retailers don't like the regulatory system either, at least not in the way the US implements it. other countries behave like the ESRB & MPAA, and issue rating stickers before the product is on shelves. so the Walmart's of the world know whether the game is restricted or not. with the US system, you get hauled into court after the game is already on shelves, and face fines for a game you just sold. very ambiguous, so most retailers will just avoid the "edgier" games to keep things safe.
True, but so is the 40% of secret shoppers who were able to get into an R rated movie... or the 80% of secret shoppers who were able to buy an R rated DVD, or Explicit music CD. Or the 20% of secret shoppers who were able to buy cigarettes...
The problem is that the politicians are focusing on video games, and pretending that the rest of the industry is a perfect system, where no-one ever sells anything bad to minors, ever.
Ever heard of the Chilling Effect? Regulation does indeed lead to censorship, though not directly.
Complaints that vendors were not co-operating with the voluntary system.
Actually, that's not quite why the FTC stepped in. The situation became an issue of honesty in advertising. The games had a certain claim on them (the ESRB rating), and the game itself did not adhere to that claim (because of the Hot Coffee content). Hence an issue of potential false advertising.
The FTC recognized that the ESRB did not have enforced policies in place at the time concerning "hidden" or disabled content, but they do now (million dollar fines, recall capabilities, clarity of what kind of content has to be disclosed, etc) hence why they just gave everyone a slap on the wrist, and a "don't do it again."
If Walmart decided to sell the Hot Coffee edition of GTA:San Andreas, properly rated AO, but ended up selling it to kids, then the FTC wouldn't be able to do anything, because the advertising would be correct (contains sexual content & nudity). Some local court might be able to argue obscenity, and get them fined for it, but the FTC would be powerless at that point.
CD's Nope. DVD's Nope. theatres And no. None of those are required by law to have their sale to minors be restricted. Voluntary enforcement != government regulation... So why should games be singled out for special treatment?
"It's not Constitutional." Prove it. 1st Amendment, can't restrict creative content without valid cause (and "I object to the content" doesn't count, except in the case of pornography), 14th Amendment (equality before the law, because movies and TV and music and other forms of media aren't subjected to the same regulations).
And before anyone says it, the FCC CAN regulate TV & radio, but ONLY because they are given the authority to regulate a public resource (the airwaves). This is why HBO can show the stuff it does, but NBC can't show a nipple.
As much as I hate this worthless cunt, I think you're wrong about his proposal being satisfied to the letter. He wanted to see it on store shelves, marketed.
He never said marketed on store shelves though. And the websites *did* advertise their games, albight through alternate channels. They even offered to charge money through PayPal, so it would qualify for the "selling" part of the requirement.
Now, clearly PA would also be in the wrong here, with their shirts
Harder to argue. It *is* just a statement of opinion on a t-shirt. "I hate Jack Thompson" is the same as a t-shirt saying "I hate George Bush" or "I hate Osama"
So i'm suprised no one's commented on the resilliancy of the slashdot effect on slowing down, but not killing penny arcade's servers.
That IS impressive. Gabe has commented on this, saying that if the servers go down, he wants people to know it was because of the/. story attracting visitors and not Jack. Not directly, at least...:)
And, yes, the kids on PennyArcade probably are hassasing him for his point of view, which differs from theirs.
You have to stretch it pretty thin to claim they're harrassing *him*. In response to ONE email, he's phoned them twice, emailed THEM several times, threating them at every opportunity, and called the cops to have them arrested on false grounds.
He had a "modest proposal", loosely based off Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal (1729)" only not as well written. He offered $10,000 to charity if someone would make his violent videogame idea. Of course, he backed down after groups started to actually make the game.
Penny-Arcade accused him of playing a "shell-game" and donated the money themselves, satisfied that Jack's orginal proposal had been satisfied to the letter.
Too bad it's so expensive. Although I imagine I'd just disable the whole "dial 9 to get out" (my work system doesn't require it), as well as disable call transferring. It would be nice if they came out with a linux app that could do it with 2 modems. I wonder how hard it would be...
I've heard of devices that send a certain voltage back down the phone line when the phone rings that somehow confuses modems into thinking they've been disconnected, ever heard of it?
My only problem is getting it to *intercept* the call before it gets to other phones in the house or the fax machine.
I wonder how hard it would be to set up a digital "phone switching" service, just like you get most businesses. Something you could set up where the phone line enteres the house, and then any authorized calls it would pass on to the rest of the house.
IPv6 doesn't have any plans for IP packet origin verification, does it? Just curious because I wonder if phone/fax spam will get worse once VoIP becomes popular.
I wonder how hard it would be to build a better phone, one that could "ring" silently, until it got the caller id, and then if the id says "O" or if it's not on your whitelist or if it's on your blacklist (however you choose to set it up), it would just keep ringing silently until the machine at the other end gave up.
Same way I deal with spam. My whitelist is now at the point where if it does go into my "junkmail" box, I likely didn't ask for it to be sent to me.
Wow, I didn't realise the phone companies were so far behind when it came to preventing fax spam. Maybe the phone companies need to start collaborating on a sort of IPv6 equivalent... *choke*snort*spewcoffee* sorry, I can't believe I actually suggested that phonecos would collaborate to improve security...
Anyway, you'd think the phonecos (the major ones at least) would want to be able to track the phone calls coming in, otherwise who would they bill for those long distance calls? I can't believe the phoneco's wouldn't care who was using their phone-lines.
As for the trace having to come *during* a phone call, don't the phoneco's (the ones that don't use mechanical switches anyway) keep logs of calls passing through? Seeing as you can't just hack the phone switch to spoof your phone #, as some email spam does, *somebody* must have records...
Interesting. I don't think I've ever gotten an "out of area" listing on my caller id. "unknown #" sometimes, but that usually means it's a private #, or being blocked by the caller. But in those cases the phone company is still recording the originating phone call's # (otherwise how would it be able to connect the call?)
I wonder why the phone company has never fixed this? You'd think they'd get in trouble from police departments trying to trace harrasing calls...
*shock* You mean I can't blame all my bad behaviour on Elvis's gyrating hips? But the hips command me!
-- Best analogy this week: "So if the Toronto airport crash was 'miraculous', then does that mean that God tried to kill those people with a lightning bolt, only to be foiled by the satanic competence of the crew?"
I use a "mark" function (usually *67) to flag the last incoming call as harrassing. Then after a certain number of times you've been faxed, wardialed, etc by the same company, call the cops and tell them to get in touch with the phone-company, which at that point has to submit to the police the list of "flagged" phone numbers. I'd like to see the 1-800 # come up with an explanation/denial at that point...
My worry is that with VoIP, how easy will it be to spam call without being traced?
It's the same reason people only install spybot and AV software after they've been hit. Nobody thinks of locking the barn until after the cows are gone.
I'm amazed that *Canada* had iTMS before Japan did... I mean, I'm quite happy we got it when we did, but *before* one of Apple's biggest markets? Does make you wonder. Maybe they were testing the markets Sony didn't dominate, just to make sure it was doable...
I imagine no-one will admit it (anonymous sources, NDAs, etc), but I wonder if the OS X on Intel runs on a non-developmental box? Does OS X actively search for the TPM, and if it doesn't find it, does it run?
Here's another question. Since the TPM (from what I understand from their specs) is just another device, could you theoretically just hack Darwin to give fraudulent replies to the OS? (I've always wondered about that since I learned how TPM worked... seeing as servers will query it to verify how secure your computer is before they let you connect).
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty much it. aka the "chilling effect"
retailers don't like the regulatory system either, at least not in the way the US implements it. other countries behave like the ESRB & MPAA, and issue rating stickers before the product is on shelves. so the Walmart's of the world know whether the game is restricted or not. with the US system, you get hauled into court after the game is already on shelves, and face fines for a game you just sold. very ambiguous, so most retailers will just avoid the "edgier" games to keep things safe.
42% IS a problem.
True, but so is the 40% of secret shoppers who were able to get into an R rated movie... or the 80% of secret shoppers who were able to buy an R rated DVD, or Explicit music CD. Or the 20% of secret shoppers who were able to buy cigarettes...
The problem is that the politicians are focusing on video games, and pretending that the rest of the industry is a perfect system, where no-one ever sells anything bad to minors, ever.
Regulation does not equal censorship
Ever heard of the Chilling Effect? Regulation does indeed lead to censorship, though not directly.
Complaints that vendors were not co-operating with the voluntary system.
Actually, that's not quite why the FTC stepped in. The situation became an issue of honesty in advertising. The games had a certain claim on them (the ESRB rating), and the game itself did not adhere to that claim (because of the Hot Coffee content). Hence an issue of potential false advertising.
The FTC recognized that the ESRB did not have enforced policies in place at the time concerning "hidden" or disabled content, but they do now (million dollar fines, recall capabilities, clarity of what kind of content has to be disclosed, etc) hence why they just gave everyone a slap on the wrist, and a "don't do it again."
If Walmart decided to sell the Hot Coffee edition of GTA:San Andreas, properly rated AO, but ended up selling it to kids, then the FTC wouldn't be able to do anything, because the advertising would be correct (contains sexual content & nudity). Some local court might be able to argue obscenity, and get them fined for it, but the FTC would be powerless at that point.
CD's Nope. DVD's Nope. theatres And no. None of those are required by law to have their sale to minors be restricted. Voluntary enforcement != government regulation... So why should games be singled out for special treatment?
"It's not Constitutional." Prove it. 1st Amendment, can't restrict creative content without valid cause (and "I object to the content" doesn't count, except in the case of pornography), 14th Amendment (equality before the law, because movies and TV and music and other forms of media aren't subjected to the same regulations).
And before anyone says it, the FCC CAN regulate TV & radio, but ONLY because they are given the authority to regulate a public resource (the airwaves). This is why HBO can show the stuff it does, but NBC can't show a nipple.
Maybe if it was somehow relying on your inept computer skills to "filter" you out, maybe.
But if it's just buggy software, then one would assume that EVERYONE is unable to apply.
So I would call this stupidity on the part of the HR department, but definitely not an EOE violation.
He never said marketed on store shelves though. And the websites *did* advertise their games, albight through alternate channels. They even offered to charge money through PayPal, so it would qualify for the "selling" part of the requirement.
Harder to argue. It *is* just a statement of opinion on a t-shirt. "I hate Jack Thompson" is the same as a t-shirt saying "I hate George Bush" or "I hate Osama"
That IS impressive. Gabe has commented on this, saying that if the servers go down, he wants people to know it was because of the
His real name is John Thompson, but he goes by Jack most of the time. Gawd knows why. Maybe he's embarassed of "John".
You have to stretch it pretty thin to claim they're harrassing *him*. In response to ONE email, he's phoned them twice, emailed THEM several times, threating them at every opportunity, and called the cops to have them arrested on false grounds.
Penny-Arcade accused him of playing a "shell-game" and donated the money themselves, satisfied that Jack's orginal proposal had been satisfied to the letter.
Too bad it's so expensive. Although I imagine I'd just disable the whole "dial 9 to get out" (my work system doesn't require it), as well as disable call transferring. It would be nice if they came out with a linux app that could do it with 2 modems. I wonder how hard it would be...
I've heard of devices that send a certain voltage back down the phone line when the phone rings that somehow confuses modems into thinking they've been disconnected, ever heard of it?
My only problem is getting it to *intercept* the call before it gets to other phones in the house or the fax machine.
I wonder how hard it would be to set up a digital "phone switching" service, just like you get most businesses. Something you could set up where the phone line enteres the house, and then any authorized calls it would pass on to the rest of the house.
And the phone system is over 100 years old.
IPv6 doesn't have any plans for IP packet origin verification, does it? Just curious because I wonder if phone/fax spam will get worse once VoIP becomes popular.
I wonder how hard it would be to build a better phone, one that could "ring" silently, until it got the caller id, and then if the id says "O" or if it's not on your whitelist or if it's on your blacklist (however you choose to set it up), it would just keep ringing silently until the machine at the other end gave up.
Same way I deal with spam. My whitelist is now at the point where if it does go into my "junkmail" box, I likely didn't ask for it to be sent to me.
Wow, I didn't realise the phone companies were so far behind when it came to preventing fax spam. Maybe the phone companies need to start collaborating on a sort of IPv6 equivalent...
*choke*snort*spewcoffee* sorry, I can't believe I actually suggested that phonecos would collaborate to improve security...
Anyway, you'd think the phonecos (the major ones at least) would want to be able to track the phone calls coming in, otherwise who would they bill for those long distance calls? I can't believe the phoneco's wouldn't care who was using their phone-lines.
As for the trace having to come *during* a phone call, don't the phoneco's (the ones that don't use mechanical switches anyway) keep logs of calls passing through? Seeing as you can't just hack the phone switch to spoof your phone #, as some email spam does, *somebody* must have records...
Interesting. I don't think I've ever gotten an "out of area" listing on my caller id. "unknown #" sometimes, but that usually means it's a private #, or being blocked by the caller. But in those cases the phone company is still recording the originating phone call's # (otherwise how would it be able to connect the call?)
I wonder why the phone company has never fixed this? You'd think they'd get in trouble from police departments trying to trace harrasing calls...
*shock* You mean I can't blame all my bad behaviour on Elvis's gyrating hips? But the hips command me!
--
Best analogy this week: "So if the Toronto airport crash was 'miraculous', then does that mean that God tried to kill those people with a lightning bolt, only to be foiled by the satanic competence of the crew?"
I use a "mark" function (usually *67) to flag the last incoming call as harrassing. Then after a certain number of times you've been faxed, wardialed, etc by the same company, call the cops and tell them to get in touch with the phone-company, which at that point has to submit to the police the list of "flagged" phone numbers. I'd like to see the 1-800 # come up with an explanation/denial at that point...
My worry is that with VoIP, how easy will it be to spam call without being traced?
It's the same reason people only install spybot and AV software after they've been hit. Nobody thinks of locking the barn until after the cows are gone.
I'm amazed that *Canada* had iTMS before Japan did... I mean, I'm quite happy we got it when we did, but *before* one of Apple's biggest markets? Does make you wonder. Maybe they were testing the markets Sony didn't dominate, just to make sure it was doable...
I imagine no-one will admit it (anonymous sources, NDAs, etc), but I wonder if the OS X on Intel runs on a non-developmental box? Does OS X actively search for the TPM, and if it doesn't find it, does it run?
Here's another question. Since the TPM (from what I understand from their specs) is just another device, could you theoretically just hack Darwin to give fraudulent replies to the OS? (I've always wondered about that since I learned how TPM worked... seeing as servers will query it to verify how secure your computer is before they let you connect).