I agree wholeheartedly with you. I've had my share of "gorilla gurus" who are not above intellectual bullying when someone asks a question.
I am reminded of the attitudes displayed in Ray Bradbury's story "The Other Foot," in which (for those who may not recall) a town full of black people who emigrated to Mars en masse shortly before World War III find out that they will be receiving white refugees. Their immediate impulse is to start putting "Blacks Only" signs on restaurants and hotels, thus re-creating the situation that they had fled years before, only with themselves at the top.
Many of these "gorilla gurus" have most likely been on the receiving end of derision and scorn for not working with Windows, and have also either been given the same treatment when they started learning about Linux. It becomes like the geek version of the stereotypical fraternity, where these people associate poor manners with the rights of the "initiated," and now that they find themselves in a position of relative power are prepared to make those under them pay and pay and pay.
So much for a possible cause. A solution? Perhaps reminding these people that the same attitudes pervaded the Commodore 64 user groups... and where are they now?
When I discuss a technical problem with my colleagues, we use acronyms and concepts that my manager simply does not understand, but we completely understand. In doing so, we are able to communicate more efficiently amongst ourselves. I wonder if the suits are not doing the same thing?
Sometimes language is in the mouth of the speaker:
I am tenacious, you are stubborn, he is mule-headed.
I have a laptop (IBM 1200i series), and XP was running into problems. Also, the laptop was mostly being used in conjunction with our stereo (playing MP3's and Shoutcast) with very limited browsing. I had a PCMCIA card with 2 USB 2.0 slots, and both of them were filled - one with a portable hard drive, the other with a Zydas 1211-based wireless.11g card.
I got a new blank hard drive for the laptop, and after trying other systems, installed Ubuntu 5.04 (it was the CD I had available, and the laptop's CD-ROM seems to be getting a bit dodgy). Upon install I had instant access to the portable hard drive. I found documentation that explained why my system hung when the wireless USB was connected, as well as how to change the check order for hotplug, and next thing I know, the wireless no longer hangs the system. I then found out what I needed to download on a land-line system to be able to compile the driver for the Zydas dongle, got it, compiled it, re-booted, and voila! The wireless is up.
Ubuntu maintains Linux's tradition of "What do you mean, obsolete equipment?" quite nicely, and adds the ability to do some pretty sophisticated things without dumbing things down to the point of uselessness.
Ubuntu just plain rocks.
(Now, feel free to mod me down for Linux cheerleading, or something like that.)
According to Diebold, the polling machines are suspect, and it'll cost $40,000 to verify everything.
On the one hand - what if Diebold is purely running a bluff? Then the election board is going to have to pay $40,000 for Diebold to send in someone who will attach some alligator clips somewhere, run something that flashes lights, and generally run some dog and pony show before deciding whether its in their interest to declare the polling machines as sabotaged, just damaged, or just fine.
On the other hand - what if Diebold is honest? Then the election board is going to have to pay $40,000 for Deibold to send in someone who will attach some alligator clips somewhere run something that flashes lights, and generally run some dog and pony show before deciding whether the machines are in fact sabotaged, just damaged, or just fine.
Whether Diebold is bona fide or not, they are likely to claim trade secret privilege to hide the actual workings of their machine or their testing mechanisms... and again, if they're telling the truth, then they would claim that, and if they're not, then their claim would be hard to challenge.
So the fundamental question is this: do you trust Diebold?
Actually, we are already looking at using that method. The problem is that it only works as long there is a carpet underneath the entire assembly. This also is not true anti-gravity, because if the carpet gets messy enough (which it will, if you have a spinning cat suspended over it), its value becomes low enough that the attractive property of the toast is lost. Thus, energy must be spent vacuuming the carpet.
High-energy applications involve using tigers, high-quality marmalade, and Persian rugs... which still means we keep our energy dependence upon the Middle East.
[singing]Eldavojohn is reasonable! Eldavojohn is reasonable!
But on a more serious note, let me offer to amplify on this quote:
People change. Companies change... believe it or not, sometimes for the better.
In the early 1980's, IBM was seen as the place where creative hackers went to die. They were often cursed and reviled for paying more attention to worker's wardrobes than to their actual ability.
Things changed, though. Now they're seen as being a cool high-tech company. The old "Peace/Love/Linux" sidewalk graffiti campaign got them a lot of publicity as being more than mindless drones, as has their embrace of open source initiatives.
It might not take a whole lot for Microsoft to similarly change. Or it might. I don't know for sure. But automatically demonizing them is similar to how the mullahs of Iran keep referring to the U.S. as "The Great Satan" - it plays well for people in Iran, but it doesn't seem to go over well in many other places.
And I hate people like that - they're all a bunch of... of... namecallers!
Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -- weaken it a little over the course of a century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.
I'm not looking for a fight - I've been working with Linux myself, and have seen good and bad situations there. (And been on the receiving end as well...)
I hope you don't misunderstand me - I want Linux to become a more widely-established force on the desktops of America. I like having an OS that lets me install only what I want... (Can you hear me, O developers of the Microsoft Instant Messenger?) And, in general, I like Ubuntu and other organizations that are doing more than simply grubbing after the almighty currency character.
I wish to point out that the grouchy old-timer who constantly sneers "figure it out for yourself! And don't bug me with those new-fangled graphical interfaces! I was doing command-line programming before your Social Security Number was generated, so I figure I got a right to be grumpy!" does no good service to Linux, and finding a way to reach out to the curious (like the Live CD concept - I think it's brilliant!) is far more helpful.
I guess what I find most annoying is that these rabid Linux zealots are alienating the people that the Linux community most needs to reach. I've seen it on USENET newsgroups, where "RTFM. HTH. HAND." responses to newbies are commonplace. I've seen it in Linux User Group meetings - like the installfest where the people are too busy doing a web-based radiocast to help someone actually install a system.
For servers, Linux is acknowledged as a serious operating system. On the other hand, if Linux is ever going to become more than a hobbyist's OS for the desktop, the above attitudes need to be rectified.
OK, fine - the stupid sheeple are incapable of seeing how superior Linux is, and have absolutely no idea as to how useful this is. It is only by the kindness of our collective heart that we even bother to talk to such terminally clueless individuals.
Attitude of Linux community towards new adopters:
Oh, they want help, now? What's with these morons - can't they read a manual? All it takes for them to find something out is to run man -8, redirect the output to a text file and then grep the results to locate what they need - what'll they want next? Some program to do it for them?
I know that this is unfair, and that many in the Linux community are willing to reach out and help the novice. The problem is that there are vociferous, vituperative, and vicious "old-timers" (the ones who like to use the Vietnam-era term "FNG" to describe a newbie) who scare off anyone who doesn't get things right the first time.
Worst of all, the Internet is a wonderful place - and one of the wonders is how a loud individual can amplify himself/herself to the point that they can out-shout the quieter, more helpfully-minded individuals who are found more frequently.
At the risk of invoking the lameness filter, I have offer my applause to the parent poster.
Nothing is a total blessing or an unmixed curse. This is a lesson I learned from most of the games I've played - and about most of the games that I have played.
Anybody who expects WoW (or GTA or Silent Hill or Tetris) to be a full-blown lesson in the facts of life is fooling themselves.
On the other hand, their political advisers have also taught them the Golden Rule: "Who has the gold, makes the rules."
You see, you are using ethical and moral arguments - which already puts two strikes against you in politics. Add "a desire for intelligent debate," and you can't get yourself elected dogcatcher!
EVERY incumbent should be thrown out of office. This is the ONLY way to get anything useful, meaningful, honest or good accomplished: all of the elected congresscritters know that no matter what they do they'll be back in office. Three cycles of single term US Reps will solve the problem nicely and convince them that they had better start staying the course or they won't get those annual raises-that-aren't-raises.
This sounds good, and it seems like a hopeful sign that general approval ratings of congress are at 30% (plus-or-minus), and as a result one might be willing to believe that a "throw-the-bums-out" movement is building.
Unfortunately, it won't happen. As Tip O'Neil pointed out, "all politics are local." Unless a particular congresscritter has gotten up the nose of his or her constituents, it will be pointed out that "why, yes, all of those other no-good, lying, cheating, votes-for-sale politicians should be thrown out! But you need ME to keep the pork-barrel projects coming into our district!" Much as we might like to, we can't vote against Tom DeLay unless we're in his district.
Which isn't to say "don't bother," but rather to say, "don't expect a totally-wiped-out Congress in one election."
I agree with you. Managers, on the other hand, see the distro labels of "Fedora" vs. "SUSE" vs. . I tried pointing it out, and the response was, "they've got to be different - otherwise, how do they stay in business?" When I tried to explain, they rolled their eyes and said, "We've got Windows, it's easier to stick with that."
Of course, this was the manager (well, actually, business owner) who had only one computer hooked up to the internet for everyone's E-mail to come in through, citing the costs of anti-virus software.
That's pretty much what I tried. The down side is when the boss asks, "OK, so if it's free, how do the people who build the distro make money?"
This isn't quite as pointy-haired as it might sound. With some of the monkeyshines that went on during the dot-com craze, with various companies bragging about their respective cash burn rates, many managers want to have an idea that the company who is providing the software will be around in X number of years.
Of course, another approach is to point out that, "Well, you know, MS-DOS worked just fine, and nobody had complained about the 80-by-25 character cell screen... so how come we aren't still using it? Because [at this point you will want to sigh - DON'T!] Windows 3.1 did things well that MS-DOS was only marginally capable of doing."
Of course, depending on the manager, they might look at you funny when you mention "MS-DOS", but bear up...
If you read the article, you will see that the librarian co-operated with the FBI in everything else except seizing all of the computers. She let them in, she had her staff work with the FBI investigators on looking at the computers for the information they wanted -- and as a result, they only had to seize three computers instead of 20.
Also, as has been pointed out, she is not an employee of Brandeis University, nor was the library where the FBI agents visited a part of Brandeis University.
It's more along the lines of the guy living 2 streets down getting a visit from the cops to search his attic because of a sniper threat at someone's house. He'd might willing to let them look at the roof, he'd probably be willing to let them look at the outside of the house, but he might understandably demand a search warrant before letting them into his house.
But, as this IS SlashDot, and it IS easier to skim the headlines than to read the article, reactions like this should be expected.
... I still applaud Ms. Glick-Weil for her stand. I think that the Slashdot headline was a little misleading, though, suggesting images of jack-booted thugs trying to grab every single computer in the library being held off by a stereotypical dressed-in-severe-black-dress-with-hair-tied-back- in-a-bun librarian.
The article instead gives me the impression of over-reacting investigators being greeted with a question of "Hold on a minute, tiger, where's your warrant?" followed by "Well, without a warrant, you can't cart off any of the computers. But I'll tell you what we can do -- we'll let you look at the computers here to figure out which ones you might need to grab, while you get a judge to issue a warrant. Is that workable?"
It wasn't black-hat-vs.-white-hat, it was a voice of reason calming down a couple of (rightfully) concerned FBI agents. It wasn't a stand-off, it was a prevented stand-off... which strikes me as better all around. So let's not generate hysteria after the fact, but let us be grateful that there are people willing to tell City Hall, if not to get lost, then to slow down and wait for its own papers.
I'm reminded of what Larry Niven wrote in his book World of Ptaavs:
Trying to change one law of physics is like trying to eat one peanut.
With so many of the laws of physics being connected to each other, to change something that is seen as axiomatic (like the constancy of the speed of light) would require a total overhaul of relativity, quantum mechanics, and so forth.
Of course, if it's shown to be different... well, nobody said that science was easy.
...orgy of wealth sharing. (Well sharing among lawyers).
Well, there's more than them - after all, the car dealers who sell them the Mercedes they buy to celebrate the victory, the caterers who provide hot-and-cold running champagne for the post-victory dinner - they also get a small piece of the pie.
So that makes it OK.
(Did I forget to set the <irony="ON"> tag again? I hate it when I do that!)
I'm not meaning to offer disrespect, but there have been cases where morality has been legislated, effectively. I point to the various Civil Rights Acts. (In fact, it was Senator Barry Goldwater who said that as he voiced his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
That being said, I agree with you that the children aren't being given enough credit. As big a seller as GTA was/is, I think that the vast majority of children are probably uninterested in trying out any of the things depicted by GTA (including the Hot Coffee mod).
The state legislature is trying a shotgun approach here, where they can show their conservative constituents, "See? We tried to pass a law against those violent/depraved games, but the bleeding heart liberals and their attack-dog attorneys kept us from carrying out the will of the people!"
One of the problems with this approach is in the details.
Age verification is workable for adults, because the vast majority of them have a driver's license, or some form of photo ID that lets people feel as though there's some official stamp of approval on the ID, that the birth date there is what it's supposed to be, and the store clerk's backside is covered.
For minors, though - considering that in most states, a teenager has to be at least 15 to get a full driver's license - the matter is stickier. What ID can a 12-year-old get that verifies his/her age?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree wholeheartedly with you. I've had my share of "gorilla gurus" who are not above intellectual bullying when someone asks a question.
I am reminded of the attitudes displayed in Ray Bradbury's story "The Other Foot," in which (for those who may not recall) a town full of black people who emigrated to Mars en masse shortly before World War III find out that they will be receiving white refugees. Their immediate impulse is to start putting "Blacks Only" signs on restaurants and hotels, thus re-creating the situation that they had fled years before, only with themselves at the top.
Many of these "gorilla gurus" have most likely been on the receiving end of derision and scorn for not working with Windows, and have also either been given the same treatment when they started learning about Linux. It becomes like the geek version of the stereotypical fraternity, where these people associate poor manners with the rights of the "initiated," and now that they find themselves in a position of relative power are prepared to make those under them pay and pay and pay.
So much for a possible cause. A solution? Perhaps reminding these people that the same attitudes pervaded the Commodore 64 user groups... and where are they now?
Sometimes language is in the mouth of the speaker:
I am tenacious, you are stubborn, he is mule-headed.
And all this time I called it "utilizing a multiple-targeting anti-avian geological projectile system."
... let me "me-too" the parent post.
.11g card.
I have a laptop (IBM 1200i series), and XP was running into problems. Also, the laptop was mostly being used in conjunction with our stereo (playing MP3's and Shoutcast) with very limited browsing. I had a PCMCIA card with 2 USB 2.0 slots, and both of them were filled - one with a portable hard drive, the other with a Zydas 1211-based wireless
I got a new blank hard drive for the laptop, and after trying other systems, installed Ubuntu 5.04 (it was the CD I had available, and the laptop's CD-ROM seems to be getting a bit dodgy). Upon install I had instant access to the portable hard drive. I found documentation that explained why my system hung when the wireless USB was connected, as well as how to change the check order for hotplug, and next thing I know, the wireless no longer hangs the system. I then found out what I needed to download on a land-line system to be able to compile the driver for the Zydas dongle, got it, compiled it, re-booted, and voila! The wireless is up.
Ubuntu maintains Linux's tradition of "What do you mean, obsolete equipment?" quite nicely, and adds the ability to do some pretty sophisticated things without dumbing things down to the point of uselessness.
Ubuntu just plain rocks.
(Now, feel free to mod me down for Linux cheerleading, or something like that.)
According to Diebold, the polling machines are suspect, and it'll cost $40,000 to verify everything.
On the one hand - what if Diebold is purely running a bluff? Then the election board is going to have to pay $40,000 for Diebold to send in someone who will attach some alligator clips somewhere, run something that flashes lights, and generally run some dog and pony show before deciding whether its in their interest to declare the polling machines as sabotaged, just damaged, or just fine.
On the other hand - what if Diebold is honest? Then the election board is going to have to pay $40,000 for Deibold to send in someone who will attach some alligator clips somewhere run something that flashes lights, and generally run some dog and pony show before deciding whether the machines are in fact sabotaged, just damaged, or just fine.
Whether Diebold is bona fide or not, they are likely to claim trade secret privilege to hide the actual workings of their machine or their testing mechanisms... and again, if they're telling the truth, then they would claim that, and if they're not, then their claim would be hard to challenge.
So the fundamental question is this: do you trust Diebold?
Actually, we are already looking at using that method. The problem is that it only works as long there is a carpet underneath the entire assembly. This also is not true anti-gravity, because if the carpet gets messy enough (which it will, if you have a spinning cat suspended over it), its value becomes low enough that the attractive property of the toast is lost. Thus, energy must be spent vacuuming the carpet.
High-energy applications involve using tigers, high-quality marmalade, and Persian rugs... which still means we keep our energy dependence upon the Middle East.
Ohh, can I start? How about this:
But on a more serious note, let me offer to amplify on this quote:
In the early 1980's, IBM was seen as the place where creative hackers went to die. They were often cursed and reviled for paying more attention to worker's wardrobes than to their actual ability.
Things changed, though. Now they're seen as being a cool high-tech company. The old "Peace/Love/Linux" sidewalk graffiti campaign got them a lot of publicity as being more than mindless drones, as has their embrace of open source initiatives.
It might not take a whole lot for Microsoft to similarly change. Or it might. I don't know for sure. But automatically demonizing them is similar to how the mullahs of Iran keep referring to the U.S. as "The Great Satan" - it plays well for people in Iran, but it doesn't seem to go over well in many other places.
And I hate people like that - they're all a bunch of... of... namecallers!
I'm not looking for a fight - I've been working with Linux myself, and have seen good and bad situations there. (And been on the receiving end as well...)
I hope you don't misunderstand me - I want Linux to become a more widely-established force on the desktops of America. I like having an OS that lets me install only what I want... (Can you hear me, O developers of the Microsoft Instant Messenger?) And, in general, I like Ubuntu and other organizations that are doing more than simply grubbing after the almighty currency character.
I wish to point out that the grouchy old-timer who constantly sneers "figure it out for yourself! And don't bug me with those new-fangled graphical interfaces! I was doing command-line programming before your Social Security Number was generated, so I figure I got a right to be grumpy!" does no good service to Linux, and finding a way to reach out to the curious (like the Live CD concept - I think it's brilliant!) is far more helpful.
I can see that.
I guess what I find most annoying is that these rabid Linux zealots are alienating the people that the Linux community most needs to reach. I've seen it on USENET newsgroups, where "RTFM. HTH. HAND." responses to newbies are commonplace. I've seen it in Linux User Group meetings - like the installfest where the people are too busy doing a web-based radiocast to help someone actually install a system.
For servers, Linux is acknowledged as a serious operating system. On the other hand, if Linux is ever going to become more than a hobbyist's OS for the desktop, the above attitudes need to be rectified.
Attitude of Linux community towards new adopters:
I know that this is unfair, and that many in the Linux community are willing to reach out and help the novice. The problem is that there are vociferous, vituperative, and vicious "old-timers" (the ones who like to use the Vietnam-era term "FNG" to describe a newbie) who scare off anyone who doesn't get things right the first time.
Worst of all, the Internet is a wonderful place - and one of the wonders is how a loud individual can amplify himself/herself to the point that they can out-shout the quieter, more helpfully-minded individuals who are found more frequently.
At the risk of invoking the lameness filter, I have offer my applause to the parent poster.
Nothing is a total blessing or an unmixed curse. This is a lesson I learned from most of the games I've played - and about most of the games that I have played.
Anybody who expects WoW (or GTA or Silent Hill or Tetris) to be a full-blown lesson in the facts of life is fooling themselves.
On the other hand, their political advisers have also taught them the Golden Rule: "Who has the gold, makes the rules."
You see, you are using ethical and moral arguments - which already puts two strikes against you in politics. Add "a desire for intelligent debate," and you can't get yourself elected dogcatcher!
THE THONG SLAP (TS)
The Thong Slap (TS) is not fatal to a cane toad...
Depending on the size of the wearer and the fabric involved, I'd be willing to bet it still isn't a whole lot of fun!
EVERY incumbent should be thrown out of office. This is the ONLY way to get anything useful, meaningful, honest or good accomplished: all of the elected congresscritters know that no matter what they do they'll be back in office. Three cycles of single term US Reps will solve the problem nicely and convince them that they had better start staying the course or they won't get those annual raises-that-aren't-raises.
This sounds good, and it seems like a hopeful sign that general approval ratings of congress are at 30% (plus-or-minus), and as a result one might be willing to believe that a "throw-the-bums-out" movement is building.
Unfortunately, it won't happen. As Tip O'Neil pointed out, "all politics are local." Unless a particular congresscritter has gotten up the nose of his or her constituents, it will be pointed out that "why, yes, all of those other no-good, lying, cheating, votes-for-sale politicians should be thrown out! But you need ME to keep the pork-barrel projects coming into our district!" Much as we might like to, we can't vote against Tom DeLay unless we're in his district.
Which isn't to say "don't bother," but rather to say, "don't expect a totally-wiped-out Congress in one election."
I agree with you. Managers, on the other hand, see the distro labels of "Fedora" vs. "SUSE" vs. . I tried pointing it out, and the response was, "they've got to be different - otherwise, how do they stay in business?" When I tried to explain, they rolled their eyes and said, "We've got Windows, it's easier to stick with that."
Of course, this was the manager (well, actually, business owner) who had only one computer hooked up to the internet for everyone's E-mail to come in through, citing the costs of anti-virus software.
Which may be why I'm not a manager.
That's pretty much what I tried. The down side is when the boss asks, "OK, so if it's free, how do the people who build the distro make money?"
This isn't quite as pointy-haired as it might sound. With some of the monkeyshines that went on during the dot-com craze, with various companies bragging about their respective cash burn rates, many managers want to have an idea that the company who is providing the software will be around in X number of years.
Of course, another approach is to point out that, "Well, you know, MS-DOS worked just fine, and nobody had complained about the 80-by-25 character cell screen... so how come we aren't still using it? Because [at this point you will want to sigh - DON'T!] Windows 3.1 did things well that MS-DOS was only marginally capable of doing."
Of course, depending on the manager, they might look at you funny when you mention "MS-DOS", but bear up...
OK, I can see that - I was feeling the same way until I read the article myself.
Perhaps Slashdot needs to be a little more accurate in their headlines.
[offers hand]
Your example is not a parallel situation.
If you read the article, you will see that the librarian co-operated with the FBI in everything else except seizing all of the computers. She let them in, she had her staff work with the FBI investigators on looking at the computers for the information they wanted -- and as a result, they only had to seize three computers instead of 20.
Also, as has been pointed out, she is not an employee of Brandeis University, nor was the library where the FBI agents visited a part of Brandeis University.
It's more along the lines of the guy living 2 streets down getting a visit from the cops to search his attic because of a sniper threat at someone's house. He'd might willing to let them look at the roof, he'd probably be willing to let them look at the outside of the house, but he might understandably demand a search warrant before letting them into his house.
But, as this IS SlashDot, and it IS easier to skim the headlines than to read the article, reactions like this should be expected.
... I still applaud Ms. Glick-Weil for her stand. I think that the Slashdot headline was a little misleading, though, suggesting images of jack-booted thugs trying to grab every single computer in the library being held off by a stereotypical dressed-in-severe-black-dress-with-hair-tied-back- in-a-bun librarian.
The article instead gives me the impression of over-reacting investigators being greeted with a question of "Hold on a minute, tiger, where's your warrant?" followed by "Well, without a warrant, you can't cart off any of the computers. But I'll tell you what we can do -- we'll let you look at the computers here to figure out which ones you might need to grab, while you get a judge to issue a warrant. Is that workable?"
It wasn't black-hat-vs.-white-hat, it was a voice of reason calming down a couple of (rightfully) concerned FBI agents. It wasn't a stand-off, it was a prevented stand-off... which strikes me as better all around. So let's not generate hysteria after the fact, but let us be grateful that there are people willing to tell City Hall, if not to get lost, then to slow down and wait for its own papers.
I'm reminded of what Larry Niven wrote in his book World of Ptaavs:
With so many of the laws of physics being connected to each other, to change something that is seen as axiomatic (like the constancy of the speed of light) would require a total overhaul of relativity, quantum mechanics, and so forth.
Of course, if it's shown to be different... well, nobody said that science was easy.
Yes, I do mean you, when I say this. You are all just vast wastes of space!
I know you are, but what am I?
...orgy of wealth sharing. (Well sharing among lawyers).
Well, there's more than them - after all, the car dealers who sell them the Mercedes they buy to celebrate the victory, the caterers who provide hot-and-cold running champagne for the post-victory dinner - they also get a small piece of the pie.
So that makes it OK.
(Did I forget to set the <irony="ON"> tag again? I hate it when I do that!)
I'm not meaning to offer disrespect, but there have been cases where morality has been legislated, effectively. I point to the various Civil Rights Acts. (In fact, it was Senator Barry Goldwater who said that as he voiced his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
That being said, I agree with you that the children aren't being given enough credit. As big a seller as GTA was/is, I think that the vast majority of children are probably uninterested in trying out any of the things depicted by GTA (including the Hot Coffee mod).
The state legislature is trying a shotgun approach here, where they can show their conservative constituents, "See? We tried to pass a law against those violent/depraved games, but the bleeding heart liberals and their attack-dog attorneys kept us from carrying out the will of the people!"
One of the problems with this approach is in the details.
Age verification is workable for adults, because the vast majority of them have a driver's license, or some form of photo ID that lets people feel as though there's some official stamp of approval on the ID, that the birth date there is what it's supposed to be, and the store clerk's backside is covered.
For minors, though - considering that in most states, a teenager has to be at least 15 to get a full driver's license - the matter is stickier. What ID can a 12-year-old get that verifies his/her age?