But then you get to the level cap, and all your friends are at the level cap. So you want to do things with them. But end-game content requires such a time commitment - raiding, grinding for gold and items - that there's no reason to ever go back and experience the rest of the game in the same way. If you DO level another character, it's to fill a hole in your guild's roster (leveling a healer or tank, for example), and you tend to blaze through content because you already know the ropes and there's no reason to go back and make friends all over again.
That's a rather unfair generalization.
I would agree that there are definately those people who play the game as you describe. In fact, I'd say that in the past in other games it has been far more true (EverQuest, as an example). But WoW has broadened the market to a much larger audience, many of whom do not have the time or the inclination to live thier lives on a schedule prescribed by a guild.
There are now a huge number of people who thoroughly enjoy plodding along, aimlessly enjoying the sights and experiences with far less ambition to reach the level cap, let alone get a full set of tier'X' gear. My family and I are among them. We find it very satisfying the achieve what we achieve by our own methods in our own time, and what you or anyone else achieves by other playstyles is largely irrelevant to us.
You also mention community. I find that rather interesting, because I base a definition of community on my past experiences in games like EverQuest. At one time it would take a person months upon months of grinding and spending every spare second to approach the level cap. It was in a server population in the thousands rather than 10's or 100's of thousands of characters. If your reputation were to be tarnished, everyone recognized your name. You were a pariah. And in those games accomplishing nearly anything required a full group, so your ability to progress in the game was essentially terminated with that character. Starting over was painful because of the commitments of time.
Today in WoW, one can very casually reach cap level in a matter of weeks without ever grouping with anyone. That combined with the sheer volume of unique characters ensures near total anonymity. "Community", for the bulk of players, is wholly meaningless.
Back in the day my wife and I were integral parts of a huge raiding guild in EverQuest. We were an end-game guild raiding nightly. We realized that that particular playstyle was like a cancer in our enjoyment of the game. It became an obligation, as you mentioned. Which made it a job, and one that we came to resent.
I'd be interested in hearing what the longest period of time you've played a game is in terms of months or years it's kept your interest.
I used to buy games every 2-6 weeks. I'd purchase a game, get completely sucked in, play the hell out of it till I solved it, and shelve it for the next title. There are the odd few I pull back off the shelf for revisits about once a year (BF2, Starcraft, C&C, CivIV, etc.). But nothing has ever held my interest for periods of years like World of Warcraft, and Everquest before it.
There's truth in stating that MMO's are generally a repetitive process. Kill X, for Y, rinse, repeat and continue for the 'big' goodies. But I would pose a question: Is it worthy of consideration that the story offsets the repetitive experience?
The addictive nature of the game is certainly added to by the 'dangling carrot', and the next little reward that the player drives toward. But I find that the storylines are interesting and engaging, and the impact I have in them (albeit largely an illusion) combines for a more compelling experience. Isn't the ability to effectively tell interesting stories that collectively builds into a game-world with a rich and extensive lore as large a factor in labeling a title a "good game"?
Bottom line for me is that I can continue playing WoW discovering and exploring new storylines and learning more lore (while, admittedly, being a sucker for the dangling carrot as well), for years. Conversely I can be stimulated intellectually by only so many sessions of the same easily solved puzzle games, or headshots from botters and cheats.
So your stance is that this is a justified mechanism that can be employed in order for the government to make us safe?
Who keeps us safe from the government?
The point being that you are being asked to make a choice:
1) Be as safe as possible
2) Be free
I'm pretty sure there's a few people out there they would choose option 2) over option 1). I happen to be one of them, and I'm guessing our founding fathers were as well.
I would rather be free and take more risk in my daily life that I'd be harmed by those who want to harm my country, than be ashamed of what my country has become and in my safety in it bred of cowardice.
No, probable cause allows action/entry in the absence of a warrant. It is the mechanism that allows law enforcement and rescue personel the authority to enter ANY property if they have 'probable cause' to believe that a crime is in progress or there is imminent danger to people. It is specifically meant to prevent cops or rescue crews sitting on a doorstep twiddling their thumbs when they are pretty sure there's a bunch of crap going down inside.
Now what I don't know is what kind of crime this covers. I suspect it would not include how much RF interference my monitor is kicking off, unless of course it was scrambling all the transmissions from, say, an air traffic control tower.
You proclaim yourself to be a person that has "disdain for government overstepping it's bounds...". Do you have some misguided hope that your government will stop overstepping its bounds when people stop threatening to stand up for their rights?
This "knuckle-dragger boast" is precisely the type of response we should have a bit more of. The people of the US need to start actually threatening to protect their rights, and protesting the intrusion of the government where it is not lawfully extended, and take some responsibilty for standing up and holding their government accountable for its actions. Maybe their government will realize they are not all sheep willing to buy off on the rhetoric and backroom bill edits to sneak in another law that removes their freedoms.
This system of government is meant to represent YOU. Do you feel its appropriate for your government to use obtuse interpretations of overly complicated and obscure laws to walk into your home at any time? Or do you think maybe you have the right to stand them up in your doorway and say NO.
I have teenagers bigger than me. And they still know that screwing with me is not in their best interest.
Yeah, maybe they could kick my ass if it came down to that. But that won't start their car that is supposed to take them to the date they are already late to. Only the sparkplugs I removed can do that....
I want my children to think for themselves, and gain as much experience about it as possible, while they're under my supervision, so when they're not, they can lead a life worth living.
I actually agree with this completely. What you've failed to outline in your ruleset is any form of supervision even as you've suggested it is necessary.
Letting your kid do anything he wants in a vaccuum of supervision pretty much gaurantees at least a few false conclusions on their part. Which is precisely why you create a structure in which you can observe the actions and conclusions of your child so that you can revise any false conclusions (or behaviors) they begin to develop.
Suggesting that a child should be allowed complete freedom to do "whatever the hell they want" suggest laziness on the part of the parent that borders on criminal.
Isn't that what raising a child should be all about?
Raising a child is about embracing them and teaching them so that they can grow to be decent, productive adults. That's not going to happen if you let them just do whatever the hell they want and hope to correct abhorent behavior later.
Can you give me an example of what governments can do to encourage parents to care about their kids' lives?
Hold the parent's responsible for the criminal acts of their minor children.
As soon as a parent can be thrown in the slammer for what their kid does due to lack of supervision, I bet there'd be at least more parents paying attention.
Obviously if the parent can show an on-going effort to be involved and having taken sufficient steps to prevent criminal behavior by the kid, then the courts would have the authority to make a judgement reflecting that. But there should be an open ability for the court to determine if a lack of parenting has produced the criminal behavior in the child.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not excusing parents from their responsibility to have to answer the above questions from their kid. Hey, nobody said parenting was easy. But I can at least understand a parent's desire to not have to go through this.
You can understand a parent's desire to avoid the hassle of parenting their child?
Look, it's pretty simple. If you are the parent it is your responsibility to take all the time that is required to know your child's level of maturity. It is your responsibility to observe the reaction of your child to a type of stimulus. It is your responsibility to know what they do with their time and money. It is your responsibility to verify that your rules are being followed, and to issue punishment when they arent.
If all this is too big a hassle, that probably should've been considered before you became a parent. Asking the state to accept your responsibility in your absence at the expense of responsible children and parents is not an intended function of the state.
If anything there should be a law that makes a parent liable for the actions of their child. If the hassle is managing the games you allow your kid(s) to play and how often they are allowed to play them, then how can you possible handle issues like depression, or violence, or crime, or drugs, or smoking, or sex?
So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.
And you're suggesting that without guns, abusive husbands and criminals won't exist? Or just that they won't have any other means to be abusive or commit crimes?
Taking the weapon from the hands of an asshole makes them no less an asshole. It just makes their weapon choice less predictable.
You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?
You're right. There are certainly kids out there that know more about computers than their parents. But if you're suggesting that the parents are too stupid to outsmart their kids then we're back to a serious problem with the parent's ability to parent.
First, don't allow your kid to sit in his room in private with a computer for hours at a time. You are the parent. Require the kid to use a computer in the office or living room where you know how its being used. Require the kid to spend time interacting with you and the rest of the family.
Second, lay down ground rules for appropriate use of the computer, and follow it up by learning how to enforce those rules. You are the parent. It should be worth it to you to take the limited time required to become educated on the matter.
Third, don't provide your kid with enough cash that they are able to go out and buy anything they want. You're the parent. They don't need to throw money around and if you allow it, it's because you're being lazy.
Fourth, verify the games they have and if new ones you havent approved are showing up then take them away. Destroy them. Ground the kid. Do what you have to do. You are the parent.
Treat the computer (or console) as a privelidge that the child must earn the right to use. If they abuse the system, or break the rules, the the computer (or console) is removed. Period. You can lock it up in a closet if that's what's needed. You can yank the harddrive. You can sell it.
If you can't succeed through these stages, then you have a much bigger problem than whether the kid sees a violent interactive video game...
This attitude that the State should protect your child from your lack of attentiveness just pisses me off.
You're applying your definition of the word moral then, and not one commonly applied.
A common application of 'moral' would be the distinction between right and wrong. Well, whose right, and whose wrong?
You might say that it is immoral to work on Sunday. You might say that it's immoral for a woman to have sex out of wedlock, or that it's immoral for a woman to wear a skirt that is higher than her knee, or that it's immoral for a man to be in the home of a woman without escort, or that it's immoral to ask for a woman's hand in marriage without first gaining the blessing of her father.
Now all that might seem completely outdated to you. But how do you outdate simple right and wrong? Put it in more modern terms. Maybe you consider it immoral for a man to be with a man. Or perhaps you believe it's immoral to perform an abortion.
The point being that the application of morality is a personal issue, and not relevant in the court. You have to decide what is and is not moral for you and try to live by it. But just because you may consider something immoral, it doesn't inherently mean that it is damaging to society, not matter how much -you- might belive it is.
Hell, in Boulder Colorado it is considered immoral to own a dog. There's a statute that states that you are instead considered the guardian of your dog. This is a perfect case of how a moral issue has crossed the line of appropriatness by being applied to legislation.
My mistake. I should have used the former section name. And there are no legal erotic services?
Stripping is legal. So are taking nude photos, or creating nude portraits, or writing erotic fiction.
The point being that there appears to be effort to define that former section as one that couldn't have served a purpose other than promoting illegal prostitution. That's not accurate. Allowing (or propogating) a misconception of the facts in order to further a moral crusade would be entirely out of line for a State's AG.
If your argument is that it is not a moral issue and that there is in fact harm brought to others, the onus is on you to prove evidence of harm or provide a victim.
I believe (but I'm not positive) that it is illegal to sign away your inalienable rights. You can sign away your rights to a piece of property, but not your inherent right to own property. You cannot sign away your right to life because it is an inherent right. So you have no authority to allow another to take it. Likewise, it is illegal for you to take your own life, although failed suicide attempts are rarely prosecuted. (And even less frequently are successful ones prosecuted...)
If you were to argue that legalized prostitution brings harm to a society as an objection to legalizing the practice, one could argue that illegal prostitution brings greater harm. Which in turn forces debate on whether to legislate the lesser of evils.
Morality is not a basis for the law. The law just happens to coincide with what the normal interpretation of moral behavior happens to be.
The law exist to enforce the rights of a person. Those rights are protected by the law. I can't take from you that which is not mine to take, whether that be your property, your freedom or your life. Everything stems from that, and morality is not a part of the equation. In fact it should remain specifically absent from the equation in order to protect both your rights and mine.
I can't murder you because that takes your rights away, not because it's wrong to kill (although the effect is the same). I can't steal from you, not because it's immoral, but rather because you have the right to maintain your property. But I can get drunk and smoke cigars while watching porn all I want because it doesn't impact you in the slightest, no matter how immoral you think it is.
I don't think the state should be involved at all. Your marital status should be irrelevant to the equation. You and your spouse are the two that should have the agreement on what is and what is not acceptable in your relationship, and your level of (or lack of) honesty and trust between you is your own issue.
I have mixed emotions about the health issues involved, and how involved the state should be there. But suggesting that the customers be a matter of public record is, quite frankly, insane. You don't suggest that people who shop at liquor stores be a matter of public record. Or who buy cigarettes. Or who go to strip clubs, or who gamble in Vegas, or watch porn. Why would prostituion be any different? Because two people touch? There are laws specifically protecting privacy for a reason, so that the morality zealots can't ruin you because they disagree with you.
So by your reasoning, there's no way that a 79 year-old grandmother could possibly sue the multi-national empire of McDonalds because her coffee was too hot, let alone win.
Wait... that happened...
Arguments about severance packages are wholly irrelevant for this discussion. Unless you're suggesting that a company would manufacture a layoff of many employees to rid themselves of one who attended an anti-G20 raly?
You've definately made a compelling argument about the rest of your case. But you do have to admit that there's a limit to the law. You can't expect the law to protect you when you voice your personal political or moral viewpoints in the workplace where typically that type of discussion is expressly prohibited. Unless there's direct relevance in your topic to your work, it's not bright or appropriate to indulge in it. There will be consequences if your views are out of whack with the herd. You've spoken, you've been heard, and you will be judged. The fact that you've drawn an analogy to this and and a deadly virus is disturbing, at best.
You've made no effort to address the person's ability to speak out anonymously without realistic possibility of being identified, even if his or her identity were pursued. Anonymous letters have found their way into the hands of influential people and groups for far longer than there have been blogs or message boards. The possibility exists for someone to present facts or opinion to people who can pursue them, so long as that person isn't inept or lazy.
Your CEO is told he has a criminal protester who may want to see the business fail (a la Unabomber stylee).You are sacked....
You sue the ever-living **** out of your former employer, upheld by your constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, and you retire on a beach of your choosing.
It seems likes there's a purposeful implication that the Adult Section of Craig's List is that it's meant to be for prostitution. It's not.
The Adult Section is just like any of hundreds of online and print services meant to match people of similar interests. It's like Match.com, or Cupid.com for people who really intend to get physical. Often these people do not want a relationship and desire only one time meet-ups. Obviously a desire to do so goes against some conventions, and success in looking for that can be difficult. But there's nothing at all illegal about it.
One might suggest that a purposefully misleading portrait of the Adult Section as an intended service to promote prostitution is an agenda to aid in policing morality. That would be extremely dangerous precedent for a State's AG to pursue.
Perfect. You've just provided absolute protection under the law for people who knowingly break the law. And you've contradicted yourself in the process.
Cop: "I beat that man because my Seargent told me that anyone that argues deserves it."
- Can't prosecute the cop. He just did what he was told.
By your reasoning, the heads of Blackwater Security could make it corporate policy for their agents to use deadly force in any and all conflict. And not one of the agents could ever be held accountable in US court.
Individuals have a choice to act, regardless of who tells them to do what. If they choose to break the law rather than confront someone preasuring them to commit a crime, then they are a coward or comfortable being a criminal.
Every person as the RESPONSIBILITY to do the right thing. Not the right to wiggle out of that responsibility through poorly implemented legislation.
How exactly can we have free speech, religion, assembly, etc. if we are not anonymous?
How, exactly, does one 'assemble' anonymously? I'd like to see you show up at the Republican National Convention in a ski mask.
You are protected by the Constitution to speak your mind regardless of your anonymity, or lack thereof.
I know the argument is a fear of reprisals for what you might have to say. But how far can anyone act on what you say without verification of the facts. You can claim crimes, or unethical behavior, or challenge the status quo, but without your name to back up your word, what you say can only carry limited weight.
If you feel strongly about what you have to say, then you will have to attach yourself to your statements personally in order to further your cause. Barring that, there are methods to speak anonymously if you really are that afraid to do so publicly. They just take a minimal amount of effort to accomplish rather than an ability to flippantly type whatever comes to mind and publish it with a click.
And that is not even addressing the appreciable (and growing) percentage of the population who find pleasure in anonymously derailing relatively civil and respectful debate by purposefully interjecting hot-button rhetoric. More and more there are those who believe little of their own diatribe, but who find it endlessly amusing to watch the reaction boiling over from it. Dropping their âprotectiveâ(TM) curtain would show the cowards for what they are, and much of their bile would cease.
Ah, yes. It's the "My brother was playing on my account! Honest!", defense.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I do see what you're saying, and it has some merit. But if they can narrow down a poster to an apartment building, they can probably further narrow it to a person in that building. It would depend on the particular case in question. But as a general rule....
I really didn't have anything too pleasant to report on my experience with mobile broadband. After a month I repackaged everything they sent me and mailed it back. I wouldn't recommend mobile broadband to anyone that wasnt,... mobile, and in need of a connection just about anywhere at any time.
First, I had very little success sharing a connection (and it was a violation of the TOS).
Second, I encountered what I believe to have been a queue system on the cell towers hosting the service. (I was using QWest.)
During the peak cell phone usage hours (around rush hours) I would consistently get disconnected. I could reconnect and stay connected with a completely clear signal, but get dumped again after a short time. This could happen as much as 4-6 times per hour, starting around 4pm and continuing to about 7pm. It happened in the mornings some, and on holidays like Christmas when everyone was calling home. The more saturated the tower became, the more I got dumped, and it wasnt signal lost or signal degredation. It was signal terminated.
When you're tunneling in through VPN's or using persistant services these types of disconnects can make what you're attempting to accomplish online nearly impossible. By the time you reconnect and get tunneled back into your services and get back to work you get dumped again.
To be fair, I was near a major interstate highway, and during the rush hours there were tens of thousands of cars. But really if it is billed as a stable and reliable service very little should cause your connection to terminate except unpredictable and rare environmental variables.
I would instead recommend you investigate both radio and microwave broadband if cable or dsl are not available. I've had much greater success with both (currently radio) than with mobile.
Nice list. Please point out the item from it that allows a would-be criminal access to information they couldn't get by driving down the street, or even taking their own pictures? Or am I to believe that you're refering to the subset of international crime geniuses who stake out the randomly chosen overseas houses to burgle based on Google Street View?
What leap of paranoia makes you believe for a second that the bulk of things on your list can be determined? Hell, at best if you see a deterent to commiting a crime (like a guard dog, or police patrol car, or bars on the windows of the house), it can only help you in discouraging a potential crime. Why would a criminal target a house that they believe has extra protections based on a Google photo? On the flip side of that, how can the absence of any of those items in a handful of photos over a few seconds span from as much as a year or more ago give even a molecule's worth of hope that the thing does not exist? My dogs surely don't sit in my front yard every moment of every day. And if you can photograph my.357 its because you're in my house and its pointed at you.
Seriously, you think you can get a rough floorplan? Or the ITEMS IN MY HOUSE? You might know where the front door or garage door is, but beyond that it's up for speculation. You sure as hell wont know the way the neighborhood watch program works, or anything about my lunatic Mrs. McNoseyNeighbor that's always poking her head in to the area's business. And if you're incorporating your protest of the street level views with those of the satelite views, I invite you to herd your neighbors together to shoo the satelite away.
Slashdot Mirror
But then you get to the level cap, and all your friends are at the level cap. So you want to do things with them. But end-game content requires such a time commitment - raiding, grinding for gold and items - that there's no reason to ever go back and experience the rest of the game in the same way. If you DO level another character, it's to fill a hole in your guild's roster (leveling a healer or tank, for example), and you tend to blaze through content because you already know the ropes and there's no reason to go back and make friends all over again.
That's a rather unfair generalization.
I would agree that there are definately those people who play the game as you describe. In fact, I'd say that in the past in other games it has been far more true (EverQuest, as an example). But WoW has broadened the market to a much larger audience, many of whom do not have the time or the inclination to live thier lives on a schedule prescribed by a guild.
There are now a huge number of people who thoroughly enjoy plodding along, aimlessly enjoying the sights and experiences with far less ambition to reach the level cap, let alone get a full set of tier'X' gear. My family and I are among them. We find it very satisfying the achieve what we achieve by our own methods in our own time, and what you or anyone else achieves by other playstyles is largely irrelevant to us.
You also mention community. I find that rather interesting, because I base a definition of community on my past experiences in games like EverQuest. At one time it would take a person months upon months of grinding and spending every spare second to approach the level cap. It was in a server population in the thousands rather than 10's or 100's of thousands of characters. If your reputation were to be tarnished, everyone recognized your name. You were a pariah. And in those games accomplishing nearly anything required a full group, so your ability to progress in the game was essentially terminated with that character. Starting over was painful because of the commitments of time.
Today in WoW, one can very casually reach cap level in a matter of weeks without ever grouping with anyone. That combined with the sheer volume of unique characters ensures near total anonymity. "Community", for the bulk of players, is wholly meaningless.
Back in the day my wife and I were integral parts of a huge raiding guild in EverQuest. We were an end-game guild raiding nightly. We realized that that particular playstyle was like a cancer in our enjoyment of the game. It became an obligation, as you mentioned. Which made it a job, and one that we came to resent.
I'd be interested in hearing what the longest period of time you've played a game is in terms of months or years it's kept your interest.
I used to buy games every 2-6 weeks. I'd purchase a game, get completely sucked in, play the hell out of it till I solved it, and shelve it for the next title. There are the odd few I pull back off the shelf for revisits about once a year (BF2, Starcraft, C&C, CivIV, etc.). But nothing has ever held my interest for periods of years like World of Warcraft, and Everquest before it.
There's truth in stating that MMO's are generally a repetitive process. Kill X, for Y, rinse, repeat and continue for the 'big' goodies. But I would pose a question: Is it worthy of consideration that the story offsets the repetitive experience?
The addictive nature of the game is certainly added to by the 'dangling carrot', and the next little reward that the player drives toward. But I find that the storylines are interesting and engaging, and the impact I have in them (albeit largely an illusion) combines for a more compelling experience. Isn't the ability to effectively tell interesting stories that collectively builds into a game-world with a rich and extensive lore as large a factor in labeling a title a "good game"?
Bottom line for me is that I can continue playing WoW discovering and exploring new storylines and learning more lore (while, admittedly, being a sucker for the dangling carrot as well), for years. Conversely I can be stimulated intellectually by only so many sessions of the same easily solved puzzle games, or headshots from botters and cheats.
So your stance is that this is a justified mechanism that can be employed in order for the government to make us safe?
Who keeps us safe from the government?
The point being that you are being asked to make a choice: 1) Be as safe as possible 2) Be free
I'm pretty sure there's a few people out there they would choose option 2) over option 1). I happen to be one of them, and I'm guessing our founding fathers were as well.
I would rather be free and take more risk in my daily life that I'd be harmed by those who want to harm my country, than be ashamed of what my country has become and in my safety in it bred of cowardice.
No, probable cause allows action/entry in the absence of a warrant. It is the mechanism that allows law enforcement and rescue personel the authority to enter ANY property if they have 'probable cause' to believe that a crime is in progress or there is imminent danger to people. It is specifically meant to prevent cops or rescue crews sitting on a doorstep twiddling their thumbs when they are pretty sure there's a bunch of crap going down inside.
Now what I don't know is what kind of crime this covers. I suspect it would not include how much RF interference my monitor is kicking off, unless of course it was scrambling all the transmissions from, say, an air traffic control tower.
Lay it to rest?
You proclaim yourself to be a person that has "disdain for government overstepping it's bounds...". Do you have some misguided hope that your government will stop overstepping its bounds when people stop threatening to stand up for their rights?
This "knuckle-dragger boast" is precisely the type of response we should have a bit more of. The people of the US need to start actually threatening to protect their rights, and protesting the intrusion of the government where it is not lawfully extended, and take some responsibilty for standing up and holding their government accountable for its actions. Maybe their government will realize they are not all sheep willing to buy off on the rhetoric and backroom bill edits to sneak in another law that removes their freedoms.
This system of government is meant to represent YOU. Do you feel its appropriate for your government to use obtuse interpretations of overly complicated and obscure laws to walk into your home at any time? Or do you think maybe you have the right to stand them up in your doorway and say NO.
I have teenagers bigger than me. And they still know that screwing with me is not in their best interest.
Yeah, maybe they could kick my ass if it came down to that. But that won't start their car that is supposed to take them to the date they are already late to. Only the sparkplugs I removed can do that....
I want my children to think for themselves, and gain as much experience about it as possible, while they're under my supervision, so when they're not, they can lead a life worth living.
I actually agree with this completely. What you've failed to outline in your ruleset is any form of supervision even as you've suggested it is necessary.
Letting your kid do anything he wants in a vaccuum of supervision pretty much gaurantees at least a few false conclusions on their part. Which is precisely why you create a structure in which you can observe the actions and conclusions of your child so that you can revise any false conclusions (or behaviors) they begin to develop.
Suggesting that a child should be allowed complete freedom to do "whatever the hell they want" suggest laziness on the part of the parent that borders on criminal.
Isn't that what raising a child should be all about?
Raising a child is about embracing them and teaching them so that they can grow to be decent, productive adults. That's not going to happen if you let them just do whatever the hell they want and hope to correct abhorent behavior later.
Can you give me an example of what governments can do to encourage parents to care about their kids' lives?
Hold the parent's responsible for the criminal acts of their minor children.
As soon as a parent can be thrown in the slammer for what their kid does due to lack of supervision, I bet there'd be at least more parents paying attention.
Obviously if the parent can show an on-going effort to be involved and having taken sufficient steps to prevent criminal behavior by the kid, then the courts would have the authority to make a judgement reflecting that. But there should be an open ability for the court to determine if a lack of parenting has produced the criminal behavior in the child.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not excusing parents from their responsibility to have to answer the above questions from their kid. Hey, nobody said parenting was easy. But I can at least understand a parent's desire to not have to go through this.
You can understand a parent's desire to avoid the hassle of parenting their child?
Look, it's pretty simple. If you are the parent it is your responsibility to take all the time that is required to know your child's level of maturity. It is your responsibility to observe the reaction of your child to a type of stimulus. It is your responsibility to know what they do with their time and money. It is your responsibility to verify that your rules are being followed, and to issue punishment when they arent.
If all this is too big a hassle, that probably should've been considered before you became a parent. Asking the state to accept your responsibility in your absence at the expense of responsible children and parents is not an intended function of the state.
If anything there should be a law that makes a parent liable for the actions of their child. If the hassle is managing the games you allow your kid(s) to play and how often they are allowed to play them, then how can you possible handle issues like depression, or violence, or crime, or drugs, or smoking, or sex?
So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.
And you're suggesting that without guns, abusive husbands and criminals won't exist? Or just that they won't have any other means to be abusive or commit crimes?
Taking the weapon from the hands of an asshole makes them no less an asshole. It just makes their weapon choice less predictable.
You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?
You're right. There are certainly kids out there that know more about computers than their parents. But if you're suggesting that the parents are too stupid to outsmart their kids then we're back to a serious problem with the parent's ability to parent.
First, don't allow your kid to sit in his room in private with a computer for hours at a time. You are the parent. Require the kid to use a computer in the office or living room where you know how its being used. Require the kid to spend time interacting with you and the rest of the family.
Second, lay down ground rules for appropriate use of the computer, and follow it up by learning how to enforce those rules. You are the parent. It should be worth it to you to take the limited time required to become educated on the matter.
Third, don't provide your kid with enough cash that they are able to go out and buy anything they want. You're the parent. They don't need to throw money around and if you allow it, it's because you're being lazy.
Fourth, verify the games they have and if new ones you havent approved are showing up then take them away. Destroy them. Ground the kid. Do what you have to do. You are the parent.
Treat the computer (or console) as a privelidge that the child must earn the right to use. If they abuse the system, or break the rules, the the computer (or console) is removed. Period. You can lock it up in a closet if that's what's needed. You can yank the harddrive. You can sell it.
If you can't succeed through these stages, then you have a much bigger problem than whether the kid sees a violent interactive video game...
This attitude that the State should protect your child from your lack of attentiveness just pisses me off.
You're applying your definition of the word moral then, and not one commonly applied.
A common application of 'moral' would be the distinction between right and wrong. Well, whose right, and whose wrong?
You might say that it is immoral to work on Sunday. You might say that it's immoral for a woman to have sex out of wedlock, or that it's immoral for a woman to wear a skirt that is higher than her knee, or that it's immoral for a man to be in the home of a woman without escort, or that it's immoral to ask for a woman's hand in marriage without first gaining the blessing of her father.
Now all that might seem completely outdated to you. But how do you outdate simple right and wrong? Put it in more modern terms. Maybe you consider it immoral for a man to be with a man. Or perhaps you believe it's immoral to perform an abortion.
The point being that the application of morality is a personal issue, and not relevant in the court. You have to decide what is and is not moral for you and try to live by it. But just because you may consider something immoral, it doesn't inherently mean that it is damaging to society, not matter how much -you- might belive it is.
Hell, in Boulder Colorado it is considered immoral to own a dog. There's a statute that states that you are instead considered the guardian of your dog. This is a perfect case of how a moral issue has crossed the line of appropriatness by being applied to legislation.
My mistake. I should have used the former section name. And there are no legal erotic services?
Stripping is legal. So are taking nude photos, or creating nude portraits, or writing erotic fiction.
The point being that there appears to be effort to define that former section as one that couldn't have served a purpose other than promoting illegal prostitution. That's not accurate. Allowing (or propogating) a misconception of the facts in order to further a moral crusade would be entirely out of line for a State's AG.
If your argument is that it is not a moral issue and that there is in fact harm brought to others, the onus is on you to prove evidence of harm or provide a victim.
I believe (but I'm not positive) that it is illegal to sign away your inalienable rights. You can sign away your rights to a piece of property, but not your inherent right to own property. You cannot sign away your right to life because it is an inherent right. So you have no authority to allow another to take it. Likewise, it is illegal for you to take your own life, although failed suicide attempts are rarely prosecuted. (And even less frequently are successful ones prosecuted...)
If you were to argue that legalized prostitution brings harm to a society as an objection to legalizing the practice, one could argue that illegal prostitution brings greater harm. Which in turn forces debate on whether to legislate the lesser of evils.
Morality is not a basis for the law. The law just happens to coincide with what the normal interpretation of moral behavior happens to be.
The law exist to enforce the rights of a person. Those rights are protected by the law. I can't take from you that which is not mine to take, whether that be your property, your freedom or your life. Everything stems from that, and morality is not a part of the equation. In fact it should remain specifically absent from the equation in order to protect both your rights and mine.
I can't murder you because that takes your rights away, not because it's wrong to kill (although the effect is the same). I can't steal from you, not because it's immoral, but rather because you have the right to maintain your property. But I can get drunk and smoke cigars while watching porn all I want because it doesn't impact you in the slightest, no matter how immoral you think it is.
I don't think the state should be involved at all. Your marital status should be irrelevant to the equation. You and your spouse are the two that should have the agreement on what is and what is not acceptable in your relationship, and your level of (or lack of) honesty and trust between you is your own issue. I have mixed emotions about the health issues involved, and how involved the state should be there. But suggesting that the customers be a matter of public record is, quite frankly, insane. You don't suggest that people who shop at liquor stores be a matter of public record. Or who buy cigarettes. Or who go to strip clubs, or who gamble in Vegas, or watch porn. Why would prostituion be any different? Because two people touch? There are laws specifically protecting privacy for a reason, so that the morality zealots can't ruin you because they disagree with you.
So by your reasoning, there's no way that a 79 year-old grandmother could possibly sue the multi-national empire of McDonalds because her coffee was too hot, let alone win.
Wait... that happened...
Arguments about severance packages are wholly irrelevant for this discussion. Unless you're suggesting that a company would manufacture a layoff of many employees to rid themselves of one who attended an anti-G20 raly?
You've definately made a compelling argument about the rest of your case. But you do have to admit that there's a limit to the law. You can't expect the law to protect you when you voice your personal political or moral viewpoints in the workplace where typically that type of discussion is expressly prohibited. Unless there's direct relevance in your topic to your work, it's not bright or appropriate to indulge in it. There will be consequences if your views are out of whack with the herd. You've spoken, you've been heard, and you will be judged. The fact that you've drawn an analogy to this and and a deadly virus is disturbing, at best.
You've made no effort to address the person's ability to speak out anonymously without realistic possibility of being identified, even if his or her identity were pursued. Anonymous letters have found their way into the hands of influential people and groups for far longer than there have been blogs or message boards. The possibility exists for someone to present facts or opinion to people who can pursue them, so long as that person isn't inept or lazy.
Your CEO is told he has a criminal protester who may want to see the business fail (a la Unabomber stylee).You are sacked....
You sue the ever-living **** out of your former employer, upheld by your constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, and you retire on a beach of your choosing.
It seems likes there's a purposeful implication that the Adult Section of Craig's List is that it's meant to be for prostitution. It's not.
The Adult Section is just like any of hundreds of online and print services meant to match people of similar interests. It's like Match.com, or Cupid.com for people who really intend to get physical. Often these people do not want a relationship and desire only one time meet-ups. Obviously a desire to do so goes against some conventions, and success in looking for that can be difficult. But there's nothing at all illegal about it.
One might suggest that a purposefully misleading portrait of the Adult Section as an intended service to promote prostitution is an agenda to aid in policing morality. That would be extremely dangerous precedent for a State's AG to pursue.
Perfect. You've just provided absolute protection under the law for people who knowingly break the law. And you've contradicted yourself in the process.
Cop: "I beat that man because my Seargent told me that anyone that argues deserves it."
- Can't prosecute the cop. He just did what he was told.
By your reasoning, the heads of Blackwater Security could make it corporate policy for their agents to use deadly force in any and all conflict. And not one of the agents could ever be held accountable in US court. Individuals have a choice to act, regardless of who tells them to do what. If they choose to break the law rather than confront someone preasuring them to commit a crime, then they are a coward or comfortable being a criminal.
Every person as the RESPONSIBILITY to do the right thing. Not the right to wiggle out of that responsibility through poorly implemented legislation.
How exactly can we have free speech, religion, assembly, etc. if we are not anonymous?
How, exactly, does one 'assemble' anonymously? I'd like to see you show up at the Republican National Convention in a ski mask.
You are protected by the Constitution to speak your mind regardless of your anonymity, or lack thereof.
I know the argument is a fear of reprisals for what you might have to say. But how far can anyone act on what you say without verification of the facts. You can claim crimes, or unethical behavior, or challenge the status quo, but without your name to back up your word, what you say can only carry limited weight.
If you feel strongly about what you have to say, then you will have to attach yourself to your statements personally in order to further your cause. Barring that, there are methods to speak anonymously if you really are that afraid to do so publicly. They just take a minimal amount of effort to accomplish rather than an ability to flippantly type whatever comes to mind and publish it with a click.
And that is not even addressing the appreciable (and growing) percentage of the population who find pleasure in anonymously derailing relatively civil and respectful debate by purposefully interjecting hot-button rhetoric. More and more there are those who believe little of their own diatribe, but who find it endlessly amusing to watch the reaction boiling over from it. Dropping their âprotectiveâ(TM) curtain would show the cowards for what they are, and much of their bile would cease.
Ah, yes. It's the "My brother was playing on my account! Honest!", defense.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I do see what you're saying, and it has some merit. But if they can narrow down a poster to an apartment building, they can probably further narrow it to a person in that building. It would depend on the particular case in question. But as a general rule....
I really didn't have anything too pleasant to report on my experience with mobile broadband. After a month I repackaged everything they sent me and mailed it back. I wouldn't recommend mobile broadband to anyone that wasnt, ... mobile, and in need of a connection just about anywhere at any time.
First, I had very little success sharing a connection (and it was a violation of the TOS).
Second, I encountered what I believe to have been a queue system on the cell towers hosting the service. (I was using QWest.)
During the peak cell phone usage hours (around rush hours) I would consistently get disconnected. I could reconnect and stay connected with a completely clear signal, but get dumped again after a short time. This could happen as much as 4-6 times per hour, starting around 4pm and continuing to about 7pm. It happened in the mornings some, and on holidays like Christmas when everyone was calling home. The more saturated the tower became, the more I got dumped, and it wasnt signal lost or signal degredation. It was signal terminated.
When you're tunneling in through VPN's or using persistant services these types of disconnects can make what you're attempting to accomplish online nearly impossible. By the time you reconnect and get tunneled back into your services and get back to work you get dumped again.
To be fair, I was near a major interstate highway, and during the rush hours there were tens of thousands of cars. But really if it is billed as a stable and reliable service very little should cause your connection to terminate except unpredictable and rare environmental variables.
I would instead recommend you investigate both radio and microwave broadband if cable or dsl are not available. I've had much greater success with both (currently radio) than with mobile.
Nice list. Please point out the item from it that allows a would-be criminal access to information they couldn't get by driving down the street, or even taking their own pictures? Or am I to believe that you're refering to the subset of international crime geniuses who stake out the randomly chosen overseas houses to burgle based on Google Street View?
.357 its because you're in my house and its pointed at you.
What leap of paranoia makes you believe for a second that the bulk of things on your list can be determined? Hell, at best if you see a deterent to commiting a crime (like a guard dog, or police patrol car, or bars on the windows of the house), it can only help you in discouraging a potential crime. Why would a criminal target a house that they believe has extra protections based on a Google photo? On the flip side of that, how can the absence of any of those items in a handful of photos over a few seconds span from as much as a year or more ago give even a molecule's worth of hope that the thing does not exist? My dogs surely don't sit in my front yard every moment of every day. And if you can photograph my
Seriously, you think you can get a rough floorplan? Or the ITEMS IN MY HOUSE? You might know where the front door or garage door is, but beyond that it's up for speculation. You sure as hell wont know the way the neighborhood watch program works, or anything about my lunatic Mrs. McNoseyNeighbor that's always poking her head in to the area's business. And if you're incorporating your protest of the street level views with those of the satelite views, I invite you to herd your neighbors together to shoo the satelite away.