It's not a straw man. The difference between MS Java and Dalvik is that Dalvik does not run Java bytecode or load Java class files. It is not a straw man, Java Bytecode is not part of the process. Dalvik is a clean-room implementation of many features that Java also has, and uses the language, but it does not purport to call itself Java.
The problem isn't that someone will see your naked body, it's that you are forced to allow them. You either allow someone to see you naked or get someone touching you inappropriately. Some people don't mind it, but the problem is simply the fact that it is forced. You should never be forced to allow someone to see you naked nor should you ever be forced to be touched against your will.
Interpretation is deciding what is meant by the words "freedom of speech". For example, is giving someone money speech? Is creating a flyer and handing it out speech? Is creating and disseminating a piece of art speech? Is a corporation giving money to a politician speech? Is a lobbyist giving money to a politician speech? Is libel speech? Slander? Is a book speech? How about a picture? a Statue? This random thing scribbled in crap on the wall of a cubicle?
The point is you can't decide what is "abridging the freedom of speech" if you do not know the meaning of what is the "freedom of speech". The term is not defined in the constitution. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the interpretation they used, it is definitely an interpretation to interpret that "protected" speech that is covered by the term "freedom of speech" does or does not include obscenity or what not.
The only exemption i believe is wrong is obscenity. I agree that libel and slander should not be protected. Granted, I do not always agree with others about what is considered to be libel or slander...
By the definition of "normal and healthy" you are making a sweeping generalization essentially claiming that anyone under the age of 25 is mentally disabled by saying their brain does not function properly. Note: mental disability does not remove your right to free speech.
As parent said, the actual majority of people "can not properly estimate risks, come to rational conclusions, etc." The point is that just because someone's brain is still maturing, still growing, does not make them stupid, does not make them mentally ill, does not make them disabled, and most importantly it does not remove their rights.
When people use age as an indicator, it usually means they are referencing the impact something will have on the future development (if you are still developing for the next 10 years, something traumatic will have a much more lasting effect than if you only have 2 years) and they are referencing the life experiences of the person. It's assumed that by a certain age, you should have gained a certain amount of knowledge to frame your experiences in so that you come to a certain understanding. For many people, this occurs faster as they mature faster and are intelligent enough to understand things at younger ages, for a large amount of people this occurs slower. The fact is 18 was arbitrarily decided long before any scientific brain development studies were done, it makes sense due to it being the age at which most people leave high school and are no longer required by law to be in school.
I know precisely what hypocrisy means. As many people have pointed it, it's hypocritical for the government to be able to ban nudity/sexuality yet unable to ban violence. Regardless if you believe they can or can't ban them, it's hypocritical to see it differently. This has nothing to do with making choices different than what I would make, it has to do with using logic.
Actually, the studies do not say they don't mature and/or function "properly" the studies just show that on average, the brain is still maturing until the age of 25. There is a difference between functioning properly and still maturing and growing.
Generally I see this usually used by the previous generation spouting "See, the new generation is just a bunch of idiots" because they disagree with them.
BTW I agree children don't have rights... only a fully-mature adult mind can handle, such as free speech, voting, sex, and so on.
Why is a "fully-mature adult mind" required for free speech? Voting is restricted by most state constitutions which is allowed because the constitution does not define the age. The same is true for age of consent laws. Free speech is defined that everyone has the right to free speech. There is no exception for children.
The Supreme court case regarding the school involved the fact that the speech that can be restricted must be disruptive and disorderly to the class and the other students. They still have free speech rights.
The idea that children don't have rights is patently absurd. They are people, they have rights. Some of those rights are restricted by the state based on age, but the rights afforded by the constitution still apply.
Everything mentioned has a well-known chance of obvious harm.
That's exactly my point. Video games do not meet that criteria.
Like Hustler?
Maybe I should have been more specific, if someone suggested that a book be banned for children due to violence, most would find it ridiculous. Imagine someone claiming that the bible should be illegal to be read by minors due to the violence in it? Or many of the classic fairy tales?
Since the courts take into consideration the ideas and goals of the people of the country and have thus upheld certain speech restrictions; and have repeatedly had to rule on new laws restricting speech, I disagree. Most people think censorship is good and needed... they just don't grasp that they're hypocrites and actually believe "only speech I don't like should be censored."
I agree with this completely. Most people do believe that speech they don't like should be censored and speech they do like shouldn't be. That doesn't make them correct, nor does it mean it's constitutional.
Why is it different with video games?
It's not. Movies are restricted through the voluntary ratings system which was, arguably, put in place to avoid government interference of the same.
Precisely my point. This law would have singled video games out as different when they are not.
Better yet, why don't you go make a game about raping small children.
If you fall afoul of child pornography laws, then it will obviously be seen as illegal regardless of being a video game. Unlike the california law, the laws outlawing child pornography make no distinction between mediums.
So because they're both harmful, and books are allowed, we shouldn't bother with games. Either your point is irrelevant or your logic is flawed.
If they're both harmful, why should one be allowed but the other not? If your only argument is based on possible harm, and they are equal, then you can't treat one differently than the other. Either you outlaw violent media in it's entirety for children or you don't at all. To single out video games specifically is hypocritical, at that point it's not the content you're objecting to it's the medium.
Unless you're actually trying to go around the bush and say violent video games are not harmful... Other than the scientific evidence published by the APA that I've quoted in this thread... you'd be absolutely right.
I'm going to quote the Supreme Court Majority Opinion on this one:
"The same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated 'E' (appropriate for all ages), or even when they view a picture of a gun."
"One study... found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in 'explo_e' with a 'd' (so that it reads 'explode') than with an 'r' ('explore').... The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest."
As you can see, the validity of these studies as any kind of lasting harm to a child is debatable.
Why would you expect your brain to work any differently for any other subject matter? If you are repeatedly shown violent images, you will become desensitized to them. They won't phase you at all. And anything that doesn't immediately strike you as odd or wrong is them more likely to be done by you while in a mood that precludes clear planning.
Why would you expect the different medium to change this phenomenon of desensitization? The same reactions occur whether they are watching a movie, rea
You have exemplified exactly what I'm talking about.
Would you consider it a sin to eat shellfish? To trim your beard? To wear multi-fabric clothing? Would you consider a women who has been raped to have sinned? How about eating pork?
All of the above are listed as laws in the Old Testament, do you follow them in addition to saying that homosexuality is a sin? If you don't also follow them, along with the other hundred or so laws in Leviticus, you are being hypocritical. If you don't follow them all, then you logically can't claim that someone else is "violating God's laws" unless you admit that you also do.
It's one thing to interpret differently, it's perfectly logical to understand that different people will interpret parts of the bible differently and have different viewpoints to what it means. The problem I have is that it's not logically consistent to insist that only some of the laws need to be followed (the ones you happen to agree with) and other laws do not need to be followed, when the only reasoning you have between what to follow or not is that you like it better. There's a disconnect in that someone who "picks and chooses" is simultaneously seeing the bible as the irrefutable word of God that should be followed and as something that is flawed and should not be followed. That's different from interpretation.
If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws?
Because extremists will use any form of failed logic to prop up their viewpoints.
If you admit that people who do that are using failed logic, then you are not the type of person I am speaking about. If you claim it is a history book, and understand that continuing to see it as a body of law is not logically consistent, then you agree with me.
If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking and choosing" bits and pieces that you want to follow because you agree with them, and then throwing away the bits and pieces you don't agree with.
I'm pretty sure the idea is that Jesus and the apostles set out new laws that overrode the old ones (though I'm 99.999% sure that the Ten Commandments still apply). If you believe it's entirely fiction (which, let's be honest, it looks like you do), than the "picking and choosing" bit makes sense, but if you at least believe in some truth value in the New Testament, the explanation is in there.
Considering there is no proof other than the book itself that any of the events spoken of actually occurred, it seems that logically it is a book of stories and parables designed to teach people. In that context I am fine with the bible's existence. I find that people who believe that the bible is entirely the literal history tend to be the extremists or at least have issues with logic considering that they fail to understand that the bible contradicts itself many times. Regardless whether it is fiction or a literal history, the question is how do people simultaneously claim that the New Testament eliminated the need for the laws of the Old Testament and that certain laws of the Old Testament have to still be followed. As mentioned before, it seems you do not share this disconnect and believe that the new laws override the old ones and the old ones are no longer applicable. We have no disagreement.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...
Who's the fundamentalist now?
How is it fundamentalism to ask for logical consistency? Logically you can't both claim that the bible is a body of laws to follow and that it is not a body of laws to follow except for some bits and pieces which are in fact laws that need to be followed. It's hypocritical.
If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking and choosing" bits and pieces that you want to follow because you agree with them, and then throwing away the bits and pieces you don't agree with.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...
I agree with you philosophically regarding property laws and the "imaginary idea" that the car is yours implying ownership. Yet physical property is not the same as intellectual "property" which is the point I'm trying to get across.
You can argue that copyright is the same thing, but it's not. Copyright is a set of laws that are governing a non-physical property. Something that essentially has zero cost for reproduction and that is non-mutually-exclusive, as one person's usage of the property does not deprive someone else's ability to use it. By its very nature these two things are not the same. Even though conceptually the idea of property is the same, as it is a law created by people upholding a claim of ownership rather than some inherent property of the universe, there is no comparison to be made regarding copyright and physical property laws. That is the point that I am trying to make.
gun licenses, driver's licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law,...
Now name something that is actually comparable to video games. Everything you mentioned has a serious change of either physical injury of themself or others, or financial injury of themself or others (possibility of law suits or other financial situations due to contract law and the like). If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children, most people would find the idea ridiculous. They would say that the parents should decide whether to allow the child to read the book or not. Why is it different with video games? There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.
How is it better than letting the parents decide? Seriously, I just don't understand why so many people want the government to decide for them what their children should be allowed to do.
You're right, just as the ban on violent games is unconstitutional so should the ban on pornography. If you can't prove harm (which has not been done for either) then there's no reason to censor it.
Putting the burden on parents to monitor their children at absolutely every instance of their lives just isn't practical
No, but putting the burden on parents to know what their children play, watch, and do (roughly) and be able to speak to their children about it in an honest fashion is completely practical. If your child watches pornography and/or plays violent video games and you have absolutely no idea, or the child would never admit it to you, then you have a problem. The problem is not the responsibility of the government, it's the responsibility of the parent. Why do you believe you need to monitor your child at absolutely every instance in order to "protect" them?
Slashdot Mirror
Spending time on storytelling is also time taken away from content
Uhm....storytelling is part of the content....
No one's deriving money from royalties—Apple is literally selling customers iPhones, and Microsoft is making OEMs license Windows.
Correction, Microsoft makes more money via royalties and patent licensing than it does from OEM licenses of Windows Phones.
It's not a straw man. The difference between MS Java and Dalvik is that Dalvik does not run Java bytecode or load Java class files. It is not a straw man, Java Bytecode is not part of the process. Dalvik is a clean-room implementation of many features that Java also has, and uses the language, but it does not purport to call itself Java.
Ask permission from what authors? We are discussing orphaned works. There is no rightsholder, no author, to ask.
I'd rather pay $20 for a very good and fleshed out replayable indie game, than $5 for an older AAA game.
Installing applications not from the Apple App Store.
Oh you silly trolls....
The problem isn't that someone will see your naked body, it's that you are forced to allow them. You either allow someone to see you naked or get someone touching you inappropriately. Some people don't mind it, but the problem is simply the fact that it is forced. You should never be forced to allow someone to see you naked nor should you ever be forced to be touched against your will.
Interpretation is deciding what is meant by the words "freedom of speech". For example, is giving someone money speech? Is creating a flyer and handing it out speech? Is creating and disseminating a piece of art speech? Is a corporation giving money to a politician speech? Is a lobbyist giving money to a politician speech? Is libel speech? Slander? Is a book speech? How about a picture? a Statue? This random thing scribbled in crap on the wall of a cubicle?
The point is you can't decide what is "abridging the freedom of speech" if you do not know the meaning of what is the "freedom of speech". The term is not defined in the constitution. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the interpretation they used, it is definitely an interpretation to interpret that "protected" speech that is covered by the term "freedom of speech" does or does not include obscenity or what not.
The only exemption i believe is wrong is obscenity. I agree that libel and slander should not be protected. Granted, I do not always agree with others about what is considered to be libel or slander...
This^
By the definition of "normal and healthy" you are making a sweeping generalization essentially claiming that anyone under the age of 25 is mentally disabled by saying their brain does not function properly. Note: mental disability does not remove your right to free speech.
As parent said, the actual majority of people "can not properly estimate risks, come to rational conclusions, etc." The point is that just because someone's brain is still maturing, still growing, does not make them stupid, does not make them mentally ill, does not make them disabled, and most importantly it does not remove their rights.
When people use age as an indicator, it usually means they are referencing the impact something will have on the future development (if you are still developing for the next 10 years, something traumatic will have a much more lasting effect than if you only have 2 years) and they are referencing the life experiences of the person. It's assumed that by a certain age, you should have gained a certain amount of knowledge to frame your experiences in so that you come to a certain understanding. For many people, this occurs faster as they mature faster and are intelligent enough to understand things at younger ages, for a large amount of people this occurs slower. The fact is 18 was arbitrarily decided long before any scientific brain development studies were done, it makes sense due to it being the age at which most people leave high school and are no longer required by law to be in school.
I know precisely what hypocrisy means. As many people have pointed it, it's hypocritical for the government to be able to ban nudity/sexuality yet unable to ban violence. Regardless if you believe they can or can't ban them, it's hypocritical to see it differently. This has nothing to do with making choices different than what I would make, it has to do with using logic.
The hypocrisy is in choosing what is good or bad.
Actually, the studies do not say they don't mature and/or function "properly" the studies just show that on average, the brain is still maturing until the age of 25. There is a difference between functioning properly and still maturing and growing.
Generally I see this usually used by the previous generation spouting "See, the new generation is just a bunch of idiots" because they disagree with them.
BTW I agree children don't have rights ... only a fully-mature adult mind can handle, such as free speech, voting, sex, and so on.
Why is a "fully-mature adult mind" required for free speech? Voting is restricted by most state constitutions which is allowed because the constitution does not define the age. The same is true for age of consent laws. Free speech is defined that everyone has the right to free speech. There is no exception for children.
The Supreme court case regarding the school involved the fact that the speech that can be restricted must be disruptive and disorderly to the class and the other students. They still have free speech rights.
The idea that children don't have rights is patently absurd. They are people, they have rights. Some of those rights are restricted by the state based on age, but the rights afforded by the constitution still apply.
Everything mentioned has a well-known chance of obvious harm.
That's exactly my point. Video games do not meet that criteria.
Like Hustler?
Maybe I should have been more specific, if someone suggested that a book be banned for children due to violence, most would find it ridiculous. Imagine someone claiming that the bible should be illegal to be read by minors due to the violence in it? Or many of the classic fairy tales?
Since the courts take into consideration the ideas and goals of the people of the country and have thus upheld certain speech restrictions; and have repeatedly had to rule on new laws restricting speech, I disagree. Most people think censorship is good and needed... they just don't grasp that they're hypocrites and actually believe "only speech I don't like should be censored."
I agree with this completely. Most people do believe that speech they don't like should be censored and speech they do like shouldn't be. That doesn't make them correct, nor does it mean it's constitutional.
It's not. Movies are restricted through the voluntary ratings system which was, arguably, put in place to avoid government interference of the same.
Precisely my point. This law would have singled video games out as different when they are not.
Better yet, why don't you go make a game about raping small children.
If you fall afoul of child pornography laws, then it will obviously be seen as illegal regardless of being a video game. Unlike the california law, the laws outlawing child pornography make no distinction between mediums.
So because they're both harmful, and books are allowed, we shouldn't bother with games. Either your point is irrelevant or your logic is flawed.
If they're both harmful, why should one be allowed but the other not? If your only argument is based on possible harm, and they are equal, then you can't treat one differently than the other. Either you outlaw violent media in it's entirety for children or you don't at all. To single out video games specifically is hypocritical, at that point it's not the content you're objecting to it's the medium.
Unless you're actually trying to go around the bush and say violent video games are not harmful... Other than the scientific evidence published by the APA that I've quoted in this thread... you'd be absolutely right.
I'm going to quote the Supreme Court Majority Opinion on this one:
"The same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated 'E' (appropriate for all ages), or even when they view a picture of a gun."
"One study ... found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in 'explo_e' with a 'd' (so that it reads 'explode') than with an 'r' ('explore'). ... The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest."
As you can see, the validity of these studies as any kind of lasting harm to a child is debatable.
Why would you expect your brain to work any differently for any other subject matter? If you are repeatedly shown violent images, you will become desensitized to them. They won't phase you at all. And anything that doesn't immediately strike you as odd or wrong is them more likely to be done by you while in a mood that precludes clear planning.
Why would you expect the different medium to change this phenomenon of desensitization? The same reactions occur whether they are watching a movie, rea
You have exemplified exactly what I'm talking about.
Would you consider it a sin to eat shellfish? To trim your beard? To wear multi-fabric clothing? Would you consider a women who has been raped to have sinned? How about eating pork?
All of the above are listed as laws in the Old Testament, do you follow them in addition to saying that homosexuality is a sin? If you don't also follow them, along with the other hundred or so laws in Leviticus, you are being hypocritical. If you don't follow them all, then you logically can't claim that someone else is "violating God's laws" unless you admit that you also do.
It's one thing to interpret differently, it's perfectly logical to understand that different people will interpret parts of the bible differently and have different viewpoints to what it means. The problem I have is that it's not logically consistent to insist that only some of the laws need to be followed (the ones you happen to agree with) and other laws do not need to be followed, when the only reasoning you have between what to follow or not is that you like it better. There's a disconnect in that someone who "picks and chooses" is simultaneously seeing the bible as the irrefutable word of God that should be followed and as something that is flawed and should not be followed. That's different from interpretation.
Because extremists will use any form of failed logic to prop up their viewpoints.
If you admit that people who do that are using failed logic, then you are not the type of person I am speaking about. If you claim it is a history book, and understand that continuing to see it as a body of law is not logically consistent, then you agree with me.
I'm pretty sure the idea is that Jesus and the apostles set out new laws that overrode the old ones (though I'm 99.999% sure that the Ten Commandments still apply). If you believe it's entirely fiction (which, let's be honest, it looks like you do), than the "picking and choosing" bit makes sense, but if you at least believe in some truth value in the New Testament, the explanation is in there.
Considering there is no proof other than the book itself that any of the events spoken of actually occurred, it seems that logically it is a book of stories and parables designed to teach people. In that context I am fine with the bible's existence. I find that people who believe that the bible is entirely the literal history tend to be the extremists or at least have issues with logic considering that they fail to understand that the bible contradicts itself many times. Regardless whether it is fiction or a literal history, the question is how do people simultaneously claim that the New Testament eliminated the need for the laws of the Old Testament and that certain laws of the Old Testament have to still be followed. As mentioned before, it seems you do not share this disconnect and believe that the new laws override the old ones and the old ones are no longer applicable. We have no disagreement.
Who's the fundamentalist now?
How is it fundamentalism to ask for logical consistency? Logically you can't both claim that the bible is a body of laws to follow and that it is not a body of laws to follow except for some bits and pieces which are in fact laws that need to be followed. It's hypocritical.
Question:
If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking and choosing" bits and pieces that you want to follow because you agree with them, and then throwing away the bits and pieces you don't agree with.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...
I agree with you philosophically regarding property laws and the "imaginary idea" that the car is yours implying ownership. Yet physical property is not the same as intellectual "property" which is the point I'm trying to get across.
You can argue that copyright is the same thing, but it's not. Copyright is a set of laws that are governing a non-physical property. Something that essentially has zero cost for reproduction and that is non-mutually-exclusive, as one person's usage of the property does not deprive someone else's ability to use it. By its very nature these two things are not the same. Even though conceptually the idea of property is the same, as it is a law created by people upholding a claim of ownership rather than some inherent property of the universe, there is no comparison to be made regarding copyright and physical property laws. That is the point that I am trying to make.
gun licenses, driver's licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law,...
Now name something that is actually comparable to video games. Everything you mentioned has a serious change of either physical injury of themself or others, or financial injury of themself or others (possibility of law suits or other financial situations due to contract law and the like). If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children, most people would find the idea ridiculous. They would say that the parents should decide whether to allow the child to read the book or not. Why is it different with video games? There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.
How is it better than letting the parents decide? Seriously, I just don't understand why so many people want the government to decide for them what their children should be allowed to do.
You're right, just as the ban on violent games is unconstitutional so should the ban on pornography. If you can't prove harm (which has not been done for either) then there's no reason to censor it.
Putting the burden on parents to monitor their children at absolutely every instance of their lives just isn't practical
No, but putting the burden on parents to know what their children play, watch, and do (roughly) and be able to speak to their children about it in an honest fashion is completely practical. If your child watches pornography and/or plays violent video games and you have absolutely no idea, or the child would never admit it to you, then you have a problem. The problem is not the responsibility of the government, it's the responsibility of the parent. Why do you believe you need to monitor your child at absolutely every instance in order to "protect" them?
starting by differentiating the ban on pornography with the ban on violent video games.
You're completely right, there shouldn't be a ban on pornography either.
It's not against the law for a 14 year old to buy tickets to an R-Rated movie, it's the policy of the theatre.