"As for "looking as good as first-generation PS2 games", this is a joke. Even today's PSX emulators (which work quite well) that can do resolution boosting and antialiasing don't look as good as PS2 games."
I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.
And the resolution boosting and such that you mention was possible back when the PS2 first came out, in PSX emulators for both the PC and even the Dreamcast (of all platforms).
Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice announced today that US military forces in South Korea will be "stratiegicly redeployed" outside of the Korean penninsula.
Is Sony going to follow suit this time with the PlayStation 3? Will PSOne games at least look better?
Sony had the option of doing something similar with the PlayStation 2 (think Bleemcast), but then they were faced with the prospect of PSX games looking just as good as first-generation PS2 games. I suppose Microsoft is venturing out into this because they have the compatability far more restricted than the PSX/PS2 list was.
If my PlayStation library looks better on a PS3, that might make it worth the price of the console (that, and if the memory-card dongle isn't too expensive).
While more popular songs may garner a higher price in the Beloved Market, those same popular songs are also cheaper to produce per unit, simply because they're churning out a bajillion copies. With flat pricing, the popular songs are still earning the publishers more money than the unpopular songs simply because, with the economies of scale at work, they're getting a larger return on that 99.
(Not that it takes much work to make a digital copy for an iPod, but that just makes it even more greedy.)
"Both the PS and the Saturn got analog controllers after launch (ostensibly because they saw how good the N64's analog stick helped things). Now both controllers got a lot of use, much more than most add-on peripherals. The fact that those controllers started being bundled with the consoles did help quite a bit."
True, but try to find a PlayStation game that required the analog stick. Just about every published PSX game I can think of was playable with the old digital pads, simply because there was still no guarantee everybody had a DualShock.
Sega had the right idea for helping with analog stick penetration: include it with a game like NiGHTs.
The federal government. It's all generally a part of Volcanoes National Park.
"If my 2 3/8 acre lot suddenly got bigger on on side, somehow, would I own it? My neighbor?"
First off, let's assume for the moment that the process of adding new land doesn't destroy any improvmenets (i. e. lava didn't run down your house). If you're on the wrong side of Kilauea, do you want to know what your property insurance rates look like?
But beyond that, even after everything had cooled and solidified, this new land generally isn't anything you'd want. It is black rock; it will bake your sorry ass off in the sun (just ask the triathelets in the Ironman, and the parts they run/bike through is much older and much less reflective than the new stuff). Generally speaking, on Hawai'i, there are two flavors of cooled lava: 'a'a and pahoehoe. 'A'a is essentially broken, jumbled black rocks, but very sharp broken, jumbled black rocks (new rocks means no erosion) that can be trecharous to walk on and can kill a new pair of shoes (or your knees and hands when you stumble). Pahoehoe looks like solidifed toffee, a single, solid sheet of EasyBake Oven.
Not all of the island of Hawai'i is the lush, tropical paradise everybody writes home about. Tropical rainforests (and all that it entails) on the windward side, desert on the leeward, snow on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and an outright moonscape on the wrong side of the volcanoes. Even outside of the national park there is a whole mess of land that won't be selling any time soon.
"Would I have to pay increased taxes on my suddenly-newer lot?"
Probably the other direction; your property value would likely plummet once Pele is done with it.
Eventually, part of the Big Island will fall into the ocean and wipe out the Pacific Rim. However, the headline won't be "Rockface falls off into the ocean," it will be "Several thousand acres fall off into the ocean (duck and cover!)" That's how those waves are created.
IIRC, the fault line runes pretty near the summit of Kilauea.
"Is it now illegal to sell playboys to 12 year olds?"
Now that I think about it, your typo poses an interesting question. Was it ever illegal to sell Playboys to 12 year olds? The Feds can't touch it, but is what we're seeing examples of state regulation, or self regulation?
To be honest, I'm only familiar with Florida's (don't ask):
836.11 Publications which tend to expose persons to hatred, contempt, or ridicule prohibited.--
It shall be unlawful to print, publish, distribute or cause to be printed, published or distributed by any means, or in any manner whatsoever, any publication, handbill, dodger, circular, booklet, pamphlet, leaflet, card, sticker, periodical, literature, paper or other printed material which tends to expose any individual or any religious group to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy unless the following is clearly printed or written thereon:
(a) The true name and post office address of the person, firm, partnership, corporation or organization causing the same to be printed, published or distributed(.)
"So you example could work, but it depends on the context."
I was making reference to the infamous "Nuremberg List," although whether or not the actual list incited murder is debatable.
"Yeah, that explains why I can no longer buy beer, or Playboy, or condoms anywhere."
Beer is easy. It says "beer" on it. It's also easy to define what is and what is not beer (chemistry and all). On the other hand, games tend not to say "filth" on the front. From looking at the box, could you tell the difference between a Disney game and a Conker game?
Playboy... is it actually illegal to sell a Playboy to a minor?
"Couldn't the same argument be made for anything? Movies? Porn? If you get specific about what constitutes imminent violence even guns qualify. In essence, you cannot stop someone from selling anything to anyone because you cannot prove it creates or produces an immanent threat to anyone."
They're talking about stuff that, for example, incites racial violence, specifically. If you start dispensing stuff that says, for example, "The Jews are responsible for 9/11!" most states will require that you attatch your name and/or address to it. However, you're still allowed to publish it, and to my knowledge (IANAL) it's still legal for a store to sell such material to minors without getting slapped with fines.
"Imminent threat" means "Kill everybody on this list of abortionists."
"The article suggests that such a thing is against the First Amendment, WTF?"
It "abridges the freedom of speech."
Personally, however, I think Article I, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution better applies here:
All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
Penalizing stores for carrying such games infringes on a person's ability to publish such games.
"games are rated in the same way that movies, alcohol, tobacco etc are in that if you are caught supplying them to anyone underage you can get prosecuted."
Alcohol and tobacco are age-limited by most states. Alcohol and tobacco aren't speech.
Movies are voluntarily rated, but to my knowledge (IANAL) there is no criminal prosecution if you let a child see a movie rated "R" by the MPAA. The entire system is voluntary and, to my knowledge, no state has even attempted such legislation, probably because of the (IMO unjustified) esteem that motion pictures are held in because of the age of the artistic medium, and maybe because of the money the MPAA throws around. But because video games are "t3h evi1," state legislatures seem to be of the opinion that they aren't really speech, and that it's OK to abridge it.
"I'm against censorship in that an adult should not be censored from what they wish to see/do, but ratings are a good thing IMO."
Stores are fined $1000 for selling AO games to minors
Stores can't always be 100% sure the person they're selling to is above the age of 18 (it's Christmas, the game stores are packed, cashiers are overworked)
If you carry AO games, there is always a chance a copy will find its way into the hands of a minor, and you will get fined
The only way to make sure not to get fined is not to carry AO games to begin with
If stores don't carry AO games, where will adults buy them?
It's not a question about ratings, it's a question about giving those ratings the weight of law.
"Does this ruling mean that a child can go to an adult rated film, and if they get denied entry claim it breaches their First Amendment rights?"
Most adult movie stores don't also stock offerings from Disney. I'd argue that it's less burdensome on the adult film industry because those movies are expressly made for spank material. With video games, however, the line isn't as clear cut, defining what a game is made for.
Instead of using adult films as a comparison, what about a movie that's simply rated R? Should I have to go to an "adult film store" to buy Saving Private Ryan?
I'm not saying "12 year old kids should have Playboys," I'm saying "I should be able to have Playboys." If you pass a law that says "Anybody who sells a Playboy to a 12 year old gets fined $1000," guess what magazine stores will stop carrying. If you don't carry the magazine, you can't get fined. If nobody carries the magazine, it won't get published.
"to ensure that children have access to violent and or filthy materials?"
Straw man. Access by children is not the issue for me, the issue is state legislatures trying to take away my access, as a legal, tax-paying citizen who reached the age of majority a while ago, to "violent and/or filthy materials," especially in the name of "think of the children!" Any burden on selling these games "for the children" is a burden in general, one more reason for stores not to stock such games to begin with. And while this would keep the children safe from these games, it would also keep me "safe" because I'd be unable to find anybody to sell the stuff.
Why, instead of fining game stores, don't we instead fine the parents who allowed it to happen?
"Parents can still buy the stuff for their kids if they want to"
Technically, yes, but realisticly they'll never find a store that carries such games (nor will adults wishing to buy the game for themselves). If you are a store that carries M or AO games, there will always be some slight chance that one game will make it into the hands of an unaccompanied minor (it's Christmas time, cashiers are too swamped to really pay attention to who is buying what), and you get slapped with a $1000 fine if you let that happen. The only way to make sure that it doesn't happen is to not carry M and AO games to begin with.
Stores stop carryin them, authors stop publishing them, and pretty soon there's nothing left but a bunch of Disneyfied crap. It's called a "chilling effect."
If you're going to be sarcastic, it helps not to put your foot in your mouth. And if you're goint to be snobbish, it helps to know at least the basics about what you're being stuck-up about.
"I've heard this whole "constitutional right to jury nullification" meme before, but nobody has pointed out to me just where this is enumerated; could you please humor me?"
For criminal proceedings, there's the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.
which means than anybody let off by a jury is let off for good. For civil proceedings, there's the Seventh Amendment:
No fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States.
Helping parents decide whether a game is appropriate for children is one thing. Helping game stores decide whether a game is appropriate for adults is something else.
45 year-old loiters in front of a store. Store owner calls the police. Cop comes by, talks to the loiterer. If he doesn't leave, cop puts loiterer in the back of his car, takes him to the station where there is the potential of having to show up for Big Peoples' Court, where the punishment will probably be fines, maybe community service, or at worst a few days a in jail.
15 year-old loiters in front of a store. Store owner calls the police. Cop comes by, talks to the loiterer. If he doesn't leave, cop puts loiterer in the back of his car, takes him to the station where he will catch flack from parents who couldn't be bothered until they started getting calls from the police, when said parents start screaming about the mistreatment of their "baby" or their "little angel." There is the potential of having to show up for Little Peoples' Court, where the punishment will probably be writing an essay.
Which one do you think the cop will be more likely to bother bringing back to the station, the one for whom there is potential for actual punishment, or the one for whom the worst punishment possible is the cop showing up?
If people here are going to complain about the separate standard used for teenagers as opposed to legal adults, then you should also complain about the way they are coddled by law enforcement until day #6574.
Slashdot Mirror
"As for "looking as good as first-generation PS2 games", this is a joke. Even today's PSX emulators (which work quite well) that can do resolution boosting and antialiasing don't look as good as PS2 games."
I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.
And the resolution boosting and such that you mention was possible back when the PS2 first came out, in PSX emulators for both the PC and even the Dreamcast (of all platforms).
Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice announced today that US military forces in South Korea will be "stratiegicly redeployed" outside of the Korean penninsula.
Is Sony going to follow suit this time with the PlayStation 3? Will PSOne games at least look better?
Sony had the option of doing something similar with the PlayStation 2 (think Bleemcast), but then they were faced with the prospect of PSX games looking just as good as first-generation PS2 games. I suppose Microsoft is venturing out into this because they have the compatability far more restricted than the PSX/PS2 list was.
If my PlayStation library looks better on a PS3, that might make it worth the price of the console (that, and if the memory-card dongle isn't too expensive).
The monitor is smaller than the television and the comfy lounge chair and/or sofa is by the television, not the computer monitor.
"However, hype is everything, and having an "underpowered" console isn't going to help Nintendo regain their hardcore group."
"Hype" doens't have to be about a/v. Besides, how much hype are you going to get for forearm hair in NFL 2KXYZ?
While more popular songs may garner a higher price in the Beloved Market, those same popular songs are also cheaper to produce per unit, simply because they're churning out a bajillion copies. With flat pricing, the popular songs are still earning the publishers more money than the unpopular songs simply because, with the economies of scale at work, they're getting a larger return on that 99.
(Not that it takes much work to make a digital copy for an iPod, but that just makes it even more greedy.)
"Slashdot goes in my hosts file as redirected to 127.0.0.1 to force me to avoid it."
/. servers (Taco, 'zat you?), I'd say your redirect ain't workin'.
Well, your post got through. Unless you just happen to be posting from one of the
"Both the PS and the Saturn got analog controllers after launch (ostensibly because they saw how good the N64's analog stick helped things). Now both controllers got a lot of use, much more than most add-on peripherals. The fact that those controllers started being bundled with the consoles did help quite a bit."
True, but try to find a PlayStation game that required the analog stick. Just about every published PSX game I can think of was playable with the old digital pads, simply because there was still no guarantee everybody had a DualShock.
Sega had the right idea for helping with analog stick penetration: include it with a game like NiGHTs.
"Who owns it?"
The federal government. It's all generally a part of Volcanoes National Park.
"If my 2 3/8 acre lot suddenly got bigger on on side, somehow, would I own it? My neighbor?"
First off, let's assume for the moment that the process of adding new land doesn't destroy any improvmenets (i. e. lava didn't run down your house). If you're on the wrong side of Kilauea, do you want to know what your property insurance rates look like?
But beyond that, even after everything had cooled and solidified, this new land generally isn't anything you'd want. It is black rock; it will bake your sorry ass off in the sun (just ask the triathelets in the Ironman, and the parts they run/bike through is much older and much less reflective than the new stuff). Generally speaking, on Hawai'i, there are two flavors of cooled lava: 'a'a and pahoehoe. 'A'a is essentially broken, jumbled black rocks, but very sharp broken, jumbled black rocks (new rocks means no erosion) that can be trecharous to walk on and can kill a new pair of shoes (or your knees and hands when you stumble). Pahoehoe looks like solidifed toffee, a single, solid sheet of EasyBake Oven.
Not all of the island of Hawai'i is the lush, tropical paradise everybody writes home about. Tropical rainforests (and all that it entails) on the windward side, desert on the leeward, snow on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and an outright moonscape on the wrong side of the volcanoes. Even outside of the national park there is a whole mess of land that won't be selling any time soon.
"Would I have to pay increased taxes on my suddenly-newer lot?"
Probably the other direction; your property value would likely plummet once Pele is done with it.
Eventually, part of the Big Island will fall into the ocean and wipe out the Pacific Rim. However, the headline won't be "Rockface falls off into the ocean," it will be "Several thousand acres fall off into the ocean (duck and cover!)" That's how those waves are created.
IIRC, the fault line runes pretty near the summit of Kilauea.
"The "E" on the front of the Disney game and the "M" on the front of the Conker game."
As I recall, the Illinois law didn't give the ESRB rating the force of law, it never actually defined a "harmful game."
"Yes."
Then it should be easy for you to find a link to that law, shouldn't it?
"Is it now illegal to sell playboys to 12 year olds?"
Now that I think about it, your typo poses an interesting question. Was it ever illegal to sell Playboys to 12 year olds? The Feds can't touch it, but is what we're seeing examples of state regulation, or self regulation?
To be honest, I'm only familiar with Florida's (don't ask): "So you example could work, but it depends on the context."
I was making reference to the infamous "Nuremberg List," although whether or not the actual list incited murder is debatable.
"Yeah, that explains why I can no longer buy beer, or Playboy, or condoms anywhere."
Beer is easy. It says "beer" on it. It's also easy to define what is and what is not beer (chemistry and all). On the other hand, games tend not to say "filth" on the front. From looking at the box, could you tell the difference between a Disney game and a Conker game?
Playboy... is it actually illegal to sell a Playboy to a minor?
Same question for condoms.
"Couldn't the same argument be made for anything? Movies? Porn? If you get specific about what constitutes imminent violence even guns qualify. In essence, you cannot stop someone from selling anything to anyone because you cannot prove it creates or produces an immanent threat to anyone."
They're talking about stuff that, for example, incites racial violence, specifically. If you start dispensing stuff that says, for example, "The Jews are responsible for 9/11!" most states will require that you attatch your name and/or address to it. However, you're still allowed to publish it, and to my knowledge (IANAL) it's still legal for a store to sell such material to minors without getting slapped with fines.
"Imminent threat" means "Kill everybody on this list of abortionists."
It "abridges the freedom of speech."
Personally, however, I think Article I, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution better applies here:Penalizing stores for carrying such games infringes on a person's ability to publish such games.
"games are rated in the same way that movies, alcohol, tobacco etc are in that if you are caught supplying them to anyone underage you can get prosecuted."
Alcohol and tobacco are age-limited by most states. Alcohol and tobacco aren't speech.
Movies are voluntarily rated, but to my knowledge (IANAL) there is no criminal prosecution if you let a child see a movie rated "R" by the MPAA. The entire system is voluntary and, to my knowledge, no state has even attempted such legislation, probably because of the (IMO unjustified) esteem that motion pictures are held in because of the age of the artistic medium, and maybe because of the money the MPAA throws around. But because video games are "t3h evi1," state legislatures seem to be of the opinion that they aren't really speech, and that it's OK to abridge it.
"I'm against censorship in that an adult should not be censored from what they wish to see/do, but ratings are a good thing IMO."
- Stores are fined $1000 for selling AO games to minors
- Stores can't always be 100% sure the person they're selling to is above the age of 18 (it's Christmas, the game stores are packed, cashiers are overworked)
- If you carry AO games, there is always a chance a copy will find its way into the hands of a minor, and you will get fined
- The only way to make sure not to get fined is not to carry AO games to begin with
- If stores don't carry AO games, where will adults buy them?
It's not a question about ratings, it's a question about giving those ratings the weight of law."Does this ruling mean that a child can go to an adult rated film, and if they get denied entry claim it breaches their First Amendment rights?"
Most adult movie stores don't also stock offerings from Disney. I'd argue that it's less burdensome on the adult film industry because those movies are expressly made for spank material. With video games, however, the line isn't as clear cut, defining what a game is made for.
Instead of using adult films as a comparison, what about a movie that's simply rated R? Should I have to go to an "adult film store" to buy Saving Private Ryan?
Like others, your subject line is a straw man.
I'm not saying "12 year old kids should have Playboys," I'm saying "I should be able to have Playboys." If you pass a law that says "Anybody who sells a Playboy to a 12 year old gets fined $1000," guess what magazine stores will stop carrying. If you don't carry the magazine, you can't get fined. If nobody carries the magazine, it won't get published.
"to ensure that children have access to violent and or filthy materials?"
Straw man. Access by children is not the issue for me, the issue is state legislatures trying to take away my access, as a legal, tax-paying citizen who reached the age of majority a while ago, to "violent and/or filthy materials," especially in the name of "think of the children!" Any burden on selling these games "for the children" is a burden in general, one more reason for stores not to stock such games to begin with. And while this would keep the children safe from these games, it would also keep me "safe" because I'd be unable to find anybody to sell the stuff.
Why, instead of fining game stores, don't we instead fine the parents who allowed it to happen?
"Parents can still buy the stuff for their kids if they want to"
Technically, yes, but realisticly they'll never find a store that carries such games (nor will adults wishing to buy the game for themselves). If you are a store that carries M or AO games, there will always be some slight chance that one game will make it into the hands of an unaccompanied minor (it's Christmas time, cashiers are too swamped to really pay attention to who is buying what), and you get slapped with a $1000 fine if you let that happen. The only way to make sure that it doesn't happen is to not carry M and AO games to begin with.
Stores stop carryin them, authors stop publishing them, and pretty soon there's nothing left but a bunch of Disneyfied crap. It's called a "chilling effect."
"would that be an American English dictionary with all its perversions or a RestOfTheWorld English dictionary ?"
Well, gee, considering the fact that the dictionary in question is named after the guy who invented American English, I'll give you three guesses.
If you're going to be sarcastic, it helps not to put your foot in your mouth. And if you're goint to be snobbish, it helps to know at least the basics about what you're being stuck-up about.
For criminal proceedings, there's the Fifth Amendment:which means than anybody let off by a jury is let off for good. For civil proceedings, there's the Seventh Amendment:
Helping parents decide whether a game is appropriate for children is one thing. Helping game stores decide whether a game is appropriate for adults is something else.
"The ICANN is planning events to show that it is not US influenced."
It was the heat of the moment.
45 year-old loiters in front of a store. Store owner calls the police. Cop comes by, talks to the loiterer. If he doesn't leave, cop puts loiterer in the back of his car, takes him to the station where there is the potential of having to show up for Big Peoples' Court, where the punishment will probably be fines, maybe community service, or at worst a few days a in jail.
15 year-old loiters in front of a store. Store owner calls the police. Cop comes by, talks to the loiterer. If he doesn't leave, cop puts loiterer in the back of his car, takes him to the station where he will catch flack from parents who couldn't be bothered until they started getting calls from the police, when said parents start screaming about the mistreatment of their "baby" or their "little angel." There is the potential of having to show up for Little Peoples' Court, where the punishment will probably be writing an essay.
Which one do you think the cop will be more likely to bother bringing back to the station, the one for whom there is potential for actual punishment, or the one for whom the worst punishment possible is the cop showing up?
If people here are going to complain about the separate standard used for teenagers as opposed to legal adults, then you should also complain about the way they are coddled by law enforcement until day #6574.
"the "flower power" era (60's)?"
I thought most of the "1960's" actually took place during the early 1970's.