Slashdot Mirror
CTO is Too Young for Comdex
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 -0400From: 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.
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.
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
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
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.
;) Doom deathmatch competition in which I whooped all commers...
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..
Hack me, Crack me, Make me bleed
a faster box would be all I need
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
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.
:P
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
- ----------
-----------------------------------------------
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)
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
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.
>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.
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.