This is how MMO gaming should be, with nothing coming at the expense of another player. Unfortunately, there is a portion of the MMO population that will not be satisfied unless they can have their domination and bullying fantasies, and even though they ruin gaming for everyone else, they're big enough that few game makers have the guts to take them on.
You disputed the statement "parents can't be aware of what their children are doing 100% of the time". What part of "100% of the time" don't you understand? To say that monitoring isn't necessary to know what your child is doing 100% of the time is absurd.
No, it's not. Some monitoring is certainly needed, but not 100% of the time (which is fortunate, since there's no humane way to accomplish 24/7 monitoring anyway).
And as I point out, even when monitoring fails, it is still possible to counteract the inappropriate influences which children inevitably come into contact with from time to time. That's the failsafe, and it's not even all that difficult, especially when dealing with areas where morality is as clear-cut as it is with violence. It's not always pleasant for all parties involved, or even for any parties involved, but that's true for anything worth doing.
Agree with what? If you're talking about the idea that no parent can monitor their kid 100% of the time, then I agree as far as that goes, but I also assert that this fact isn't relevant, because such monitoring isn't necessary. It is still quite possible to know what's going on in your kid's life without such monitoring, and also quite possible to take the necessary steps to minimize and counter exposure to content that a kid isn't ready for. Doing so is not always pleasant for any of the parties involved, but this is also irrelevant in the face of its necessity.
Certainly there are no ways to monitor what's going on in a kid-s life 100% of the time -no humane ones, at any rate- but fortunately, that isn't necessary. It's a simple matter of being involved and staying involved: a nontrivial effort to be sure, but not a great hardship.
It's very simple: kids have needs. Although some of these needs are basically universal, others vary from kid to kid. If you do not know their needs, you cannot respond to them, and thus you fail. But to know those needs, you must know what's going on. This does not mean constant monitoring, but it does mean more than a casual involvement.
1) There's no way to quantify the degree to which a kid's criminal acts have been influenced by the media, but does there need to be? Most criminals are only too eager to point out their own influences and role models. 2) Certainly not all media influence is bad. Those who are influenced toward good, however, are unlikely to wind up in the criminal justice system in the first place, so the point is moot.
I know for a fact that my parents didn't do anything different with my sister...
...and that was their fundamental mistake. Your sister was a different person, with different situations and needs -very different, from the way your description sounds- and yet your parents treated her as though she was not. One-size-fits-all did not work in your family; what makes you think it would work in law?
But parents can't be aware of what their children are doing 100% of the time.
Not only is it possible, it's the fundamental responsibility of parenting: know what's going on in your kid's life. If you can't do this, you have failed.
It's a LOT easier to control distribution at the point of sale, rather than at the point of consumption.
That is irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means.
If a parent tells their kid they are not allowed to purchase or play a certain game, can that parent ensure that their 15-year-old kid won't still buy that game when said parent tells their kid "yes, you may go to the mall with your friends"?
If the kid cannot yet be trusted to not buy inappropriate material, then that same kid cannot be trusted to go to the mall unsupervised: to allow the kid to go anyway is neglect. If the kid manages to pull the wool over the parents' eyes on this score, failsafes still exist: the game can be taken away after the fact.
1,000 parents, enforcing a self-ban on violent games for their 1,500 kids isn't nearly as effective as 100 retailers being banned from selling them to those kids.
All it does is replace one problem with one far worse: restrictions on free speech. The ends do not justify the means.
If the parents want their kids to have access to those games, then they can still buy GTA 9 for Johnny's birthday.
This. It would be nice to see the courts regard kids subject to "media influence" as prima facie evidence of parental neglect, but that would mean actually holding someone to their responsibilities, and we can't have that, now, can we?
Oh, believe me; I have no intention of defending what Comedy Central did. The most appropriate word I can think of to describe their actions is cowardice.
But when something isn't law applying and invoking it as if it were isn't wise. It does nothing to undermine the bookburners, and it makes our side look foolish: something we cannot afford.
This. UFOs could be useful to study as a psychological or anthropological phenomenon. That's about as far as I'd want to take it in a college curriculum, though.
Not everyone who have their grandparents as parents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation; it could be that this kid mom had him when she was way young and cannot take care of him so rather than give him up for adoption or throw him away like garbage she gave him to her parents to take care of. And unlike some degenerates who just dump their unwanted kid(s) to their parents; she have the decency to stay in touch and try to be a parent as much as she can.
I don't know; I'd call that particular situation pretty seriously F*ed up. You're right that not everyone raised by their grandparents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation, but the ones that aren't tend to be tragic instead.
So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.
However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.
Kindly leave your strawman at the door, please. "Minor" incidents like this one happen all over the world in every state that is at war. This is why war sucks.
Come on. Net-pranks are supposed to be obvious fakes, and here you are, talking about France banning a term that didn't originate in the French language. That's way too plausible.
I know it's April Fool's Day and all, but come on; you're talking about France banning a term that originated from another language. That's way too plausible. Net-pranks are supposed to be obvious fakes, man.
Actually, no. The problem most people have with JavaScript isn't actually JavaScript itself: it's the DOM. This isn't to say that JavaScript doesn't have its ugly parts, but it's inconsistent DOM implementations that cause most of the problems with most JavaScript coding today.
The reason ActionScript, for example, can work so much more consistently is that it doesn't have to deal with browser DOM implementations: it rolls its own. With the compatibility problem out of the way, the rest of the language is allowed to do what it does best, and it does that pretty darn well.
Although HTML5 takes a lot of steps toward being able to provide Flash-like capabilities, it's all done at a very low level: the pieces are all there, but they're not tied together or organized well. Nor, necessarily, should they be: HTML isn't meant for that sort of thing by itself.
A JavaScript library, coupled with a nice builder, could probably fill in the remaining gaps. But both would have to be written, and that would take time (especially for the builder).
Find some small projects, and write them in Java. Then do this process again in a few other languages: I suggest JavaScript (bonus points if you do the OO stuff in JavaScript without using classes, and don't worry so much about browser-compatibility), Haskell, and either Lisp or Scheme.
The point here isn't so much to learn these languages for their own sake, though that's a nice bonus. These languages will force you to think about programming in very different ways than Java tends to teach people. This is not to say that the Java way is bad -there are certainly times when it's the most appropriate way to go- but it's only one way to attack a problem, when usually there are many. Being able to figure out how to do these same things in such different languages will make you a stronger programmer in all of them.
So basically, this guy is to Australia what Jack Thompson would be to the US if he ever got into a position of power. Guys like him would probably faint at the words I typically use to talk and think about them, not because of any actual obscenities, but because phrases like "enemies of freedom" would remind him too much of the way them thar turrists talk about the West.
That said, I can't help but wonder if maybe JonKatz was onto something. Not even 15 years ago, gamers and geeks of all kinds tended to be seen as mostly harmless: bumbling and socially-inept, but generally well-meaning (albeit odd). We were condescended to, and even bullied from time to time, but we were more or less given the benefit of the doubt.
That's changed, and it hasn't been for the better. The condescension and bullying haven't really gone anywhere, but now there's a palpable sense of fear mixed into it. We're seen as ticking time bombs, holding on by a thread that a pin drop in the wrong direction could snap. Some see us as pre-murderers, others as pre-rapists, yet others as pre-saboteurs, but the common thread is clear: we are sleeping monsters to be tiptoed around.
The stereotype is of course false, or at least it's no more true than it's ever been for any group of people. But like the old stereotype, the new one wasn't born in a vacuum. Gaming and geekdom have always had a few Creepy People doing Creepy Things, but it's only recently that they've risen to the forefront. That's our image problem, and it would do us as a group a lot of good to think about why it happened and how to reverse it, before people like Thompson and Atkinson manage to do it for us.
This. Writing to the standards is going to hork IE browsers if you try doing anything more complex than was popular in 1997 or so. Best to at least let the use know why your page -and likely many others they're viewing- look so strange. There's no need to be rude about it, but seriously: there is little to no legitimate need for anyone to be using IE6 at this point. It has held back the Web long enough.
The fact that people are still using IE at all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But as long as they're getting away from IE6 in particular, this is still good news, as it means IE holds back the Web just that much less.
Seriously; I'm looking forward to the day when my work will allow me to drop IE6 support. It was a big improvement over IE5, yes, but it needs to die as soon as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
This is how MMO gaming should be, with nothing coming at the expense of another player. Unfortunately, there is a portion of the MMO population that will not be satisfied unless they can have their domination and bullying fantasies, and even though they ruin gaming for everyone else, they're big enough that few game makers have the guts to take them on.
No, it's not. Some monitoring is certainly needed, but not 100% of the time (which is fortunate, since there's no humane way to accomplish 24/7 monitoring anyway).
And as I point out, even when monitoring fails, it is still possible to counteract the inappropriate influences which children inevitably come into contact with from time to time. That's the failsafe, and it's not even all that difficult, especially when dealing with areas where morality is as clear-cut as it is with violence. It's not always pleasant for all parties involved, or even for any parties involved, but that's true for anything worth doing.
Agree with what? If you're talking about the idea that no parent can monitor their kid 100% of the time, then I agree as far as that goes, but I also assert that this fact isn't relevant, because such monitoring isn't necessary. It is still quite possible to know what's going on in your kid's life without such monitoring, and also quite possible to take the necessary steps to minimize and counter exposure to content that a kid isn't ready for. Doing so is not always pleasant for any of the parties involved, but this is also irrelevant in the face of its necessity.
Certainly there are no ways to monitor what's going on in a kid-s life 100% of the time -no humane ones, at any rate- but fortunately, that isn't necessary. It's a simple matter of being involved and staying involved: a nontrivial effort to be sure, but not a great hardship.
It's very simple: kids have needs. Although some of these needs are basically universal, others vary from kid to kid. If you do not know their needs, you cannot respond to them, and thus you fail. But to know those needs, you must know what's going on. This does not mean constant monitoring, but it does mean more than a casual involvement.
1) There's no way to quantify the degree to which a kid's criminal acts have been influenced by the media, but does there need to be? Most criminals are only too eager to point out their own influences and role models.
2) Certainly not all media influence is bad. Those who are influenced toward good, however, are unlikely to wind up in the criminal justice system in the first place, so the point is moot.
Not only is it possible, it's the fundamental responsibility of parenting: know what's going on in your kid's life. If you can't do this, you have failed.
That is irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means.
If the kid cannot yet be trusted to not buy inappropriate material, then that same kid cannot be trusted to go to the mall unsupervised: to allow the kid to go anyway is neglect. If the kid manages to pull the wool over the parents' eyes on this score, failsafes still exist: the game can be taken away after the fact.
All it does is replace one problem with one far worse: restrictions on free speech. The ends do not justify the means.
Irrelevant.
This. It would be nice to see the courts regard kids subject to "media influence" as prima facie evidence of parental neglect, but that would mean actually holding someone to their responsibilities, and we can't have that, now, can we?
Oh, believe me; I have no intention of defending what Comedy Central did. The most appropriate word I can think of to describe their actions is cowardice.
But when something isn't law applying and invoking it as if it were isn't wise. It does nothing to undermine the bookburners, and it makes our side look foolish: something we cannot afford.
The Declaration of Independence was, at best, a mission statement. It's a fine statement, too, but it is not law. That has implications.
This. UFOs could be useful to study as a psychological or anthropological phenomenon. That's about as far as I'd want to take it in a college curriculum, though.
Not everyone who have their grandparents as parents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation; it could be that this kid mom had him when she was way young and cannot take care of him so rather than give him up for adoption or throw him away like garbage she gave him to her parents to take care of. And unlike some degenerates who just dump their unwanted kid(s) to their parents; she have the decency to stay in touch and try to be a parent as much as she can.
I don't know; I'd call that particular situation pretty seriously F*ed up. You're right that not everyone raised by their grandparents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation, but the ones that aren't tend to be tragic instead.
So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.
However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.
Moral of the story: RTFA.
Kindly leave your strawman at the door, please. "Minor" incidents like this one happen all over the world in every state that is at war. This is why war sucks.
Come on. Net-pranks are supposed to be obvious fakes, and here you are, talking about France banning a term that didn't originate in the French language. That's way too plausible.
I know it's April Fool's Day and all, but come on; you're talking about France banning a term that originated from another language. That's way too plausible. Net-pranks are supposed to be obvious fakes, man.
Actually, no. The problem most people have with JavaScript isn't actually JavaScript itself: it's the DOM. This isn't to say that JavaScript doesn't have its ugly parts, but it's inconsistent DOM implementations that cause most of the problems with most JavaScript coding today.
The reason ActionScript, for example, can work so much more consistently is that it doesn't have to deal with browser DOM implementations: it rolls its own. With the compatibility problem out of the way, the rest of the language is allowed to do what it does best, and it does that pretty darn well.
JavaScript is actually pretty awesome, when implemented correctly. One particularly good implementation out there is called ActionScript.
Although HTML5 takes a lot of steps toward being able to provide Flash-like capabilities, it's all done at a very low level: the pieces are all there, but they're not tied together or organized well. Nor, necessarily, should they be: HTML isn't meant for that sort of thing by itself.
A JavaScript library, coupled with a nice builder, could probably fill in the remaining gaps. But both would have to be written, and that would take time (especially for the builder).
Microsoft gave $9 Billion to its R&D department?
Geez; how'd Steve Jobs convince them to donate that much?
Find some small projects, and write them in Java. Then do this process again in a few other languages: I suggest JavaScript (bonus points if you do the OO stuff in JavaScript without using classes, and don't worry so much about browser-compatibility), Haskell, and either Lisp or Scheme.
The point here isn't so much to learn these languages for their own sake, though that's a nice bonus. These languages will force you to think about programming in very different ways than Java tends to teach people. This is not to say that the Java way is bad -there are certainly times when it's the most appropriate way to go- but it's only one way to attack a problem, when usually there are many. Being able to figure out how to do these same things in such different languages will make you a stronger programmer in all of them.
So basically, this guy is to Australia what Jack Thompson would be to the US if he ever got into a position of power. Guys like him would probably faint at the words I typically use to talk and think about them, not because of any actual obscenities, but because phrases like "enemies of freedom" would remind him too much of the way them thar turrists talk about the West.
That said, I can't help but wonder if maybe JonKatz was onto something. Not even 15 years ago, gamers and geeks of all kinds tended to be seen as mostly harmless: bumbling and socially-inept, but generally well-meaning (albeit odd). We were condescended to, and even bullied from time to time, but we were more or less given the benefit of the doubt.
That's changed, and it hasn't been for the better. The condescension and bullying haven't really gone anywhere, but now there's a palpable sense of fear mixed into it. We're seen as ticking time bombs, holding on by a thread that a pin drop in the wrong direction could snap. Some see us as pre-murderers, others as pre-rapists, yet others as pre-saboteurs, but the common thread is clear: we are sleeping monsters to be tiptoed around.
The stereotype is of course false, or at least it's no more true than it's ever been for any group of people. But like the old stereotype, the new one wasn't born in a vacuum. Gaming and geekdom have always had a few Creepy People doing Creepy Things, but it's only recently that they've risen to the forefront. That's our image problem, and it would do us as a group a lot of good to think about why it happened and how to reverse it, before people like Thompson and Atkinson manage to do it for us.
This. Writing to the standards is going to hork IE browsers if you try doing anything more complex than was popular in 1997 or so. Best to at least let the use know why your page -and likely many others they're viewing- look so strange. There's no need to be rude about it, but seriously: there is little to no legitimate need for anyone to be using IE6 at this point. It has held back the Web long enough.
This, more or less. Blaming the victim only keeps the cycle going.
The fact that people are still using IE at all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But as long as they're getting away from IE6 in particular, this is still good news, as it means IE holds back the Web just that much less.
Seriously; I'm looking forward to the day when my work will allow me to drop IE6 support. It was a big improvement over IE5, yes, but it needs to die as soon as possible.