I can remember the instant I became desensitized to violence. It was the scene in Robocop where the lead character is getting shot all to shit in the warehouse pre-transformation.
I was pretty advanced for a kid my age, so my parents had allowed me monitored access to media considered generally inappropriate for my age group. I usually ingested it just fine. I was really into sci-fi and was looking forward to seeing a movie about an ass kicking robot.
I nearly cried during that scene because I couldn't determine if that could happen without you passing out or dying. All the other violent scenes I had witnessed resulted in very quick deaths. The idea that the pain and damage could add up like that was a little too much.
This is where I majorly disagree. I think the blame for little johnny seeing a movie that gives him nightmares lies directly on the parents. It's not my job to make the world safe for anyone's kid.
I completely agree with you, so perhaps I mistated my point. I think that the purpose of this group should be to educate parents, not force more rating systems or standards down their throat. I want less rules, not more.
So, to solve this, do a find and replace on my post to change every occurrence of "Censor[ing,ship]" to "Effective censor[ing,ship]". In the end, it's frivolous semantics. I mean, doesn't it have the same net effect of actual bonafide censorship?
No, because the questionable content would still exist. It would also still be accesable, albiet a little less so. If the content were truly censored, it would not exist or could never be obtained.
I have no problem with ideas not being financially viable, but I do want the right to try them. And if the video game market gets anemic enough, a brave soul will put out content that some outlets won't sell - and the shit will fly off the shelves where it is sold.
I do have a problem with that same brave soul flat out not being allowed to even entertain the idea of creating that content for fear of persecution. That's censorship.
Even if you think it's semantic, it really isn't. As your argument hinges on some mythical content that as of yet does not exist. This non existent content has every avenue to come into being, and using some innovative new marketing techniques, could possibly be more profitable by not relying on traditional distribution methods.
A retail business can choose to sell whatever products it wants. If it creates a policy that doesn't allow them to sell certain items, that's there perogative. If they can weather the financial effects of that policy, good for them. I have a significant problem with telling a business what they can and cannot sell. The same problem I have with telling a person what they can and cannot create.
This isn't about what will be successful, it's about what will be denied the chance to be successful.
No chance to be succesful is being taken away. The opportunity is there, you just may have to use different methodology.
The thing about rudeness is that, while it doesn't really harm another person (except when your rudeness becomes instructional to young minds), it makes you look bad. People say that it's their right to be rude, and that's true - but that doesn't make it a requirement, and if people would catch themselves before randomly spouting profanity amid strangers, we'd all live in a much happier, friendlier society.
Oh good, I'm not the only one to look at it this way. I swear like a drunken sailor in front of my friends, because they know what ideas to insert into the swear word place holder. I try to be as articulate as possible in front of strangers not only so I don't offend them, which is an attempt to live in a friendlier environment, but so I can be sure I get my point across.
Semantics aside, yes, it is censorship because someone is determining what's acceptable content, and allowing only product that they deem 'appropriate' to be successful.
While I can see the points your trying to make, I must disagree with their classification. This is NOT censorship, this is an example of special interest groups abusing free market tactics.
Censorship, n : The act, process, or practice of censoring.
Nowhere in this idea is any material given the inalienable right to be commercially succesful. The material can still be made. I know it seems like I'm being nit picky here, but that's just because I want people to realize they are fighting on the wrong front.
Legislators have NO intention of creating a policy that could possible be deemed as censorship. Hillary's plan is meant to fail. It's real goal is to garner public and peer support for her presidential run. That's it. Tipper's move was the same thing. Once the religious nuts got a hold of it, they were the driving force, not Tipper. Tipper distanced herself away from that whole process, not wanting her husband to be associated with someone who disrupted free markets.
Look at the history books. In American history there has always been people screaming that the media is ruining the children, usually to gain enough attention and favor to accomplish some alterior goal. Yet, the media has increasingly produced more graphic violence, more frank sexuality, and more complexly disturbing themes. Music, TV, Movies - none of it has been censored, and the more violent and mature stuff has been increasingly more profitable.
The same thing will happen with games. Rock and Roll was once the tool of the devil, so much that churches boycotted radio stations and stores that sold or played it. Well, Rock and Roll has now mutated into so many aggressive offshoots I don't know where to start. I do know that it isn't gone or being censored.
If you really want to nip this in the bud, we need to get a credible lobbyist group together who are willing to force one point home, most video games are NOT for kids. Most movies, TV shows, and Music isn't either. This is a matter of correcting the PR and getting the public perception to align itself more correctly with the truth of the matter.
Even if the end results are essentially the same, you cannot prevent it if you're trying to stop it the wrong way. You don't put out grease fires with water.
I will have to agree with you on this until I can find the source that broke the demographics down to a more granular level. The age brackets in this are huge.
Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.
Self regulating content is not the same as outside regulation. If the Beasties wanted to stay true to their work, they wouldn't have changed a thing. The instant it affected their MONEY is when they made changes. This is not artstic integrity, and doesn't draw an ounce of sympathy from me. If you make a MARKETING decision that compromises your content for more sales, than so be it. But please don't try to confuse the issue with censorship, because it's not the same.
If there is a great enough demand for something, all the regulations in the world won't stop it from being provided for a considerable profit. Look at drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Illegal all over the place, regulated to the point of where you are not supposed to have access to them. Still readily available.
Putting a little sticker on your work means shit. Everything has a little sticker on it, no one cares. When Tipper pulled this it was kinda new, but after a little while no one paid attention to it anymore. In fact, it became a marketing tool on it's own.
It will regulate content, whether directly or indirectly. Consumer pressure will be enough to get adult-themed games off the shelves in mass retail shops, which means that no one will develop those games.
Sorry, it will only regulate content that isn't neccesary. If the creators of that content are not directly prevented from creating that content, then they are not censored. If they decide to change their content in order to sell more games, then they made a marketing decision that either compromised the original intent of the game or alludes to the content being a marketing tool in and of itself. If a Game or Movie or Song NEEDS the adult content because it's an integral part of it and the creator has intergrity, they will accept the loss in revenue for creating the work that they wanted.
"The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's"
Not true, you've got to shift that range lower considerably. A quick Google of video game market demographics will help you clear that up.
It did, and I'm still right. The major demographic IS NOT kids.
Legally, he can go purchase Scarface at a store. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, just like the ESRB. The difference is that many parents are not as aware of (~concerned about?) adult content in games as they are of adult content in movies.
Not true. But I do agree that the 18+ tag is a real stigma. If we could change the rating system to acknowledge the levels of each element in a game, I think we would be on the right track. Rate for Violence, Sexual Content, Language, and Adult Themes and you can then make decisions with more confidence.
I care quite a bit because I think this is an overreaching attempt to control what people do in their own homes.
RTFA. This does not attempt to control what people do in their own homes. This attempts to control the sale of questionable content to minors, that's it. The government isn't trying to regulate content. Joe Leiberman even stated this. Take the tinfoil hat off.
Another reason why I am very much opposed to it is because it is a waste of time and money.
This I can totally agree with, but that's politics for ya. Hillary is trying to garner conservative support for her presidential run. Joe did this before she did, and then it fell off the planet. Tipper too.
I could care less about this. This IS NOT censorship. You can make any game you want. You can sell your adult themed games to adults. If you think your child is mature enough to play a game that they cannot legally purchase, purchase it for them.
Let the FCC investigate the Hot Coffee incident. What are they going to suggest? That we get a new and improved rating system? Oh, NO! Not another rating system that childrens parents are going to ignore anyway. This problem wouldn't exist if people would raise their own children, which they don't do. So now Big Mother has to step in and do it for you.
The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's who grew up playing games and have disposable income. This demographic votes with their dollar and those votes are for violence and adult themes. Companies are catering to this. Maybe it is time for some harsher regulations on sales. A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?
Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.
I agree that this guy shady, what I don't agree with is the use of the term spammer. This guy is just using links to raise his sites popularity, which every single person in here is doing with either their sig or their homesite link.
The article you linked to is nothing more than an article showing you how to quickly find your rankings in the search engine. This could just as easily be applied to searching for competitors in a business sense. The article really doesn't have anything to do with spamming.
About this you're right. Something's driving him to submit all these Slashdot stories though, and if you're right about it being more than just backlinks, I'm guessing it's something to do with this duplication (after all the aggregated stories do link back to the originals and each mention the Beatles at least twice)...
These are RSS feeds from Slashdot, and this dude has no control over them. He gets a boost from the indexing of the slashdot front page by google and the PR boost from having it on the front page. These are things I will not deny. This is just basic SEO principles at work. That doesn't necessarily make it spamming.
Oh wait, so within the Google results you quoted, he's been making a positive (and Beatles-related) contribution to the Web? Did you even look at what you quoted?
Maybe I didn't communicate what I was saying clearly. If "I have the best beatles site in the world!" is the ONLY thing he posted and it was a link to the website, it would be spamming. I'm not saying the site isn't crap, it is, and I'm not saying the guy isn't shady. He's not spamming though. The link is unobtrusive to the content he posted here on slashdot, it's in his submitter tag. You actually have to go out of your way to find it. The effect it has on the google rankings only relates to the subject matter he applied it to, George Harrison. Because he screen scraped it doesn't make it any less relevant to someone who runs across it and may or may not find it informative. It is relative to the subject of the link, it is applied correctly.
Now, is the guy a scumbucket for screen scraping content? I don't know. He give links to the locations he took it from. The only difference from RSS feeds is that the content creator may not have wanted their content copied. Now, that is a big difference and one not to be trivialized. Yet, in the aspect of unoriginal content - RSS does the same thing. If I employ RSS feeds on my website, I am showing unoriginal content.
The problem as I see it is that search results are subjective. I may be looking for bit of information, and you may be looking for another related piece of information. There exists a decent probability that we may use the same query to find these two related, but different, bits of info. The end result is that one of us is going to percieve that the search results were incorrect. The reality of the matter is that one of our queries was inaccurate.
Now I'm no expert on search engine spamming, but is it not possible he's capitalising on this?
Your search is keyed on the term beatles and then qualifying with "mit wireless campus tracking users". The term in parenthesis is what's actually grabbing those search results, not the beatles guy. If you do a search for all the links to the site in his author tag, it only has one from slashdot. Now, he may be using slashdot to gain PR, but so is everyone who has a homepage in their profile. This guy isn't doing anything new.
In the search you posted, all you found was that guys author name. The link didn't pass with the aggregation on the results I sampled. This would result in NO gain for the site he was promoting.
Not true - he is a professional spammer
This I have to see proof of. I also think that the term spam needs a little clarification. If this guy goes to every message board on the planet and posts "I have the best beatles site in the world!" as the linking text to his website, and that is the ONLY thing he contributes - he is a spammer. If he contributes to the discussion at hand, helps answer a question, or submits decent content and then add's a link to his own site - he's not a spammer.
If his beatles website showed up for searches like "cure for cancer" or "AIDS vaccines" then he would be a spammer. But I haven't seen it. So far I have found that this site in particular shows up for George Harrison on the first page of google. Considering that's what the site is about, it seems ok.
That shit is hilarious. But google has been onto railing for a while now. Plus I think you'd have quite a fight for derailing the current rankings for miserable failure.
Google ranks sites at least partially (and primarily) by a method designed to determine the usefullness of a site based on links.
Sorry, but that's not the whole story.
If the guy had a link in his profile it would have more impact than the link in the article submission. And before someone says that spiders aren't logged as users so they don't see sigs or profiles, explain these results to me. Also, there is a qualifier for those links. The anchor text needs to be represented on not only the destination page, but the initial page also. I don't see beetles repeated anywhere other than his author tag. Now, if the article contained the word 'beetles' ten times you would have a point.
This is just people mouthing off about things they know nothing about, it's FUD. This guy isn't a spammer, in fact looking at these results, most of his links come from places OTHER than slashdot. Yeah, what a spammer.
Plus, this guy is ranks high for George Harrison in Google. Oh the humanity! Its not like this is what his website IS ACTUALLY ABOUT OR ANYTHING!
The content he submitted to slashdot is decent. The link he employed is accurate. The content on the page he linked to correlates with the link he provided. All in all, it's done correctly. What is the problem?
Your statement has affected me to remember a time when I did consider myself a buddhist, and often announced myself as such. This being the case, maybe I should clarify my perspective.
I understand that buddhists accept all attempts at enlightenment as valid, it was this aspect of buddhism that compelled me to quit applying that identifier to myself. I personally do not believe that all attempts at enlightenment are valid. I honestly believe that some attempts are fueled or supported by tenants that will ultimately result in one perceiving themselves as elightened, when the truth of the matter is that the enlightenment they percieve is false and self perpetuated. This self-dillusional enlightenment cannot be correct.
It is because of this that I take careful steps in not labeling myself as enlightened, nor do I proclaim that I am on the(a) path of enlightenment. Yet, my past does allow me particular insight into those who claim to be buddhist in some regard, but overstate it's influence in their life.
I do not deny that the person I criticize does exhibit behaviors that show buddhist influence, but it is another claim entirely to say you are a buddhist. According to your own statements, a buddhist does not criticize anothers methodology of applying buddhism to their lives. Yet, the poster I criticize does just that. You also state that as a buddhist one who does criticize anothers application is still considered buddhist, yet I am in need of correcting.
The situation exists as this. I, a non-buddhist, have criticised another person who considers themselves a buddhist. I have stated that they are not a buddhist. This statement has caused not only the person in question to respond with antagonism, but has lured another person seemingly educated on the subject to support that persons position without regarding how the tenents they defend also apply to me. It is this contradiction that is the fulcrum of my position.
If a person was truly a buddhist, and another person questions them - an enlightened person would disregard it. My belief in you being either a buddhist or having achieved enlightenment has no influence on the truth of the matter. If you are a buddhist nothing I say can change that. If you are enlightened no opinion of mine can make that untrue. The documented attempts at disproving me are actually exhibits in my case that the poster is not a buddhist.
My intent, which I believe has been misinterpreted, was not to prove myself right. I am also not interested in making someone else feel they are wrong. I was attempting to address what I feel are unproductive and false applications of the philosophy in terms of true enlightenment.
Are you a Zen Buddhist to prove to other people that you can masterbate in a temple with an Eastern interior decorator better than anyone else? Or to achieve enlightenment?
Where did I ever claim I was a buddhist? I claim that you sir are not a buddhist, and if you are - you're a really shitty one.
You claim to be a Zen Buddhist, yet you warp the teachings to coincide with what you believe them to be, that's not how it works my friend. If you want to go and behave in any way you want and then claim you subscribe to a well defined doctrine, you are no better than Jack claiming he's a christian.
Your interpretation is all well and good, you can create any splinter faction you want, but don't tarnish the reputation of those who truly strive for enlightenment by claiming your one of them. Your beliefs are in now way, shape, or form congruent with Zen Buddhist teachings. You have stated youu are a hedonist, that you hate, and have berated me for having an opposing opinion. That's real enlightened of you.
I see guys like you all day, variable definitions of things so they can never be wrong. Everything is up to interpretation because you actually understand nothing. You can't handle even the most simple of truths because it means you would have to change your approach to the world. Your complete lack of understanding of anything I have said proves that you know nothing of Zen or Buddhism. You may have cultivated your beliefs, but that lends them no credibility. You associate them with a an easily recognizable title so that others can marvel at your superiority. That fact is, you are not what you claim you are.
A possible alternate translation (and the one I choose to believe) is that unfulfilled desire is the root of all evil.
Have you even read any buddhist writings? It's called the center path - and is the only path to enlightenment. You say that you prefer a different translation to the Siddhuartha and believe that ignoring desire is the root of all evil. That's called being selfish and self centered. That is not enlightenment, that is a cop out.
Can you actually say you are a better person because you do whatever you want to do? Because that means you know nothing of restraint or sacrifice.
I don't believe that hatred and enlightenment are incompatible.
Let me appeal to your "Zen" more than the "Buddhism" with this quote:
Those who are good at fighting do not become angry. Those who are good at knighthood do not become overly militaristic. Those who are accustomed to defeating their enemies do not get involved. - Sun Tzu.
If hatred and enlightenment are not incompatable to you, that is because you are not enlightened.
Perhaps you meant violence and enlightenment are not incompatable.
putting so much emphasis on multiplayer online play and replay ability is in some ways actually hurting their bottom line.
This is a joke right? When games first took a turn to online play, they sold boatloads. No one buys SOCOM for the single player missions.
The truth is, some jerkoff gaming exec has decided that they should be charging more for games that are played longer (due to online or replayability) and his manner of spinning it to the higher ups is by saying it's affecting the bottom line.
Behavior like that will kill the gaming industry quicker than "sequel only" business plans.
As a Zen Buddhist I care nothing for his Christian morality.
Yes, I truly hate the man
I'm not quite sure you have the whole Zen Buddhism thing down. In fact, I would state that your behavior is spot on with Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who state that their religion is about peace yet spit out vulgar and hateful diatribes any time a person contradicts your viewpoint.
Basically I'm calling you a hippocrite. You're a title only Buddhist at best. Please quit subscribing to a religion because you like what you read on some candle from the Discovery Store. Your behavior does not lend itself someone trying to understand the four noble truths, and you definitely aren't anywhere close to the eight fold path.
I know I'm right.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about Buddhism. Second Noble truth ring a bell?
I hate to call you out like this, but there is a method to my madness. You are exhibiting the same exact behavior as Jack, just on the other side of the spectrum. You are actually creating more problems for the cause by providing ammo for the anti-game faction. Your childish behavior, your ad-hominem argument, and your obvious misunderstanding of your own (claimed) religion can easily be turned around as an example of the rabid behavior gamers exhibit.
The really sad part is now there are these damn geek posers out there.
I mean shit, if you have to fake being really intelligent with a hint of social distaste by purposely wearing things you think are the antithisis of style for the sole purpose of being "cool", you've really fucked up.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I was coming down with suicide earlier this week, then some hottie showed me her boobies and I was cured.
I can remember the instant I became desensitized to violence. It was the scene in Robocop where the lead character is getting shot all to shit in the warehouse pre-transformation.
I was pretty advanced for a kid my age, so my parents had allowed me monitored access to media considered generally inappropriate for my age group. I usually ingested it just fine. I was really into sci-fi and was looking forward to seeing a movie about an ass kicking robot.
I nearly cried during that scene because I couldn't determine if that could happen without you passing out or dying. All the other violent scenes I had witnessed resulted in very quick deaths. The idea that the pain and damage could add up like that was a little too much.
I'm so glad you posted this, because I was getting ready to ream this dry fellow a new one.
I usually only go through the history after someone proves to be a moron, I'll try this proactive approach from now on.
This is where I majorly disagree. I think the blame for little johnny seeing a movie that gives him nightmares lies directly on the parents. It's not my job to make the world safe for anyone's kid.
I completely agree with you, so perhaps I mistated my point. I think that the purpose of this group should be to educate parents, not force more rating systems or standards down their throat. I want less rules, not more.
So, to solve this, do a find and replace on my post to change every occurrence of "Censor[ing,ship]" to "Effective censor[ing,ship]". In the end, it's frivolous semantics. I mean, doesn't it have the same net effect of actual bonafide censorship?
No, because the questionable content would still exist. It would also still be accesable, albiet a little less so. If the content were truly censored, it would not exist or could never be obtained.
I have no problem with ideas not being financially viable, but I do want the right to try them. And if the video game market gets anemic enough, a brave soul will put out content that some outlets won't sell - and the shit will fly off the shelves where it is sold.
I do have a problem with that same brave soul flat out not being allowed to even entertain the idea of creating that content for fear of persecution. That's censorship.
Even if you think it's semantic, it really isn't. As your argument hinges on some mythical content that as of yet does not exist. This non existent content has every avenue to come into being, and using some innovative new marketing techniques, could possibly be more profitable by not relying on traditional distribution methods.
A retail business can choose to sell whatever products it wants. If it creates a policy that doesn't allow them to sell certain items, that's there perogative. If they can weather the financial effects of that policy, good for them. I have a significant problem with telling a business what they can and cannot sell. The same problem I have with telling a person what they can and cannot create.
This isn't about what will be successful, it's about what will be denied the chance to be successful.
No chance to be succesful is being taken away. The opportunity is there, you just may have to use different methodology.
The thing about rudeness is that, while it doesn't really harm another person (except when your rudeness becomes instructional to young minds), it makes you look bad. People say that it's their right to be rude, and that's true - but that doesn't make it a requirement, and if people would catch themselves before randomly spouting profanity amid strangers, we'd all live in a much happier, friendlier society.
Oh good, I'm not the only one to look at it this way. I swear like a drunken sailor in front of my friends, because they know what ideas to insert into the swear word place holder. I try to be as articulate as possible in front of strangers not only so I don't offend them, which is an attempt to live in a friendlier environment, but so I can be sure I get my point across.
That having been said, please prove how his belief in #1 is factually incorrect.
Your adhominem argument is weak.
Semantics aside, yes, it is censorship because someone is determining what's acceptable content, and allowing only product that they deem 'appropriate' to be successful.
While I can see the points your trying to make, I must disagree with their classification. This is NOT censorship, this is an example of special interest groups abusing free market tactics.
Censorship, n : The act, process, or practice of censoring.
Censoring, v : To examine and expurgate.
Nowhere in this idea is any material given the inalienable right to be commercially succesful. The material can still be made. I know it seems like I'm being nit picky here, but that's just because I want people to realize they are fighting on the wrong front.
Legislators have NO intention of creating a policy that could possible be deemed as censorship. Hillary's plan is meant to fail. It's real goal is to garner public and peer support for her presidential run. That's it. Tipper's move was the same thing. Once the religious nuts got a hold of it, they were the driving force, not Tipper. Tipper distanced herself away from that whole process, not wanting her husband to be associated with someone who disrupted free markets.
Look at the history books. In American history there has always been people screaming that the media is ruining the children, usually to gain enough attention and favor to accomplish some alterior goal. Yet, the media has increasingly produced more graphic violence, more frank sexuality, and more complexly disturbing themes. Music, TV, Movies - none of it has been censored, and the more violent and mature stuff has been increasingly more profitable.
The same thing will happen with games. Rock and Roll was once the tool of the devil, so much that churches boycotted radio stations and stores that sold or played it. Well, Rock and Roll has now mutated into so many aggressive offshoots I don't know where to start. I do know that it isn't gone or being censored.
If you really want to nip this in the bud, we need to get a credible lobbyist group together who are willing to force one point home, most video games are NOT for kids. Most movies, TV shows, and Music isn't either. This is a matter of correcting the PR and getting the public perception to align itself more correctly with the truth of the matter.
Even if the end results are essentially the same, you cannot prevent it if you're trying to stop it the wrong way. You don't put out grease fires with water.
I will have to agree with you on this until I can find the source that broke the demographics down to a more granular level. The age brackets in this are huge.
Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.
Self regulating content is not the same as outside regulation. If the Beasties wanted to stay true to their work, they wouldn't have changed a thing. The instant it affected their MONEY is when they made changes. This is not artstic integrity, and doesn't draw an ounce of sympathy from me. If you make a MARKETING decision that compromises your content for more sales, than so be it. But please don't try to confuse the issue with censorship, because it's not the same.
If there is a great enough demand for something, all the regulations in the world won't stop it from being provided for a considerable profit. Look at drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Illegal all over the place, regulated to the point of where you are not supposed to have access to them. Still readily available.
Putting a little sticker on your work means shit. Everything has a little sticker on it, no one cares. When Tipper pulled this it was kinda new, but after a little while no one paid attention to it anymore. In fact, it became a marketing tool on it's own.
It will regulate content, whether directly or indirectly. Consumer pressure will be enough to get adult-themed games off the shelves in mass retail shops, which means that no one will develop those games.
Sorry, it will only regulate content that isn't neccesary. If the creators of that content are not directly prevented from creating that content, then they are not censored. If they decide to change their content in order to sell more games, then they made a marketing decision that either compromised the original intent of the game or alludes to the content being a marketing tool in and of itself. If a Game or Movie or Song NEEDS the adult content because it's an integral part of it and the creator has intergrity, they will accept the loss in revenue for creating the work that they wanted.
"The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's"
Not true, you've got to shift that range lower considerably. A quick Google of video game market demographics will help you clear that up.
It did, and I'm still right. The major demographic IS NOT kids.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Legally, he can go purchase Scarface at a store. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, just like the ESRB. The difference is that many parents are not as aware of (~concerned about?) adult content in games as they are of adult content in movies.
I think you're correct about this.
Walmart sells beer but not violent games.
Not true. But I do agree that the 18+ tag is a real stigma. If we could change the rating system to acknowledge the levels of each element in a game, I think we would be on the right track. Rate for Violence, Sexual Content, Language, and Adult Themes and you can then make decisions with more confidence.
I care quite a bit because I think this is an overreaching attempt to control what people do in their own homes.
RTFA. This does not attempt to control what people do in their own homes. This attempts to control the sale of questionable content to minors, that's it. The government isn't trying to regulate content. Joe Leiberman even stated this. Take the tinfoil hat off.
Another reason why I am very much opposed to it is because it is a waste of time and money.
This I can totally agree with, but that's politics for ya. Hillary is trying to garner conservative support for her presidential run. Joe did this before she did, and then it fell off the planet. Tipper too.
I could care less about this. This IS NOT censorship. You can make any game you want. You can sell your adult themed games to adults. If you think your child is mature enough to play a game that they cannot legally purchase, purchase it for them.
Let the FCC investigate the Hot Coffee incident. What are they going to suggest? That we get a new and improved rating system? Oh, NO! Not another rating system that childrens parents are going to ignore anyway. This problem wouldn't exist if people would raise their own children, which they don't do. So now Big Mother has to step in and do it for you.
The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's who grew up playing games and have disposable income. This demographic votes with their dollar and those votes are for violence and adult themes. Companies are catering to this. Maybe it is time for some harsher regulations on sales. A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?
Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.
I agree that this guy shady, what I don't agree with is the use of the term spammer. This guy is just using links to raise his sites popularity, which every single person in here is doing with either their sig or their homesite link.
The article you linked to is nothing more than an article showing you how to quickly find your rankings in the search engine. This could just as easily be applied to searching for competitors in a business sense. The article really doesn't have anything to do with spamming.
About this you're right. Something's driving him to submit all these Slashdot stories though, and if you're right about it being more than just backlinks, I'm guessing it's something to do with this duplication (after all the aggregated stories do link back to the originals and each mention the Beatles at least twice)...
These are RSS feeds from Slashdot, and this dude has no control over them. He gets a boost from the indexing of the slashdot front page by google and the PR boost from having it on the front page. These are things I will not deny. This is just basic SEO principles at work. That doesn't necessarily make it spamming.
Oh wait, so within the Google results you quoted, he's been making a positive (and Beatles-related) contribution to the Web? Did you even look at what you quoted?
Maybe I didn't communicate what I was saying clearly. If "I have the best beatles site in the world!" is the ONLY thing he posted and it was a link to the website, it would be spamming. I'm not saying the site isn't crap, it is, and I'm not saying the guy isn't shady. He's not spamming though. The link is unobtrusive to the content he posted here on slashdot, it's in his submitter tag. You actually have to go out of your way to find it. The effect it has on the google rankings only relates to the subject matter he applied it to, George Harrison. Because he screen scraped it doesn't make it any less relevant to someone who runs across it and may or may not find it informative. It is relative to the subject of the link, it is applied correctly.
Now, is the guy a scumbucket for screen scraping content? I don't know. He give links to the locations he took it from. The only difference from RSS feeds is that the content creator may not have wanted their content copied. Now, that is a big difference and one not to be trivialized. Yet, in the aspect of unoriginal content - RSS does the same thing. If I employ RSS feeds on my website, I am showing unoriginal content.
The problem as I see it is that search results are subjective. I may be looking for bit of information, and you may be looking for another related piece of information. There exists a decent probability that we may use the same query to find these two related, but different, bits of info. The end result is that one of us is going to percieve that the search results were incorrect. The reality of the matter is that one of our queries was inaccurate.
Now I'm no expert on search engine spamming, but is it not possible he's capitalising on this?
Your search is keyed on the term beatles and then qualifying with "mit wireless campus tracking users". The term in parenthesis is what's actually grabbing those search results, not the beatles guy. If you do a search for all the links to the site in his author tag, it only has one from slashdot. Now, he may be using slashdot to gain PR, but so is everyone who has a homepage in their profile. This guy isn't doing anything new.
In the search you posted, all you found was that guys author name. The link didn't pass with the aggregation on the results I sampled. This would result in NO gain for the site he was promoting.
Not true - he is a professional spammer
This I have to see proof of. I also think that the term spam needs a little clarification. If this guy goes to every message board on the planet and posts "I have the best beatles site in the world!" as the linking text to his website, and that is the ONLY thing he contributes - he is a spammer. If he contributes to the discussion at hand, helps answer a question, or submits decent content and then add's a link to his own site - he's not a spammer.
If his beatles website showed up for searches like "cure for cancer" or "AIDS vaccines" then he would be a spammer. But I haven't seen it. So far I have found that this site in particular shows up for George Harrison on the first page of google. Considering that's what the site is about, it seems ok.
That shit is hilarious. But google has been onto railing for a while now. Plus I think you'd have quite a fight for derailing the current rankings for miserable failure.
Sorry. But /. is definitely NOT the experts on this. I believe the GNAA is leaps and bounds ahead of /. in this regard.
Google ranks sites at least partially (and primarily) by a method designed to determine the usefullness of a site based on links.
Sorry, but that's not the whole story.
If the guy had a link in his profile it would have more impact than the link in the article submission. And before someone says that spiders aren't logged as users so they don't see sigs or profiles, explain these results to me. Also, there is a qualifier for those links. The anchor text needs to be represented on not only the destination page, but the initial page also. I don't see beetles repeated anywhere other than his author tag. Now, if the article contained the word 'beetles' ten times you would have a point.
This is just people mouthing off about things they know nothing about, it's FUD. This guy isn't a spammer, in fact looking at these results, most of his links come from places OTHER than slashdot. Yeah, what a spammer.
Plus, this guy is ranks high for George Harrison in Google. Oh the humanity! Its not like this is what his website IS ACTUALLY ABOUT OR ANYTHING!
The content he submitted to slashdot is decent. The link he employed is accurate. The content on the page he linked to correlates with the link he provided. All in all, it's done correctly. What is the problem?
Probably because when they released New Coke to compete with Pepsi's growing market share beta wasn't an established buzzword.
Your statement has affected me to remember a time when I did consider myself a buddhist, and often announced myself as such. This being the case, maybe I should clarify my perspective.
I understand that buddhists accept all attempts at enlightenment as valid, it was this aspect of buddhism that compelled me to quit applying that identifier to myself. I personally do not believe that all attempts at enlightenment are valid. I honestly believe that some attempts are fueled or supported by tenants that will ultimately result in one perceiving themselves as elightened, when the truth of the matter is that the enlightenment they percieve is false and self perpetuated. This self-dillusional enlightenment cannot be correct.
It is because of this that I take careful steps in not labeling myself as enlightened, nor do I proclaim that I am on the(a) path of enlightenment. Yet, my past does allow me particular insight into those who claim to be buddhist in some regard, but overstate it's influence in their life.
I do not deny that the person I criticize does exhibit behaviors that show buddhist influence, but it is another claim entirely to say you are a buddhist. According to your own statements, a buddhist does not criticize anothers methodology of applying buddhism to their lives. Yet, the poster I criticize does just that. You also state that as a buddhist one who does criticize anothers application is still considered buddhist, yet I am in need of correcting.
The situation exists as this. I, a non-buddhist, have criticised another person who considers themselves a buddhist. I have stated that they are not a buddhist. This statement has caused not only the person in question to respond with antagonism, but has lured another person seemingly educated on the subject to support that persons position without regarding how the tenents they defend also apply to me. It is this contradiction that is the fulcrum of my position.
If a person was truly a buddhist, and another person questions them - an enlightened person would disregard it. My belief in you being either a buddhist or having achieved enlightenment has no influence on the truth of the matter. If you are a buddhist nothing I say can change that. If you are enlightened no opinion of mine can make that untrue. The documented attempts at disproving me are actually exhibits in my case that the poster is not a buddhist.
My intent, which I believe has been misinterpreted, was not to prove myself right. I am also not interested in making someone else feel they are wrong. I was attempting to address what I feel are unproductive and false applications of the philosophy in terms of true enlightenment.
Are you a Zen Buddhist to prove to other people that you can masterbate in a temple with an Eastern interior decorator better than anyone else? Or to achieve enlightenment?
Where did I ever claim I was a buddhist? I claim that you sir are not a buddhist, and if you are - you're a really shitty one.
You claim to be a Zen Buddhist, yet you warp the teachings to coincide with what you believe them to be, that's not how it works my friend. If you want to go and behave in any way you want and then claim you subscribe to a well defined doctrine, you are no better than Jack claiming he's a christian.
Your interpretation is all well and good, you can create any splinter faction you want, but don't tarnish the reputation of those who truly strive for enlightenment by claiming your one of them. Your beliefs are in now way, shape, or form congruent with Zen Buddhist teachings. You have stated youu are a hedonist, that you hate, and have berated me for having an opposing opinion. That's real enlightened of you.
I see guys like you all day, variable definitions of things so they can never be wrong. Everything is up to interpretation because you actually understand nothing. You can't handle even the most simple of truths because it means you would have to change your approach to the world. Your complete lack of understanding of anything I have said proves that you know nothing of Zen or Buddhism. You may have cultivated your beliefs, but that lends them no credibility. You associate them with a an easily recognizable title so that others can marvel at your superiority. That fact is, you are not what you claim you are.
Have you even read any buddhist writings? It's called the center path - and is the only path to enlightenment. You say that you prefer a different translation to the Siddhuartha and believe that ignoring desire is the root of all evil. That's called being selfish and self centered. That is not enlightenment, that is a cop out.
Can you actually say you are a better person because you do whatever you want to do? Because that means you know nothing of restraint or sacrifice.
I don't believe that hatred and enlightenment are incompatible.
Let me appeal to your "Zen" more than the "Buddhism" with this quote:
If hatred and enlightenment are not incompatable to you, that is because you are not enlightened.
Perhaps you meant violence and enlightenment are not incompatable.
putting so much emphasis on multiplayer online play and replay ability is in some ways actually hurting their bottom line.
This is a joke right? When games first took a turn to online play, they sold boatloads. No one buys SOCOM for the single player missions.
The truth is, some jerkoff gaming exec has decided that they should be charging more for games that are played longer (due to online or replayability) and his manner of spinning it to the higher ups is by saying it's affecting the bottom line.
Behavior like that will kill the gaming industry quicker than "sequel only" business plans.
As a Zen Buddhist I care nothing for his Christian morality.
Yes, I truly hate the man
I'm not quite sure you have the whole Zen Buddhism thing down. In fact, I would state that your behavior is spot on with Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who state that their religion is about peace yet spit out vulgar and hateful diatribes any time a person contradicts your viewpoint.
Basically I'm calling you a hippocrite. You're a title only Buddhist at best. Please quit subscribing to a religion because you like what you read on some candle from the Discovery Store. Your behavior does not lend itself someone trying to understand the four noble truths, and you definitely aren't anywhere close to the eight fold path.
I know I'm right.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about Buddhism. Second Noble truth ring a bell?
I hate to call you out like this, but there is a method to my madness. You are exhibiting the same exact behavior as Jack, just on the other side of the spectrum. You are actually creating more problems for the cause by providing ammo for the anti-game faction. Your childish behavior, your ad-hominem argument, and your obvious misunderstanding of your own (claimed) religion can easily be turned around as an example of the rabid behavior gamers exhibit.
Please quit helping, and get to a temple.
The really sad part is now there are these damn geek posers out there.
I mean shit, if you have to fake being really intelligent with a hint of social distaste by purposely wearing things you think are the antithisis of style for the sole purpose of being "cool", you've really fucked up.