First, I doubt "Russia" gives a frozen rat's ass about what YouTube does. I'm sure the MPAA or a foreign equivalent is 99% responsible for this.
Second, statements like "entities need to follow local laws" are just plain stupid and wrong. Only LOCAL entities need to follow local laws. If some kid in Russia downloads an illegal movie, throw him in your gulag. Reductio ad absurdum: If it's against the law in Russia to use car headlights after 11pm, and someone in Finland drives along the border, their headlights spilling onto Russian soil, should they be arrested?
There are reasons we have borders, and a big one is so that "we" don't have to follow "your" stupid laws. No one at Google is forcing anyone in Russia to watch YouTube.
I have to say that with a faster CPU, a newer version of android, and more hardware features like GPS, front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as a $50 cheaper price tag, I think B&N may be in trouble! If the screen on this baby looks as good as the NC's (which looks phenomenal for the price), why would anyone buy an NC?
You just load up B&N's android app on this puppy.
Honestly, if I can get my hands on one of these, my rooted NC may end up on eBay.
It wouldn't matter if it were a ready-for-market product. The only way the cable and telecoms would roll it out is if the government gave them another enormous handout to pay for it. No way they are cutting into their bottom line for infrastructure improvements.
I thought this was all explained by the Tower of Babel story. God got mad at mans' hubris and split us up into a bunch of different races, speaking different languages, all with a wave of his magic wand. That was a one-time instantaneous mutation that didn't require an ongoing high rate.
Of course it's ridiculous poppycock, but that's not the point. If you accept that god is omnipotent and omniscient then you can explain away any inconsistencies easily. There's little point in trying to convince the deluded.
Yeah GotY editions are good for that, if you weren't in a hurry to play it on release.
As for why it wasn't cheaper, I don't know, but there are a lot of theories online to read about it. I suspect it's because of the whole "premium" versus "budget" stigma. If you price a game at $30 on release, most people will assume it's crap and won't buy it. I mean, we know what top-tier titles cost, right?
But with the success of Steam's frequent sale pricing and the advent of DLC, I'm really hoping that gamers are more open minded about it now and that publishers see that as a way to undercut the competition without worrying about being labeled that way. I keep my fingers crossed, but I don't hold my breath:)
"90% of players who start a game will never see the end of it" - because 90% of game content is garbage. Fortunately it's not evenly distributed, so some games are 100% garbage, and some have much less.
Personally I prefer games like the Elder Scrolls series. There's a main plot line that, if you stick to it, you can "complete" in a fairly short time. But if you like the experience, there's a lot of side-quests you can do to extend your playtime by huge amounts. Then there's player created content for free. Then there's expansions. And the potential for DLC.
I also love DLC, in theory. But I don't want to pay $60 for a game, then shell out another $10-20 for add-on missions. What I'd prefer is a shorter core game (10-20 hours) that I can pick up for $30, followed by 3 or 4 good sized (5-10 hours each) DLC packs for $10 apiece. That way if I didn't care for the game, I'm only out $30. But if I like it, I can get that full-fledged 50+ hour experience for the $50-60 I normally would have spent.
I'm not sure which one of us you are saying it disagrees with, but if it's me, I'll have to disagree in turn with your reading of the linked article.
The key point I see is that while 8 compounds of the total 44 identified in sweat are associated with fenugreek consumption, none of them were determined by the olfactory experts to have a related odor.
The only GC zone characterized as having that odor was an unidentifiable substance. The researchers *merely speculated* that it might be a metabolite of the key fenugreek odorant sotolon.
So, while this it's still an unanswered question whether improfane's profane stench comes from sweating out his curry obsession, it's sort of a moot point.
I obviously wasn't clear in my original post, because my point I was trying to make is that many people think that human sweat glands are part of a detoxifying system that removes poisons from the body. It isn't, and it doesn't. This holds true for the OP's suggestion that food smells coming out in human sweat might be related to a similar mechanism in rats, which don't even sweat.
However, I will withdraw my overly broad statement about where peoples' smells come from because it is possible that some such odors might originate from one's diet. I may have been only partly right on that count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic Garlic is known for causing halitosis, as well as causing sweat to have a pungent 'garlicky' smell, which is caused by allyl methyl sulfide (AMS). AMS is a gas which is absorbed into the blood during the metabolism of garlic; from the blood it travels to the lungs (and from there to the mouth, causing bad breath) and skin, where it is exuded through skin pores.
Yes, ok, some exogenous organic compounds make their way into sweat. But garlic is not a toxin, and the gas that gets to your pores is a byproduct, not a design feature of sweat glands. Since you obviously know how to use wikipedia, try reading the one on perspiration.
It does make you wonder how something so specific could evolve, the relationship between a poisonous plant and then the distribution mechanism.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is related, the rats that could not sweat out the chemicals died, those that could survived, the ones who sweated through barbs fared even better.
Oh, and rats do not sweat. They regulate their temperature by constricting or expanding blood vessels in their tails.
I know that when I eat certain herbs, I sweat them out and smell strongly of that herb whereas other people I know are fine. I wouldn't be surprised if that is related, the rats that could not sweat out the chemicals died, those that could survived, the ones who sweated through barbs fared even better.
This is a common mistake made by people with a poor understanding of anatomy. Toxins in your body are excreted by your liver and intestines, not your skin. Your sweat glands are there to regulate your temperature and are in no way designed to expel toxins.
People smell like things they've eaten because it's on their breath and on their hands.
This may win me the pedant of the year award, but the summary says "The level... doubled in July, when compared to figures from six months ago." This is incorrect and doesn't even make sense. Reading the original article reveals the truth. The level doubled in the six months leading up to July. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the level stayed perfectly flat for 5 months, then suddenly doubled, but I think the article would have mentioned that.
I'm sure I'm not being very clear as should be required when talking about such a complex subject, so I apologize.
What I'm interested in is a chart like this, comparing the fan's cooling performance in terms of how cool it keeps a cpu under load and how quiet it is while doing so.
Fan and Heat Sink / RPM / Temp / Noise
Spinning HS XXX / 2200 / 36C / 39 dB Alpha PAL6035N / 3700 / 40C / 46 dB Alpha PEP66TT+ / 3800 / 39C / 49 dB AVC Mega-Cool2 / 4850 / 40C / 53 dB 3DfxCool SocketA/ 4400 / 39C / 55 dB
It's the sort of thing you use to compare different cooling solutions when you write a "round-up" article on Tom's Hardware, and it's what consumers are interested in. I recognize that the original paper isn't aimed at consumers. I'm just pointing out that in the end, this is what will matter. Everything else is just the means to getting there.
Oh there are plenty of pictures, just not the one I was interested in. When I see a story about a new cooler for PCs, I want to know how much better it is at cooling my PC. All that other stuff is great for those that are interested.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I can't help but think that if their first prototype had actually cooled significantly better (as opposed to more efficiently, which is another matter), there would have been a nice big chart highlighting that fact. But maybe since the temperature difference shown wasn't statistically significant, they hid it in a tiny graphic with tiny numbers in a hard-to-find list.
The basic research is interesting as any basic science is. I'm just much more intrigued by the potential results. So yeah, once they've licensed the design to Thermaltake or someone, I'll jump on the bandwagon:)
Man that is a long article. I didn't read every word, I skimmed it looking for what's important to most PC builders: the damn thing's thermal performance. There are a lot of graphs, but I kept looking and couldn't find one that simply showed how well it performed in cooling compared to other devices.
Finally I found a tiny little graphic showing the prototype in a list with other HSFs. The result? I tiny improvement over most of the devices it was compared to. However, the article indicates that the first prototype had a sub-optimal design and they anticipate much greater improvements in version 2.
Maybe that's why they wrote this hugely dense report instead of just releasing a brief statement saying "we've kicked the ass of other HSFs". Maybe if their next version shows a significant improvement they will be able to do it, and then I'll give a crap.
Haha, I was just being snide because the poster indicated that it would be a problem if his wife had a higher sex count than him, but not that if his was higher than hers. the only guilt I feel over masturbating is that I feel bad no one else is there to enjoy the magic:)
Well, I can see a problem with sexual activity if my wife's FitBit's numbers aren't equal or a subset or mine. And I'm not religious.
What if hers are a super-set of yours because she masturbates more than you? Is that a problem? I mean, besides reflecting poorly on your skills as a lover.
So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid?
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.
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. 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?
I wasn’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. I’ll break it down item by item: Firearms: untrained use may lead to death Tobacco: any use by anyone may lead to cancer and death Alcohol: use may lead to liver cancer or death Cars: untrained use may lead to death Small explosives: untrained use may lead to losing body parts or even death Sudafed: trained use may lead to creation of illegal drugs, untrained use may lead to exploding meth labs, overdose, and death Joining the military: use may lead to death 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. I pointed these out to show that most of your examples were irrelevant and can be ignored. The extremely rare case of someone dying while playing video games is a straw man. The guy was playing an MMO that wouldn’t have been restricted anyway, the guy wasn’t a minor, and he’d spent far more money on his binge than any minor likely could. In fact, if he had been a minor, I suspect his parents would have prevented it from happening.
What is so bad about "illegal drugs" besides not having "The Man's" permission to produce/procure/sell/possess them?
This is another conversation entirely. For the record, I am pro-legalization of all illegal drugs, but let’s not get sidetracked.
One could say you only *perceive* guns and alcohol as dangerous as properly trained and used correctly, they're both quite fun, and safe.
One could certainly say that, but one would be incorrect. Guns and alcohol are inherently dangerous, which is why they require proper training and use to be safe. Video games are no more inherently dangerous than monopoly, and violent video games are no more inherently dangerous than discussing or studying violence.
But how about some more long term negative effects of violent video games:
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.
It’s weird how the abstract linked above doesn’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. We could play dueling link to studies supporting our sides all day, but I stand by the assertion that there is no credible evidence supporting the
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:"
I'm not sure why you make this assumption. I simply stated that my brother uses a particular parenting technique that you could benefit from. I didn't say anything about mine. I'm not really offering parenting advice to you, I'm merely couching my argument in such a format as a rhetorical device to make a point. You obviously half at least half a brain, so I wouldn't expect you to take parenting advice from the/. forums.
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?
If that is your position then you are in the wrong argument, because there is no credible evidence that what we are discussing is a "potentially harmful product". We are talking about something that falls into the same category as books. Some of those used to be banned or restricted from minors, but that didn't hold up very well, did it? Your tween can now thankfully go to the library, or Amazon, and get an uncensored copy of "Huck Finn" or "As I Lay Dying" without your presence.
Really? And at what point did I say I cared what you did?"
You've repeatedly indicated that you care what my kids do. You wouldn't let them buy something, even with my explicit permission. You would restrict their rights to engage in activities that have nothing to do with you or your children. Again I say it's none of your business if my kids want to read banned books or play violent video games. The fact that you imagine it may be harmful to them is irrelevant, because you are not responsible for them.
I cited pornography to directly counter your claim that other examples were not comparable. You never covered that btw.
I mentioned in a different post in this thread: I think the anti-porn laws here are almost as ridiculous as the ones you want for video games. However, at least porn usually involves real people, so there are some arguments you can make about it that you can't make about video games. There are real naked women in Playboy. There are no real dead soldiers in "Black ops". They are two different kinds of fantasy, and therefore not analogous in my opinion.
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.
So hopefully it's plainly stated now: Video games are speech, like books and movies, not things like guns and naked women. As such, they are protected by the constitution. If there is harm to be found, it is a harm that good parents will protect their children from, not that the government needs to legislate about. Every court has agreed, and I'm thankful for it.
So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid? huh.
Well, no, I think its a horrible trade. I think kids should not be allowed to buy ammunition, crossbows, large knives, antifreeze, razor blades, or anything else that is questionably harmful to them without the express persmission of their parents.. And I believe requiring the actual physical actions of the parent to procure those items is a reasonable requirement.
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. As for marrying a pedophile, WTF? There's not an additional age requirement for marrying perverts is there? And pornography? We'll have to disagree on that one too, because I find this country's anti-porn laws almost as ridiculous as the anti-video game ones.
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) is why we will not convince each other no matter how long we argue. Until you can accept that there is a rather large difference between "doing violence" and "thinking about violence", and accept that the latter does not necessarily lead to the former, any more than looking at Playboy results in rape, then you cannot see my side.
IMO, a responsible parent doesn't let their 12 year old have the money to buy things unsupervised, and doesn't leave them roaming the mall by themselves where they might buy something unsupervised. IMO, a responsible parent instills in their child what is expected of them. If you don't have the time to research every game your child plays, looking for everything you may find offensive, then you need to either adjust your expectations, or not let your kid play so many games.
If your kid comes home with a game you didn't authorize the purchase of, then you take it away. It's very simple. This is how my brother does things and it works really well. The kids don't get to play the PS3 when he's not around. He doesn't have to sit there monitoring it constantly, but he knows what games they are playing, and he only lets them have games that are rated appropriately to his values. That's what the voluntary rating system is there for. If his kids come home with a game he isn't sure about, he doesn't let them play it.
Oh, and who do you think is playing every secret level of every game to make sure it isn't too violent for your kids? How do you know they have the same definitions as you and are you sure they should be the ones with the power to decide?
Your position is untenable in a free society, and that's why every federal court struck down this law. This isn't a case of a single "activist" judge you can disagree with. It's the way our constitution was written. If you don't like it, you should probably either figure out how to parent better, or move somewhere that allows more legal restrictions on liberty so you can keep slacking off on your own responsibility while you waste your time worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Quadriplegia was definitely my favorite album by The Who.
I'm 99% sure there's a decent goatse joke in here somewhere.
I'm also 100% sure this is old news. Consumerist and the Daily Mail reported on it a month ago.
Two points:
First, I doubt "Russia" gives a frozen rat's ass about what YouTube does. I'm sure the MPAA or a foreign equivalent is 99% responsible for this.
Second, statements like "entities need to follow local laws" are just plain stupid and wrong. Only LOCAL entities need to follow local laws.
If some kid in Russia downloads an illegal movie, throw him in your gulag. Reductio ad absurdum: If it's against the law in Russia to use car headlights after 11pm, and someone in Finland drives along the border, their headlights spilling onto Russian soil, should they be arrested?
There are reasons we have borders, and a big one is so that "we" don't have to follow "your" stupid laws. No one at Google is forcing anyone in Russia to watch YouTube.
I have to say that with a faster CPU, a newer version of android, and more hardware features like GPS, front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as a $50 cheaper price tag, I think B&N may be in trouble! If the screen on this baby looks as good as the NC's (which looks phenomenal for the price), why would anyone buy an NC?
You just load up B&N's android app on this puppy.
Honestly, if I can get my hands on one of these, my rooted NC may end up on eBay.
It wouldn't matter if it were a ready-for-market product. The only way the cable and telecoms would roll it out is if the government gave them another enormous handout to pay for it. No way they are cutting into their bottom line for infrastructure improvements.
I thought this was all explained by the Tower of Babel story. God got mad at mans' hubris and split us up into a bunch of different races, speaking different languages, all with a wave of his magic wand. That was a one-time instantaneous mutation that didn't require an ongoing high rate.
Of course it's ridiculous poppycock, but that's not the point. If you accept that god is omnipotent and omniscient then you can explain away any inconsistencies easily. There's little point in trying to convince the deluded.
Yeah GotY editions are good for that, if you weren't in a hurry to play it on release.
As for why it wasn't cheaper, I don't know, but there are a lot of theories online to read about it. I suspect it's because of the whole "premium" versus "budget" stigma. If you price a game at $30 on release, most people will assume it's crap and won't buy it. I mean, we know what top-tier titles cost, right?
But with the success of Steam's frequent sale pricing and the advent of DLC, I'm really hoping that gamers are more open minded about it now and that publishers see that as a way to undercut the competition without worrying about being labeled that way. I keep my fingers crossed, but I don't hold my breath :)
"90% of players who start a game will never see the end of it" - because 90% of game content is garbage. Fortunately it's not evenly distributed, so some games are 100% garbage, and some have much less.
Personally I prefer games like the Elder Scrolls series. There's a main plot line that, if you stick to it, you can "complete" in a fairly short time. But if you like the experience, there's a lot of side-quests you can do to extend your playtime by huge amounts. Then there's player created content for free. Then there's expansions. And the potential for DLC.
I also love DLC, in theory. But I don't want to pay $60 for a game, then shell out another $10-20 for add-on missions. What I'd prefer is a shorter core game (10-20 hours) that I can pick up for $30, followed by 3 or 4 good sized (5-10 hours each) DLC packs for $10 apiece. That way if I didn't care for the game, I'm only out $30. But if I like it, I can get that full-fledged 50+ hour experience for the $50-60 I normally would have spent.
I'm not sure which one of us you are saying it disagrees with, but if it's me, I'll have to disagree in turn with your reading of the linked article.
The key point I see is that while 8 compounds of the total 44 identified in sweat are associated with fenugreek consumption, none of them were determined by the olfactory experts to have a related odor.
The only GC zone characterized as having that odor was an unidentifiable substance. The researchers *merely speculated* that it might be a metabolite of the key fenugreek odorant sotolon.
So, while this it's still an unanswered question whether improfane's profane stench comes from sweating out his curry obsession, it's sort of a moot point.
I obviously wasn't clear in my original post, because my point I was trying to make is that many people think that human sweat glands are part of a detoxifying system that removes poisons from the body. It isn't, and it doesn't. This holds true for the OP's suggestion that food smells coming out in human sweat might be related to a similar mechanism in rats, which don't even sweat.
However, I will withdraw my overly broad statement about where peoples' smells come from because it is possible that some such odors might originate from one's diet. I may have been only partly right on that count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic
Garlic is known for causing halitosis, as well as causing sweat to have a pungent 'garlicky' smell, which is caused by allyl methyl sulfide (AMS). AMS is a gas which is absorbed into the blood during the metabolism of garlic; from the blood it travels to the lungs (and from there to the mouth, causing bad breath) and skin, where it is exuded through skin pores.
Yes, ok, some exogenous organic compounds make their way into sweat. But garlic is not a toxin, and the gas that gets to your pores is a byproduct, not a design feature of sweat glands. Since you obviously know how to use wikipedia, try reading the one on perspiration.
It does make you wonder how something so specific could evolve, the relationship between a poisonous plant and then the distribution mechanism.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is related, the rats that could not sweat out the chemicals died, those that could survived, the ones who sweated through barbs fared even better.
Oh, and rats do not sweat. They regulate their temperature by constricting or expanding blood vessels in their tails.
I know that when I eat certain herbs, I sweat them out and smell strongly of that herb whereas other people I know are fine. I wouldn't be surprised if that is related, the rats that could not sweat out the chemicals died, those that could survived, the ones who sweated through barbs fared even better.
This is a common mistake made by people with a poor understanding of anatomy. Toxins in your body are excreted by your liver and intestines, not your skin.
Your sweat glands are there to regulate your temperature and are in no way designed to expel toxins.
People smell like things they've eaten because it's on their breath and on their hands.
"A battery electric-powered ultralight aircraft has been flying for the last year."
And boy, are its batteries tired!
[grammar_nazi_mode=ON]
This may win me the pedant of the year award, but the summary says "The level ... doubled in July, when compared to figures from six months ago." This is incorrect and doesn't even make sense. Reading the original article reveals the truth. The level doubled in the six months leading up to July. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the level stayed perfectly flat for 5 months, then suddenly doubled, but I think the article would have mentioned that.
[grammar_nazi_mode=OFF]
I'm sure I'm not being very clear as should be required when talking about such a complex subject, so I apologize.
What I'm interested in is a chart like this, comparing the fan's cooling performance in terms of how cool it keeps a cpu under load and how quiet it is while doing so.
Fan and Heat Sink / RPM / Temp / Noise
Spinning HS XXX / 2200 / 36C / 39 dB
Alpha PAL6035N / 3700 / 40C / 46 dB
Alpha PEP66TT+ / 3800 / 39C / 49 dB
AVC Mega-Cool2 / 4850 / 40C / 53 dB
3DfxCool SocketA/ 4400 / 39C / 55 dB
It's the sort of thing you use to compare different cooling solutions when you write a "round-up" article on Tom's Hardware, and it's what consumers are interested in. I recognize that the original paper isn't aimed at consumers. I'm just pointing out that in the end, this is what will matter. Everything else is just the means to getting there.
Oh there are plenty of pictures, just not the one I was interested in. When I see a story about a new cooler for PCs, I want to know how much better it is at cooling my PC. All that other stuff is great for those that are interested.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I can't help but think that if their first prototype had actually cooled significantly better (as opposed to more efficiently, which is another matter), there would have been a nice big chart highlighting that fact. But maybe since the temperature difference shown wasn't statistically significant, they hid it in a tiny graphic with tiny numbers in a hard-to-find list.
The basic research is interesting as any basic science is. I'm just much more intrigued by the potential results. So yeah, once they've licensed the design to Thermaltake or someone, I'll jump on the bandwagon :)
Man that is a long article. I didn't read every word, I skimmed it looking for what's important to most PC builders: the damn thing's thermal performance.
There are a lot of graphs, but I kept looking and couldn't find one that simply showed how well it performed in cooling compared to other devices.
Finally I found a tiny little graphic showing the prototype in a list with other HSFs. The result? I tiny improvement over most of the devices it was compared to. However, the article indicates that the first prototype had a sub-optimal design and they anticipate much greater improvements in version 2.
Maybe that's why they wrote this hugely dense report instead of just releasing a brief statement saying "we've kicked the ass of other HSFs". Maybe if their next version shows a significant improvement they will be able to do it, and then I'll give a crap.
Haha, I was just being snide because the poster indicated that it would be a problem if his wife had a higher sex count than him, but not that if his was higher than hers. the only guilt I feel over masturbating is that I feel bad no one else is there to enjoy the magic :)
I doubt the device could tell the difference for some people. Maybe it's just included in the same numbers?
Well, I can see a problem with sexual activity if my wife's FitBit's numbers aren't equal or a subset or mine. And I'm not religious.
What if hers are a super-set of yours because she masturbates more than you? Is that a problem? I mean, besides reflecting poorly on your skills as a lover.
It's only 5 years away!
So we should have it 5 years before fusion power!
So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid?
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.
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.
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?
I wasn’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. I’ll break it down item by item:
Firearms: untrained use may lead to death
Tobacco: any use by anyone may lead to cancer and death
Alcohol: use may lead to liver cancer or death
Cars: untrained use may lead to death
Small explosives: untrained use may lead to losing body parts or even death
Sudafed: trained use may lead to creation of illegal drugs, untrained use may lead to exploding meth labs, overdose, and death
Joining the military: use may lead to death
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. I pointed these out to show that most of your examples were irrelevant and can be ignored. The extremely rare case of someone dying while playing video games is a straw man. The guy was playing an MMO that wouldn’t have been restricted anyway, the guy wasn’t a minor, and he’d spent far more money on his binge than any minor likely could. In fact, if he had been a minor, I suspect his parents would have prevented it from happening.
What is so bad about "illegal drugs" besides not having "The Man's" permission to produce/procure/sell/possess them?
This is another conversation entirely. For the record, I am pro-legalization of all illegal drugs, but let’s not get sidetracked.
One could say you only *perceive* guns and alcohol as dangerous as properly trained and used correctly, they're both quite fun, and safe.
One could certainly say that, but one would be incorrect. Guns and alcohol are inherently dangerous, which is why they require proper training and use to be safe. Video games are no more inherently dangerous than monopoly, and violent video games are no more inherently dangerous than discussing or studying violence.
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.
It’s weird how the abstract linked above doesn’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.
We could play dueling link to studies supporting our sides all day, but I stand by the assertion that there is no credible evidence supporting the
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:"
I'm not sure why you make this assumption. I simply stated that my brother uses a particular parenting technique that you could benefit from. I didn't say anything about mine. I'm not really offering parenting advice to you, I'm merely couching my argument in such a format as a rhetorical device to make a point. You obviously half at least half a brain, so I wouldn't expect you to take parenting advice from the /. forums.
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?
If that is your position then you are in the wrong argument, because there is no credible evidence that what we are discussing is a "potentially harmful product". We are talking about something that falls into the same category as books. Some of those used to be banned or restricted from minors, but that didn't hold up very well, did it? Your tween can now thankfully go to the library, or Amazon, and get an uncensored copy of "Huck Finn" or "As I Lay Dying" without your presence.
Really? And at what point did I say I cared what you did?"
You've repeatedly indicated that you care what my kids do. You wouldn't let them buy something, even with my explicit permission. You would restrict their rights to engage in activities that have nothing to do with you or your children. Again I say it's none of your business if my kids want to read banned books or play violent video games. The fact that you imagine it may be harmful to them is irrelevant, because you are not responsible for them.
I cited pornography to directly counter your claim that other examples were not comparable. You never covered that btw.
I mentioned in a different post in this thread: I think the anti-porn laws here are almost as ridiculous as the ones you want for video games. However, at least porn usually involves real people, so there are some arguments you can make about it that you can't make about video games. There are real naked women in Playboy. There are no real dead soldiers in "Black ops". They are two different kinds of fantasy, and therefore not analogous in my opinion.
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.
So hopefully it's plainly stated now: Video games are speech, like books and movies, not things like guns and naked women. As such, they are protected by the constitution. If there is harm to be found, it is a harm that good parents will protect their children from, not that the government needs to legislate about. Every court has agreed, and I'm thankful for it.
So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid? huh.
Well, no, I think its a horrible trade. I think kids should not be allowed to buy ammunition, crossbows, large knives, antifreeze, razor blades, or anything else that is questionably harmful to them without the express persmission of their parents.. And I believe requiring the actual physical actions of the parent to procure those items is a reasonable requirement.
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. As for marrying a pedophile, WTF? There's not an additional age requirement for marrying perverts is there? And pornography? We'll have to disagree on that one too, because I find this country's anti-porn laws almost as ridiculous as the anti-video game ones.
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) is why we will not convince each other no matter how long we argue. Until you can accept that there is a rather large difference between "doing violence" and "thinking about violence", and accept that the latter does not necessarily lead to the former, any more than looking at Playboy results in rape, then you cannot see my side.
IMO, a responsible parent doesn't let their 12 year old have the money to buy things unsupervised, and doesn't leave them roaming the mall by themselves where they might buy something unsupervised.
IMO, a responsible parent instills in their child what is expected of them. If you don't have the time to research every game your child plays, looking for everything you may find offensive, then you need to either adjust your expectations, or not let your kid play so many games.
If your kid comes home with a game you didn't authorize the purchase of, then you take it away. It's very simple. This is how my brother does things and it works really well. The kids don't get to play the PS3 when he's not around. He doesn't have to sit there monitoring it constantly, but he knows what games they are playing, and he only lets them have games that are rated appropriately to his values. That's what the voluntary rating system is there for. If his kids come home with a game he isn't sure about, he doesn't let them play it.
Oh, and who do you think is playing every secret level of every game to make sure it isn't too violent for your kids? How do you know they have the same definitions as you and are you sure they should be the ones with the power to decide?
Your position is untenable in a free society, and that's why every federal court struck down this law. This isn't a case of a single "activist" judge you can disagree with. It's the way our constitution was written. If you don't like it, you should probably either figure out how to parent better, or move somewhere that allows more legal restrictions on liberty so you can keep slacking off on your own responsibility while you waste your time worrying about what everyone else is doing.