Every major non-profit has some kind of geek stuff going on: web/email/data servers, networks, software, websites. Even if its all 10 year old hand-me-down hardware and free software.
So if you want to help them out with geek stuff, here is what you do:
Self Incorporate, LLC, something to protect yourself. No sense losing your house because you misconfigured somebody's server for free and let the hackers in.
Search for local non-profits. Google helps.
Email/call said non-profits and offer whatever services you're able to do. Explain exactly how much and what kind of work you're willing & able to do.
Its not much different from cold-calling for contract work... except you'll get a lot more positive responses.
Typical Massachusetts, exploit the poor to create "visual narratives". The whole state is deranged by some kind of progressive-ism mind virus. Consent is easy to get when there are no alternatives in the 3rd world hell holes they ship these too, this is just disgusting.
I fail to see how they're being exploited. I understand some people think taking their picture will steal their soul, but I kind of assumed the desire to use modern electronics meant these people weren't of that type. So, what do they lose?
I actually wondered about the "refurbished electronics to 3rd world countries" business as i heard it was just big business attempt to avoid e-recycling/e-waste costs while skirting international law. Since it is illegal to dump used electronics in 3rd world countries, they "donate" them as refurbished so the other country then has to deal with disposing of them. This shows the programs, at least some of them, are benefiting real people. It puts a human face on the programs.
As the immortal Martha would say, It's a good thing.
One thing I've always wondered is why California needs so much money to operate.
Here in NH, we've got no sales tax and no income tax. Our overall tax burden is among the lowest in the US (sometimes *the* lowest, depending on the year), so yeah - our property taxes are high but not high enough to make up the difference.
Despite this dearth of income, we manage to keep the roads plowed, the schools funded, and the streetlights burning.
So what part of the economic model is different for California? Do they have more road per person to maintain? Are there more criminals per person so that they need more jails? Do they have social services we're missing (universal healthcare)?
Are coastlines more expensive than inland borders?
There's a lot of economists (student and hobby) here on Slashdot. I just don't see the difference in models.
What am I missing?
Besides the typical politician problem of not understanding how to spend within their means?
Illegals. You can call me racist for saying such, or you can check the numbers. NH doesn't have to spend 20% of their entire budget on educating and imprisoning illegal immigrants and their families, CA does.
There is a reason AZ is trying to tackle the illegal problem themselves, and its not because they're a bunch of racist hicks. It is disgustingly expensive for a few states, while the rest just casually say "I don't understand the problem."
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
In other words, what California and New York and all the whiners who are trying to install sales taxes on material from other states is a straightforward violation of the Constitution.
Not exactly.
except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws
It seems to me that the states could add taxes to imports, such as Amazon purchases, as long as it is only used for inspecting incoming goods for contraband
: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States;
and all excess is passed to the Feds.
; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
And Congress can, at any time, amend, repeal, or override any such laws or taxes.
And that of course is assuming there isn't some legal way of classifying the tax differently to not be considered an import tax. There is no doubt about the legality of the local and state sales tax you pay @ Walmart, which probably gets no more than 1% of its taxable products locally. What is the difference between what Walmart sells and what Amazon sells?
I stopped reading at "The executives would think, ‘so your telling me with this device I am going to sell 40% less car chargers’,"
Your article, Mr Boy Genius, shows you're not qualified to be an editor.
And get a 2nd source, or give us a name. "One (disgruntled) former executive" is not a story, no matter how many times you repeat or rephrase the same worthless quote.
The United States deserves the chairmanship, on a semi-permanent basis.
In terms of volume, the United States is doing more to disarm itself than any other country. We presently have disarmament operations underway over Afghanistan, Libya, and to a lesser extent Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
HA-HA-HA!
In Russia, we've LOST more nukes than you've ever disarmed!
Disclaimer: I'm not anti-nuclear. BUT: Solar is not cost effective right *now*. The trend in PV panels has seen a cost reduction of 10% per year, 20% last year. Depending on who you ask, PV could compete with standard energy ($/Kwatt) in 2015-2020 (never if you ask pro-oil/pro-nuke). A thermal solar 24/7 plant has just been commissioned in Spain (Where is your god now?:) ). Once more plants are built, the costs will go down. Ultra-cheap low efficiency coating film is almost here. Artificial photosynthesis is in the works. Capacitors and batteries are getting better. Wind farms combined with pump stations can store water uphill during the night or when demand is low and release it when needed. Combined wind/solar/gas plants are already running. Improvements in buildings' insulation and passive heating/cooling can dramatically reduce power needs. Nuclear plants take about 10 years from blueprint to full-swing production. Add servicing stops + decommissioning costs and time. Renewable plants take 1-3 years from blueprint to completion (depending on size).
Yes, nuclear may still be needed, but I guess that its chunk of the power pie will get smaller globally.
Absolutely. Solar heat is the future.
This is is now. And the possible future of solar hardly explains the desire to burn coal now instead of using nuclear. They're building NEW coal/gas/petrol plants to replace the nukes.
We haven't found a cure for cancer yet, and chemo is extremely damaging to your body... but that doesn't mean we should switch back to blood-letting.
Since the first halt, Germany became a net power importer from France -- whereas it used to be the other way around. And of course France generates 80% of its power from nuclear. So yeah, they aren't really doing anything except shuffling the plants around.
France is going to make out pretty well from all this, probably going to end up as the major electricity producer on the continent. They are already reaping major economies of scale, having the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing electricity prices in Europe.
Why do you think the US hasn't tapped its own oil reserves?
I think the recent MySpace sale has shown that a company that makes games (though shaky) is nowhere near as volatiles as a company that relies upon its social network to fill its coffers.
A company that relies on the sales of games that rely on somebody else's social network is more stable?
I think if Zynga can separate themselves from their Facebook/Social Media reliance and their own past they'll have a chance of lasting 10+ years.
Linked-in has carved their niche as the professionals place to network. They may not have the seemingly limitless growth potential that a generic place like Facebook has, but I think their market is less likely to jump ship with the next new thing that comes out, and they have a well-defined target audience that they know for a fact has money.
The people that spiked Linked-In's IPO are the same people that spiked the first internet bubble and are the same ones that will spike Zynga's IPO, and will be the same ones jumping out windows when this bubble bursts: the ones that "play" the market.
Investing is not a game. It is just numbers and educated guesses based on those numbers. The people inflating these IPOs are just like the people in Vegas betting on black cause its "hot". To the pros they're either an annoying inconvenience... or a mark.
I used to work at EB, and I always thought it was sadly funny when some parent would get offended at some very crude/pixelated nudity... But be perfectly OK with wholesale slaughter.
Seriously.
Most people, at some point in their lives, see a naked body. Most people have sex. That's generally considered to be a good thing. Aren't parents stereotypically bugging their children for grandkids after they get married?
Most people, on the other hand, try to avoid getting dismembered with a chainsaw.
And yet... According to the way we rate our media... Chainsaw dismemberment is apparently more acceptable.
Most people in America still identify themselves as religious, and most of those are either Christian, Muslim, or Jew. They all share a book that has absolutely no qualms about raping, pillaging, and murdering (sorry, you might consider the wholesale slaughter of an entire race or nation as 'cleansing the promised holy land', I call it murder) your way to God's side. In many places it recommends it.
So while people have come a long way towards "love thy neighbor" in the last 2000 years, that has almost entirely been by simply redefining "neighbor". Violence, hate, and objectifying anybody weaker than themselves is still dominating their lives, and "evil" sex is still the #1 committed yet never talked about sin.
That is the idea here. The lawyers don't like those books either. The whole point of laws like the one in this case is to protect certain groups from competition (or to force those who go into certain businesses to pay dues to an organization).
*cough cough*
They took our jobs! Dey took yer jerbs! DERK ER DERRRR!
Now name something that is actually comparable to video games
libel, slander, and inciting to riot are examples of current constitutionally acceptably restricted speech, providing the basis that restricting speech, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional.
Everything you mentioned has a serious chance[sic] of either physical injury of themself or others,
Everything mentioned has a well-known chance of obvious harm.
If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children
Like Hustler?
most people would find the idea ridiculous
Since the courts take into consideration the ideas and goals of the people of the country and have thus upheld certain speech restrictions; and have repeatedly had to rule on new laws restricting speech, I disagree. Most people think censorship is good and needed... they just don't grasp that they're hypocrites and actually believe "only speech I don't like should be censored."
Why is it different with video games?
Its not. Movies are restricted through the voluntary ratings system which was, arguably, put in place to avoid government interference in the same. Would government interference be allowed right now? Perhaps not. But that is ok for my point because I can always fall back to pornography and other obscenity laws. Try using a screenshot from LSL on the cover and see if that is acceptable.
Better yet, why don't you go make a game about raping small children. Make it nice and detailed. Then see if you run afowl of 18 USC 1466A. I'm really curious how the courts will rule there.
There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.
So because they're both harmful, and books are allowed, we shouldn't bother with games. Either your point is irrelevant or your logic is flawed.
Unless you're actually trying to go around the bush and say violent video games are not harmful...
Other than the scientific evidence published by the APA that I've quoted in this thread... you'd be absolutely right. There is, however, the power of reason to support such scientific claims.
Med students arrive for 1st year and puke/get disgusted by the sight of the corpse they have to dissect. By graduation, med students cut open corpses and live patients without hesitation, because they have been desensitized to the horrors of seeing a sick/dead person. They no longer see the corpse/patient as a person, but a task, like a programmer looks at his computer.
"Desensitization" is used to treat phobias through repeated exposure.
Repeated exposure to anything makes you think of it as just an every day occurrence. You're not amazed and wondered by the oxygen entering your lungs... it just happens. You don't think about it.
Why would you expect your brain to work any differently for any other subject matter? If you are repeatedly shown violent images, you will become desensitized to them. They won't phase you at all. And anything that doesn't immediately strike you as odd or wrong is then more likely to be done by you while in a mood that precludes clear planning.
Children are worse. Children don't have the frame of reference to categorize something they experience correctly. You see a tree for the first time and you instantly categorize it a 1000 ways: brown, green, tall, wood, tree, leaves... safe. A kid sees it and they only categorize it maybe 10 ways: big, scary, brown, green. They have to figure out for themselves if its safe or scary or whatever. By having ready access to violent media before they're ready, they're more likely to categorize the violence they see incorrectly.
The CA law, like other restrictions placed on children, helps to ensure that people who's goal is to make money (not a bad thing, just the goal of 99.999% of businesses), do not u
I wasnâ(TM)t just talking about drugs here, I was responding to your list of restricted items that you seem to think somehow justify restricting video games.
Yes you were, you listed illegal drugs as a negative side effect comparable to cancer, death, and losing a limb. A list is implied relation.
Video games: untrained use may result in not completing the level? See the difference? All of the restricted items you mentioned, except porn, can lead to death (yours or others) when used improperly, and are therefore restricted. Video games cannot
Typical stance of many short-sited youngsters unable to comprehend long-term negative side-effects. That is why we don't want you to drink booze or view pornography. New science is pushing people to seek restrictions on products such as violent video games as information about the negative side-effects become apparent. As always, the courts err on conservativeness and strike down early laws like this primarily (if you read the decision) on the basis that society has not viewed violence and aggressiveness in a negative light in the past.
Recent science, as I've already quoted for you, shows there are negative effects directly correlated to violent media. Even if they never become immediately obvious.
This is another conversation entirely.
Then don't mention it.
For the record, I am pro-legalization of all illegal drugs, but letâ(TM)s not get sidetracked.
And by your other expressed views in this post, you think that ice cream trucks hanging out at elementary schools should thus be pushing heroin and AKs on the 1st graders, but its not a problem because only fail parents do not program their kids early enough to never make a bad decision.
I donâ(TM)t understand the question.
Ya... let me put it in 3rd grade format: Is there any "ban on direct sale to minors", of any product, that you would consider reasonable?
One could certainly say that, but one would be incorrect.
Begging the question: Assuming as fact that which has not been accepted as fact.
Ever heard a story about a gun jumping up and shooting somebody under its own power? Ever heard a story of a tornado killing somebody under its own power? Tornados are dangerous. Guns are inanimate objects that can be used by dangerous people to cause great harm to themselves and others, as can baseball bats and money. Your dangerous is not my dangerous.
Itâ(TM)s weird how the abstract linked above doesnâ(TM)t mention anything about video games. I only see mentions of violent movie clips. Are you proposing that we ban the sale of violent movies to minors? If so, good luck with that.
Reading comprehension fail. The study talked about violence in media. The method they used to test their theories used video clips. And its not like any violent video games have cut scenes, or... clips. I appreciate the effort of actually clicking the link and briefly scanning the page though.
Do you think it is reasonable to require such permission for a product that *you* think is dangerous, perhaps homeopathic cancer drugs, abortions, or prostitution, but others do not?
Nope.
Do you think it is reasonable to require such permission for a product that you think is perfectly safe, but others do not?
Nope.
Now we get to the heart of the issue. What is the basis for your blind support of the sale of any product to any minor at any time without care for the consequences of your actions? Anarchist? Ignorant literal interpreter of the Constitution? Evil?
You keep forgetting to limit the discussion to violent video games, which is what this is about. Someone with an addictive
gun licenses, driver's licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law,...
Now name something that is actually comparable to video games. Everything you mentioned has a serious change of either physical injury of themself or others, or financial injury of themself or others (possibility of law suits or other financial situations due to contract law and the like).
That is not the basis for the restriction on sales to minors. Cigarettes do not hurt others (dont get pedantic on me), neither does booze or other drugs. The sales restrictions are about harm to the child due to their inability to use the items in question responsibly.
If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children, most people would find the idea ridiculous. They would say that the parents should decide whether to allow the child to read the book or not. Why is it different with video games?
Its not. You are emotionally confusing the effects of the law. The CA law was not a "ban on video games". The CA law was a ban on sales directly to minors. Incidentally, there is a ban on the sale of certain literature directly to minors. There is even a ban on certain literature from appearing in child accessible public libraries. There is definitely a ban on certain visual artwork being sold to minors, which is very comparable to the video game sale ban and has already been ruled by the supreme court as constitutional.
There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.
See my other posts. There is published (APA) scientific work linking violence in media to increased aggression, and through that, violence. That is enough to show that a reasonable restriction on access should be considered, and is probably constitutional. The fact that violent books do not share the sale restriction is irrelevant. Many, many things become restricted only after additional information becomes available, and you have to start somewhere.
You're still making assumptions about my beliefs. Please read my post carefully, I'll try to be clearer.
I only mentioned pornography as an example of what is currently constitutionally restricted, but I do see where you got confused. Now...
Oh, and here's a question: What do any of these things have to do with video games? No one ever died, got lung cancer, got liver failure, blew off a hand, made illegal drugs, went to war, or was molested by any video game.
What do "illegal drugs" have to do with liver failure, cancer, dieing, losing body parts, killing people, or molesting people? Why would you even group those together? What is so bad about "illegal drugs" besides not having "The Man's" permission to produce/procure/sell/possess them?
The fact that you can lump together things that are *actually* dangerous (guns and alcohol) with things that you only perceive as dangerous (pornography and video games)
One could say you only *perceive* guns & alcohol as dangerous as properly trained and used correctly, they're both quite fun, and safe.
In other words, seeing a lot of violence in media (that is media as in tv/radio/games, not media as in cnn), makes it easier to be aggressive.
So you have the extreme possible immediate harm caused by irresponsible usage (as most anything can, and kids are often known to do), and subtle negative long term damage (ever seen a 40 year alcoholic's liver, or a a 40 year angry man's coronary, the negative effects on both quality and duration of life are comparable)... shown by respected scientific studies to be real dangers. How about an unsubstantiated (because I've run out of time to get an actual link... I'm sure you can find something) harmful effect in between? Getting fired, cut from the team, expelled, etc due to excessive usage or mimicking/imitating something seen or done in the game?
So now we have "illegal drugs" that you equate as a negative side effect akin to losing a hand or dieing of cancer and I see as a wonderful and safe way to alter my state of mind (Which most vertebre, including you, seek to do); violent video games which have scientifically suspected harmful effects that you disagree with, but which I lend some credibility to; and guns which, despite any confusion by my earlier arguments, both of us seem to agree with the law that kids should not have unrestricted access to.
Now you have 3 options to deal with the disagreements:
Total cave-in to my beliefs
compromise
screw you, its my way or the highway
Lucky for us, the country is founded on compromise and understanding... its a constitutional democracy. The combination generally lets the majority get what they want, while keeping the extremes in line by way of the Constitution. However, the founding fathers understood that the Constitution even could be abused, so they put in the courts to help ensure things were interpreted reasonably according to the believed goals of the framers. Hence Freedom of Speech has been consistently and continuously upheld as NOT being license to say anything you want; you can't slander, libel, incite riot or insurrection, or use any other form of speech that has a reasonably good chance of harming others. But because we
You could have saved a lot of time by just stating up front "I have no kids. I have no education on child rearing. I have no education in child psychology. I'm horrible with logic and reading comprehension. But I'm an expert so here is my advice on your parenting style:"
Anyways I'll try to keep the rest of this short and civil by only responding to your key screwups.
Your position is untenable in a free society
My position of "restricting the sale of a possibly harmful product directly to minors is ok" is so untenable it has not been used for any other product or service successfully or long term?
You do know that many items have been restricted since our country's founding, right?
while you waste your time worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Really? And at what point did I say I cared what you did? At what point did I say "dont play violent video games, they're harmful to your tiny developing mind"? At what point did I say "kids should never play violent video games", or anything of the sort?
I just said the ban is reasonable and constitutional because the good outweighs the negligible effort it puts on parents like your brother. I cited pornography to directly counter your claim that other examples were not comparable. You never covered that btw.
So now it is very simply stated: The CA law banning the sale of violent video games directly to minors is both reasonable and constitutional. Pornography being the first and clearest example of previous "successful" bans for people that can't think about the issue in an abstract manner. For everybody else: guns, alcohol, cigarettes, tnt, driving, and joining the military also work as they are potentially harmful to minors because minors don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Whether or not violent video games are harmful is a separate question; irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality and nearly so to tenability.
I was merely stating that if they are unsupervised enough to buy games you don't want them to buy, then they could be doing other things without your notice.
No, you stated very clearly that by virtue of me not wanting my kid to purchase a game without my permission that I am an absentee parent that lets my kids wander around town unsupervised. Now that I've pointed out your b.s., you're backtracking to try and save face and sound like you had a valid argument where none existed. Insults are not arguments, they're childish attempts to control the conversation by directing it to a topic you actually know something about so you don't sound ignorant.
I won't bite.
Refute my points: starting by differentiating the ban on pornography with the ban on violent video games. Or explain how removing age restrictions on things like guns and alcohol will improve society or your ability to parent.
The difference between brains and beauty is that you're more or less born into good looks — entitled, if you will. Intelligence? That takes work
Miss America contestants, models, and actors of course being well known for watching tv and eating cheetos(tm)... not starving themselves, living at a gym or paying people tons of money to run their lives so they can look good.
So, Mr. Author, how many hours per week do you spend at the gym? Do you count calories? Do you exfoliate your skin, clean it twice daily to ensure the zits dont come back, shower daily, work hard to make enough money so you can buy nice clothes at Barney's instead of casually grabbing a plain tshirt and jeans from Kmart? Or is it... too much work?
Here is the psychology behind this: The author is being excluded from the "good looking tribe" by virtue of the fact that he is ugly (or at least thinks he is ugly). To make himself feel better, he stomps his foot and loudly proclaims "I didnt want to be a part of your dumb group anyways!" He did it by citing all the traits he values as virtues of his group, while saying the other group doesn't have those traits... and as normal without actually researching/thinking it all the way through. Strangely enough, a trait (research/thinking) he probably thinks quite highly of himself for.
Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?
because most people don't get horny when they shoot people, and apparently being horny is bad./shrug
Absolutely.
Next question: Why is a non-animated picture of a naked lady, taken with her consent, naughty, but an interactive 3-D game where you score points raping, sodomizing, and strangling the same image of a women while she screams in protest, protected art?
But if you take a screenshot of that *exact same game* to put on the cover of the game... you're once again in the naughty spot.
"No. I think I don't want my 12 year old to buy the same without my permission."
So you are ok letting your 12 year old wander the city doing who knows what while unsupervised (since a supervised 12 year old would be unable to buy said game), but you don't want a store to be able to sell him a game with any amount of violence? Have fun with your kid turning to more destructive outlets while you're actively ignoring him/her.
Lol. ty/. for the disingenuous extremist quips. While people like you think the only two options for raising kids are:
Shadow them 24/7 to make sure they do nothing wrong and
Completely ignore your kids to let them do absolutely anything they want
Some responsible parents, like me, take an active interest in their kids lives to attempt to raise them to be well-mannered, informed, educated, critically thinking adults capable of handling responsibility and making moral decisions. To that end, my kids are given increasingly complicated responsibilities according to their own development. The very first time I let them out of my sight is not the same moment I'm ready to kick them out of the house to live on their own. There are steps in between: playing in their room unattended, playing in the back yard unattended, playing the front yard, walking to school, the park, the mall, driving, and most of those later steps involve me not being present or filming their every move for later review.
I am also smart enough (being a programmer maybe helps this) to know that I cannot possibly think of every possible naughty thing that would ever appear in a game. Nor do I have the free time to play every game from start to end, finding every secret level and bonus item, before letting my kids play it. So again, I rely on something in between to give me a base to make my decision. Requiring my kids to come ask me to buy a game for them (or a gun, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever) is the best way to accomplish that without putting undue hardship on others. However, some psychopath asshat like you that never considers that other people develop differently, being able to give a 9 year old a 40 and a glock without restrictions, would change my stance on when my kids are allowed to go outside.
Have fun with your ignorant close-minded black and white world. I'm sure you'll do great in politics if/when you mature.
I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy.
You don't.
Absolutely 100% wrong.
I think some kids are incapable of deciding in certain situations. Science agrees. To facilitate that in a general fashion (as all laws must), the law has determined that 18 years old is a generally accepted age at which most kids become adults and are then capable of making such decisions on their own. Some are still incapable of making the right decisions: so we have prisons and mental hospitals. Before 18, we have parents. Parents cannot be everywhere at all times, so we have laws to assist them in protecting their kids from the predations of others.
That doesn't give you a right to limit my rights to give my children the responsibility and freedom of making their own choices of what to buy, without it being subject to my approval.
It does, actually. Ever heard the term "You can please some people all the time, and all people some of the time, but you can't please everybody all the time"? That is what being "social" is all about. It is the entire basis of government, laws, and society. Generalizations are made for the betterment of most people. Your 16 year old might be capable of deciding whether or not to point an unloaded firearm at their friend's head and pull the trigger (by the sounding of your arguments, your kid would probably do exactly that and you'd be proud of him). Society, psychology, and history however, disagree. Most kids don't think that is ok, they just don't think about it. They don't think that *maybe* the gun is actually loaded and they didn't notice, so they don't follow the very basic firearm rule of never point a gun anywhere but the ground or your clearly visible target, loaded or unloaded, working or not working. live ammo or blanks. They are not responsible enough to be trusted with making that decision, and therefore are not allowed to buy guns on their own.
But beyond that, you seem to still fail to understand that the law in no way restricts your right or ability to have a conversation with your kid to determine if they're ready to play Modern Warfare, and then for your kid to play that game if your kid decides that.
They learn that their parents honour their privacy and choices; something you want to remove. That's restricting my rights as a parent, no matter how you turn it.
As do gun licenses, drivers licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law, and numerous other things. You think it restricts your right to parent, when in fact it only restricts your right to not parent. Drop the Cheetos(tm), and actively do something instead of letting your kid raise himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Do dead hard drives go to hell and IDE?
Nah. Once you wipe the scsi off of them, they're all right.
So if you want to help them out with geek stuff, here is what you do:
Its not much different from cold-calling for contract work... except you'll get a lot more positive responses.
Geek Corpses? Is that where Geek Squad employees go to when they die?
No. They go to hell. They go to hell and DIE.
Typical Massachusetts, exploit the poor to create "visual narratives". The whole state is deranged by some kind of progressive-ism mind virus. Consent is easy to get when there are no alternatives in the 3rd world hell holes they ship these too, this is just disgusting.
I fail to see how they're being exploited. I understand some people think taking their picture will steal their soul, but I kind of assumed the desire to use modern electronics meant these people weren't of that type. So, what do they lose?
I actually wondered about the "refurbished electronics to 3rd world countries" business as i heard it was just big business attempt to avoid e-recycling/e-waste costs while skirting international law. Since it is illegal to dump used electronics in 3rd world countries, they "donate" them as refurbished so the other country then has to deal with disposing of them. This shows the programs, at least some of them, are benefiting real people. It puts a human face on the programs.
As the immortal Martha would say, It's a good thing.
One thing I've always wondered is why California needs so much money to operate.
Here in NH, we've got no sales tax and no income tax. Our overall tax burden is among the lowest in the US (sometimes *the* lowest, depending on the year), so yeah - our property taxes are high but not high enough to make up the difference.
Despite this dearth of income, we manage to keep the roads plowed, the schools funded, and the streetlights burning.
So what part of the economic model is different for California? Do they have more road per person to maintain? Are there more criminals per person so that they need more jails? Do they have social services we're missing (universal healthcare)?
Are coastlines more expensive than inland borders?
There's a lot of economists (student and hobby) here on Slashdot. I just don't see the difference in models.
What am I missing?
Besides the typical politician problem of not understanding how to spend within their means?
Illegals. You can call me racist for saying such, or you can check the numbers. NH doesn't have to spend 20% of their entire budget on educating and imprisoning illegal immigrants and their families, CA does.
There is a reason AZ is trying to tackle the illegal problem themselves, and its not because they're a bunch of racist hicks. It is disgustingly expensive for a few states, while the rest just casually say "I don't understand the problem."
Oh, nonsense. Article I, Section 10:
In other words, what California and New York and all the whiners who are trying to install sales taxes on material from other states is a straightforward violation of the Constitution.
Not exactly.
except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws
It seems to me that the states could add taxes to imports, such as Amazon purchases, as long as it is only used for inspecting incoming goods for contraband
: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States;
and all excess is passed to the Feds.
; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
And Congress can, at any time, amend, repeal, or override any such laws or taxes.
And that of course is assuming there isn't some legal way of classifying the tax differently to not be considered an import tax.
There is no doubt about the legality of the local and state sales tax you pay @ Walmart, which probably gets no more than 1% of its taxable products locally.
What is the difference between what Walmart sells and what Amazon sells?
Your article, Mr Boy Genius, shows you're not qualified to be an editor.
And get a 2nd source, or give us a name. "One (disgruntled) former executive" is not a story, no matter how many times you repeat or rephrase the same worthless quote.
The United States deserves the chairmanship, on a semi-permanent basis.
In terms of volume, the United States is doing more to disarm itself than any other country. We presently have disarmament operations underway over Afghanistan, Libya, and to a lesser extent Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
HA-HA-HA!
In Russia, we've LOST more nukes than you've ever disarmed!
Disclaimer: I'm not anti-nuclear. BUT: Solar is not cost effective right *now*. The trend in PV panels has seen a cost reduction of 10% per year, 20% last year. Depending on who you ask, PV could compete with standard energy ($/Kwatt) in 2015-2020 (never if you ask pro-oil/pro-nuke). A thermal solar 24/7 plant has just been commissioned in Spain (Where is your god now? :) ). Once more plants are built, the costs will go down. Ultra-cheap low efficiency coating film is almost here. Artificial photosynthesis is in the works. Capacitors and batteries are getting better. Wind farms combined with pump stations can store water uphill during the night or when demand is low and release it when needed. Combined wind/solar/gas plants are already running. Improvements in buildings' insulation and passive heating/cooling can dramatically reduce power needs. Nuclear plants take about 10 years from blueprint to full-swing production. Add servicing stops + decommissioning costs and time. Renewable plants take 1-3 years from blueprint to completion (depending on size).
Yes, nuclear may still be needed, but I guess that its chunk of the power pie will get smaller globally.
Absolutely. Solar heat is the future.
This is is now. And the possible future of solar hardly explains the desire to burn coal now instead of using nuclear. They're building NEW coal/gas/petrol plants to replace the nukes.
We haven't found a cure for cancer yet, and chemo is extremely damaging to your body... but that doesn't mean we should switch back to blood-letting.
Since the first halt, Germany became a net power importer from France -- whereas it used to be the other way around. And of course France generates 80% of its power from nuclear. So yeah, they aren't really doing anything except shuffling the plants around.
France is going to make out pretty well from all this, probably going to end up as the major electricity producer on the continent. They are already reaping major economies of scale, having the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing electricity prices in Europe.
Why do you think the US hasn't tapped its own oil reserves?
"Not in my backyard."
The greens are backing coal, now?
Yes. They're just too short-sighted to realize it.
The core of any country's power needs has to come from 1 of 4 options:
Solar is not cost effective, wind, water, geo-thermal, tidal are limited by geography.
So if you outlaw/restrict nuclear, you're left with burning coal, gas, or petroleum.
sorry, you might consider the wholesale slaughter of an entire race or nation as 'cleansing the promised holy land', I call it murder
That's not murder; that's genocide.
Ha, ha, ha. You dumb bastard. Its not a schooner, its a sailboat.
-- Willam, Mallrats.
I think the recent MySpace sale has shown that a company that makes games (though shaky) is nowhere near as volatiles as a company that relies upon its social network to fill its coffers.
A company that relies on the sales of games that rely on somebody else's social network is more stable?
I think if Zynga can separate themselves from their Facebook/Social Media reliance and their own past they'll have a chance of lasting 10+ years.
Linked-in has carved their niche as the professionals place to network. They may not have the seemingly limitless growth potential that a generic place like Facebook has, but I think their market is less likely to jump ship with the next new thing that comes out, and they have a well-defined target audience that they know for a fact has money.
The people that spiked Linked-In's IPO are the same people that spiked the first internet bubble and are the same ones that will spike Zynga's IPO, and will be the same ones jumping out windows when this bubble bursts: the ones that "play" the market.
Investing is not a game. It is just numbers and educated guesses based on those numbers. The people inflating these IPOs are just like the people in Vegas betting on black cause its "hot". To the pros they're either an annoying inconvenience... or a mark.
I used to work at EB, and I always thought it was sadly funny when some parent would get offended at some very crude/pixelated nudity... But be perfectly OK with wholesale slaughter.
Seriously.
Most people, at some point in their lives, see a naked body. Most people have sex. That's generally considered to be a good thing. Aren't parents stereotypically bugging their children for grandkids after they get married?
Most people, on the other hand, try to avoid getting dismembered with a chainsaw.
And yet... According to the way we rate our media... Chainsaw dismemberment is apparently more acceptable.
Most people in America still identify themselves as religious, and most of those are either Christian, Muslim, or Jew. They all share a book that has absolutely no qualms about raping, pillaging, and murdering (sorry, you might consider the wholesale slaughter of an entire race or nation as 'cleansing the promised holy land', I call it murder) your way to God's side. In many places it recommends it.
So while people have come a long way towards "love thy neighbor" in the last 2000 years, that has almost entirely been by simply redefining "neighbor". Violence, hate, and objectifying anybody weaker than themselves is still dominating their lives, and "evil" sex is still the #1 committed yet never talked about sin.
That is the idea here. The lawyers don't like those books either. The whole point of laws like the one in this case is to protect certain groups from competition (or to force those who go into certain businesses to pay dues to an organization).
*cough cough*
They took our jobs! Dey took yer jerbs! DERK ER DERRRR!
Now name something that is actually comparable to video games
libel, slander, and inciting to riot are examples of current constitutionally acceptably restricted speech, providing the basis that restricting speech, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional.
Everything you mentioned has a serious chance[sic] of either physical injury of themself or others,
Everything mentioned has a well-known chance of obvious harm.
If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children
Like Hustler?
most people would find the idea ridiculous
Since the courts take into consideration the ideas and goals of the people of the country and have thus upheld certain speech restrictions; and have repeatedly had to rule on new laws restricting speech, I disagree. Most people think censorship is good and needed... they just don't grasp that they're hypocrites and actually believe "only speech I don't like should be censored."
Why is it different with video games?
Its not. Movies are restricted through the voluntary ratings system which was, arguably, put in place to avoid government interference in the same. Would government interference be allowed right now? Perhaps not. But that is ok for my point because I can always fall back to pornography and other obscenity laws. Try using a screenshot from LSL on the cover and see if that is acceptable.
Better yet, why don't you go make a game about raping small children. Make it nice and detailed. Then see if you run afowl of 18 USC 1466A. I'm really curious how the courts will rule there.
There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.
So because they're both harmful, and books are allowed, we shouldn't bother with games. Either your point is irrelevant or your logic is flawed.
Unless you're actually trying to go around the bush and say violent video games are not harmful... Other than the scientific evidence published by the APA that I've quoted in this thread... you'd be absolutely right. There is, however, the power of reason to support such scientific claims.
Med students arrive for 1st year and puke/get disgusted by the sight of the corpse they have to dissect. By graduation, med students cut open corpses and live patients without hesitation, because they have been desensitized to the horrors of seeing a sick/dead person. They no longer see the corpse/patient as a person, but a task, like a programmer looks at his computer.
"Desensitization" is used to treat phobias through repeated exposure.
Repeated exposure to anything makes you think of it as just an every day occurrence. You're not amazed and wondered by the oxygen entering your lungs... it just happens. You don't think about it.
Why would you expect your brain to work any differently for any other subject matter? If you are repeatedly shown violent images, you will become desensitized to them. They won't phase you at all. And anything that doesn't immediately strike you as odd or wrong is then more likely to be done by you while in a mood that precludes clear planning.
Children are worse. Children don't have the frame of reference to categorize something they experience correctly. You see a tree for the first time and you instantly categorize it a 1000 ways: brown, green, tall, wood, tree, leaves... safe. A kid sees it and they only categorize it maybe 10 ways: big, scary, brown, green. They have to figure out for themselves if its safe or scary or whatever. By having ready access to violent media before they're ready, they're more likely to categorize the violence they see incorrectly.
The CA law, like other restrictions placed on children, helps to ensure that people who's goal is to make money (not a bad thing, just the goal of 99.999% of businesses), do not u
I wasnâ(TM)t just talking about drugs here, I was responding to your list of restricted items that you seem to think somehow justify restricting video games.
Yes you were, you listed illegal drugs as a negative side effect comparable to cancer, death, and losing a limb. A list is implied relation.
Video games: untrained use may result in not completing the level? See the difference? All of the restricted items you mentioned, except porn, can lead to death (yours or others) when used improperly, and are therefore restricted. Video games cannot
Typical stance of many short-sited youngsters unable to comprehend long-term negative side-effects. That is why we don't want you to drink booze or view pornography. New science is pushing people to seek restrictions on products such as violent video games as information about the negative side-effects become apparent. As always, the courts err on conservativeness and strike down early laws like this primarily (if you read the decision) on the basis that society has not viewed violence and aggressiveness in a negative light in the past.
Recent science, as I've already quoted for you, shows there are negative effects directly correlated to violent media. Even if they never become immediately obvious.
This is another conversation entirely.
Then don't mention it.
For the record, I am pro-legalization of all illegal drugs, but letâ(TM)s not get sidetracked.
And by your other expressed views in this post, you think that ice cream trucks hanging out at elementary schools should thus be pushing heroin and AKs on the 1st graders, but its not a problem because only fail parents do not program their kids early enough to never make a bad decision.
I donâ(TM)t understand the question.
Ya... let me put it in 3rd grade format: Is there any "ban on direct sale to minors", of any product, that you would consider reasonable?
One could certainly say that, but one would be incorrect.
Begging the question: Assuming as fact that which has not been accepted as fact.
Ever heard a story about a gun jumping up and shooting somebody under its own power? Ever heard a story of a tornado killing somebody under its own power? Tornados are dangerous. Guns are inanimate objects that can be used by dangerous people to cause great harm to themselves and others, as can baseball bats and money. Your dangerous is not my dangerous.
Itâ(TM)s weird how the abstract linked above doesnâ(TM)t mention anything about video games. I only see mentions of violent movie clips. Are you proposing that we ban the sale of violent movies to minors? If so, good luck with that.
Reading comprehension fail. The study talked about violence in media. The method they used to test their theories used video clips. And its not like any violent video games have cut scenes, or... clips. I appreciate the effort of actually clicking the link and briefly scanning the page though.
Do you think it is reasonable to require such permission for a product that *you* think is dangerous, perhaps homeopathic cancer drugs, abortions, or prostitution, but others do not?
Nope.
Do you think it is reasonable to require such permission for a product that you think is perfectly safe, but others do not?
Nope.
Now we get to the heart of the issue. What is the basis for your blind support of the sale of any product to any minor at any time without care for the consequences of your actions? Anarchist? Ignorant literal interpreter of the Constitution? Evil?
You keep forgetting to limit the discussion to violent video games, which is what this is about. Someone with an addictive
gun licenses, driver's licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law,...
Now name something that is actually comparable to video games. Everything you mentioned has a serious change of either physical injury of themself or others, or financial injury of themself or others (possibility of law suits or other financial situations due to contract law and the like).
That is not the basis for the restriction on sales to minors. Cigarettes do not hurt others (dont get pedantic on me), neither does booze or other drugs. The sales restrictions are about harm to the child due to their inability to use the items in question responsibly.
If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children, most people would find the idea ridiculous. They would say that the parents should decide whether to allow the child to read the book or not. Why is it different with video games?
Its not. You are emotionally confusing the effects of the law. The CA law was not a "ban on video games". The CA law was a ban on sales directly to minors. Incidentally, there is a ban on the sale of certain literature directly to minors. There is even a ban on certain literature from appearing in child accessible public libraries. There is definitely a ban on certain visual artwork being sold to minors, which is very comparable to the video game sale ban and has already been ruled by the supreme court as constitutional.
There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.
See my other posts. There is published (APA) scientific work linking violence in media to increased aggression, and through that, violence. That is enough to show that a reasonable restriction on access should be considered, and is probably constitutional. The fact that violent books do not share the sale restriction is irrelevant. Many, many things become restricted only after additional information becomes available, and you have to start somewhere.
I only mentioned pornography as an example of what is currently constitutionally restricted, but I do see where you got confused. Now...
Oh, and here's a question: What do any of these things have to do with video games? No one ever died, got lung cancer, got liver failure, blew off a hand, made illegal drugs, went to war, or was molested by any video game.
What do "illegal drugs" have to do with liver failure, cancer, dieing, losing body parts, killing people, or molesting people? Why would you even group those together? What is so bad about "illegal drugs" besides not having "The Man's" permission to produce/procure/sell/possess them?
The fact that you can lump together things that are *actually* dangerous (guns and alcohol) with things that you only perceive as dangerous (pornography and video games)
One could say you only *perceive* guns & alcohol as dangerous as properly trained and used correctly, they're both quite fun, and safe.
But then, http://www.themedguru.com/20110223/newsfeature/chinese-man-dies-after-playing-video-games-non-stop-3-days-86143775.html, nobody ever died by using a game or alcohol too much, right?
But how about some more long term negative effects of violent video games:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2010-26571-001
habitual media violence exposure predicted faster accessibility of aggressive cognitions,
In other words, seeing a lot of violence in media (that is media as in tv/radio/games, not media as in cnn), makes it easier to be aggressive.
So you have the extreme possible immediate harm caused by irresponsible usage (as most anything can, and kids are often known to do), and subtle negative long term damage (ever seen a 40 year alcoholic's liver, or a a 40 year angry man's coronary, the negative effects on both quality and duration of life are comparable)... shown by respected scientific studies to be real dangers. How about an unsubstantiated (because I've run out of time to get an actual link... I'm sure you can find something) harmful effect in between? Getting fired, cut from the team, expelled, etc due to excessive usage or mimicking/imitating something seen or done in the game?
So now we have "illegal drugs" that you equate as a negative side effect akin to losing a hand or dieing of cancer and I see as a wonderful and safe way to alter my state of mind (Which most vertebre, including you, seek to do); violent video games which have scientifically suspected harmful effects that you disagree with, but which I lend some credibility to; and guns which, despite any confusion by my earlier arguments, both of us seem to agree with the law that kids should not have unrestricted access to.
Now you have 3 options to deal with the disagreements:
Lucky for us, the country is founded on compromise and understanding... its a constitutional democracy. The combination generally lets the majority get what they want, while keeping the extremes in line by way of the Constitution. However, the founding fathers understood that the Constitution even could be abused, so they put in the courts to help ensure things were interpreted reasonably according to the believed goals of the framers. Hence Freedom of Speech has been consistently and continuously upheld as NOT being license to say anything you want; you can't slander, libel, incite riot or insurrection, or use any other form of speech that has a reasonably good chance of harming others. But because we
You could have saved a lot of time by just stating up front "I have no kids. I have no education on child rearing. I have no education in child psychology. I'm horrible with logic and reading comprehension. But I'm an expert so here is my advice on your parenting style:"
Anyways I'll try to keep the rest of this short and civil by only responding to your key screwups.
Your position is untenable in a free society
My position of "restricting the sale of a possibly harmful product directly to minors is ok" is so untenable it has not been used for any other product or service successfully or long term?
You do know that many items have been restricted since our country's founding, right?
while you waste your time worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Really? And at what point did I say I cared what you did? At what point did I say "dont play violent video games, they're harmful to your tiny developing mind"? At what point did I say "kids should never play violent video games", or anything of the sort?
I just said the ban is reasonable and constitutional because the good outweighs the negligible effort it puts on parents like your brother. I cited pornography to directly counter your claim that other examples were not comparable. You never covered that btw.
So now it is very simply stated: The CA law banning the sale of violent video games directly to minors is both reasonable and constitutional. Pornography being the first and clearest example of previous "successful" bans for people that can't think about the issue in an abstract manner. For everybody else: guns, alcohol, cigarettes, tnt, driving, and joining the military also work as they are potentially harmful to minors because minors don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Whether or not violent video games are harmful is a separate question; irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality and nearly so to tenability.
pot. kettle. black.
I was merely stating that if they are unsupervised enough to buy games you don't want them to buy, then they could be doing other things without your notice.
No, you stated very clearly that by virtue of me not wanting my kid to purchase a game without my permission that I am an absentee parent that lets my kids wander around town unsupervised. Now that I've pointed out your b.s., you're backtracking to try and save face and sound like you had a valid argument where none existed. Insults are not arguments, they're childish attempts to control the conversation by directing it to a topic you actually know something about so you don't sound ignorant.
I won't bite.
Refute my points: starting by differentiating the ban on pornography with the ban on violent video games. Or explain how removing age restrictions on things like guns and alcohol will improve society or your ability to parent.
In short, join the discussion or stfu.
The difference between brains and beauty is that you're more or less born into good looks — entitled, if you will. Intelligence? That takes work
Miss America contestants, models, and actors of course being well known for watching tv and eating cheetos(tm)... not starving themselves, living at a gym or paying people tons of money to run their lives so they can look good.
So, Mr. Author, how many hours per week do you spend at the gym? Do you count calories? Do you exfoliate your skin, clean it twice daily to ensure the zits dont come back, shower daily, work hard to make enough money so you can buy nice clothes at Barney's instead of casually grabbing a plain tshirt and jeans from Kmart?
Or is it... too much work?
Here is the psychology behind this: The author is being excluded from the "good looking tribe" by virtue of the fact that he is ugly (or at least thinks he is ugly). To make himself feel better, he stomps his foot and loudly proclaims "I didnt want to be a part of your dumb group anyways!" He did it by citing all the traits he values as virtues of his group, while saying the other group doesn't have those traits... and as normal without actually researching/thinking it all the way through. Strangely enough, a trait (research/thinking) he probably thinks quite highly of himself for.
Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?
because most people don't get horny when they shoot people, and apparently being horny is bad. /shrug
Absolutely.
Next question: Why is a non-animated picture of a naked lady, taken with her consent, naughty, but an interactive 3-D game where you score points raping, sodomizing, and strangling the same image of a women while she screams in protest, protected art?
But if you take a screenshot of that *exact same game* to put on the cover of the game... you're once again in the naughty spot.
"No. I think I don't want my 12 year old to buy the same without my permission."
So you are ok letting your 12 year old wander the city doing who knows what while unsupervised (since a supervised 12 year old would be unable to buy said game), but you don't want a store to be able to sell him a game with any amount of violence? Have fun with your kid turning to more destructive outlets while you're actively ignoring him/her.
Lol. ty /. for the disingenuous extremist quips. While people like you think the only two options for raising kids are:
and
Some responsible parents, like me, take an active interest in their kids lives to attempt to raise them to be well-mannered, informed, educated, critically thinking adults capable of handling responsibility and making moral decisions. To that end, my kids are given increasingly complicated responsibilities according to their own development.
The very first time I let them out of my sight is not the same moment I'm ready to kick them out of the house to live on their own. There are steps in between: playing in their room unattended, playing in the back yard unattended, playing the front yard, walking to school, the park, the mall, driving, and most of those later steps involve me not being present or filming their every move for later review.
I am also smart enough (being a programmer maybe helps this) to know that I cannot possibly think of every possible naughty thing that would ever appear in a game. Nor do I have the free time to play every game from start to end, finding every secret level and bonus item, before letting my kids play it. So again, I rely on something in between to give me a base to make my decision. Requiring my kids to come ask me to buy a game for them (or a gun, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever) is the best way to accomplish that without putting undue hardship on others. However, some psychopath asshat like you that never considers that other people develop differently, being able to give a 9 year old a 40 and a glock without restrictions, would change my stance on when my kids are allowed to go outside.
Have fun with your ignorant close-minded black and white world. I'm sure you'll do great in politics if/when you mature.
Oooo, the "think of the children" argument!
Uhm, ok.
I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy. You don't.
Absolutely 100% wrong.
I think some kids are incapable of deciding in certain situations. Science agrees. To facilitate that in a general fashion (as all laws must), the law has determined that 18 years old is a generally accepted age at which most kids become adults and are then capable of making such decisions on their own. Some are still incapable of making the right decisions: so we have prisons and mental hospitals. Before 18, we have parents. Parents cannot be everywhere at all times, so we have laws to assist them in protecting their kids from the predations of others.
That doesn't give you a right to limit my rights to give my children the responsibility and freedom of making their own choices of what to buy, without it being subject to my approval.
It does, actually. Ever heard the term "You can please some people all the time, and all people some of the time, but you can't please everybody all the time"? That is what being "social" is all about. It is the entire basis of government, laws, and society. Generalizations are made for the betterment of most people. Your 16 year old might be capable of deciding whether or not to point an unloaded firearm at their friend's head and pull the trigger (by the sounding of your arguments, your kid would probably do exactly that and you'd be proud of him). Society, psychology, and history however, disagree. Most kids don't think that is ok, they just don't think about it. They don't think that *maybe* the gun is actually loaded and they didn't notice, so they don't follow the very basic firearm rule of never point a gun anywhere but the ground or your clearly visible target, loaded or unloaded, working or not working. live ammo or blanks. They are not responsible enough to be trusted with making that decision, and therefore are not allowed to buy guns on their own.
But beyond that, you seem to still fail to understand that the law in no way restricts your right or ability to have a conversation with your kid to determine if they're ready to play Modern Warfare, and then for your kid to play that game if your kid decides that.
They learn that their parents honour their privacy and choices; something you want to remove. That's restricting my rights as a parent, no matter how you turn it.
As do gun licenses, drivers licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law, and numerous other things. You think it restricts your right to parent, when in fact it only restricts your right to not parent. Drop the Cheetos(tm), and actively do something instead of letting your kid raise himself.