CTO is Too Young for Comdex

Doug Muth shares an "article in Wired News about the CTO of a company, Matrixcubed, who is being denied admission to Comdex - because he is 17 and you must be 18 to attend. This is really sad that Comdex is ignoring the realities of the IT industry like this." The profitable company was founded, by the now-17-year-old CTO, three years ago.

Update: 10/22 14:00 by michael : eswierk writes "After reading the Wired article about Mike Lavers being too young for Comdex, I immediately dashed off a email to Comdex imploring them to stop being a Big Dumb Corporation and admit the kid. Who knew I'd get a reply from the VP. I don't normally distribute personal email, but this seems like one worth repeating to those foaming at the mouth.

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:56:40 -0400
From: Bill Sell
Subject: Re: Mike Lavers too young for Comdex

Ed, as far as I can tell, Mike never asked anyone in management about attending. This is a case of the Internet gone amok again with a fable and fiction, not fact. Too bad.

Bill Sell
Vice President & General Manager, COMDEX"

I'm not sure I see the foaming, however. According to the original Wired article, COMDEX was contacted and refused to make an exception for their policy, then refused to comment to Wired News. And of course, Sell still hasn't offered to actually let Lavers or any other under-agers attend. Where's the fiction, where's the fable? More than likely, COMDEX's insurance coverage is based upon only adults being present, and would be difficult to change at this late date, which is why they don't want to change their policy now; but that's no excuse for not having anticipated younger attendees in the first place, or for trying to spin it after the fact as an internet fable. COMDEX might do better to solve the problem instead of spinning it.

Comments

well..

[Suydam]

While I agree that this sucks, I don't think you can blame Comdex for this. 18 is a magical age in the USA (where COmdex is held I think) and there are quite simply things you cannot do until you turn 18.

Don't flame. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to go. I"m just saying that some lawyer somewhere probably told the COmdex organizers "You're going to get sued if people under the age of 18 attend your show." And in all honesty, the lawyer might be right....ultra-conservative parents can be a nightmare.

So my question is, how do you bend the rules to allow a CTO of a company to attend who isn't 18? I submit that it's probably harder than just saying "Come on in!".

Re:well..

[eric2hill]

No flames here.
While I agree that the law is the law and those under 18 shouldn't be admitted, I would like to know what exactly the 18 year limit fixes. I mean, it's not like there's strippers and pornos at Comdex, right? (Might be a good gimmick though ;) Where's the harm in letting a 17 year old (and for that matter a 15 year old) into a computer convention? 'Come on Comdex, think a little.

Re:well..

[Caspian]

I've been concerned by the state of age-related laws in the US for some time. Basically, they make no sense. The law states that you have to be 21 to drink, yet only 18 to smoke (and while drinking a glass or so of wine a day can benefit your health, there is NO way (at least, in most circumstances.. obviously, it might help you prevent freezing to death or something ;)) that smoking can benefit your health.), 16 to drive a car, et cetera. The laws would be better off if they were based around logic (i.e. ban drunk driving and public drunkenness, and allow ALL other drinking, as it's your own business if you get drunk in private or in a bar), but I'm not counting on the US government to magically start being logical any time soon.. ;)

Basically, the problem is paranoia, driven by hypercapitalism. American companies are so driven by the need to profit that they will notice and conscientiously avoid anything that even remotely might cause them to lose money to the legal process directly (i.e. through a successful lawsuit against them) or indirectly (i.e. through resources consumed during an unsuccessful lawsuit against them). This causes a slew of liability-related problems which people are, I believe, all too eager to blame on the legal system. (I.e. "Well, they can be sued, so I don't blame them for not doing ") Meanwhile, hardly any of the silly restrictions like this that pop up from time to time are actually due to legal requirements.

Of course there's no legal restriction on the age of conference attendees-- the right to assemble peacefully has never (yet) been denied to so-called "minors" (I really do hate that word, as it implies that everyone under 18 is somehow "insignificant") on the books. It's because of liability fears. For similar reasons, I was once told, after schlepping my most expensive motherboard, CPU and RAM two miles on a bike in my backpack after a dramatic power supply failure (basically, it died, sparks flying, after it somehow got shorted out..not sure what contacted what), that even if I signed a waiver acknowledging that the store had no liability for whatever happened to me or my machine, I could not merely borrow a screwdriver and a power outlet and attempt to put said parts into a case I'd just purchased. At this point, I was frantic, and I expressly noted that in exchange for the rights to test my parts there, using my own time and effort, I'd gladly sign a waiver absolving them of all blame should something happen to me or my equipment... they said no. Lawyers are a predatory bunch, and they especially feed on the neurotic paranoia of the American capitalist system.

The best solution to this problem would be to try to intervene in specific cases. I was extremely upset when I found out that a particular Apple convention was going to be 18-and-up only...especially because of Apple's well-known ties to the educational system. So I did at least some of what I could have-- I phoned them up. Perhaps those of us who care about this issue should do likewise with these convention organizers?

Re:well..

[Thalia]

I expect the real reason they don't want anyone under 18 is because folks under 18 can get out of contracts. If you sign a contract as a 16-year-old, and you do not re-confirm the contract after you turn 18, you can get out of it. You'd have to return what they gave you, but that's not much help. There were a couple of famous cases of 17-year-olds buying Porsches, trashing them, and returning them the week before they turned 18. The dealer was stuck. I expect Comdex worries about liabilities.

Also, there may be additional liablities to someone inviting minors. If the kid slips and falls or does something else stupid, you've got a bigger law suit than if an adult does the same.

Once upon a time

[aheitner]

when several members of our company were underage, we had problems getting in to E3.

We contacted the show management and they got us special badges. It was a little bit of trouble, not much.

I'm surprised Comdex wouldn't do the same.

Re:Once upon a time

[m3000]

I'm 16, and my best guess would be they don't want lots of snotty little kids distirbing the busnessmen/reporters there. And I guess they figure 18 is the age when you are mature enough to handle yourself in a respectable manner. As everyone knows though, it differs for different people. It does suck, cause I consider myself mature enough to go to Comdex/E3, and I'd love to go with my dad to Comdex this year.

Secret Comdex regulations.

[Matt2000]

The real problem that causes the age minimum is this year's featured "Novell Fly Girls" dance troupe, which will be performing their controversial routine entitled "10 Base T&A". Check for them in the program under keynote speeches, wednesday morning.

Other highlights should include Steve Ballmer performing an interpretive dance to a collection of his favorite "slow jams." Look for that in the alley near the west entrance.


Hotnutz.com

Re:Secret Comdex regulations.

[eyeball]

You forgot the XXXML presentation.

Woo.

[pb]

Protecting minors from Comdex? Come on.

He's 17, that's old enough to see R-rated movies. He can go see Eyes Wide Shut and he can't get into a computer show? Yeah, right. I agree, they need to get with reality here.

Remember, in 1993 we had high-school kids writing the most beautiful graphics demos in assembler ever. And throughout our history, it's been high school kids and college drop-outs driving the industry. Microsoft, Apple, you name it. Computer nerds with free time always make a difference, and if you don't support those, you are not supporting innovation.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.

I have been going to Comdex since age 15

[havock]

This is ridiculous. I have been going to comdex since i was 15 years old. You just lie about your age on the registration form and nobody says anything about it. They dont even check the forms.

It is just plain stupid to set a age like 18 when there are some 16 or 17 year olds who belong there more then some of the 40 year olds.

Sure he can get in, just don't make deals.

[Kid Zero]

I'll be cynical and say that if he was the head of a larger firm, say $10Million+ per year, he could get in with just a wink. Money does talk.

I'm just wondering how he makes legally binding deals? If I recall Business Law right, he couldn't have incorporated without being legally declaried an adult. If he's 17, and the company takes a nose dive or something, it's Dad who gets to fed off ravenous lawsuits and creditors despite being incorporated while junior can just wait until 18, and try again scot free. Also techincally, he can't make a business deal. I could make a big deal with him, get all the goods/services and then not fulfill my half of the contract. Courts might decide since he can't make the call, the deal never happened.

I think he should, or can be allowed on the floor, but any deal making would have to be with Dad.

Re:Sure he can get in, just don't make deals.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true at all.

I am President and CEO of a California corporation, and I am 16. According to California law, there is nothing that prevents a minor from holding stock without an adult being involved, and there is nothing that prevents a minor from executing his or her voting rights with that stock. In addition, a minor is allowed to function as incorporator.

Furthermore, although you are correct that contracts with minors as individuals are not legally binding, one of the good reasons minors should incorporate is that when a minor signs in the name of the corporation, it is legally binding. The individual is not bound to it; the corporation is. This is true for minors and adults. The reason for this is basically that because you own the stock and you have legal rights to execute your voting rights, you can decide what the company does (ie signs to), and the company itself is liable.

I have to sign "Joe Schmoe AS PRESIDENT" when I sign my name--but then, so does anyone.

Also, when a company falls apart, the individuals involved cannot be gone after. The company is a separate legal entity. This is called "protection from liability," and is probably the #1 reason anyone incorporates.

A lot of people assume the law is more strict than it is with regard to minors. This is just not true. I am personally in this situation and I think I should know :)

You can read the California lawbooks at www.leginfo.ca.gov or you can ask your lawyer.

Strange, it'd be ok in Canada....

[nano-second]

At the Comdex's held in Canada, it seems the rules change every year. The age restriction seems to fluctuate from anywhere between 16 and 21.
But volunteers who are under the age required are allowed. Thus, I would assume exceptions could be made for exhibitors.
Maybe it's different in the States, but here, although they have stupid rules, they at least have smart people, running Comdex.
---

Second Class Citizens... or not citizens at all?

[sinnergy]

For all the advocacy these days for the rights of children and the push towards getting kids interested in math, science and engineering, I see this move by the folks managing Comdex as a serious travesty. For years and years now college students and many bright young high school kids have been often times at the very fore-front of the technological envelope. What I fail to see, though, is why a person's age has any affect on what that person's abilities are when it comes to participating in a convention. The only reason I could agree to something like this is if law prevented the individual from going.

Whom does it serve to prevent the very best and brightest entrepreneurs from attending? Why must kids who are constantly being told that they need to become "more involved" and need to "make something of themselves" are constantly being held back with excuses like, "you're not old enough" and "you don't have that right". On one hand, the government is telling many kids that they have the right to divorce their parents, for example. Other examples include allowing a child to have the right to sue their school over something as trivial as being prevented from participating in cheerleading because of bad marks (as a case in Ohio proved). On the other hand, we're telling people under 18 that they're not smart enough to vote, not smart enough to drink (at least in the U.S.), not old enough to determine whether they need to attend school or not and not old enough to sign legal documents. At this rate, who is to say that legislation shouldn't be enacted from people under 18 from holding jobs or from starting companies or from learning how the world they are about to enter into and shape works?

This just sickens me.

Now, Comdex can come back saying something like, "Our main goal is to prevent families with kids from coming in and treating the convention like a circus." This point has some merit. I know that I would not appreciate having to navigate through strollers and pouty children while trying to learn more about cutting edge products. I have enough problem with screaming kids in church (but that's a different thread altogether).

What I think would benefit everyone in this case would be a levelheaded case-by-case look at individuals whom have a real vested interested in attending. Discrimination of this type (mind you, I use this word very carefully) really has no place in this literal "world of tomorrow."

For all of our sake, I hope Mike Lavers continues to press on and make a case of this. I think he has a very valid point and has every right to attend Comdex. It's bad business to prevent him from going. As an aside to his father, I hope he continues to encourage his son and I hope they are able to build a strong business and interest other young people into participating and building in the high tech culture that is all of our future.

Standard bullshit, but expected

[Raxxon]

Networld 1995 I was thrown out by the management. I was only 14 at the time, was just starting my studies for Novell's CNE certification and was tossed out because I was under-aged and did not belong there. My father's company had paid for my pass and had asked me to attend as a representative of them. I was dressed in slacks, combatboots that had a semi-decent shine to them, a polo-type shirt and a blue windbreaker (it was a bit chilly that day). The security goons took me upstairs after I came back from lunch (after I had been given the morning to ROAM the whole expo) and I was informed that if I came back they'd press legal charges.

Networld 1996. I had my revenge. I went the entire expo in shorts and T-Shirts. I had certified at the end of 1995/beginning 1996 (final test passed on 12/31, cert dated 1/4). They never touched me from then on. The reason? If they threatened me with legal action to have me removed I could threaten them with legal action for impeeding my work as a CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL.... They tend not to jack with you unless you really do something wrong... the expo got renamed the following year and at that time I was working with the local Professional Association setting up booths and other crap for Novell and was running demos of things.... granted I still prefered the demo I ran in 1996.. ;) Doom deathmatch competition in which I whooped all commers...


Hack me, Crack me, Make me bleed
a faster box would be all I need

At least in Canada

[dphrag]

Having owned a company when I was underage.., you are correct. My father is a lawyer and held onto the shares which I could not legally own, but appointed me as an officer.

That way, any deals were between the company and the client, not myself. As for this Comdex thing, why to they have an age limit? That's very bizarre...

The Real Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

If Comdex is like alot of other shows that i've been on, they are REALLY big on collecting marketting data.

And for some reason, it is illegal to collect marketting data from minors without parental consent.

While the low-level gate entry guards probably wouldn't care if you were 17yrs old - you can bet the Comdex/exhibitor law-talkin-guys would be. So making a blanket rule is a simple way to avoid legal problems.

Really, sounds to me that this guy is raising a fuss just to get attention for his company.

Tom

Age in America

[MikeFM]

Ever notice how fucked up our American laws and attitudes are about age? Both the young and old are shunned despite what they contribute. Ageism runs rampant. There should be a single set age to watch R/Adult movies, drive, vote, smoke, drink, get laid, get married, run for office, get a real job, etc. I personally would vote to extend such rights as low as 15yo's even though I'm now 21 myself. Even now I often get snuffed by a lot of jobs and such because of my age. It's really amazing given I work in the tech industry and have been coding and hacking hardware for over ten years. I know many 15yo's that are more intelligant and mature than many 30yo's I know and know many people 50+ that are still as bleeding edge as ever. This is just more government supported discrimination.

Anyone else find it funny that you could get married before you could buy porn? I suppose you're expected to wait for the honeymoon until your 18 (or 21 depending on your area) or maybe just where blindfolds. :P

Re:Age in America

[drox]

I'm now 21 myself. Even now I often get snuffed by a lot of jobs and such because of my age.

Tell me about it. You think it's bad now... try being in your mid-thirties or older. The assumption seems to be that technology is a young man's game. If you're not young (and esp. if you're not a man) it's assumed that you don't know anything. On a good day it's assumed that you know some things but everything you know is obsolete or will be by next week.

This is just more government supported discrimination.

Here's where I disagree with you. In the workplace anyway, the government does what it can to prevent age (and other kinds of) discrimination. There are laws about that kind of thing. But they're almost impossible to enforce. Esp. if the one being overlooked for a job or promotion isn't in a recognized "protected" class of people.

News flash - discrimination isn't just something that happens to racial minorities, women, gays, and people in wheelchairs. They get their share and then some, but no one is immune. If the government is going to go to all the trouble of having anti-discrimination laws, they should apply them to everybody.

Re: Age in America

[Stradivarius]

>All we need is *more* drunk 15 year olds

If drinking weren't made into such a big deal here in the US, I think our problems with drunken idiots would be a lot fewer (look at the much more mature manner in which Europeans in general handle alcohol, versus the attitude in the US). It could be argued that the way to get less drunk 15 year olds is to *decrease* the drinking age, not increase it. If kids are taught responsibility with alcohol early on, they're less likely to abuse it. And it also then is no longer the "rite of passage" some make it out to be with the current age restrictions.

Besides that, I find it rather odd that most states are willing to give a 16-year old the privilege of driving a motor vehicle, with which they could easily kill themselves or someone else; yet people are not allowed to drink (which usually just affects themselves) until age 21. Something's a little screwed up here. Oh yeah, and I can vote at 18, serve in the military at 18, but drink? Wait 'till 21. It's as if the government is totally ass backwards...oh wait, it's the government :)

Really...

Driving a car has the potential to kill yourself or others fairly easily. Age: 16

Serving in the military, possibly killing people during your service. Age, 18

Use tobacco products (harm to oneself, and those unfortunate enough to get the secondhand smoke): 18

Use alcohol (harm to oneself, that's just about it): 21

Not only is it ridiculous from a risk point of view (since as you can see above we let younger people do far riskier things than drink), but from a responsibility point of view it's dumb too. Being able to vote, living on your own, serving in the military, etc demand at least as much responsibility as drinking a beer.

Sure, some age limits are probably necessary. But let's make them follow some sort of logical order. The way the laws are now, there seems to be no reasoning behind the different age restrictions. If *everything* was at 18, it'd make sense. Or if the less risky things you were allowed to do at a younger age, that would make sense. But we're not doing either approach.

I think the problem is not so much that being young and being naive go hand in hand, but that age does not go hand in hand with wisdom. Our politicians, despite usually not being all that young, pass idiotic and inconsistent laws. So what can we do but complain?

Re:Age in America

[drox]

The reason there are anti-geezer laws in effect in the United States is that old people are disproportionately represented in government

...and the a big part of the reason that they're disproportionately represented in government is that geezers vote. If young people voted in the same proportions that old people do, their representatives would take more notice of them.

There is a voting age, and people younger than that aren't allowed to vote. But they can still have a say in government. If you can't vote, write to your representatives. Tell them that in n years you will be old enough to vote and that you'll remember how your representatives behave(d). You're not powerless just because you're too young to vote.

That having been said, discrimination (age, race, gender, whatever kind of discrimination) isn't bad because your government says it's bad - it's bad because it's counterproductive.

Re:Age in America

[drox]

A person at 65 will stay "old" for the rest of his or her life...

True, as far as it goes. But there's another factor at work. A person at 65 has, maybe, 20 more years during which they can vote, spend money, etc. After that they're dead and no one will care. A 17-year-old has, maybe, 70 years left to do that. If young people treated their votes like they were worth something, politicians would too. "Get 'em young and they'll be yours for life", is how advertizers treat the youth market, because young people do spend money. Political parties would do the same, except too many young people don't vote.

...and has the knowledge of what runs politicians (money) to get things done.

Knowledge is power. But old people don't have a monopoly on knowledge. They may have most of the money, but (1)that's changing fast, and (2)money can't buy a vote. It's about the only thing left that money can't buy.

AARP is a huge lobbying group, that's true. But there's no law saying young people can't lobby too. If they did, you can bet that politicians would listen.

The great COMDEX sex-fest

[Mr_Plow]

This article here paints a picture of COMDEX to be some kind of bachanalian orgy of geeks and strippers and prostitutes. And naturally the MAN wants to keep the kid down. Don't worry, kid, you'll be old enough for prostitutes next year.


------------------------------------------------ ----------

this is a good way to get things done

[Hollins]

Going to wired and slashdot to generate negative publicity regarding comdex is a very reasonable strategy to get them to change an inane policy.

Re:I wonder how it became an issue

[wesmills]

who would have noticed?

Probably a lot of people, considering you need to have a pass and a badge to get in and wander around.

would you lie about your age to the COMDEX organizers? I would.

Then I can honestly say I won't be doing business with you. Sure, it seems "petty," but your willingness to disregard ethics on small things only shows me that you're more likely to disregard them on larger and larger matters. If the organizers of the show say no, then, I'm sorry, but its their show and they can set the rules. That doesn't mean a I like the rules they set, however I'm not going to lie about something just to get into a computer show. There are other shows, and other ways of getting in (why not try calling everyone you can find related to Comdex? The article seems like they only called once, probably the main number. Try finding the principals of the show, e-mailing them)

(Full disclosure: I'm 19. My business was incorporated in 1993, at the age of 13. We've never had this problem for one simple reason: Our sales guy is over 21....he can take clients out for drinks if they like)

You Lied? Then You Are A Fool.

[Peale]

I believe that Jeff Goldblum had an excellent line in Jurassic Park that went something like '...you spent so much time wondering whether or not you could that you spent no time wondering whether or not you should."

Advocating that this boy _lie_ is wrong. He should try to negotiate with the Comdex officials, again. Go right up the line, to the very top. If he cannot attend the event, then he should live with it. Comdex isn't the end of the world. Lying may get him in, but it's still wrong.

I'm sorry. What I meant to say was 'please excuse me.'
what came out of my mouth was 'Move or I'll kill you!'

it's 21 for drinking...

[WinWimp]

What totally pisses me off about all these laws is that being a 20-year old and PAYING TAXES to this wonderful country (and, by the way, more taxes than 3/4 of the population), I still can not buy myself a bottle of Heineken!! It's plain ridiculous - if they think I am old and responsible enough to support poor single mothers and to pay the politicians' salaries through my taxes, then at least I should be allowed to do what these poor mothers and politicians are allowed to do!!!


The word "woman" is no longer politically correct.

Re:it's 21 for drinking...

[Hobbex]

Yeah, and I can go to war and kill people when the government wants me too, but GAWD DAMNIT they won't let me shoot my bloody neighboor when he pisses me off. Whats up with that???

-
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

18 - the sacred cow

[chris_se]

I can relate to this person somewhat, as I founded my little company when I was 17. Granted it's not quite the moneymaker this company seems to be, but it keeps me comfortable.

I ran into several issues back then, mainly that where I am (tx) a contract can't be legally binding. I had to go through all sorts of loopholes to get a sales tax ID, etc. And I wouldn't wish having to deal with the Tx State Comptroller as a minor on my worst enemy - - talk about a nightmare.

My point is this: The 18 year threshold is waay outdated. I think it should be 16 (at least for most things).
I mean think about it, in the U.S., you can operate a motor vehicle, but can't enter into a contract. You can be drafted before you can (legally) drink alcohol.
I think there is too much residue left over from when most people actually subscribed to the 'think of the children' mindset. It's time for us, as a country, to grow up.

Young people should not have to see ...

[Anonymous Coward]

people using Microsoft products. This guy is at a very impressionable age. Pr0n is one thing, but he shouldn't be exposed to stuff like Windows.

There may be LEGAL reasons for the age limit:

[Reziac]

Does *ANY* function at COMDEX serve alcohol? Even just beer at a closing-time bash would be sufficient to bring it under the state laws re the legal drinking age -- minors are not allowed into a facility where alcohol is served, even if it's at a private after-hours party. These laws are VERY strictly enforced and the vendor can get stiff fines or do serious jail time if found to be in violation -- even because some 17 year old kid lied about his age and the vendor didn't know any different.

I'm not defending such laws, COMDEX, nor the notion of "magic ages", just pointing out that it may be due to something COMDEX has NO choice about.

The real reason

[Zen]

You all should do just a mite bit of research before you go off on Comdex for requiring a minimum age. I've had tickets to go for the past few years (I'm 21 now), and I actually asked & found out why, instead of just bitching about it. It has to do with insurance. They have to pay a ton more in insurance costs if they're going to have kids out on the floor. Kids do have a habit of getting into trouble. You can still go at almost any age, I've never heard of anyone being turned away at the door, it's just a semi-under-the-table entrance. You sign up ahead of time, get your ticket mailed to you, and when you get there you have no problems at all. You might have to have an ID card to get your specialty tickets & stuff, I don't remember.

But in reality, there is nothing stopping this CTO from going to Comdex. This whole story & the outrage is all based on a load of crap.

Re:Second Class Citizens... or not citizens at all

[Mr. X]

>I think he has a very valid point and has every >right to attend Comdex.

I'm sorry, but he has no 'right' to attend Comdex. Comdex is a private show, and if it wanted to only invite one-legged albino 35-year-olds, so be it. Many people's comments on this story are confusing the private act of Comdex with national/state laws regarding age to buy alcohol/tobacco/etc. They are totally seperate issues. There is no LAW saying you can't go to a trade show below age 18. Comdex has made a business decision, and obviously they value a kid-free event higher than they value the contribution a few under-18 year olds could make.

I went to Comdex a couple of times before I was 18, knowing that they could ask me to leave. This didn't happen and I enjoyed the show. (I was never asked my age, either on the registeration form or by the Badge Agent). If he had just gone to the show, he most likely wouldn't have had a problem.

This just sucks...

[count_zer0]

I am the network administrator and webmaster for my company. I'm only 17 years old. I am completely responsible (although technically not legally) for just about /everything/ dealing with technology at my company. I have begun seriously looking into VoIP, and other networking technologies. I /can/ afford to purchase products from vendors...in fact, I have recently purchased a bunch of new hardware for our LAN (a hub, routers, PC's, a server). I would have /loved/ to attend Comdex...it would have been a great place to get some info and demo's of things like new VoIP technologies. But alas, I'm 7 short months from being considered a real professional. I think that is bull. Comdex could easly get around the legal technicalitys of having minors attend, by only allowing minors who have a)verifiable IT jobs, and b)a sort of 'insurance' contract provided by aformentioned job. This would cover them financially, and legally ( I think...I don't have a law degree...but this seems to make sense..). I think this is just one more example of the stupidity of the 'magical 18' in the US. Just as the magic age used to be 21 (it still is for alcohol..go figure, you can choose the leaders of the country, but your not allowed to induldge in alcohol?), that became outdated, as kids grew up faster. I think we (the US) are rapidly approaching the point where most kids are 'grown up' earlier than 18. I think new laws should be made...but hey..I don't vote....so..what I think doesn't matter does it?

But they DO let people under 18 in.

[smart2000]

MatrixCubed is just playing the media (which includes slashdot these days)

Everyone here seems to be making a big fuss over the "rights" of this 17 year old to attend. (this is a YRO story right?)

I first attended Comdex in 1984, when I was 14. Since I live in Las Vegas, it's not that hard to get there. While in the past years they have had a statement about minimum age, they make on average two dozen exceptions EVERY year. In other words, if you are for real, and you ask, no problem.

I know this because holding comdex really tasks this town for security people, and I know a few who end up working there for extra bucks. They all get the indoctrination on the different badge types, the show rules etc. Every year they hand out the list of "people under age who are allowed in anyways".

This whole story is just a way for MatrixCubed to get some free press

There was a time when /. was about people who are plugged in discounting the lies. That was the whole point of the "new-media". Now it has become just another instrument to get the populace roused up over non-issues.

Rites of passage had their advantage

[jflynn]

Good comment, I agree that this incident, while legal on Comdex's part, is a travesty.

Being adult enough for killing at 18 and adult enough to drink at 21 shows how diffuse the U.S. notion of adulthood is. It seems to be difficult to say it happens at a certain age.

Cultures used to have a thing called a "rite of passage" that defined adulthood more flexibly. These rites were often uncomfortable, and sometimes dangerous. Which may be appropriate after all -- irresponsible adults are expensive to society and can hurt others.

I don't think it would work to invent a cultural rite or exhume one of the sometimes barbaric rites once used for the purpose. But things like marriage and military service should certainly qualify, and confer adulthood. Being a CTO probably should too. Existing vestigal rites like bar mitzvah and confirmation should be legally recognized only if they meet standards. We could allow a judge to declare a person officially of legal age when petitioned with evidence of maturity and responsibility. Being able to create, present, and defend such a petition isn't a bad test, though biased and expensive if you require lawyers.

There is a lot to be said for treating adulthood as the difficult achievment it is, instead of an unearned privilege granted by age. There are also a lot of possible abuses in a system that validates adulthood. You have to wonder if society doesn't have the right to protect itself from 30 and 40 year old children though.

Beer at Comdex

[coaxial]

Actually when I went to Comdex-Chicago back in March, the Linux Global Summit had an open bar. (Provided by our good friends at Caldera!) I was 22 at the time, and they didn't even ask for an ID. So yes, you can get Heinegin(sp), and both red and white wine at Comdex. (no mixed drinks though :( )

I'm confused...

[binarybits]

Basically, the problem is paranoia, driven by hypercapitalism. American companies are so driven by the need to profit that they will notice and conscientiously avoid anything that even remotely might cause them to lose money to the legal process directly (i.e. through a successful lawsuit against them) or indirectly (i.e. through resources consumed during an unsuccessful lawsuit against them).

Let me get this straight. The sqeamishness of American companies to do things that will get them sued is a bad thing, and it is their fault that the legal system is screwed up? Huh?

It was my impression that the purpose of the civil legal system was to provide incentive for people to not harm one another. If you break my window, I sue you to recover the cost, and add a punative damage to make sure you don't do it again. It would seem, then, that in a rational legal system, we would want people to try to minimize lawsuits, since this means that they are not stepping on the toes of other people.

In an irrational legal system, on the other hand, people are punished for things over which they have no control(employee-on-employee sexual harrassment), are punished for things that were not considered crimes when they were done (Antitrust law), punished for selling products that were known by both sides to be dangerous at the point of sale (guns and cigarrettes), and for having products that are unpopular but and later proven perfectly safe. (breast implants)

My question for you is this: what do you expect companies to do? They get sued over an unbelievable array of transgressions, and if they can get run out of business by just a few such lawsuits. How can you blame businesses for the sorry state of our legal system? What do you want from them?

The problem with the legal system is not capitalism or large corporations but an abrogation of individual responsibility. When smokers sue tobacco companies, juries should realize that there have been warning labels on cagarettes for 20 years and acquit. When women sue breast implant manufacturers with bogus scientific evidence, jurors should have realized that the evidence was lacking and acquit. When employers get sued for employee on employee sexual harrassment, the jurors should realize that this is not something that employers can possibly control.

Instead of holding people responsible for their actions, jurors see someone who was hurt, assume that the fault lies with whoever has the most money, and award enourmous damages against that defendent, regardless of whether they did anything wrong. Every few years lawyers come up with yet another novel theory to fleece yet another corporation with yet another trumped up charge. It is no wonder companies are scared to take risks. Those that have in the past have been driven out of business.

Been through this...

[iota]

I have to admit that I have been through this "age-inferiority" treatment more than once. As a 17-year old network operations engineer, I have been looked down upon because of my age multiple times. I've been able to get into "18 and up" tradeshows by showing my business card and license, but why the hassle? I can understand that tradeshows are supposed to be a business environment, and little kids running around are not exactly the image one gets when they think of big business, but banning the people who will be doing the business in the next few years? If 'we' are supposed to be future business leaders and all, 'we' (the youth) will make sure to avoid the companies that wanted to avoid us. Not exactly a bright business move, in my opinion. Age comes up a lot in my life, and my career -- many adults do not respect my authority over them, and many people on the same level as me do not respect me as an equal -- just as a high-school kid who would be better suited flipping burgers (or worse!).

I do appreciate the respect I get from some people -- those are the people and companies that I will do business with in my future. I get a handfull of little pep-talks every day from the 'elders' who don't feel threatened by my being there. "Your on the right track!" "Your better off doing this than goofing off" "I wish I wouldn't have done such-and-such when I was your age...". Any company who wants to gain my intrest, and the intrest of the next generation of IT industry workers, needs to focus on, or at least listen to, the youth of today.

As for COMDEX -- I refuse to attend any event that rejects me even with proof of an actual IT job. I do not plan on ever going back -- and it's entirely their fault.



Oh well -- Some people will never learn. Human nature, I guess?/


Jason
email me with any comments, iota@inaxx.net
also -- excuse the spelling errors, it's "past my bedtime" :)

Actually it's probably insurance reasons.

[wilkinsm]

17 and younger are often required to be accompeted by an adult. (18 or higher)

If something happened to the 17 year old while unattended, comdex would uninsured. It's a common practice.

I imagine that they realize that it would be hard to keep track of a 17 year at Comdex, and therefore just ban kids in general. Comdex is not Disney World, you know.

I imagine that if the 17 year old CTO promised to stay with the 18 year old CEO, Comdex would be okay with it.

God, I'm almost 24 and I'm already starting to feel like I'm over the hill, especially on Slashdot.

Re:Yes, you are confused...

[Stradivarius]

Anti-trust law has been on the books for decades

Yes, but when it was first put on the books, it was put there (IIRC) to deal with whatever monopoly was being a pain in the ass at the time (I don't remember which, it's been a while since I took history :) He actually does have a bit of a point, though I don't see how that would in any way invalidate anti-trust law, especially today as it's been around for decades now.

industry/corporate America is responsible for most of the legal difficulties of our U.S. system

How so? It seems to me that our legal difficulties are due to two problems: 1) the idiots we have in government, and 2) ourselves for putting those idiots in office. After all, the companies aren't the ones writing the damn laws. I will admit though that companies (and unions, for that matter) have way more influence under our current system than they ought to. The situation could be fixed but simply banning any political contributions from any entity other than US citizens (and put a reasonable limit to how much individuals can contribute). Of course, that would require that the idiots in office actually do what's right; and that the voters actually vote them out of office if they don't.

If cigs kill people (they do), shouldn't the cig companies STOP selling them?

Well, they probably *should*, from a moral perspective. But we shouldn't be legislating morality (history has shown us it's a bad idea). It's really the responsibility of the individual to not smoke. The laws shouldn't be used against the tobacco companies, unless the tobacco companies lied about or withheld evidence about the harmful effects of smoking (there is evidence that they did indeed do that). If people are stupid enough to smoke and not quit, well I guess it's natural selection at work.

As I see it, the laws are there to protect our citizens from each other, not to protect John Doe from himself. If I want to smoke myself to death, then that should be my right. As long as I don't expose anyone else to the fumes, why not?

If you think an individual can make up their mind on their own, then how come cig manufactures spend billions each year on advertising?

Because they need some way to distinguish their products from the competition. If you don't advertise, how is your customer supposed to know if your product is better? Name recognition doesn't hurt, either.

Re:Another young founder...

[Kintanon]

btw call me stupid, but what is the difference between a CEO (ChiefExacutiveOfficer?), CTO, COO, Cwhatever, where these American sites always talk about?


Chief Executive Officer
Chief Technology Officer
Chief Operations Officer
Chief Financial Officer

Those are all of the C?O I can think of right now in the company I work for...

Kintanon