems of society on the media. If you think it's so bad, cancel your cable subscription. It wouldn't take 10% of the population doing this to create a whole new market for boring television. The problem, of course, is that you consider it more important to have access to your entertainment medium of choice than to do what, at least in your opinion, is required to protect your children.

      note: "you" not necessarily directed at above post

    49. Re:Explain to a two year old? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Yes but as you stated She already pretends to drive your car. If given a chance she would happily take you keys and drive your car. The problem is the following. Most children don't know how to drive a car. Actions like putting the key in then turning it all the way to start the car then waiting long enough for the engine to turn then putting her feet on the break then putting the car into gear then Putting her foot on the accelerator.

      Cars are not easy things to work with. I am sure if given the chance a kid will try to start and drive the car. But they will do that without the commercial. The Commercial does nothing. That the kid would do anyways.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    50. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Bob+4knee · · Score: 1
      I find it best not to provide my 2-year old the opportunity to access the cars, trucks, tractors, and other machinery. I also keep her away from steep staircases, matches, assorted poisons, firearms etc.

      Getting upset over a cute commercial is as ridiculous as is trying to reason with a 2 year old in such a complicated fashion. (Mine may be particularly dense, but if I tell her "Don't do that or you will have to stand in the corner" she hears "don't do that" and "stand in the corner", so she stops and goes to the corner (with a very intense pout on her face).

      For my 8 year old, I do try to reason with him about all of the above, and sometimes trust him with access. Other times we'll leave something out and watch to see how he responds. Still other times he'll be asked to handle such items under our direction.

      Examples: last summer I let him try to drive a truck and a riding lawn mower, under my supervision. In both cases his legs weren't quite long enough (and his clutch coordination non-existent), so we planned to revisit that issue this year. We've left an empty tylenol bottle (or other item he knows he is not to touch) accessible. In all cases, he's either not noticed it or reported back to us. Yesterday I sent him to the barn to fetch a gas can while I was moving snow. This was more a test that he wouldn't approach the snow blower than that he could handle the gas can, but he stopped well away, on the non-discharge side of the snowblower, and waited for me to recognize him. He knows that he doesn't get close to it from either side, and when I didn't immediately notice him he was prepared to retreat until I shut off the machine and motioned for him to approach.

      You can reason with older kids, but it's not an all or nothing issue. Trust, but verify. Eventually they are going to be exposed to things which you cannot control, so start working towards that now. Don't worry about your two year old using her set of car keys to go to the beach with the neighbor kids, just don't give her her own set of keys.

      (That said, I really do wish they wouldn't run so many Viagra adds during (american) football games. My 8 year old does like football, and doesn't really need to know any more about sex than he's already picking up on the school bus!). Bob

    51. Re:Explain to a two year old? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You've obviously never had a young child. What you and apparently thousands of others (or at least three or four) here fail to understand is that you cannot control your children. This is an awful double standard: insisting that teenagers can't be controlled (and therefore you shouldn't try), and then insisting that parents should control their younger children..."

      I dunno...my parents definitely controlled my young ass....as did my friends' parents.

      It was called a good, old fashioned ass whooping.

      I learned early on, that I did not like those...and I also quickly learned what would cause me to get one, and I avoided that type of action. Much like I learned what elicited praise and reward.

      Perhaps the loss of discipline is the problem. A child CAN be controlled...you have to teach them...and sometimes it take corporal punishment to get that attention.

      I've noticed since more people have gotten away from spankings...that our society has raise more people that do not know how to act, or control themselves as adults...nor can they seem to control their own offspring.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    52. Re:Explain to a two year old? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Why is everyone assuming the 2 yr old has to actually start the vehicle and drive it for this to be a problem? Mentioning clutch in your statement assumes stick shift. Stick shifts can be EASILY put into neutral by just pulling or pushing on the stick slightly"

      That's what the emergency brake is for.....you DO engage that when you park a standard transmission car don't you? You do also turn and lock the wheels to point the correct way when parking on a hill in a manual transmission car, don't you?

      It is just common sense...at least for those of us used to driving non-automatic cars. That car ain't gonna go far...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    53. Re:Explain to a two year old? by potat0man · · Score: 1

      2) Being unselfish enough to have had children.

      Please.

    54. Re:Explain to a two year old? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Ever stop and thank your parents for putting up with you? "

      Well, back in my day..parents didn't generally "inflict" their kids on other out in public, till they were old enough to behave in society. You didn't take little Johnny out to a nice restaurant till he was old enough and trained enough to sit quietly and act properly.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    55. Re:Explain to a two year old? by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      Is it not easier to take away the Effin' remote? come on wtf has our society come too?

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    56. Re:Explain to a two year old? by sjmac · · Score: 1

      I know an awful lot of parents of well-behaved children who don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps it is YOU who can't control your children?

      In the context of two-year olds, as featured in the ad, that is not an insightful comment. Everybody tells me that my two-year old is adorable and well behaved, but I expect her to do naughty and silly things.

      Should Looney Tunes be banned?

      I think that the ads and program content are distinct - I can choose to watch "18:30 - Bugs Bunny Drives Hilariously Fast", but there is no choice offered for "20:45 - Car Ad with the Cute Driving Baby". It is shown unsolicited to the viewer. I couldn't choose not to watch the ad in the same way that I could choose not to watch Looney Toons, Dumbo or Peter Pan.

      BTW, how old were you when you first watched those? If you can remember, then you were probably over 3 years old.

    57. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Obviously you let her watch Dumbo because the message of that movie is that it is OK to fly IF YOU ARE EN ELEPHANT which obviously she isn't.

      Hey, I'm not judging, ok?

    58. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1
      I completely agree with what you said, but I would go farther and say that kids can watch tv and never be exposed to anything that could be considered inappropriate. I was forbidden from watching anything but PBS until I was 11, and I loved it. And don't complain about tv influencing people, I used to watch "Bill Nye" every day, and I still hate nature and believe evolution is a bunch of crap.

      If you watch a channel that has really bad propaganda, you have nothing to worry about.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    59. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Profound · · Score: 1

      You'd kill 6, but would you kill a million?

      If a million is too much, that's your upper bound. Now use binary chop to find out the exact number of strangers your kid is worth. Now if your kid misbehaves you can tell them they have dropped X stranger-sacrifices, depending on how bad they were, so had better watch it.

    60. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Romancer · · Score: 1

      Here's the difference between a parents responsibility and society:

      1. You would have to be letting your 2 year old watch TV at 8pm at night. In which case any programming not comming from a VCR/DVD/Tivo would be questionable at best.

      2. You would have to allow your 2 year old alone in the car with your keys or leave them out where they could be taken and used without your knowledge by your child.

      3. Your child would have to be able to open your front door, the car door, and figure out how to start the car and then shift. All serious physical exertions for a 2 year old.

      4. Your child would have to be so impressionable that letting her watch Peter Pan taking small children out the upstairs window to "fly" would be a serious risk.

      It is your responsibility to ensure that your child knows enough to keep themselves safe in the environment you allow them to be in. That means that if they are likely to copy an act, you do not allow them the opportunity to see it OR you keep their environment such that they can't.

      You wouldn't leave matches with your child on the chance they've seen how you strike them.
      You wouldn't leave your child in the car with the keys in the ignition, running.

      This is the boundry in which your responsibility to ensure your childs safety and the general publics need not to be your babysitter exists. People should have the ability to make a cartoon, commercial, or movie and have you make the decision wether your child sees it or not. That's why it was aired late at night. If you are worried that a child will "monkey see monkey do" another child, you don't think they'll copy your actions. I'm pretty sure with a child that you know better than that and have seen first hand that a child will copy it's parents pretty easily.

      Now have you taken your child driving in your car? You should be ashamed. Showing that impressionable young one such things.

      You control what they see and hear. You should be able to explain to them what they are experiencing. If they cannot understand the explination, they shouldn't have the ability to do those things. That's your responsibility. To not put them in the position where they can try. This is parenting. You wouldn't let a 13 year old girl spend the night at a boyfriends house for this exact reason. They do not know enough to be left to decide what is safe and understand the consequences.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    61. Re:Explain to a two year old? by imemyself · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of something my parents have told me I did, except mine isn't nearly as dangerous. My parents had these "child-proof" locks or handles or something put on all the cabinets in the kitchen when I was a baby (yeah, they're really over-protective). Anyways, I had seen them open them enough, that one day they saw me just go over to a cabinet and open it up. Apparently I just thought that was how you opened up cabinets.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    62. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Survival of the species."

      Not to mention that our children will be running things and thusly providing the infrastructure needed to provide food, shelter, electricity and everything else they will depend on in their elder years.

    63. Re:Explain to a two year old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd throw you in front of a bullet if you started sacrificing 6 people to save one.

    64. Re:Explain to a two year old? by ibbey · · Score: 1

      I think that the ads and program content are distinct - I can choose to watch "18:30 - Bugs Bunny Drives Hilariously Fast", but there is no choice offered for "20:45 - Car Ad with the Cute Driving Baby". It is shown unsolicited to the viewer. I couldn't choose not to watch the ad in the same way that I could choose not to watch Looney Toons, Dumbo or Peter Pan.


      So your TV is locked on during the commercial? Odd. I can change the channel on mine. As for choosing not to watch Looney Tunes, are you going to choose not to watch any other TV as well? Face it. Sooner or later, if you let them watch TV, your children will be exposed to things that they should probably not emulate. McDonalds ads come to mind. It's both unrealistic and unreasonable to believe that just because something could be emulated it should be banned.
    65. Re:Explain to a two year old? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Now, there is a kid that's motivated to get out into the world! At least you won't have him mooching off you way past his welcome. I've got a younger brother who's pushing 30 and my parents still can't get him to leave the house.
      Try lowering the key hooks a little bit . . .
      ;-)
      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  80. I think the world is just being 'the world' by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    To me, fantasy is more than just roleplay. I actually think of the people who may have engaged in the behavior in reality, and judge for myself if it's good or bad fantasy. For example the suicidal robot is supposed to be a joke to most, and we've had a suicidal robot before the robotic arm: Bender. When I look analyze the fantasy, they're making a joke about going suicidal with the arm in a legitamate manner because he lost his job. To me the commercial is more sad than funny because in the past there have been many people who've killed themselves over the loss of a job. People who have lost a family member to suicide gets to relive it every time they watch this commercial.

    Another example is Grand Theft Auto. Before I became a Christian and analyzed things to their core, I used to lay waste everything that walks or drives in Vice City. Now that I've moved away from anything that has 'bad fantasy', I don't play GTA anymore. The way I look at it is this,"There are real people who die from being run over by a car every year, and its a tradjedy. Why should I be eliciting morbid excitement over running people over. If I knew someone who was run over by a car, I certainly wouldn't be playing this game with the intent to commit vehicular homicide."

    Finally I don't see the problem with 2 year olds driving in a commercial. When I was a kid, I always fantasized about driving like most kids. This commercial isn't going to add to the instinctual desire to drive. I'm just chiming in with my post because I have two unique views on wicked fantasy:
    A longer look at this post entitled: Wicked Fantasies

    Do you hate true evil and injustice with a passion

    Just wrote this one up last night.

  81. hmmmm by steveoc · · Score: 1

    There was an incident quite recently in Oz where a young girl (like - WAAAY young) was driving a car in the bush chock-a-block full of friends, and with her dad in the back seat. Topping speeds of 140km/h on dirt roads, she lost control and slammed into a tree - a number of people in that car were killed, it just took awhile to sort out which head belonged to which body, etc.

    Only happened in the last couple of weeks if I recall, and was all over the news. It was in a small country town, so that one accident wiped out about 10% of the population or something. True story. There was a bit of outrage about why such a young girl was allowed to drive under such circumstances.

    Might be sort of relevant to this .. bizarre .. decision, and why the same advert didnt have the same impact in NZ, or elsewhere. I remember that the news story kept popping into my head every time I saw the advert.

    1. Re:hmmmm by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Huh. Her dad was in the back seat.

      Looks like parents are one of the biggest dangers to their children. Either through bad nurture or bad genes ;).

      --
  82. Rightly so by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 1

    I mean that kid was surfing WITHOUT an ankle strap too. My god, cover the eyes of the innocent babes!

    --
    Nothing witty
  83. On undermining common sense in general by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    To me it seems like common sense, given that a) children have poor judgement, and don't always do what they're told and b) parents can't watch them 24/7.

    To me your "common sense" seems completely asinine, because a) kids may have poor judgment, but any that are that stupid deserve any Darwin awards they might win by doing such a thing, and b) parents should be expected to have at least a minimum level of competence, and preventing their toddler from stealing their SUV falls well within that!

    You know, back in my day people just weren't this fucking stupid! Seriously, when I was a kid commercials like this wouldn't have even been given a second thought, by us kids or our parents. For that matter, some of us even had those electric toy Bigfoot trucks you could sit in and drive around. If that wouldn't give the kid the idea to try out the real thing, what would? Now, consider the fact that I'm only 22 (meaning "back in my day" refers to only a decade or so ago) and you really have to wonder how people got this stupid, this quick!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:On undermining common sense in general by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      "Now, consider the fact that I'm only 22 (meaning "back in my day" refers to only a decade or so ago) and you really have to wonder how people got this stupid, this quick!"

      You know that whole "we're headed for a technological singularity" thing? Well, it's kind of like that, but going in the opposite direction.

      So, in 30 years or so when everyone and his uplifted dog has a universal constructor in his cupboard and the ability to destroy everything, humans will be too dumb to actually operate them, thus averting the whole "anyone can grow a superweapon" problem. In the mean time, ubiquitous surveillance gives us billions of hours of reality TV per day \o/

    2. Re:On undermining common sense in general by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Imagine how horrifying the deterioration looks from my hoary perspective, of almost 52 years ... and you're right, common sense has slid right into the wastebin over the past 20 years, with a sharp downward acceleration starting about 10 years ago.

      In another discussion, someone mentioned how now there are "no running allowed" school playgrounds, because gods forbid some child might fall down, skin a knee, and (more to the point) generate a lawsuit. Yet we have parents who can't be arsed to turn off the TV if they don't want their kids seeing it.

      But the real problem isn't TV or lawsuits or even bad parenting. It's that we've somehow become convinced that we're all so damned STUPID that we'll do any dumb stunt without a second thought.

      When I was a kid, with plenty of time to "just be a kid", kids could tell the difference between fantasy and reality. We might sit in the car and PRETEND to drive it, but no halfway-normal kid would ever try to ACTUALLY drive it; that was what our tricycles and toy cars were for. We had real guns in the house, all quite accessable, but we knew they were not toys, and did NOT confuse them with our TOY guns. Etc, etc.

      Occurs to me that a big cause of this loss of common-sense is the soccer-mom craze, where every minute of a kid's day is scheduled, and the average kid never has time to just goof off and observe the world, and learn how it really works (ie. time to "just be a kid"). Certainly you need book-learning too, but a lot of figuring out how to put everything together you have to do on your own, and that "on your own" time no longer exists.

      And the first generation of soccer-mommy'd kids are now having kids of their own -- and these are parents who never had any experience at "just being a kid" -- so when their kid exercises his imagination, they don't know any way to interpret it other than "dangerous".

      Hence this sort of overreaction.

      Hmm. Given that, the article someone above linked from The Onion was sadly on-target, and not satire at all. :(

      http://www.theonion.com/content/news/child_safety_ experts_call_for

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:On undermining common sense in general by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

      You know, back in my day people just weren't this fucking stupid!

      Of course they were, you just might not have been aware of it then. And its not like I expect every child who sees the add to hijack a car. But if one in 10,000 children decides to try, and of those one in five are successful in obtaining their parent's keys, and of those one half are successful in starting their parent's car, and of those one in ten are injured, then there are likely to be a few injuries in a country as large as Australia that wouldn't have happened if the ads hadn't played. Maybe those injuries will be rare enough to fit in the "freak accident" category. Freak accidents have always happened and always will, but I think adults have a responsibility to exercise due diligence in making them as rare as possible, and I don't see it as much of a loss to society if some people don't see an ad they would have otherwise seen.

  84. At least they kids are driving responsibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are wearing diapers, just like my grandpa.

  85. HOW is the kid going to driv? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assume the worst, Junior sees the ad....how is a 2 year old going to do the following:

    Open the car door
    Start the car
    Understand the controls
    Have his feet reach the pedals and be able to see over the steering wheel

    If the kid can figure all that out, he's smart enough not to need an ad.

    1. Re:HOW is the kid going to driv? by crimperman · · Score: 1

      Do you know many two year olds?

      > Assume the worst,

      Okay let's try and imagine if/how the worst could happen here...

      > Junior sees the ad....

      Toddlers could see this ad because their dad was watching something at about 6pm that he recorded at 9:00pm the night before. Two year olds take in everything they hear and see - I know I have two of them. They are also masters of mimicry, it's a learning device.

      > how is a 2 year old going to do the following:

      > Open the car door

      They can open car doors. They learn to do it by watching adults. My 3 yr old son can get past every child safety door lock we have in the house. He can open stair gates and after watching me fix a door recently has figured out how to take a door handle off (assuming he ever had access to a real screwdriver). Never underestimate the ingenuity and exploratory nature of a two year old.

      > Start the car

      If the keys were in it - very easily. I agree the parent should be watching their child but we're talking worse case feasibility here aren't we? Aside from this they don't have to. They just need to release the handbrake. There have been (no I don't have any direct sources) a few casdes I remember in the past of kids leaning on handbrakes and they fail. All the car needs to do is roll along and the kid will think they are driving.

      > Understand the controls
      What controls? They will try to turn the steering wheel and that's about it. With an automatic transmission where the gear selector is on the driving column they just need to shift it around until something "clicks".

      > Have his feet reach the pedals and be able to see over the steering wheel
      Neither of these is a prerequisite for having an accident in a car. You just need to make sure it is moving.

      Okay, having said all of that I should say that I think it is unlikely that a toddler would want to do this solely by seeing this ad but it may contribute. The parent's responsibility has not been removed but I am not sure that is why the parents complained. The ad could lead a child to think that children are able to do what they see on the TV and try it.

      80 complaints is not many and I think the ad company probably pulled it to gain additional publicity (don't think they placed the calls though). Personally I can see why parents would be concerned. If only because a child seeing that ad would be nagging their parents to drive the car for weeks afterwards. :o)

  86. little correction (and maybe OT) by hany · · Score: 1

    You wrote your name incorrectly, Mr. Innocent Bystander.

    But realy, how many people complained agains Flushed Away? You know, children will see that "flushing" scene and then they'll certainly try that themselves, for example to see that "sewer city".

    --
    hany
    1. Re:little correction (and maybe OT) by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, there was a few incidents after Finding Nemo where kids flushed their fish down the drain to "free" them not knowing that most water pipes lead into a purifying system instead of the ocean.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  87. It's things like this... by exell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That re-enforce my view that 1984 should be made required reading in every form of education. It's downright scary that it's not a government that is doing this, it's actual citizens, why do things yourself when you can convince everyone else to do it for you?

    1. Re:It's things like this... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      my view that 1984 should be made required reading in every form of education.

      Because the best way to inoculate people against authoritarianism is to force them to read something?

    2. Re:It's things like this... by exell · · Score: 1

      I said required, not rammed into every students eye socket we can find. Slow down there ! What I meant was that it should be required reading in that if something is required to read it's natural to assume that it would also be discussed at length and thusly the ideals and such contained within the text will more likely be absorbed by the student and there is then more chance of them developing a personal understanding of the idea at hand And it's that "personal understanding" or lack thereof that's going to save or doom us in the end but hey, that's just my two pennies. I find it interesting that you seemed to want to disagree with my comment based purely on some kind of knee-jerk reaction to my assuming a position, isn't that very similar to the knee-jerk reaction parents make when they attempt to ban a perfectly fine advert for dubious reasons ? Just a question of course, I'm no professor.

    3. Re:It's things like this... by imemyself · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention that, my English 12 class just finished 1984 today. I think all English 12 classes read it at my school, I don't know if its required by the state or anything though. While I think it was a good book, I don't think that merely reading the book is terribly useful. Granted, we are in neocon Kansas, my English class is first block (read: everyone is practically asleep), and my English teacher isn't great at getting people enthused. It was interesting when she had us read articles about the increasing surveillance in society today (once of which I had even seen on /.). Most of my classmates were very offended that anyone would dare question their beloved leader Bush. After all, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. And then there was the time that someone mentioned they didn't believe in an afterlife in a presentation about fears. While nobody said anything, I definately got the feeling that they did not like it.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    4. Re:It's things like this... by zobier · · Score: 1

      I think it was a joke, everyone should lighten up a bit - what's with the Mods rating it Insightful, it's Funny.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    5. Re:It's things like this... by exell · · Score: 1

      HE STARTED IT NYA NYA!!!! ;) I was trying to be funny in the first place ! life's too short eh ? ;)

    6. Re:It's things like this... by exell · · Score: 1

      now thats a reply ! :) Your right there matey, although you can present the material, without an understanding it's useless. And of course 1984 is not the only book to hammer home the dangers of an oligarchical society and really all of it is quite common sense, protect your liberty, but these days it seems a lot of people aren't completely savvy to exactly what their liberties are, and in some alarming cases actually restrict them all by themselves ! Ahh well, I suppose on the other side of the coin, Liberties are risky, as they require thought and judgment, and simply banning something does technically protect people, it's the issue of getting so used to simply putting a stop to things instead of dealing with them that we eventually resort to banning everything, and thats what really worries me but hey, it's just an ad ;) cheers for the comment matey

  88. Fantasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's get one point straight: a commercial ad is no fairy tale. Usually it's highly manipulative and crafted to make you buy unnecessary junk in many/most/all cases, preferably by establishing lasting behavioral patterns in young people (bonus: guess what pattern this is about). There's really no need to protect that industry, whatever the motives may be for pulling this particular ad.

  89. Its not the DRIVING part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the GETTING INTO A CAR WITH ANOTHER CHILD IN THE FRONT SEAT part that kids won't understand, dumbsh*t. Wake up!

  90. Driving on buildings by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Good thing you don't have our commercial where a couple is driving on two wheels up the side of a building. That's got to be illegal. (Note that there is a disclaimer that driving on the edge of buildings is fantasy, and should not be attempted, iirc - this is America, land of the lawyers).

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Driving on buildings by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Note that there is a disclaimer that driving on the edge of buildings is fantasy, and should not be attempted, iirc - this is America, land of the lawyers
      I always found this hilarious about American car commercials. In many states there are disclaimer like "Professional driver on closed track; do not attempt". I'd never seen anything like that before I went to the US.
    2. Re:Driving on buildings by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      I've noticed those on some UK car commercials as well. Not many though - maybe they were recycled American commercials

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    3. Re:Driving on buildings by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yep, especially funny regarding the commercial where they drop a lexus (simulated) from 4000 feet and a second one racing it on the ground, and the ground one just beats the falling one to the "target". Anyone stupid enough to try it should win the Darwin Award of the decade.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  91. Real Slow News, Cute Ad, Twitchy People by Bucky340 · · Score: 1

    Wow, and I thought Autoblog was slow to pick up stories. They had this one three or four days ago. It's a cute ad. Why is everybody afraid of Everything nowadays? Oh well. At least the kid didn't commit suicide...

  92. More 'legal' than some folks I've seen driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his seat was at least adjusted correctly, both arms on the wheel, head above it, and his feet could reach the pedals (they even showed him apply the brake) that more than you can say for some I've seen driving, you know the type with the front seat leaned into the back so you can't see them from behind...ya THAT'S safe driving!

  93. Truth and advertising by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whatever happened to selling a product on the merits of the product? Just for fun, watch a run of ads and ask how many ads now show a product being used in a way that is legal, possible under the laws of physics and by human beings. It's so silly that most products aren't even products, they're sold as fantasies irrelevant to what they are actually used for.

  94. Parent Group != Most Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember that most Parent Groups are very small, but very loud, groups! They do not represent the majority of the public, but somehow they always win...

    I guess there should be another group consisting of "normal" parents who fight for common sense...

    1. Re:Parent Group != Most Parents by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The "normal" parents just need to have time to respond, rather than "Oops, someone's complaining, take it off the air NOW!" habit that all stations seem to have. I'd even be willing to bet that a signification portion of people in America weren't offended by Janet's Super Bowl show. It was just a few people who piss in the pool, spoiling it for everyone else. (not that there was much worthwhile to see there, but the principle remains...)

    2. Re:Parent Group != Most Parents by Yuan-Lung · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember that most Parent Groups are very small, but very loud, groups! They do not represent the majority of the public, but somehow they always win...

      I guess there should be another group consisting of "normal" parents who fight for common sense...



      I have a suspicion that the "normal" parents with common sense would be somewhat too busy doing, you know... actual parenting.

  95. not art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these are commercials. they are commercial speech which has much more restriction than other forms of speech. if companies want to speak commercially then they should recognize our right to restrict it. if they wish to speak artistically they should simply sponsor art. it's their decision and it's our world.

    i have no problem with commenting on the absurdity of automobiles and the modern adult fantasy using children as stand-ins. i have no problem with probing the implications of artificial intelligence and commenting on robot suicide. i have a problem when these things are bent to sell someone's stupid, worthless, destructive products. if these companies were held accountable for the ecological footprints and economic externalities they are responsible for i might have a little more sympathy. they aren't and i don't have any.

    that said, i see no real reason their commercial speech should be restricted by government. i understand that in australia they choose to do this and under particular circumstances it may be warranted. under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to expect that some kids might try this, after all i can recall at least three news stories of children copying saddam hussein's execution.

    the question is whether censorship is the answer here or if there's some other solution. like what? oh, i don't know maybe if there was a push for more technology and a exodus from the 'programming' of television to an interactive solution. if parents are supposed to be able to restrict content via the vchip, why can't they block commercials? if i can configure my web browser (and other ways up the chain too) to block content from specific sites, why shouldn't i be able to flag certain bits of content on the tv and let the others play?

    the answer to these questions is that the advertisers want a captive audience. they want it to be 'you want to watch that, well then you'll sit your ass down and watch this first' and that's just not the best way to start a business relationship. yet plenty of corporations force you to watch some cheesy orientation video when you start the job. fuck it, these corporations are too busy running numbers through their heads to hold any real competitive value anymore.

    i and anyone with any goddamned creativity can probably rattle off a list of at least 15 things that various businesses in various industries could do to become more competitive and increase their market share. yet we know they won't do it because they'd lose some short term profits and piss off their investors/shareholders. they'd force changes that their colluded 'competitors' in industry agree shouldn't take place and would give people more choice (good kind of choice, like not to get their eyes gouged out by the companies they patronize).

    the only thing we can hope is that there is some inevitability to innovation that can make things change for the better. in software i'd say that free software is that inevitability. hopefully that will trickle down into other industries and we'll see similar changes happen.

    for blockbuster it was netflix. for phone service it was/is voip. there are other trends moving other markets that are a little slower to change due to their particulars. it seems as though there's cracks in the corporate walls and we'll soon see that they're just people and they'll soon see that we're just people. and maybe then we can drop the stupid pretenses of store and customer and get on with our lives.

    we can watch a series of short films sponsored by a manufacturer and go to the manufacturer's website and actually get real product information instead of more rehashed ad copy that lacks any real value other than a stinky attempt to sell us some more stupid stuff.

  96. TV isnt mandatory, its optional by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    unplug the tuner, use only dvds/certified content, just like soviet russia did, it really worked well for them.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  97. An Australian to a highly American audience? by smchris · · Score: 1

    Is the world becoming so serious -- or so frightened -- that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

    Only the fantasies of Americn fear are allowed. Look at us the wrong way and we'll level your country, rape your children and kill the parents.

    Just because.

    Yes, everything and everyone are to be feared. Always. You can never be too safe. Unless safety costs money - like 1/2 the Food and Drug Administration testing labs our administration is in the process of dismantling.

  98. a parents viewpoint by gonzoxl5 · · Score: 1

    I have to say that I'm a bit annoyed at reading some of the comments on this thread, written by people who seem to think that people can do what they want and if its unsuitable for kids then its the parents obligation to screen everything to make sure it doesn't reach them.

    This type of selfish mentality probably goes some way to explain why we have so many dis-illusioned kids out there today with no career prospects, doing drugs, drinking, mugging
    passers by and just generally wasting space (I live and work in Central London and I see this every day).

    We need to reach a point where the younger generations are collectively seen by society as something that needed protecting, as a parent I'm very glad that other parents were considerate enough to have an ad pulled that my children may have watched (without my knowledge) and copied, I'm curious as to why parents were the only once who cared enough to do this.

    Television advertisers are in control of the worlds most influential medium, they must therefore be responsible in their programming, especially when it is likely to be viewed by the younger generations.

    But ultimately, its not just up to them, we all (read - the entire human race) have a duty of care to the next generation and if theres something that might cause kids harm then its up to any and all of us to think about it and try to protect them from it.

  99. Liberally... by bbrand · · Score: 1

    Every time I think that my country, the US, is filled with people who like to whine, "Howard Stern this... Janet Jackson that...;" either the UK or Australia chime in with their next ridiculous thing. And you call yourself a country descended from prisoners!

  100. Anyone remember the GM commercial? by virgiliomi · · Score: 1

    GM had a similar commercial once... a kid in a red Corvette. The kid drove the car all over a major city, then after going off a jump, while in the air, he sees a cute girl (presumably from his school class) going through the air in the opposite direction in a silver Vette. After landing from the jump, we return to reality and see him standing in front of a red Corvette with his skateboard.

    The ad took a couple months to create, and was pulled within days due to similar concerns as this Hyundai ad.

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE THESE DAYS?! IT'S FANTASY ON TELEVISION! IT ISN'T REAL!

  101. What about the Peugeot advert .... by RallyDriver · · Score: 1

    .... made in Europe, with Stevie Wonder driving (IIRC) a 306 convertible on a beach? Is that more or less dangerous than your toddler taking the wheel.

    1. Re:What about the Peugeot advert .... by crimperman · · Score: 1

      yes but let's be honest it's unlikely a person as visually impaired as Stevie Wonder would watch the advert and copy it isn't it?

  102. So where would YOU draw the line? by bcharr2 · · Score: 1

    So where would YOU draw the line?

    Is it ok to show a commercial where junior plays with matches behind the garage, and winds up lighting the house on fire (cue the laughline)?

    How about the one where junior sneaks into the movie theater and starts shouting "Fire!", then watches with amusement while all the adults flee the premises?

    Because if you have children of your own, you realize that the most powerful form of learning for children is imitation. From a very young age when they literally learn how to syllabize by watching their parents mouth move as they speak and on into adulthood when they realize with a shock *gasp* that they've become their parents. It's where the saying "Do as I say and not as I do" comes from, because our natural inclination is to do the opposite, to do as we observe and not what we're told.

    So let's look at the situation:
    We have a form of media that cannot be planned for - even the most responsible parent in the world is not going to have an advance copy of the commercials that will be played during the broadcast they have deemed appropriate for their family to watch.
    We potentially have children viewing it - whom we know learn from observation, and will tend to disregard what they are told (or cautioned about) to emulate what they have observed.
    We have a commercial showing a child driving a car - without anything "bad" happening.

    So please explain to me why you feel these parents were unjustified in their concerns. If you feel they were unjustified, then just where would YOU draw the line?

    Anyone complaining about this actually have children?

  103. What bothers me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm... if people are so afraid of two year olds copy-catting....
    what about those two year olds copy-catting their parents who probably drive every day? With their kid in the car? I'm sure that the daily repetition of the real-life grown up has MUCH more effect than that of a two year old seeing a 30 second commercial with someone their size on it.

  104. Answer to the summary question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone?

    Straight up their arse with their heads.

    These people believe the incredible bull that the politicians spew, the USA has spread the terrorism-fear so far and wide that most people in the world have their head shoved up to their shoulders in their arse, dragging responsibility and common sense with it.

  105. sorry to ruin your day by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    although 2am is techincally, morning- that's when it's gonna happen.

    and they won't just bang you on the head, they'll whap you with something..

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  106. Take the lead from KIA by kj_in_ottawa · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can take the lead from the Kia commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPGTCYdCHbA which was pulled off air in the province of Ontario after the police association complained about the stereotypes it portrayed.
    The modified commercial aired last night and it was priceless. All references to police were pulled, but a black screen states that this is the new politically correct ending. The rest of the commercial was of a goat standing in a field eating grass. Sorry no link.
    Cheers
    Kenny

  107. Um ... what now? :) by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    OK, I'm lost. What are we razzing parents for this time? :)

    They shouldn't complain about commercials, because it is their job to monitor their children 100% at all times? Oops, wait, no, this is Slashdot, they should never monitor their children at all. So then we can razz them for being negligent, for not monitoring their own children. Er ... {head explodes}

  108. Re:On Deserving To Die by Finn61 · · Score: 1

    One thing that disturbs me a lot about this thread is the amount of posters who believe anyone 'deserves to die'. Particularly if it is merely based on a persons intelligence.

    I must be new here.

    --
    "Looking good Vern."
  109. Children in ads by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    There seems to be a disturbing trend in ads to make children appear adult. I just saw a "cute" commercial in the USA which dressed children in adult business office attire and had them interact as if the boy were attracted to his office-mate little girl. The receptionist showed her subtle disbelief by rolling her eyes. Cute, but it touches on sexuality in a preliminary, exploratory way, as if those making it were interested in doing much more next time if this makes it past the public. I think we should stop it right here, now. We should be aware that the movie industry and the ad industry are not separated by some magic impenetrable barrier from the massive multi-billion dollar porn industry. Those working in both can, and do pass back and forth to make a living. We must be constantly vigilant for signs that lines are being crossed in the real world by those from an unacceptable moral viewpoint.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  110. Donning my Tinfoil Hat... by festers · · Score: 1

    You know, what's to stop the ad agency from calling in these "complaints" themselves, getting the advert "banned", and then rubbing their hands in glee while people actually go out of their way to see the ad and what all the fuss was about? I know I would have never heard or seen this advert if it wasn't for the fact it was banned...

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  111. How do you watch sports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you watch sports? I mean, I find almost all TV dull and boring, but sports are worth watching.

    Or do you sit around, stare at each other, read, and then.... I dunno... surf the internet on laptop computers? Or.... Seriously, help me. I have a family, and we sit and talk at dinner, but after that, it's homework and then... people do whatever they want to do to relax. Read, watch TV, play games.... but I have a funny feeling you're going to tell me you sit and read magic scrolls together or something.

    --Tom

    1. Re:How do you watch sports? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      We do not watch sports. I might do so if I lived near something I wanted to see live (that has not been true since I lived in Wimbledon a long time ago).

      I know a lot of people who have TVs primarily for sports (at least sports are the reason they will not give up the TV), but they end up watching a lot of other stuff as well.

      As for what we do: web surfing, reading, listening to the radio (usually a background to something else), talking, going out, entertaining (we either go out or have visitors about one evening in three)

    2. Re:How do you watch sports? by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      How do you watch sports?

      Wow. That's just...wow. This is Slashdot. If someone posts 'How do you watch Star Trek?' then it makes sense; Star Trek is not optional. But sports? Seriously, can you not imagine a non-crazy person who doesn't watch sports?

      My mom watches figure skating and gymnastics, and sometimes others would watch too, but aside from that, my family of six (mom, dad, three boys, and one girl) didn't watch sports. A lot of people don't.

      'Read, watch TV, play games.... but I have a funny feeling you're going to tell me you sit and read magic scrolls together or something.'

      We would read, watch TV, play games, use the computer...but never watch sports, and never read magic scrolls. When did watching other people play a game become a required activity? If you can't imagine a normal person living without TV, you need to try doing it yourself. As I said, I have a TV, but, gosh golly gee, I don't need a TV.

  112. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all the 80 people complaining are morons. Then the company was morons to listen. It's hard controlling what morons will do.

    Just make sure YOU don't turn into a moron.

  113. Re:hmmmm - correction by steveoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21170425-421, 00.html?from=public_rss

    The incident is pretty recent - 22 days ago. Sorry, it wasnt her dad - it was a bunch of way-too-young kids who persuaded some local bloke (bit of a slow character by the sounds of it), to let everyone jump in the hilux and go for a yippe ride round the dirt roads.

    We are talking about a 14yo driver and other kids aged as young as 13.

    Very similar to what happens in the advert - except without the slow bloke, and the kids in the story have 10 years on the kids in the advert.

    This story was graphically posted all over the news for several days running, so it was probably really bad timing on Hyundai's part to play this advert at this time.

    Other than that, our advertising standards in Australia are delightfully liberal, and I dont think this story really reflects that reality. Just take the headline in some context and you'll be right mate.

  114. Advertisement awards by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    One thing that has to be understood about advertising awards is that they are TOTALLY disconnected from reality or life. Those awards are nothing but self-contragulatory pat-in-the-back intellectual masturbation feel-good devices, awarded by admakers to other admakers. You know, those goddammed fucking admakers who shove advertising down our throats all over the place, including those hated spammers.

    Case in point, some 30 years ago, Coca-Cola sales were plumetting and Coca-Cola ran a 2 minute-long ad where children holding hands were singing around a christmas tree. This ad brought down zillions of advertising awards and whatnot, yet, despite that, sales continues to plummet.

  115. Let them try this by javamann · · Score: 1

    To the parents that think there children 'might' try to drive their car after seeing the ad should try showing their two year old a video of another two year old changing their own diaper and see if they can copy that. Frankly, if my two year old could pick up a chick and take her to the beach I would be jealous, not worried.

  116. Well by Jethro · · Score: 4, Funny

    To be fair, the kid is driving like a maniac.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  117. Disagree with main poster by Goshzilla · · Score: 1

    I think the parents who complained are tired of having their kids subjected to advertisements. It's clear that these ads are targetting kids to nag their parents into getting these cars. Read up on "the nag factor" to understand how advertisers are trying to indirectly sell adult items through children.

  118. Wow by Valdez · · Score: 1

    That other /. article from today is right... there really is a delay in TV media getting to the Aussies after being released in the US...

  119. I have three wonderful kids. by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

    I'm there for them. I make sure they know TV/Movies are for the most part no real, except news with is 50% real. :)

    From one point of view I can see how parents seem to have gone completely nuts. Growing up, doing the things I did, watching the things I did, would today land my parent in jail. Now-a-days it's blame anyone else, and blame Canada too for good measure. Parents on TV, at PTA meetings, parents of pre-school kids across the street. They all feel the need to blame anyone else.

    True, it was easier to be a better parent when the parents didn't both work. At least someone was there t greet the kids when they got home from school. Now that parents can't be there all the time it has become normal to expect others to bare the blame for what kids see, hear, and think. I recall reading about parent blaming anything from books, music, TV, movies, and D&D, for the actions of their child. I feel for those people. Some I read about lost their kids. It's their stories that insures that I'm there for my kids. Someone needs to give children enough self worth that losing a D&D character is not going to make them kill themselves, or being insulted at school wont lead to a massive shoot out, and so on. Sure we have school, teachers, doctors, peers, and so on, looking out for kids, but nobody but the parents really has the opportunity to witness the warning signs.

    You can't hold the ocean back with a broom. If a word from in a song can cause a person to kill themselves that is not normal. They have a massive problem. Not all problems are detectable, sure, but the parent need to be the look out. As parent we tend to blind ourselves and not see the faults in our kids. After all their faults might translate into our failures. Parents need to care and be accessible. I once heard someone say that if your child is afraid of telling your the truth you, that you did something to create that fear. My kids don't get punished for telling the truth. It they do someone their told not to do, but come clean I'll listen. I wont cut myself off from the truth. I wont blind myself to what is going on in their lives.

    My kids don't like TV too much. We have a good enough collection of DVDs. When it's time for a DVD they almost always pick a computer animated movie. No other form of animation seems to do it. But one day my four year old got into my private collection containing Futurama, Simpsons, and the original Transformers. He loaded it up to the DVD menu and asked if he could watch it. I was surprised. Sure. I didn't mind. I was sure he would not like it. The animation was not that good. Now where there is allot of noise in the house and I ask "What are you playing?" they said "Transformers" or "Optimus Prime". They only want to watch Transformers now. They know all their names, and my four year old can work my 20th anniversary Optimus Prime which can transform into a truck and has the Autobot Matrix in his chest.

    But the show is everything shows are not today. It was stunning to realize that. First off characters die. Then there is the fact that almost all characters have more than one gun, and use them all the time. It's a show about a war. About insane hatred. Good vs Evil. It also is episodic, telling a good continuing story. It really does beat the square pants off of Mr Spongebob.

    A simple ad should not cause that much panic that it was pulled. The network might have demanded more from the parents. But they don't want the bad press taking a stand might generate. In this case I don't think parent were right. They had their hearts in the right place, but their heads in the wrong one.

    I hope one day we demand more from parents. I think spending time getting to know their kids even more might make the word a better place.

    Okay, somebody get me a latter. This soapbox I'm on has gotten really tall. :)

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
  120. Shamefully heterosexist marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why should we assume these children will grow up to be sexually oriented toward each other?

    Society needs to evolve. This is not progress.

  121. Thank-you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you said, 'Right... so it's the people who have better attendance and productivity at work, pay more taxes, consume  less resources, don't cause noise pollution and chaotic mess everywhere they go, and don't jabber all the time about how much better their own kids are than everyone else's who are somehow not "unselfish."'

    ...that's easily the most self-centered rant on selfishness I've seen in a long time.

    Thank-you for not breeding.

    1. Re:Thank-you by dal20402 · · Score: 1

      ...that's easily the most self-centered rant on selfishness I've seen in a long time.

      I never said I wasn't selfish, only that the vast majority of parents are more selfish. I'm happy to admit that I don't like having children around because their noise, mess, and self-absorbed parents bug me.

      Everyone acts in naked self-interest. All I'm trying to do is fight the notion that parenting is somehow altruistic, at least when the species or society isn't in demographic danger.

      Anyway, I'd rather pass along my honesty to the next generation than your smug, self-certain parental superiority.

    2. Re:Thank-you by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "...that's easily the most self-centered rant on selfishness I've seen in a long time.

      Thank-you for not breeding."

      Good Lord, some people out there think that having children is the like the 'highest calling' in the world. It isn't. It is simply the result of fucking without protection. It feels good....children can be the result of it...and the cycle continues.

      But for God's sake, quit acting like you are doing anybody a favor by having a kid. You want to do it? You want to sacrifice years of your life and money for it? More power too you...but, you don't deserve a bit of praise or extra help to do it. Your choice...your burden.

      This would normally lead me up to my rant about why it is wrong for people to get an income tax 'break' for having kids...and since those that don't have kids don't get the break...they are essentially subsidizing your ass.

      But, not time for that rant today...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  122. The real reason video games are addicting: by RamonetB · · Score: 1

    Because they're saner than the real world. Even my 4 your old nephew knows the difference between Burnout 3, TV, and real life driving. I wonder why that is, parenting perhaps? Oh wait! I'm trying to apply logic and reason to a situation. I've already lost.

    --
    For castles made of sand must eventually return to the sea.
  123. Copycat risk? by drew · · Score: 1

    OK, there are currently about 50 posts above my threshold, and I still don't see any addressing what seems to me to be the most obvious question about these ads.

    What the **** are they afraid that these poor impressionable children are going to copy? Unless your 2 year old is at least 4 feet tall, there's no way way they could possibly copy this commercial. To start with, every automatic that I've ever driven requires the brake pedal to be depressed in order to shift the car into gear, and no kid that age could reach the pedals, even if they knew that was what they had to do. And it only gets more ridiculous from there.

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  124. Uhhh... by deesine · · Score: 1

    Yaa. Man, I hate the voices too.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  125. Goal of advertisers by slackoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My thought here is that the goal of advertisers is to have their commercials remembered and talked about so that people will think about the product. Seems to me that by cancelling or restricting the commercial they have only succeeded in making the commercial even more succesful. Lst I checked there were 355 comments about it on this site alone. It is being talked about all over the world and I think that the commercial is a roaring success!! On another note --> Props to the person who mentioned that a 2 year old could not reach the pedals of the car. I mean it's really rock bottom when people complain about things like this when they're not even theoretically possible. I suppose they'd better take Loony Tunes off the air too because some kid might build an Acme rocket and launch his friend to the moon!!

  126. Hummm, the thought suddenly occured to me by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    ...about the delay from US tv to the land of Oz/Nz.

    American Idol takes a year to reach their airwaves/sat/cable, IIRC, and the theory might
    be that the stupidity is less contagious, perhaps.

    Then something like this comes up, and well, proves that stupidity doesn't have a half-life
    and is extreemly infectious after even a year's delay and digital/analog transmission
    vectors are the main source of infection.

    Curious.

    Perhaps someone should do a documentary, or maybe a TV drama?

    oh, wait...

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  127. Only on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you take something that hasn't got anything to do with the US and make it their fault anyways!

  128. Parent != responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a parent, and simply put, most parents of the current generation are so hung up on fear, they like to blame everyone else for any and everything they can, so they are not the responsible ones. The likely hood of a 2 year being able to even get an automatic in gear for it to move is ridiculous. Give me a break, you have to depress the brake and move the lever. They lack the size and the coordination to do that. anyway, back to my rant.
    I see parents just forgetting that they are just that, parents. you have a responsibility to teach, guide and punish your children otherwise you are just being a slave to their will, which doesn't raise a child, but creates a permanent child that will never grow up. i.e the 26 year old that still acts like a 2 year old when they are told no.

    Get over your selfishness and become a parent. Don't waste my time on your problems.

  129. There's reason to be concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My two-year old boy carjacked an old lady at the gas station just the other day. I think it was because of the news story that aired the night before.

    So it's not just commercials we need to guard our two-year olds from.

  130. What respectable child by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    What respectable child wouldn't be trying to drive by that age? If a child is curious, he plays with machines like cars. This is what *car keys* are for.

    And yes, society has grown quite stupid in terms of responsibility. Blame the lawyers. Liability costs our society billions, maybe trillion of dollars every year--and those are dollars that never get reported, that never make it into a cost assessment, because they're things like "you can't climb a ladder if you're not trained" and "you can't give first aid to your student if you're not a nurse" and "we can't have overnight stays at the health center because liability costs too much money."

    Parents complain about the "violence" in The Last Unicorn. A good guy threatens to kill a bad guy (Well, he threatens to turn all his toenails growing inwards, too,) and the parents complain because their kids can get suspended or arrested today for a "death threat" in school. Guns in E.T. were digitally replaced by walkie-talkies... and didn't you hear, Greedo shot first?

    Guess what? Kids still throw things at each other. They're SUPPOSED to. Pine Cones? Snow cones? If it's not a rock (or rock-like), sure, it's fair game.

  131. Another Solution by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that everything that you do to keep a thief from stealing your car would also work on a 2 Year Old. Just keep track of the car keys and this will not be problem.

  132. Australia? by DarwynFour · · Score: 0

    They have Electricity down there? Let alone TV's!? When did this happen?

  133. Fantasy has no place in reality any more by fortiguy · · Score: 1

    This is very much like the Kia ad running in North America now. It has an average guy in a Kia stopped at the side of the road with a blonde woman in the front seat making out with him. Then she gets out puts on her police hat and gets in her police car. Apparently its setting the women in the police force back by decades! That despite the fact that when they pull someone over they have the gun and the power to put the cuffs on for a jailterm. Fantasy apparently has no place in reality any more. Except what we are supposed to believe that the government or CNN tells us "Believe us, everyone else is lying."

    --
    You want what? by when? Sorry we haven't finished the time travel project yet... that's next week.
  134. Its a Freakin Ad! Calm the Hell Down by RavensDark · · Score: 1

    I dont know what the fuss is about, its an ad, the kids in the ad are 2. Children that young do not steal your car and go for a cruise. Are these people retarded, who really thinks this stuff actually happens. I havent heard about many 2 year old car thieves.

    I am Australian and i have seen the ad lots, its just another bit of lame advertising aimed at making people buy stuff. There is no reason to overeact and people who complain about the benign crap in the world but dont worry about the actual issues that affect us all will be the first against the wall come the reveloution.

    --
    "Dark Wings, Dark Words"
  135. that was a boy? by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    He sees a girl of the same age standing on the side of the road, pulls over picks her up, and they go to the beach together.

    That was a boy driving? Damn. I thought they was simultaneously advertising Hyundai and lesbianism. Even better to target those youngsters, years before they are old enough to drive or start having sex.

  136. neither should any car commerercial with speeding by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    "The commercial should never have been aired in the first place, it shows so much bad judgment that it is sickening."

    Really? what's are the bad judgements? did it teach kids to steal? to lie? It's a commercial. Red Bull should go too, god forbid someone actually thinks that they are going to Grow some wings. Thats got to be a moral problem right there, where are the christians complaining that you can bypass hell and earn your wings by buying a red-bull?

    Besides you don't let your kids watch T.V. until they are old enough anyway right? I mean sure, muppets, and Disney channel, or what not, but this add doesn't exactly fit the car buying demographic of a telletubby...

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  137. Re:neither should any car commerercial with speedi by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    "what's are the bad judgements"

    Should read :

    What are the bad judgements?

    Lol, sorry shoulda previewed.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  138. have we come to this? by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    Are we really this stupid to actually believe just because a 2 year old infant sees another 2 year old driving that it'll actually be able to repeat the feat? That it'll get its pops keyring, find the right key, open the car door, enter the main seat, sit down, turn on the car, reach the accelerator with its tiny feet etc?

    are we this fucking insane?

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  139. Won't somebody please think of the children? by core_dump_0 · · Score: 1

    Where are our children?

    No, seriously, parents should really supervise their kids more instead of fighting over stupidity, relying on censorship and ratings, and using "ritalin technology" like V-chips and filtering software so that they don't have to do the parenting themselves.

    Watch every TV show/movie with your kids, watch every Web site your kids visit, make sure you watch your kids when they are outside, etc. All problems solved, no laws, software, or ratings needed.

  140. Alternative by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
    You can choose to not watch TV, however shocking the advice is. There are those rectangular things called books, and if you just can't go without the moving pictures, there's always Netflix or a plain old DVD (or perhaps still even VHS tape) rental shop. For news, there's the Internet, or, if you want it real-time, radio.

    Television is a lousy babysitter anyway, and lousier still are parents who delegate it to that role.

  141. idiocy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i actually didn't take offence to the commercial, it was rather interesting, creative unlike most of these pill popping, beauty and weight loss commercials i see on mtv and other channels.

  142. The parents WERE being responsible! by FishinDave · · Score: 1
    If some guy in a raincoat flashes my kid, I don't simply tell the kid not to do likewise. I also call the cops and get the guy off the street.


    If some a-hole car peddler thinks it's "cute" to suggest to my kid something that's dangerous, I get him off the airwaves AFTER I tell my kid not to do that.

  143. Astounding by NilObject · · Score: 1
    The best of the entire article is this:

    The board also found that the fact the toddlers were wearing seatbelts - instead of approved child restraints - also breached safety recommendations.
  144. Why are adds less restricted than real content? by The-Trav-Man · · Score: 1

    Advertisement makes a parents job a lot trickier when considering tv, the lineup is not published or rated like regular shows. Regardless of where you stand on regulation, shouldn't we the consumers be informed of what materials are going to be beamed down to our tubes so that we can make an informed decision before we polute our brains with brain washing propaganda? Remember that these adds are crafted by people who study the field of marketing, which has its roots in psychological warfare. I think the decision isn't the best solution but it's a symptom of people working in a framework that is fundamentally dishonest and broken. somebody think of the children?