Also, if you've been denied credit or employment based on information from your credit report, you are entitled to a free copy of the report from the reporting company the card provider/employer used.
I like to check mine regularly, but these "freebies" are nothing of the sort. Technically, you get a freebie if you are turned down credit or whatnot, but good luck figuring out how to get this freebie. These companies are very sneaky about hiding this stuff and they do not make it easy. My wife had an erroneous negative report on her credit and we had our credit applications denied a couple times because of it. I never did figure out how to get a freebie for that and ended up shelling out the $8 just to see what it was. When someone else's fuck-up costs me money, there is something wrong.
I think if these kinds of credit bureaus are going to hold so much highly personal information and that information has so much influence on your life and credit, then they need to be more strictly regulated by the government. I would like to see getting these kinds of free reports due to denial of credit or employment made painfully obvious. I don't understand why the company checking your credit shouldn't have to send you a copy of what they received. That would be the simplest way to go...you get your letter of denial along with a printout of your credit report. Couldn't be easier.
It's amazing how fucked up these bureaus are when you consider how much power they hold. This security issue is just another problem, as far as I'm concerned. Erroneous reports, bad service, indifference to problems, etc. are all issues. The first politician who utters the phrase "credit reporting reform" gets my vote in a heartbeat.
This wouldn't be a problem if Canadians would stop pretending to be Europeans!;^)
(I'm not trying to bait you--I have lots of Canadian friends and give them a hard time about that.)
I agree with you, BTW. Apple shouldn't make their "North American English" so U.S.-centric. The good thing is that they seem far more receptive to consumer comments nowadays than they ever have. I'll bet it would be worth your time to submit this suggestion to them. Apple has made no secret of the fact that they take great pride in the international capabilities of the Mac OS. It could very well be that not many people at Apple realize that Canadians incorporate so many British-isms into their parlance. I live near the border so it's obvious to me, but maybe it's not to a company much further away.
You know, despite the fact that most geeks are not fans of Satan... er, Celine Dion, a lot of us are married to non-geek females who are. My wife knows almost nothing about computers except how to turn ours on, browse the net, email, etc. The idea that she might go out and buy one of these @#$%&* CDs and come home and unwittingly screw something up while I'm not around makes me a little nervous. I mean, I can tell her about CDs, but what's next?
You left out the ", Horatio," bit. Everyone does, though.
I was wondering if someone would catch that. Actually, I did that purposefully (thus the "quotes/sayings" bit in my post.) Many of Shakespeare's quotes are altered into more generalized sayings like this, i.e. the reference to Horatio is unnecessary to understand the gist.
I'm trying to think of a few other examples, but none come immediately to mind. I know there are other instances where quotes of his were altered to become common sayings.
BTW, each of Shakespeare's work had an impact on literature that was akin to the impact of a strangelet on the surface of the earth. Just wanted to steer this back on topic.;^)
That's funny because one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes/sayings came to mind while reading this (and yes, I have favorite Shakespeare quotes.) This one's rather well known since it's from Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I keep seeing this comment about how parents are the ones who have to take on this responsibility. Fine by me. As a parent, I embrace that responsibility wholeheartedly. I play my share of violent games and know what's out there. I keep those games locked in my file cabinet. I don't want my child being exposed to it.
However, the video game industry does a shitty job of providing me with the information I need as a buyer. Businesses that use video games in public places to generate profit or as demos (theaters, toy stores, electronic shops, arcades) need to do a better job of keeping violent games out of the reach and view of smaller children. I don't see that happening. Not at all.
Instead, I see people being gunned down gorily on a game demo at Toys R Us or Circuit City. I see ultra violent games like House of the Dead 2 on public display at my local Regal Cinemas. Complaining about these things does nothing. I've tried. I even talked to the guy at the corporate offices of Regal about it and got nowhere.
As usual, the people making money are not listening.
I recently picked up a game for my child (who is six and absolutely in love with video games.) It was rated E. Everybody, right? The game featured some surprising acts of violence and a lot of punching, kicking, fighting, none of which was indicated on the box. Furthermore, the freakin' game was based on a children's cartoon. I was given none of this information before the purchase. I tried to return the game and was told that, since it was opened, it could not be returned.
These kinds of policies are inexcuseable and effectively erode my ability as a parent to act in the responsible manner that so many others say I should. If retailers and game developers don't get off their thumbs and get something worked out, there will be growing support for this kind of legislation, and all the pissing and moaning on Slashdot about Big Brother and our rights being trampled will count for zilch.
The MSNBC article mentions that game companies realize they are not doing enough. I hope they act on that soon because as it stands, I am NOT on their side of this issue.
It's the same with video games: I used to be a video game addict when I was younger.
I thought the underlying issue was realistic violence in video games. Damn, I think the most violent thing I played back in my day was Pac-Man. Or no, wait. That part where Donkey Kong gets the girders pulled out from under him and falls on his head... brrr.
Don't even get me started on Wizard of Wor. Yikes. Nothing creepier than seeing a jagged one-color monster run over your player. It almost looks like the monster bites him... sorta....
If you watch a performance of Oedipus [...] Phaedra [...] Europa [...]Orestes
I could take these comments more seriously if you weren't citing them in a context where they are being compared to video games. It would suggest that you think there is equal redeeming intellectual and artistic quality between these works and, say, Quake 3?
I love seeing you Slashdot drama geeks shit digital bricks over this issue. It exposes some interesting double-standards. I don't see daily tirades on Slashdot over keeping kids away from violent movies or alcohol or sexual content in various mediums.
But say the same about video games... and gosh, the pocket protector is off now, buddy! Suddenly it's an affront on my rights and your rights and his and her rights and it's the coming of the Big Brother state and it's just like censoring classical works of literature. Yeah, just like it. See how the shambling zombies explode into a beautifully rendered 64-bit oblivion of burning intestines and scorched flesh and how he collapses into a sloshing, frothy spray of his own blood and bodily fluids? Taking that away from a kid is just like saying, "No, you can't read that play by Sophocles!"
Don't get me wrong. If I had to pick between Real, QT, and Windows Media, I'd take Windows Media.
Why? If you object to MS, why give in to their products so easily?
QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.
That's the price you pay if you want to steer clear of MS (at least for now.) As long as none of these things are doing harmful activities on your machine, I can't see what the big deal is. Yeah, they nag you. So does your mother.;^P
It any case, QT is what, $30? That's not bad especially when you look at all the extras you get when you pay. Oh, but the incessant cries of outrage follow those kinds of statements.
BUT I WANT IT FREEEEEEEEEE AND IT HAS TO BE CONVEEEEENIENT AND MICROSOFT IS FREEEEEEEEEE AND CONVEEEEENIENT!!!!
MS is like the local drug dealer... gives you the good stuff quick, but just enough to get your addicted. Eventually you'll be paying the big bucks for it and you'll notice the damage only when it's too late. So, pay the piddly-ass $30 of whatever for another media player and get over it. You'll be paying eventually... one way or the other. You may as well ensure that your cash goes to support someone/something who is tolerable.
Besides that, there are known tricks for getting around some of those problems, not all of them illegal either.
But all of these costs/expenses existed before CDs were around.
And in many cases, the recording industry owns or is working with studios to keep the costs of studio time high. A label will give new bands an advance to cover studio time, gear, living expenses, etc. However, the labels have things rigged so that all of that gets sapped very quickly and the band ends up touring just to pay off their debt to the recording label while their royalties get eaten up by further debt and ongoing expenses. These recording labels like to keep their young artists in serious debt.
Why do you think we've heard so little outcry from the artists about all this? They know what sort of screw-job the recording industry is pulling here and I suspect that many of them would love to see a new business model unseat the old.
--Rick
Why do these industries refuse to compete?
on
Reason Magazine on DRM
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that people are so eager to pirate music online because of the ludicrously high prices of CDs. It's something of a consumer revolt. When CDs were first introduced, I remember hearing how cheap they were to produce and how someday they would be half the price of cassettes and LPs!
Yeah... garsh, and I believed it too.
No, instead what's happened is that the same product has been steadily creeping up in price to the point where it no longer makes sense to buy it. I stopped buying large quantities of CDs around 1995 or so, around the time they hit the $16-18 range.
So, nowadays, on the rare occasion that I walk into my local music store and see $20+ CDs, I laugh to myself. Very few artists can pull that kind of cash out of my wallet anymore (Pink Floyd, Rush, Bill Hicks... to name a few.) I have better things to spend my money on.
It makes me wonder. Why... why do content companies refuse to compete? Technology (specifically home computing) has become a formidable new source of competition for them and instead of leaping at the opportunity to compete, to take on this new challenge, they turn to bullying tactics (destroying Napter) and draconian, self-serving laws (DMCA, SSSCA, etc.)
I wouldn't pay $20 for a CD. However, I might pay $20 for a CD if it came with not just one CD of music, but maybe another CD of studio outtakes and/or alternate mixes. How about a multimedia CD that plays movies on your computer, maybe short documentaries filmed during the making of the album (nothing fancy, just an insider's view like what Pink Floyd did on Live At Pompeii), interviews with the band about the album, maybe even a live performance played in the studio for the benefit of CD buyers? How about beefing up the standard CD into something worth my $20?
After all, they are so cheap to produce... right? If the media is so cheap, give me content worth buying, you content providers!
For that very reason, I am more willing to buy a DVD than a CD. In fact, I've bought more of the former than the latter in the last year. I find all the outtakes and artist commentary and extras make the high price tag a little more reasonable. Plus, I see multiple DVD sets being sold for more-or-less the same price.
Hell, why not release an album on DVD, including all this music along with tons of extra goodies and content? Maybe a nice booklet with the CD (no cheap crap either... more like the high quality booklet that came with Pink Floyd's Pulse.) I would consider going back to spending money on CDs again. Not only would it make it worth my money, but the sheer quantity and variety of content would make it considerably more difficult to pirate this stuff over any medium.
If these so-called content providers (who, as far as I can tell, want to provide nothing of the sort) would try to compete, they might find that we can all get along. If they want to hide behind stupid laws that serve only to validate their own ignorance, then I say fuck them and their overpriced CDs.
My only regret is that the artists, who deserve the money, will get screwed in all this. Then again, given the sort of sleazy business ethics under which most content providers work, I'm sure artists are familiar with that feeling already.
This just strikes me as more of the predictable political stances we've come to expect over the last two decades or so. Let's see... a Republican president/administration voicing concern about a bill that is headed up by a Democrat.
I don't give any single politician points for standing on principle here or an iota of credibility. IMO, it's more of the standard attitude, that "it's coming from the other guys so we're suspicious of it" posturing that is so typical.
Just be thankful for now that a Democrat is the one behind this bill (gah... never thought I'd hear myself say that!) If this were a bill being pushed by a Republican, we'd be in deep shit right now.
I couldn't agree more with your level-headed assessment. We Americans need to re-evaluate what we want of our government. It seems that many of us want it both ways. "Get the info you need to protect us so we can stay cozy and fat and safe, but don't do anything in secret 'cause we're just not comfy with that."
I often wonder what the public outcry would have been if the CIA had managed to nail the Sept. 11 hijackers and head off the events that happened that day. Of course, it's only a guess, but I bet the outcry against our evil government persecuting innocent Arabs would have been tremendous and the notion that these guys were going to bring down the mightiest buildings in the U.S. would have been scoffed at endlessly. I'll bet the prevailing attitude would have been that our nasty government is using this laughable story about attacks on the WTC as a cover for persecuting these innocent guys.
Yeah, but let's stop the CIA from looking into the activities of such trustworthy countries like China, countries who have proven time and time again that they value human life so much and that they have no desire to exert their power over others. Let's just leave them alone because, after all, this laughable stuff about "hacking attacks" is just a cover for our evil government to go after otherwise innocent people.
I never say forcibly, but it is fairly obvious that freedom of speech does not mean only that you can say whatever you want, if it do it in a government-designated sound-proof room.
Can you cite some examples of what you mean. I don't understand this statement at all.
Just dont go to places you disagree with.
Precisely! I don't want my daughter to be exposed to alcohol or cigarettes and loud music and swearing, therefore I don't take her to bars. I don't want her exposed to sexually explicit behavior so I don't take her to live sex shows or strip clubs. I don't want her exposed to violent or sexual imagery in films so I don't take her to R-rated movies. The current problem with violent video games is that there are no restrictions imposed on them where and when they can be on public display--unlike the things I've mentioned previously. Why is everyone so up-in-arms over what is clearly a double-standard? Is it because video games are such a regular part of your daily life that you feel any changes imposed on them would "hit too close to home"? They're part of my daily life too, but my principles do not change on a whim because it would be an inconvenience to me. You should re-examine your thinking on this.
That's what capitalism is about.
No, it isn't. Capitalism has nothing to do with protecting someone's perceived right to put offensive or objectionable material in a public place.
The government shouldnt be made to interfere with business because pissy reality-controllers dont want fiction to exist in front of the eyes of their poor innocent offspring.
Nobody is trying to "control reality." What I think is reasonable is to expect violent video games to be not on public display. They should be restricted to arcades and possibly placed in adult subsections within arcades. That's not unreasonable at all and perfectly analogous to how society handles similarly objectionable material in films, music, and other forms of media. I don't understand this overreaction to such a reasonable notion.
Your communication skills are poor. I'm assuming you're not a troll, but very little of what you're saying makes any coherent sense. I'll try to address the few points you successfully make, but it just sounds to me like you're some angry little kid who has come here to spout off.
Religious hypocrites are a dime a dozen.
I didn't say I was religious. I'm not. I get the sense that you didn't read what I was saying very carefully.
People who bring small children to public places because they are too cheap to hire a babysitter piss me the fuck off too.
Why would I hire a babysitter when I'm going to the theater so see a children's movie? Think.
I resent that you expect the world to be your kid's babysitter.
I don't expect that. Then again, I expect the world to keep its excesses in check and not give me a reason to question whether or not there aren't enough government controls in place. I'm not the only person out there thinking like that. Keep up with your attitude and you'll see just how quickly the tide of public opinion turns against you. People care more about their kids that where and when you can play your video games. That kind of attitude does more damage than you think.
I didn't stick your dick in that bitch - you did.
Apparently, you're trying to make my point for me. See what happens when Mommy and Daddy leave children with the computer?
Lord of the Rings was edited to bring the rating down. Not because it was too violent for the director or the producer. Just to bring the rating down.
Market demands. There's nothing sinister about this. PG films consistently do better than R-rated films. Look it up.
I'd rather see every infant know that there's such a thing as death, see every child frightened out of their wits from something that isnt real just long enough to realize that the world around them is horribly worse, see every adult questioning their sexuality when they see a 200' long billboard of a penis in public view, than ever, EVER have someone limit what they create in order to ensure that more people have the option of seeing it.
Oh c'mon! Do you have children? Why does my right as a parent to limit what sort of material my child sees in public get trampled by some advertiser's right to shove offensive material down my throat. It's comforting to see that Slashdot also has folks willing to defend big, mindless corporate interests!
Everything is rated G. Otherwise it wouldnt really be free speech would it? Freedom of speech entails the freedom to be heard.
That last statement is pure bollocks. When has the supposed "freedom to be heard" ever been established? That's silly. You have the right to say and express yourself in whatever way you wish. However, if you think you have the right to forcibly expose me and my child to it, then you are sadly mistaken.
If you can provide proof that there is a legally supported "freedom to be heard" I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Why can't parents, and not the government, keep their children from violent and explicit games?
I agree. I'm a parent, but it's not always that easy. Let me explain why parents can't always keep children from violent and explicit games.
About a year ago, I took my 5-year-old daughter to the local movie theater. In the lobby there was a row of games, including House of the Dead 2. The games in the theater lobby are situated so they face you as you stand in the lobby/concessions area. My daughter took notice of the game, ran over to it, grabbed the gun controller and stood there looking at the running demo of rotting zombies being shot and exploding gorily before her eyes. I rushed over to her and pulled her away, but obviously, I would have preferred she not have seen it.
Now, before anyone assumes I'm some religious goody-two-shoes, I will assure you I love these kinds of games. I'm totally addicted and Quake and Quake 2 will always have a home on my hard drive. I own quite a few violent games but I keep them locked up and my daughter never sees them. I maintain that control. I see it as my duty as a responsible parent.
These kinds of games, on clear public view in places where the public, including children, gather are a serious problem as it removed some measure of that control from me as a parent. I resent that. It pisses me off.
I later called the corporate offices of Regal Cinemas and complained about this and got back a completely defiant attitude about how they had the right to put those games there and how much money those games brought in, and how nobody else compains about it, etc. etc. I pointed out that if a film contained those kinds of gory and violent images, they would be required by law to ensure than a minor has a parent or guardian with them before viewing the movie. This point went right over the guy's head.
I even mentioned that perhaps they could situate the games so they aren't on clear view of the public, but I was told that it would make the games less appealing and make them less profitable. I then asked if they could turn off the demo mode and was given the same excuse.
IMO, some legal control over video games is not going to hurt anyone, exactly the same way legal control over objectionable material in films is not going to hurt anyone. Quite the contrary. As long as we're controlling where it can be displayed and who can play it, not distating what the games makers can or cannot do.
Let's not have some knee-jerk reaction to this. When corporate America can't see beyond its profits, then I have no problem with allowing the government to step in and teach them better.
This is an interesting read (albeit too long) but it's ignoring the old axiom "show, don't tell." This article is almost nothing but telling. When open source software can be used to show people what can be done, what can be achieved, how work can get done, how it can save them money and time, then it will really take off. You can bang people over the head with all the factual and anecdoctal tidbits about why open source is preferable, but until you can demonstrate how it's comparable (or better), it won't mean a thing to the average user out there.
This is just the humble opinion of an outsider. I'm not a particularly ardent supporter of either open source or commercial software (although I understand enough to side mostly with the open source side of the issue.) However, I freely admit to being one of those "whatever works" types, and I'll bet most people out there are like me in that regard. For open source to really grab attention, it has to be demonstrated with real applications on real machines in real situations, not praised ad nauseum in yet another advocacy piece.
I don't write PERL... I write Perl or perl as its users and programmers prefer.
I also don't write MAC. I write Mac or Macintosh as its users and programmers prefer.
Just a nitpick, but it's annoying nonetheless and something that I see done more frequently on Slashdot than anywhere else. Besides, it's technically inaccurate as MAC is, I believe, something entirely different.
I'm a long-time Mac user and it gets on my nerves when I see other Mac users dismiss these kinds of critiques against Apple by pointing out how it may be Microsoft's fault because of their browser. I'm no defender of MS, but gimme a break!
MSIE is one of the few examples of software done right on the Mac... or anywhere for that matter. The Microsoft Macintosh unit doesn't port Windows code to the Mac--they maintain their own code and overall, they do great work. Read one of the interviews with Kevin Browne that have been featured in Macworld or Macaddict. This excuse that I'm seeing posted here (and hinted at) that it's "not made for the Mac" is pure apologist horse-shit and an embarrassing example of the kind of zealotry we Mac users are routinely (and not always fairly) accused of.
There's no excuse for Apple not to have OS X optimized at this point. Steve Jobs himself even used the clock analogy to show OS X's progress over the last year, and this March was 12:00. OS X should have been optimized for speed then... not in the possibly "18 months" that the article specifies. What possible excuse could there be for that? Apple is one of the few companies actually turning a profit right now. It can't be budgetary reasons.
I don't understand the delay on this issue, but no Mac users should be rushing to Apple's defense over this.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/020409/retail_bestbuy_2. ht ml
On the whole, I support the RIAA's right to defend its copyrights, but when retailers begin assisting them in crippling the products to suit *their* needs instead of the customer's needs, I take it as a sign that I am not valued. I have spent quite a lot of money at my local Best Buy store. Until you announce a change in this plan, I will not step foot in your stores or your affiliates (which are outlined in the above article.) I do not support these kinds of draconian, corporate measures in response to a fallacious assumption that consumers are stealing and that sales are slumping as a result. Consider the possibility that the recording industry is offering NOTHING compelling worth buying lately. This same thing happened in 1991. Were the consumers to blame for that as well?
I plan two major electronics purchases in the near future. These sales would have possibly gone to Best Buy. I'm not even considering your store now. I am now an EX-customer.
Sorry to sound so cynical, but this just reads like a bad piece of half-baked sci-fi. $264 in net charges by the end of morning.
<count floyd 3d-glasses="on"> Ooh... the future is sooooo scary. </count floyd>
It would be easy to tear this article apart piece-by-piece but it would be a further waste of time and little more than opinions clashing. Keep this in mind when reading these kinds of doom-and-gloom pieces: if the Internet has proven anything, it is that it is flexible and bends in unexpected ways that are usually dictated by the demands of the majority of its users. How successful have corporations been in harnessing the Internet so far? A few pop-up ads? Spam? Really, is that a threat to our freedoms? Thus far, major industries throwing millions of dollars at lobbying and technology development have hardly put a dent in the ability to download music. It's been, what, two years now since the recording industry has attempted to kill off Napster and its P2P spawn? How successful have they been? Let's project their success two years into the future... hmm....
Not quite $264 worth of scary, is it?
The Internet is too unpredictable and too young to be tamed, in my humble opinion, by corporate interests that require stability and predictability to achieve anything. Spouting doomsday theories at this point is ludicruous, plays into the silliest fears of the most gullible geeks out there, and runs counter to everything we've seen thus far.
Really. Who cares if this guy wants to wallow in his own ignorance? Let him. He clearly needs to hold on to the old myths about Macs (most expensive... riiiiiiight) in order to make sure his world view isn't destabilized.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if you've been denied credit or employment based on information from your credit report, you are entitled to a free copy of the report from the reporting company the card provider/employer used.
.you get your letter of denial along with a printout of your credit report. Couldn't be easier.
I like to check mine regularly, but these "freebies" are nothing of the sort. Technically, you get a freebie if you are turned down credit or whatnot, but good luck figuring out how to get this freebie. These companies are very sneaky about hiding this stuff and they do not make it easy. My wife had an erroneous negative report on her credit and we had our credit applications denied a couple times because of it. I never did figure out how to get a freebie for that and ended up shelling out the $8 just to see what it was. When someone else's fuck-up costs me money, there is something wrong.
I think if these kinds of credit bureaus are going to hold so much highly personal information and that information has so much influence on your life and credit, then they need to be more strictly regulated by the government. I would like to see getting these kinds of free reports due to denial of credit or employment made painfully obvious. I don't understand why the company checking your credit shouldn't have to send you a copy of what they received. That would be the simplest way to go..
It's amazing how fucked up these bureaus are when you consider how much power they hold. This security issue is just another problem, as far as I'm concerned. Erroneous reports, bad service, indifference to problems, etc. are all issues. The first politician who utters the phrase "credit reporting reform" gets my vote in a heartbeat.
--Rick
This wouldn't be a problem if Canadians would stop pretending to be Europeans! ;^)
(I'm not trying to bait you--I have lots of Canadian friends and give them a hard time about that.)
I agree with you, BTW. Apple shouldn't make their "North American English" so U.S.-centric. The good thing is that they seem far more receptive to consumer comments nowadays than they ever have. I'll bet it would be worth your time to submit this suggestion to them. Apple has made no secret of the fact that they take great pride in the international capabilities of the Mac OS. It could very well be that not many people at Apple realize that Canadians incorporate so many British-isms into their parlance. I live near the border so it's obvious to me, but maybe it's not to a company much further away.
--Rick
Trust me on this one. I just have a feeling.
You know, despite the fact that most geeks are not fans of Satan... er, Celine Dion, a lot of us are married to non-geek females who are. My wife knows almost nothing about computers except how to turn ours on, browse the net, email, etc. The idea that she might go out and buy one of these @#$%&* CDs and come home and unwittingly screw something up while I'm not around makes me a little nervous. I mean, I can tell her about CDs, but what's next?
--Rick
You left out the ", Horatio," bit. Everyone does, though.
;^)
I was wondering if someone would catch that. Actually, I did that purposefully (thus the "quotes/sayings" bit in my post.) Many of Shakespeare's quotes are altered into more generalized sayings like this, i.e. the reference to Horatio is unnecessary to understand the gist.
I'm trying to think of a few other examples, but none come immediately to mind. I know there are other instances where quotes of his were altered to become common sayings.
BTW, each of Shakespeare's work had an impact on literature that was akin to the impact of a strangelet on the surface of the earth. Just wanted to steer this back on topic.
--Rick
That's funny because one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes/sayings came to mind while reading this (and yes, I have favorite Shakespeare quotes.) This one's rather well known since it's from Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Rick
I keep seeing this comment about how parents are the ones who have to take on this responsibility. Fine by me. As a parent, I embrace that responsibility wholeheartedly. I play my share of violent games and know what's out there. I keep those games locked in my file cabinet. I don't want my child being exposed to it.
However, the video game industry does a shitty job of providing me with the information I need as a buyer. Businesses that use video games in public places to generate profit or as demos (theaters, toy stores, electronic shops, arcades) need to do a better job of keeping violent games out of the reach and view of smaller children. I don't see that happening. Not at all.
Instead, I see people being gunned down gorily on a game demo at Toys R Us or Circuit City. I see ultra violent games like House of the Dead 2 on public display at my local Regal Cinemas. Complaining about these things does nothing. I've tried. I even talked to the guy at the corporate offices of Regal about it and got nowhere.
As usual, the people making money are not listening.
I recently picked up a game for my child (who is six and absolutely in love with video games.) It was rated E. Everybody, right? The game featured some surprising acts of violence and a lot of punching, kicking, fighting, none of which was indicated on the box. Furthermore, the freakin' game was based on a children's cartoon. I was given none of this information before the purchase. I tried to return the game and was told that, since it was opened, it could not be returned.
These kinds of policies are inexcuseable and effectively erode my ability as a parent to act in the responsible manner that so many others say I should. If retailers and game developers don't get off their thumbs and get something worked out, there will be growing support for this kind of legislation, and all the pissing and moaning on Slashdot about Big Brother and our rights being trampled will count for zilch.
The MSNBC article mentions that game companies realize they are not doing enough. I hope they act on that soon because as it stands, I am NOT on their side of this issue.
--Rick
It's the same with video games: I used to be a video game addict when I was younger.
I thought the underlying issue was realistic violence in video games. Damn, I think the most violent thing I played back in my day was Pac-Man. Or no, wait. That part where Donkey Kong gets the girders pulled out from under him and falls on his head... brrr.
Don't even get me started on Wizard of Wor. Yikes. Nothing creepier than seeing a jagged one-color monster run over your player. It almost looks like the monster bites him... sorta....
--Rick
If you watch a performance of Oedipus [...] Phaedra [...] Europa [...]Orestes
I could take these comments more seriously if you weren't citing them in a context where they are being compared to video games. It would suggest that you think there is equal redeeming intellectual and artistic quality between these works and, say, Quake 3?
I love seeing you Slashdot drama geeks shit digital bricks over this issue. It exposes some interesting double-standards. I don't see daily tirades on Slashdot over keeping kids away from violent movies or alcohol or sexual content in various mediums.
But say the same about video games... and gosh, the pocket protector is off now, buddy! Suddenly it's an affront on my rights and your rights and his and her rights and it's the coming of the Big Brother state and it's just like censoring classical works of literature. Yeah, just like it. See how the shambling zombies explode into a beautifully rendered 64-bit oblivion of burning intestines and scorched flesh and how he collapses into a sloshing, frothy spray of his own blood and bodily fluids? Taking that away from a kid is just like saying, "No, you can't read that play by Sophocles!"
--Rick
Don't get me wrong. If I had to pick between Real, QT, and Windows Media, I'd take Windows Media.
;^P
Why? If you object to MS, why give in to their products so easily?
QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.
That's the price you pay if you want to steer clear of MS (at least for now.) As long as none of these things are doing harmful activities on your machine, I can't see what the big deal is. Yeah, they nag you. So does your mother.
It any case, QT is what, $30? That's not bad especially when you look at all the extras you get when you pay. Oh, but the incessant cries of outrage follow those kinds of statements.
BUT I WANT IT FREEEEEEEEEE AND IT HAS TO BE CONVEEEEENIENT AND MICROSOFT IS FREEEEEEEEEE AND CONVEEEEENIENT!!!!
MS is like the local drug dealer... gives you the good stuff quick, but just enough to get your addicted. Eventually you'll be paying the big bucks for it and you'll notice the damage only when it's too late. So, pay the piddly-ass $30 of whatever for another media player and get over it. You'll be paying eventually... one way or the other. You may as well ensure that your cash goes to support someone/something who is tolerable.
Besides that, there are known tricks for getting around some of those problems, not all of them illegal either.
--Rick
But all of these costs/expenses existed before CDs were around.
And in many cases, the recording industry owns or is working with studios to keep the costs of studio time high. A label will give new bands an advance to cover studio time, gear, living expenses, etc. However, the labels have things rigged so that all of that gets sapped very quickly and the band ends up touring just to pay off their debt to the recording label while their royalties get eaten up by further debt and ongoing expenses. These recording labels like to keep their young artists in serious debt.
Why do you think we've heard so little outcry from the artists about all this? They know what sort of screw-job the recording industry is pulling here and I suspect that many of them would love to see a new business model unseat the old.
--Rick
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that people are so eager to pirate music online because of the ludicrously high prices of CDs. It's something of a consumer revolt. When CDs were first introduced, I remember hearing how cheap they were to produce and how someday they would be half the price of cassettes and LPs!
Yeah... garsh, and I believed it too.
No, instead what's happened is that the same product has been steadily creeping up in price to the point where it no longer makes sense to buy it. I stopped buying large quantities of CDs around 1995 or so, around the time they hit the $16-18 range.
So, nowadays, on the rare occasion that I walk into my local music store and see $20+ CDs, I laugh to myself. Very few artists can pull that kind of cash out of my wallet anymore (Pink Floyd, Rush, Bill Hicks... to name a few.) I have better things to spend my money on.
It makes me wonder. Why... why do content companies refuse to compete? Technology (specifically home computing) has become a formidable new source of competition for them and instead of leaping at the opportunity to compete, to take on this new challenge, they turn to bullying tactics (destroying Napter) and draconian, self-serving laws (DMCA, SSSCA, etc.)
I wouldn't pay $20 for a CD. However, I might pay $20 for a CD if it came with not just one CD of music, but maybe another CD of studio outtakes and/or alternate mixes. How about a multimedia CD that plays movies on your computer, maybe short documentaries filmed during the making of the album (nothing fancy, just an insider's view like what Pink Floyd did on Live At Pompeii), interviews with the band about the album, maybe even a live performance played in the studio for the benefit of CD buyers? How about beefing up the standard CD into something worth my $20?
After all, they are so cheap to produce... right? If the media is so cheap, give me content worth buying, you content providers!
For that very reason, I am more willing to buy a DVD than a CD. In fact, I've bought more of the former than the latter in the last year. I find all the outtakes and artist commentary and extras make the high price tag a little more reasonable. Plus, I see multiple DVD sets being sold for more-or-less the same price.
Hell, why not release an album on DVD, including all this music along with tons of extra goodies and content? Maybe a nice booklet with the CD (no cheap crap either... more like the high quality booklet that came with Pink Floyd's Pulse.) I would consider going back to spending money on CDs again. Not only would it make it worth my money, but the sheer quantity and variety of content would make it considerably more difficult to pirate this stuff over any medium.
If these so-called content providers (who, as far as I can tell, want to provide nothing of the sort) would try to compete, they might find that we can all get along. If they want to hide behind stupid laws that serve only to validate their own ignorance, then I say fuck them and their overpriced CDs.
My only regret is that the artists, who deserve the money, will get screwed in all this. Then again, given the sort of sleazy business ethics under which most content providers work, I'm sure artists are familiar with that feeling already.
--Rick
Does this mean that mindless growth might not be such a good thing?
Mmm... I hope I get some of that coffee that corporate America will be waking up and smelling soon.
--Rick
This just strikes me as more of the predictable political stances we've come to expect over the last two decades or so. Let's see... a Republican president/administration voicing concern about a bill that is headed up by a Democrat.
I don't give any single politician points for standing on principle here or an iota of credibility. IMO, it's more of the standard attitude, that "it's coming from the other guys so we're suspicious of it" posturing that is so typical.
Just be thankful for now that a Democrat is the one behind this bill (gah... never thought I'd hear myself say that!) If this were a bill being pushed by a Republican, we'd be in deep shit right now.
--Rick
I couldn't agree more with your level-headed assessment. We Americans need to re-evaluate what we want of our government. It seems that many of us want it both ways. "Get the info you need to protect us so we can stay cozy and fat and safe, but don't do anything in secret 'cause we're just not comfy with that."
I often wonder what the public outcry would have been if the CIA had managed to nail the Sept. 11 hijackers and head off the events that happened that day. Of course, it's only a guess, but I bet the outcry against our evil government persecuting innocent Arabs would have been tremendous and the notion that these guys were going to bring down the mightiest buildings in the U.S. would have been scoffed at endlessly. I'll bet the prevailing attitude would have been that our nasty government is using this laughable story about attacks on the WTC as a cover for persecuting these innocent guys.
Yeah, but let's stop the CIA from looking into the activities of such trustworthy countries like China, countries who have proven time and time again that they value human life so much and that they have no desire to exert their power over others. Let's just leave them alone because, after all, this laughable stuff about "hacking attacks" is just a cover for our evil government to go after otherwise innocent people.
Right?
--Rick
I never say forcibly, but it is fairly obvious that freedom of speech does not mean only that you can say whatever you want, if it do it in a government-designated sound-proof room.
Can you cite some examples of what you mean. I don't understand this statement at all.
Just dont go to places you disagree with.
Precisely! I don't want my daughter to be exposed to alcohol or cigarettes and loud music and swearing, therefore I don't take her to bars. I don't want her exposed to sexually explicit behavior so I don't take her to live sex shows or strip clubs. I don't want her exposed to violent or sexual imagery in films so I don't take her to R-rated movies. The current problem with violent video games is that there are no restrictions imposed on them where and when they can be on public display--unlike the things I've mentioned previously. Why is everyone so up-in-arms over what is clearly a double-standard? Is it because video games are such a regular part of your daily life that you feel any changes imposed on them would "hit too close to home"? They're part of my daily life too, but my principles do not change on a whim because it would be an inconvenience to me. You should re-examine your thinking on this.
That's what capitalism is about.
No, it isn't. Capitalism has nothing to do with protecting someone's perceived right to put offensive or objectionable material in a public place.
The government shouldnt be made to interfere with business because pissy reality-controllers dont want fiction to exist in
front of the eyes of their poor innocent offspring.
Nobody is trying to "control reality." What I think is reasonable is to expect violent video games to be not on public display. They should be restricted to arcades and possibly placed in adult subsections within arcades. That's not unreasonable at all and perfectly analogous to how society handles similarly objectionable material in films, music, and other forms of media. I don't understand this overreaction to such a reasonable notion.
--Rick
Big effing deal. Shit happens.
Your communication skills are poor. I'm assuming you're not a troll, but very little of what you're saying makes any coherent sense. I'll try to address the few points you successfully make, but it just sounds to me like you're some angry little kid who has come here to spout off.
Religious hypocrites are a dime a dozen.
I didn't say I was religious. I'm not. I get the sense that you didn't read what I was saying very carefully.
People who bring small children to public places because they are too cheap to hire a babysitter piss me the fuck off too.
Why would I hire a babysitter when I'm going to the theater so see a children's movie? Think.
I resent that you expect the world to be your kid's babysitter.
I don't expect that. Then again, I expect the world to keep its excesses in check and not give me a reason to question whether or not there aren't enough government controls in place. I'm not the only person out there thinking like that. Keep up with your attitude and you'll see just how quickly the tide of public opinion turns against you. People care more about their kids that where and when you can play your video games. That kind of attitude does more damage than you think.
I didn't stick your dick in that bitch - you did.
Apparently, you're trying to make my point for me. See what happens when Mommy and Daddy leave children with the computer?
--Rick
Lord of the Rings was edited to bring the rating down. Not because it was too violent for the director or the producer. Just to bring the rating down.
Market demands. There's nothing sinister about this. PG films consistently do better than R-rated films. Look it up.
I'd rather see every infant know that there's such a thing as death, see every child frightened out of their wits from something that isnt real just long enough to realize that the world around them is horribly worse, see every adult questioning their sexuality when they see a 200' long billboard of a penis in public view, than ever, EVER have someone limit what they create in order to ensure that more people have the option of seeing it.
Oh c'mon! Do you have children? Why does my right as a parent to limit what sort of material my child sees in public get trampled by some advertiser's right to shove offensive material down my throat. It's comforting to see that Slashdot also has folks willing to defend big, mindless corporate interests!
Everything is rated G. Otherwise it wouldnt really be free speech would it? Freedom of speech entails the freedom to be heard.
That last statement is pure bollocks. When has the supposed "freedom to be heard" ever been established? That's silly. You have the right to say and express yourself in whatever way you wish. However, if you think you have the right to forcibly expose me and my child to it, then you are sadly mistaken.
If you can provide proof that there is a legally supported "freedom to be heard" I'd be very interested in seeing it.
--Rick
I just saw this:
Why can't parents, and not the government, keep their children from violent and explicit games?
I agree. I'm a parent, but it's not always that easy. Let me explain why parents can't always keep children from violent and explicit games.
About a year ago, I took my 5-year-old daughter to the local movie theater. In the lobby there was a row of games, including House of the Dead 2. The games in the theater lobby are situated so they face you as you stand in the lobby/concessions area. My daughter took notice of the game, ran over to it, grabbed the gun controller and stood there looking at the running demo of rotting zombies being shot and exploding gorily before her eyes. I rushed over to her and pulled her away, but obviously, I would have preferred she not have seen it.
Now, before anyone assumes I'm some religious goody-two-shoes, I will assure you I love these kinds of games. I'm totally addicted and Quake and Quake 2 will always have a home on my hard drive. I own quite a few violent games but I keep them locked up and my daughter never sees them. I maintain that control. I see it as my duty as a responsible parent.
These kinds of games, on clear public view in places where the public, including children, gather are a serious problem as it removed some measure of that control from me as a parent. I resent that. It pisses me off.
I later called the corporate offices of Regal Cinemas and complained about this and got back a completely defiant attitude about how they had the right to put those games there and how much money those games brought in, and how nobody else compains about it, etc. etc. I pointed out that if a film contained those kinds of gory and violent images, they would be required by law to ensure than a minor has a parent or guardian with them before viewing the movie. This point went right over the guy's head.
I even mentioned that perhaps they could situate the games so they aren't on clear view of the public, but I was told that it would make the games less appealing and make them less profitable. I then asked if they could turn off the demo mode and was given the same excuse.
IMO, some legal control over video games is not going to hurt anyone, exactly the same way legal control over objectionable material in films is not going to hurt anyone. Quite the contrary. As long as we're controlling where it can be displayed and who can play it, not distating what the games makers can or cannot do.
Let's not have some knee-jerk reaction to this. When corporate America can't see beyond its profits, then I have no problem with allowing the government to step in and teach them better.
--Rick
Behold... the author of this piece is not what he appears... watch this.
:^)
Make sure you watch long enough to catch the "daemon" running around in the background.
--Rick
This is an interesting read (albeit too long) but it's ignoring the old axiom "show, don't tell." This article is almost nothing but telling. When open source software can be used to show people what can be done, what can be achieved, how work can get done, how it can save them money and time, then it will really take off. You can bang people over the head with all the factual and anecdoctal tidbits about why open source is preferable, but until you can demonstrate how it's comparable (or better), it won't mean a thing to the average user out there.
This is just the humble opinion of an outsider. I'm not a particularly ardent supporter of either open source or commercial software (although I understand enough to side mostly with the open source side of the issue.) However, I freely admit to being one of those "whatever works" types, and I'll bet most people out there are like me in that regard. For open source to really grab attention, it has to be demonstrated with real applications on real machines in real situations, not praised ad nauseum in yet another advocacy piece.
--Rick
I don't write PERL... I write Perl or perl as its users and programmers prefer.
I also don't write MAC. I write Mac or Macintosh as its users and programmers prefer.
Just a nitpick, but it's annoying nonetheless and something that I see done more frequently on Slashdot than anywhere else. Besides, it's technically inaccurate as MAC is, I believe, something entirely different.
--Rick
I'm a long-time Mac user and it gets on my nerves when I see other Mac users dismiss these kinds of critiques against Apple by pointing out how it may be Microsoft's fault because of their browser. I'm no defender of MS, but gimme a break!
MSIE is one of the few examples of software done right on the Mac... or anywhere for that matter. The Microsoft Macintosh unit doesn't port Windows code to the Mac--they maintain their own code and overall, they do great work. Read one of the interviews with Kevin Browne that have been featured in Macworld or Macaddict. This excuse that I'm seeing posted here (and hinted at) that it's "not made for the Mac" is pure apologist horse-shit and an embarrassing example of the kind of zealotry we Mac users are routinely (and not always fairly) accused of.
There's no excuse for Apple not to have OS X optimized at this point. Steve Jobs himself even used the clock analogy to show OS X's progress over the last year, and this March was 12:00. OS X should have been optimized for speed then... not in the possibly "18 months" that the article specifies. What possible excuse could there be for that? Apple is one of the few companies actually turning a profit right now. It can't be budgetary reasons.
I don't understand the delay on this issue, but no Mac users should be rushing to Apple's defense over this.
--Rick
Complain directly to Best Buy here.
. ht ml
Here's what I just sent them.
---
I just read this on Yahoo:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/020409/retail_bestbuy_2
On the whole, I support the RIAA's right to defend its copyrights, but when retailers begin assisting them in crippling the products to suit *their* needs instead of the customer's needs, I take it as a sign that I am not valued. I have spent quite a lot of money at my local Best Buy store. Until you announce a change in this plan, I will not step foot in your stores or your affiliates (which are outlined in the above article.) I do not support these kinds of draconian, corporate measures in response to a fallacious assumption that consumers are stealing and that sales are slumping as a result. Consider the possibility that the recording industry is offering NOTHING compelling worth buying lately. This same thing happened in 1991. Were the consumers to blame for that as well?
I plan two major electronics purchases in the near future. These sales would have possibly gone to Best Buy. I'm not even considering your store now. I am now an EX-customer.
--Rick
Sorry to sound so cynical, but this just reads like a bad piece of half-baked sci-fi. $264 in net charges by the end of morning.
<count floyd 3d-glasses="on">
Ooh... the future is sooooo scary.
</count floyd>
It would be easy to tear this article apart piece-by-piece but it would be a further waste of time and little more than opinions clashing. Keep this in mind when reading these kinds of doom-and-gloom pieces: if the Internet has proven anything, it is that it is flexible and bends in unexpected ways that are usually dictated by the demands of the majority of its users. How successful have corporations been in harnessing the Internet so far? A few pop-up ads? Spam? Really, is that a threat to our freedoms? Thus far, major industries throwing millions of dollars at lobbying and technology development have hardly put a dent in the ability to download music. It's been, what, two years now since the recording industry has attempted to kill off Napster and its P2P spawn? How successful have they been? Let's project their success two years into the future... hmm....
Not quite $264 worth of scary, is it?
The Internet is too unpredictable and too young to be tamed, in my humble opinion, by corporate interests that require stability and predictability to achieve anything. Spouting doomsday theories at this point is ludicruous, plays into the silliest fears of the most gullible geeks out there, and runs counter to everything we've seen thus far.
--Rick
Really. Who cares if this guy wants to wallow in his own ignorance? Let him. He clearly needs to hold on to the old myths about Macs (most expensive... riiiiiiight) in order to make sure his world view isn't destabilized.
People have a right to their own delusions.
--Rick