For as stupid as the Senator sounded when he made those statements, he's really not too far off. I've used the idea of pipes (specifically water pipes) to explain how the internet works as well. In fact, it comes in handy explaining ATM terminology as well.
No, he did not get everything correct, but it was a valiant effort. I think the most obvious problem was his improper use of terms. And I'm sure that if I were to try some political speaking and screwed up the terms, I'd receive the same or similar response. That is, if I was in some sort of public position...
That said, I don't necessarily agree with his views. However, it seems to show that he did put a little effort into it. Personally I think these guys should, at the very least, have someone on their staff to explain these things in detail so they can truly understand what's going on.
Of course, noone expects a technologist to be a perfect political speaker, and likewise, noone should expect a politician to have a complete grasp of technology. Regardless, however, if they plan on delving into the subject, they should be doing some due diligence..
The problem with this argument is that there seems to be a very small percentage of people that are truly rehabilitated while in prison. The rest are released and it's just a matter of time before they get in trouble again. And, unfortunately, the trouble seems to escalate.
We can try to distinguish between those people that premeditate their crimes, and those who commit them as a spur of the moment act, such as a crime of passion. Maybe we'll get it right, maybe we won't. Of course, if we get it wrong, we run the risk of another "innocent" getting hurt or dying because of this mistake.
Then there are those that are convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Now they get to live on my dime. Why should I have to pay for them? They committed the crimes, not me.
I'm of the opinion that if you're sentenced to life in prison, or death, then you should immediately be taken to the back of the courthouse and shot. Yeah, some innocent people will likely get caught up in the mix, but I'd rather see that than see murderers getting out on parole and killing again....
And traveling through a simulated universe, from cells to constellations, will, ideally, make them more curious about the real-world universe they already inhabit -- and show them that they have the power to shape that universe as well.
Yeah.. sure.. Let's get real..
Spore looks really cool and I'll be more than happy to play it for a few hours (assuming it truly is as engaging as it looks), but the first thing going through my mind was now "Wow, this has taught me that I can shape the universe," but something more along the lines of "Whoa.. I wonder if I can make a creature that kills everything on sight."
Hrm.. maybe there is something to this video games promotes violence thing...
Yeah, but the virus doesn't need to run on Vista to send the reply. I can see a virus spread on all those old Windows 95/98/ME/XP machines that slams MS with invalid replies, causing valid licenses to be revoked. As another comment stated, this would result in a massive DDoS about 30 days later...
DirectX 10 is Vista only. This means that in the future (3-5 years is the current estimate), games will be written using DirectX 10 exclusively, thus locking you into Vista. Of course, this also means that MS will be releasing the XBox 720 by then because the 360 does not support DX10.
Interestingly enough, I'm just reading this for the first time. I'm nearly at the end of the book and I must say it's been a very odd ride. I've never read a book where they jump around from topic to topic so incredibly fast. It's like talking to a kid with severe ADHD..
Given that though, it is quite the interesting book.. Albeit a tad unbelievable, but it comes together nicely in the end..:)
As best I can tell from the Sony site, there is no annotation capability. No real input other than loading the documents and turning the pages.. I was really excited about this until I thought about all the times I've annotated documents myself. I'm an avid reader of various genres, but I was looking at this device as something I could use for PDF reading.. Without annotations of any kind, it's use has dropped considerably..
I like the look and feature set of the I-Rex Iliad, but the pricepoint it way out of my range...
This is a really important statistic. With *most* Firefox vulnerabilities being patched within a day, that reduces most of the threat. Just look at the recent IE VML exploit. It's been a week now and the best Microsoft has come up with is "Make sure your antivirus is up to date. Windows One Care has protection for this exploit!"...
I think 7 days with a "take over your computer" exploit versus is pretty bad.. But it gets worse when you read the security advisory MS put out.. No worries, we'll patch it on October 10th, 23 days after the fact.
Thanks MS. I appreciate it. It's a good thing I run firefox and I don't have these problems..
In fact, has there been a "take over your computer" exploit for firefox? I don't recall seeing one yet.. Either that, or it was patched so fast that it's existence was a moot point...
But they're mulling a web version of Works, not Office.
Have you looked at all at OpenOffice? I thought we did some pretty wierd stuff here that OO wouldn't be able to support, but as it happens, every file opened perfectly in OO and was just as useable..
A contract is an agreement whereby two parties exchange consideration. One party's consideration might be a promise to pay money now or in the future. The other party's consideration might be a promise to provide a service, such as email.
Unfortunately, most contracts with an ISP are merely to provide you with access to the ISP's systems. They own the systems, they decide what happens. On top of the "contract" (which is usually just a verbal agreement rather than a written document), they also require that you abide by their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) and/or Terms of Service (TOS). The AUP generally states that you can't spam, transfer illegal material, etc., but, it also points out that the ISP isn't responsible for monitoring for that activity. The TOS usually outlines what services you can expect. Both documents generally include a clause that allows the ISP to change those documents, at will, without notice.
Amazingly enough, courts will actually enforce this right. I'll be around in case you need any more corrections of your obviously wrong assumptions. Thank you.
I think the courts will generally side with the ISP in this case, however. The ISP owns the service and they are not denying a customer that service, but denying non-customers from abusing that service. It's a fine line, but at the end of the day, the ISP owns the servers. A lot of it may also depend on the AUP/TOS that was applied to the customers service.
I use Visual SlickEdit 10 for Linux. http://www.slickedit.com/ This piece of software is the most configurable IDE I've ever used;
I'll second that.. I use slickedit to work on the various perl/php scripts that I maintain. As such, I can't say much about the compiler, but the intergration with cvs is nice.:)
it's a tad on the expensive side, but everything just works and it was worth it for me.
If you can provide a student ID, you get it for a fraction of the cost. Then just pay the yearly maintenance to keep the software up to date.. Worked out great for me..:) I've been using it for about 4 years now..
Perhaps the producers of Barney want the images removed because it's giving Satan a bad name? Hell, if I were Satan, I'd be suing Mr. Frankel for defamation of character.. Everyone know Barney is MUCH worse than Satan...
Hrm.. I dunno.. I took a look at some of the games on the site and they look pretty interesting. I agree, there's no WoW there, but maybe a low end Starcraft, or a decent RPG... Don't count them out yet, some of those games may be more fun that the average "big budget" games being pumped out..
Look at something as simple as tetris.. How many years has it been? There are still variations coming out that people are more than willing to pay for.. Lumines anyone?
does any GPL'd code physically appear in the work you distribute?
Interesting. Do you mean function calls? So if I use a toolkit that has something like renderSquare(blah blah) in it, and I call that function from my code, then is that a physical appearance?
This is why the LGPL was created, to allow the minimal code needed to use a library to be included (as in dynamic linking) without triggering the GPL conditions unless the body of the library itself is also physically included (as would happen with static linking).
Yes, but if the library was created under the GPL, you can't change that license to LGPL. So you're essentially screwed and need to find a different library. However, the object here is to use your library for support, not as a selling point. I obviously need some sort of a GUI toolkit to make my program work in a windows environment. But, the program itself isn't the gui, it's the compression algorithm, or game, or whatever. The supporting libraries are only there for basic presentation.
I guess this is a two edged sword. On one hand, you create the library to distribute for others to use. On the other hand, you don't want people making money off what you've created. I think this is a tough area that needs to be clearly defined in the license. Is this allowed, or no.
I don't have anything being developed commercially, and I don't have plans for this. But, I can definitely see a reason to allow dynamic linking without encompassing that program with the GPL. Multiple libraries that do the same thing can get confusing, and can gum up the system. More resource usage is probably the primary reason not to have 10 libraries on your computer that draw a square. I know it still exists regardless, but the rationale for keeping the number down exists. So, if I want to buy a piece of commercial software, say something like Turbo Tax, or even Office, then I want something that will use the existing libraries I have. I don't *need* this to be open source software as a mere user. I just want a resonable expectation that this new piece of software isn't going to use up all my resources because of a silly licensing problem.
I love open source and I do a lot with Linux. But a licensing restriction like that isn't necessarily something I could live with. Yeah yeah, choose another license...
I'm definitely no lawyer, and I sometimes have a hard time following all of the crazy language used in licenses, so please bear with me. I'm looking for correction here..:)
As I understand it, the GPL in it's current form (v2) allows for modifications to the existing code if, and only if, that code is then posted with the same license. Correct? However, if you're using it for yourself, then there's no need to post the source unless you want to. You are limited, however, in that you cannot re-distribute it without the source.
Oh, that's all well and good. I have no major problems with that. Let's move ahead a little. Can I use a GPLed library as a dependency for my closed-source program? For instance, let's say that I write a new compression program. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I use a gpl gui toolkit to create the front end. I have not modified the source of the toolkit at all, just used it to create my front end. Do I need to distribute the source code for everything then? I don't think this is a derivative work of the toolkit as I'm not modifying the toolkit in any way. And the compression code was created from scratch by me. So am I free to sell binaries?
How about another example. If MS actually ports Office over to Linux, do they need to open source it? Don't they need to depend on certain libraries to make everything work, or re-invent the wheel just to avoid OSS licensing?
How does v3 deal with this? Are any of these "liberties" changed? I'd love to see a concise list of things you can and cannot do using the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses...
But you're assuming that the security is in the hardware not the software. It's pretty easy to write software that renders hardware vulnerable to all sorts of exploits. And since the OS maker doesn't control the developers, then it's impossible for them to say that the OS is completely secure.
So, in essence, this research only "proves" that if you take something that is secure out of the box and make alterations, it's possible to break that security.
Wow.. Karma.. I *just* tossed out the copies of Turbo C++ and Turbo Assembler I had in the garage.. 3.5" disks.. Not sure if I know where the drive for that is anymore either..
It's worse when you miss the saving throw and the magic missle you intended to clear the tube instead ruptures it. This, in turn, may cause the need for additional saving throws as your tube is suddenly overwhelmed with internets from other tubes.
Rated by whom? Hint: Not who you think, but rather, by people with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the ratings. People who charge fees to game manufacturers for the rating, and take suggestions from those same manufacturers as to what the ratings should be.
Sure, but.. They do need to be fairly accurate. I don't think rating GTA as an E or even a T would fly.. I don't necessarily agree with the re-rating of GTA:SA either.
Again, these are guidelines. They are meant to guide. At some point someone has to make a choice. Personally, I think that the parent has the sole responsibility of making that choice.
There is zero evidence whatsoever to support this FUD.
So you say. However, based on my experiences, I feel different. I noticed a marked difference in the behaviour of my kids when they played certain games. Removing those games from play corrected those problems. That, to me, is evidence enough. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so these are obviously my opinions. And I don't mean to spread FUD, so I apologize.
So how is trashing the first amendment going to fix the utterly broken social services we have in the US? How is it going to make incompetent, abusive parents competent? It's not. It's simply going to punish people who have done nothing wrong, and who there is no reason to think ever will do something wrong. INSTEAD OF THOSE WHO SHOULD BE PUNISHED. What you advocate will, in every sense, make the problem worse, not better.
Trash the first amendment? I believe in free speech. I have no problem with people expressing themselves. And if I don't agree, I can voice my own opinion, or simply walk away. It's great.
How did anything I suggested trash the first amendment?
Why? What part of "Congress shall make no law" are you having problems with?
Hrm.. Free speech. This, at least to me, means that I can express my ideas. This does not mean, however, that I'm allowed to impose them on others. In a way, they are imposing them on others by hiding behind the free speech umbrella. I think they general thought behind the law may have been a good one, but maybe not a good execution.
Every other sentence in your post begins with, "I think..." What, exactly, makes your thoughts so profoundly valuable to society that they deserve to be backed up at the point of a gun?
I think therefore I am. Are my thoughts valuable? Sure they are, to me. Are they valuable to you? Apparently a little bit as you've taken the time to not only read them, but to reply to them.:)
This is why some of us -- a very, very few of us -- were opposed to the ESRB ratings system in the first place. The game industry implemented it under threats from Senator Lieberman and his cronies to impose exactly this type of legislation. We implemented the rating system and, wow, surprise! -- we discovered we'd been had.
I think I'm confused about the preceding statement. I've read it a few times, and I just don't understand your point. Why is the ESRB a bad thing? Or are you saying that it's not bad, but that because it's not "law" that it was bound to cause problems?
Personally I think the ESRB is a great set of guidelines. GUIDELINES. I don't agree with every rating they've come up with, but they are enough of a guideline that I can determine whether I can immediately buy a game without giving it a real thorough test drive first, or if I need to really check out the game first. I don't really look too thoroughly at E rated games. I give a brief look at T rated, and I give a much heavier look at M rated games. AO is almost universally off the screen for my kids.
So how is this a bad thing? It's helped me out a bit...
Slashdot Mirror
For as stupid as the Senator sounded when he made those statements, he's really not too far off. I've used the idea of pipes (specifically water pipes) to explain how the internet works as well. In fact, it comes in handy explaining ATM terminology as well.
No, he did not get everything correct, but it was a valiant effort. I think the most obvious problem was his improper use of terms. And I'm sure that if I were to try some political speaking and screwed up the terms, I'd receive the same or similar response. That is, if I was in some sort of public position...
That said, I don't necessarily agree with his views. However, it seems to show that he did put a little effort into it. Personally I think these guys should, at the very least, have someone on their staff to explain these things in detail so they can truly understand what's going on.
Of course, noone expects a technologist to be a perfect political speaker, and likewise, noone should expect a politician to have a complete grasp of technology. Regardless, however, if they plan on delving into the subject, they should be doing some due diligence..
The problem with this argument is that there seems to be a very small percentage of people that are truly rehabilitated while in prison. The rest are released and it's just a matter of time before they get in trouble again. And, unfortunately, the trouble seems to escalate.
...
We can try to distinguish between those people that premeditate their crimes, and those who commit them as a spur of the moment act, such as a crime of passion. Maybe we'll get it right, maybe we won't. Of course, if we get it wrong, we run the risk of another "innocent" getting hurt or dying because of this mistake.
Then there are those that are convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Now they get to live on my dime. Why should I have to pay for them? They committed the crimes, not me.
I'm of the opinion that if you're sentenced to life in prison, or death, then you should immediately be taken to the back of the courthouse and shot. Yeah, some innocent people will likely get caught up in the mix, but I'd rather see that than see murderers getting out on parole and killing again.
Go Go Gadget Flamesuit!
And traveling through a simulated universe, from cells to constellations, will, ideally, make them more curious about the real-world universe they already inhabit -- and show them that they have the power to shape that universe as well.
Yeah.. sure.. Let's get real..
Spore looks really cool and I'll be more than happy to play it for a few hours (assuming it truly is as engaging as it looks), but the first thing going through my mind was now "Wow, this has taught me that I can shape the universe," but something more along the lines of "Whoa.. I wonder if I can make a creature that kills everything on sight."
Hrm.. maybe there is something to this video games promotes violence thing...
That would be a "Really Friendly and Thoughtful Article".. Leftovers from OMG PONIES!! era...
Yeah, but the virus doesn't need to run on Vista to send the reply. I can see a virus spread on all those old Windows 95/98/ME/XP machines that slams MS with invalid replies, causing valid licenses to be revoked. As another comment stated, this would result in a massive DDoS about 30 days later...
DirectX 10 is Vista only. This means that in the future (3-5 years is the current estimate), games will be written using DirectX 10 exclusively, thus locking you into Vista. Of course, this also means that MS will be releasing the XBox 720 by then because the 360 does not support DX10.
And after paying out over $700, you still suck at Barbie Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue!
Interestingly enough, I'm just reading this for the first time. I'm nearly at the end of the book and I must say it's been a very odd ride. I've never read a book where they jump around from topic to topic so incredibly fast. It's like talking to a kid with severe ADHD..
:)
Given that though, it is quite the interesting book.. Albeit a tad unbelievable, but it comes together nicely in the end..
As best I can tell from the Sony site, there is no annotation capability. No real input other than loading the documents and turning the pages.. I was really excited about this until I thought about all the times I've annotated documents myself. I'm an avid reader of various genres, but I was looking at this device as something I could use for PDF reading.. Without annotations of any kind, it's use has dropped considerably..
I like the look and feature set of the I-Rex Iliad, but the pricepoint it way out of my range...
This is a really important statistic. With *most* Firefox vulnerabilities being patched within a day, that reduces most of the threat. Just look at the recent IE VML exploit. It's been a week now and the best Microsoft has come up with is "Make sure your antivirus is up to date. Windows One Care has protection for this exploit!" ...
I think 7 days with a "take over your computer" exploit versus is pretty bad.. But it gets worse when you read the security advisory MS put out.. No worries, we'll patch it on October 10th, 23 days after the fact.
Thanks MS. I appreciate it. It's a good thing I run firefox and I don't have these problems..
In fact, has there been a "take over your computer" exploit for firefox? I don't recall seeing one yet.. Either that, or it was patched so fast that it's existence was a moot point...
But they're mulling a web version of Works, not Office.
Have you looked at all at OpenOffice? I thought we did some pretty wierd stuff here that OO wouldn't be able to support, but as it happens, every file opened perfectly in OO and was just as useable..
Ugh, I must be quicker about refreshing my slashdot tab... *I* could have been the one with the funny!
A contract is an agreement whereby two parties exchange consideration. One party's consideration might be a promise to pay money now or in the future. The other party's consideration might be a promise to provide a service, such as email.
Unfortunately, most contracts with an ISP are merely to provide you with access to the ISP's systems. They own the systems, they decide what happens. On top of the "contract" (which is usually just a verbal agreement rather than a written document), they also require that you abide by their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) and/or Terms of Service (TOS). The AUP generally states that you can't spam, transfer illegal material, etc., but, it also points out that the ISP isn't responsible for monitoring for that activity. The TOS usually outlines what services you can expect. Both documents generally include a clause that allows the ISP to change those documents, at will, without notice.
Amazingly enough, courts will actually enforce this right. I'll be around in case you need any more corrections of your obviously wrong assumptions. Thank you.
I think the courts will generally side with the ISP in this case, however. The ISP owns the service and they are not denying a customer that service, but denying non-customers from abusing that service. It's a fine line, but at the end of the day, the ISP owns the servers. A lot of it may also depend on the AUP/TOS that was applied to the customers service.
I use Visual SlickEdit 10 for Linux. http://www.slickedit.com/ This piece of software is the most configurable IDE I've ever used;
:)
:) I've been using it for about 4 years now..
I'll second that.. I use slickedit to work on the various perl/php scripts that I maintain. As such, I can't say much about the compiler, but the intergration with cvs is nice.
it's a tad on the expensive side, but everything just works and it was worth it for me.
If you can provide a student ID, you get it for a fraction of the cost. Then just pay the yearly maintenance to keep the software up to date.. Worked out great for me..
Ah, yes, I believe you are right.. thanks for the heads up :)
Perhaps the producers of Barney want the images removed because it's giving Satan a bad name? Hell, if I were Satan, I'd be suing Mr. Frankel for defamation of character.. Everyone know Barney is MUCH worse than Satan...
Hrm.. I dunno.. I took a look at some of the games on the site and they look pretty interesting. I agree, there's no WoW there, but maybe a low end Starcraft, or a decent RPG... Don't count them out yet, some of those games may be more fun that the average "big budget" games being pumped out..
Look at something as simple as tetris.. How many years has it been? There are still variations coming out that people are more than willing to pay for.. Lumines anyone?
Hrm.. Where is that from? I swear I've seen that stated before... Is that from Dirk Gently perhaps?
does any GPL'd code physically appear in the work you distribute?
Interesting. Do you mean function calls? So if I use a toolkit that has something like renderSquare(blah blah) in it, and I call that function from my code, then is that a physical appearance?
This is why the LGPL was created, to allow the minimal code needed to use a library to be included (as in dynamic linking) without triggering the GPL conditions unless the body of the library itself is also physically included (as would happen with static linking).
Yes, but if the library was created under the GPL, you can't change that license to LGPL. So you're essentially screwed and need to find a different library. However, the object here is to use your library for support, not as a selling point. I obviously need some sort of a GUI toolkit to make my program work in a windows environment. But, the program itself isn't the gui, it's the compression algorithm, or game, or whatever. The supporting libraries are only there for basic presentation.
I guess this is a two edged sword. On one hand, you create the library to distribute for others to use. On the other hand, you don't want people making money off what you've created. I think this is a tough area that needs to be clearly defined in the license. Is this allowed, or no.
I don't have anything being developed commercially, and I don't have plans for this. But, I can definitely see a reason to allow dynamic linking without encompassing that program with the GPL. Multiple libraries that do the same thing can get confusing, and can gum up the system. More resource usage is probably the primary reason not to have 10 libraries on your computer that draw a square. I know it still exists regardless, but the rationale for keeping the number down exists. So, if I want to buy a piece of commercial software, say something like Turbo Tax, or even Office, then I want something that will use the existing libraries I have. I don't *need* this to be open source software as a mere user. I just want a resonable expectation that this new piece of software isn't going to use up all my resources because of a silly licensing problem.
I love open source and I do a lot with Linux. But a licensing restriction like that isn't necessarily something I could live with. Yeah yeah, choose another license...
I'm definitely no lawyer, and I sometimes have a hard time following all of the crazy language used in licenses, so please bear with me. I'm looking for correction here.. :)
As I understand it, the GPL in it's current form (v2) allows for modifications to the existing code if, and only if, that code is then posted with the same license. Correct? However, if you're using it for yourself, then there's no need to post the source unless you want to. You are limited, however, in that you cannot re-distribute it without the source.
Oh, that's all well and good. I have no major problems with that. Let's move ahead a little. Can I use a GPLed library as a dependency for my closed-source program? For instance, let's say that I write a new compression program. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I use a gpl gui toolkit to create the front end. I have not modified the source of the toolkit at all, just used it to create my front end. Do I need to distribute the source code for everything then? I don't think this is a derivative work of the toolkit as I'm not modifying the toolkit in any way. And the compression code was created from scratch by me. So am I free to sell binaries?
How about another example. If MS actually ports Office over to Linux, do they need to open source it? Don't they need to depend on certain libraries to make everything work, or re-invent the wheel just to avoid OSS licensing?
How does v3 deal with this? Are any of these "liberties" changed? I'd love to see a concise list of things you can and cannot do using the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses...
But you're assuming that the security is in the hardware not the software. It's pretty easy to write software that renders hardware vulnerable to all sorts of exploits. And since the OS maker doesn't control the developers, then it's impossible for them to say that the OS is completely secure.
So, in essence, this research only "proves" that if you take something that is secure out of the box and make alterations, it's possible to break that security.
Wow.. Karma.. I *just* tossed out the copies of Turbo C++ and Turbo Assembler I had in the garage.. 3.5" disks.. Not sure if I know where the drive for that is anymore either..
It's worse when you miss the saving throw and the magic missle you intended to clear the tube instead ruptures it. This, in turn, may cause the need for additional saving throws as your tube is suddenly overwhelmed with internets from other tubes.
Rated by whom? Hint: Not who you think, but rather, by people with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the ratings. People who charge fees to game manufacturers for the rating, and take suggestions from those same manufacturers as to what the ratings should be.
Sure, but.. They do need to be fairly accurate. I don't think rating GTA as an E or even a T would fly.. I don't necessarily agree with the re-rating of GTA:SA either.
Again, these are guidelines. They are meant to guide. At some point someone has to make a choice. Personally, I think that the parent has the sole responsibility of making that choice.
There is zero evidence whatsoever to support this FUD.
So you say. However, based on my experiences, I feel different. I noticed a marked difference in the behaviour of my kids when they played certain games. Removing those games from play corrected those problems. That, to me, is evidence enough. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so these are obviously my opinions. And I don't mean to spread FUD, so I apologize.
So how is trashing the first amendment going to fix the utterly broken social services we have in the US? How is it going to make incompetent, abusive parents competent? It's not. It's simply going to punish people who have done nothing wrong, and who there is no reason to think ever will do something wrong. INSTEAD OF THOSE WHO SHOULD BE PUNISHED. What you advocate will, in every sense, make the problem worse, not better.
Trash the first amendment? I believe in free speech. I have no problem with people expressing themselves. And if I don't agree, I can voice my own opinion, or simply walk away. It's great.
How did anything I suggested trash the first amendment?
Why? What part of "Congress shall make no law" are you having problems with?
:)
Hrm.. Free speech. This, at least to me, means that I can express my ideas. This does not mean, however, that I'm allowed to impose them on others. In a way, they are imposing them on others by hiding behind the free speech umbrella. I think they general thought behind the law may have been a good one, but maybe not a good execution.
Every other sentence in your post begins with, "I think..." What, exactly, makes your thoughts so profoundly valuable to society that they deserve to be backed up at the point of a gun?
I think therefore I am. Are my thoughts valuable? Sure they are, to me. Are they valuable to you? Apparently a little bit as you've taken the time to not only read them, but to reply to them.
This is why some of us -- a very, very few of us -- were opposed to the ESRB ratings system in the first place. The game industry implemented it under threats from Senator Lieberman and his cronies to impose exactly this type of legislation. We implemented the rating system and, wow, surprise! -- we discovered we'd been had.
I think I'm confused about the preceding statement. I've read it a few times, and I just don't understand your point. Why is the ESRB a bad thing? Or are you saying that it's not bad, but that because it's not "law" that it was bound to cause problems?
Personally I think the ESRB is a great set of guidelines. GUIDELINES. I don't agree with every rating they've come up with, but they are enough of a guideline that I can determine whether I can immediately buy a game without giving it a real thorough test drive first, or if I need to really check out the game first. I don't really look too thoroughly at E rated games. I give a brief look at T rated, and I give a much heavier look at M rated games. AO is almost universally off the screen for my kids.
So how is this a bad thing? It's helped me out a bit...