You're confusing "being a company that has a monopoly in some market" with "illegally using a monopoly to gain an unfair competitive advantage". A company may very well "break the law to become a monopoly" as you put it. For example, the company might bomb their competitors stores and drive them out of business, achieving a monopoly for themselves. Still, the crime would be "bombing their competitors stores", not "achieving a monopoly for themselves".
Simply having a monopoly in some market IS NOT ILLEGAL.
Wal-Mart has been accused of illegally using their market dominance, but mainly just by workers unions who are upset that they won't hire union workers. There has not been a single court decision against them to my knowledge.
I hadn't read about the Toys R Us stuff. That's interesting. And it illustrates my point very well. Toys R Us did not get in trouble with the FTC for having the dominant market share (monopoly). It got in trouble with the FTC when it used that dominant market share to bully its suppliers into giving it an unfair advantage against certain competitors.
There is no such thing as an illegal monopoly. A company with a monopoly only breaks the law by using a monopoly to obtain an unfair advantage over a competitor, ie MS leveraging their Windows monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the Web Browser market.
I'm not quite sure I understand your references to Toys R US or Wal-Mart. Neither of those retailers are anywhere near to having a monopoly, nor am I aware of any instances where either has been legitimately accused of unfairly leveraging a business advantage.
You seem to be more intent on slandering than on an actual debate...so this shall be my last rebuttle...and it's more of a clarification of our different perspective, i hope.
What you call your right to property, I do not believe is a right. You believe you have a right to own the product sold by the recording studios, and that you have a right to do whatever you wish with it once it's ownership is yours.
This right you're speaking of is not supported by the contsitution. You are not deprived of property when no one provides a product you wish to by on terms you wish to abide by. If you were, the statement could also be said like this, "You must provide for my want otherwise you violate my right". I do not believe many in this country would like to be on the 'you' end of this statement. I am certain the constitution does not provide for it.
Unfortunately, there is no verbage in the DMCA that gives you the right to violate an EULA. Quite the opposite, really...
You again seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of a the words you use. Perhaps this will help: right -- as defined by dictionary.com -- That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. free will -- as defined by dictionary.com -- The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
You have the ability to choose to do all the things you listed, but you do not have the right to do them. In fact, you will be the one violating another's rights when you do those things.
As for this statement:
We will not surrender until they throw us all into prison or give up and stop trampling our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and personal property. They don't have the right to make money at the expense of these things.
For starters, Freedom of Speech is the only legal freedom of the three you mention. Freedom of choice is another reference to free will (conveniently defined above for you). What you think freedom of personally property is, I have no idea.
A company does not violate your Freedom of Speech by imposing restrictions on a product they sell. It is your freedom of choice that I am suggesting you exercise, when I say "if you don't like their product, don't buy it!".
You have explained it yourself. The consumers did not like the way in which a product was sold, or in the examples you listed, to whom it was sold. They therefore elected officials who imposed legal restrictions on those products. Like it or not, this is how our country works and reflects the ideas and prinicples on which it was founded.
A company has every right to impose whatever restrictions it pleases on whatever it sells, so long as those restrictions do not violate the law and do not violate another entity's rights.
If you don't like DRM, don't buy the products and attempt to elect an official who will try to enact legislation that makes it illegal. Both of these are very effective means of obtaining a goal -- ranting on/. about the evils of the RIAA is not.
You seem to have an odd impression of the meaning of culture. Culture is not defined by any goods bought or sold. Perhaps this Wikipedia definition will help you understand the real meaing.
How can you deem to tell a company, "you must sell your product, but you are not allowed to set the conditions of the sale", and call that a fight for freedom? What gives you, the consumer, the right to dictate the conditions on which another entity must part with their property? Our culture, ie, the ideas which have molded and formed our society, says that you in fact do not have that right.
I haven't tried editing the wikipedia entry on Wal-Mart (I don't really have anything to add), but I did read the article on this when I first saw it on slashdot (or digg or wherever it was I ran across it). I'm not advocating that no one is doing as you say--watching the article and methodically manipulating it. The point I'm making is that such a project (for everything in business is a project of one sort or another) would not fit into the way W*M does business. For one, it would be VERY expensive (the alleged changes are not ignorant propoganda. they are well worded and placed, though obviously biased). People capable of doing this type of work and not talking about it don't come cheaply. As you say, the articles seem to be watched closely, so that means several of these people. You're talking a lot of money, and W*M does not spend a lot of money without knowing what they're getting for it.
There are a lot of interest groups out there with money to throw around and there are a lot groups of people who believe what they believe and don't mind spending a lot of time in the interest of their beliefs.
This type of activity just doesn't make business sense. The overhead would be enormous, and the payback would be undefined. That's not to say someone isn't doing it...I just don't think it's Wal-Mart Store, Inc.
Really? You think all fiction fits that profile? Sometimes--especially in genres like crime fiction, spy thrillers, and horror--a story is just entertainment, meant to be read or viewed as such. I don't think Quentin Tarrantino had a big message or moral in the highly regarded Pulp Fiction--which had a whole scene featuring extremely predatory sexual behavior.
Yes, I do. An idea or a belief does not have to be earth shattering or deep. The idea can simply be a story meant to entertain, as you have pointed out. It remains an idea or a belief.
There is a difference in telling a story about a horrific situation, even if the purpose is personal monetary gain, and taking part in activities simulating horrific situations--in my opinion.
In my eyes, not it is not different. A story is a story. Some stories are heart-warming, some stories are horrific. I strongly believe everyone has the right to tell whatever story they wish. But playing a game is not telling a story. I do not believe the first amendment should come into play here.
I agree that we all need to think hard about where we draw our lines. I also agree that reading is a much more thought-invoking pasttime than is gaming--I would go so far as to say that most of the traditional entertainment mediums are (I think television is probably at the bottom of that spectrum though).
However, I think we have found the point on which we disagree. The author, poet, director, etc, is telling a story. He or she is not doing so merely for personal entertainment, but to convey some idea or belief. The actor is a little different, because the story being told is not his or her own. But for the actor or actress, there is no choice involved. He or she is following the script, in an effort to convey some meaning, rather than choosing to act in that manner for personal entertainment.
The gamer, however, has a choice. If he or she "tells" the game character to perform an action, the character does so. There is no audience for which the action is intended to convey some idea or meaning. The act of playing the game has no purpose other than to entertain the gamer. That is where I believe the line should be drawn.
I think you have brought up an interesting point. Much of the discussion on this question is about the whether there is any difference between games and other more traditional entertainment mediums.
You equate video games to books, films, plays, etc. However, I believe there is a very basic difference between them. The difference is passive interaction versus active interaction. With the exception of the occasional audience-cast interactive play, we all engage in the use of these other mediums through passive interaction. We read, watch, listen, etc, but we do not actually affect the outcome or the choice of characters involved. Therefore, we do not choose to perform the actions portrayed in those mediums, but witness them being performed.
With video games, that is no longer the case. The gamer is actually choosing how the character acts. A game in which the plot surrounding the game involved heinous crimes does not concern me. We all see that on the news every night. However, a game in which the plot involves the gamer-character actually choosing to act in a heinous manner does concern me.
First things first, I haven't read the bill and thus I am not commenting on it specifically. I have, however, read many of the comments here and I believe that there is something here worth being discussed that so far has not.
Should games encourage actions (within the game) that in real life would be heinous? I'm not talking about "shooting the bad guy" or the other typical FPS type games. For argument's sake, let's limit it to the user committing rape. Should free speech allow gamers to "choose" to perform this type of act within the confines of a game? If so, should it be available to all gamers, or should it be age-restricted?
In my opinion, the answer is no. There are some things that should be off limits. My reasoning is this: Games allow us to simulate life (not necessarily reality) in a consequence free atmosphere. While they are just games, they do reflect life and they do affect those playing them. The military has proven this and is using that effect to help train its soldiers. So to me, there is a difference between "fighting an enemy" (ie, shooting the bad guy) and raping a bystander. I personally do not want the general public to find entertainment in simulating the rape of another individual. The effect on the individual is not something that I find acceptable.
I understand that many disagree with this, but I do not understand why. What is the argument for including this type of choice into games? Do you believe it will enhance the gaming experience? Is it simply a matter of principle and free speech?
For those that agree that there should be a line somewhere, where should that line be?
IBM sold their pc division to lenovo, including the Thinkpad brand. So far, these are the same machines, manufactured by the same people, as they were before. That may or may not change in the future, but that is beside the point. These are still Thinkpads, the person at the top of the food chain just has a different name tag...
"BBC News is reporting that the British police National High Tech Crime Unit has foiled an attempted fraud by hackers using keylogging software."
This sentence can be read interpretted both ways: 1. "...foiled an attempted fraud by hackers [who were] using keylogging software." 2. "...High Tech Crime Unit, [using key logging software], has foiled an attempted fraud by hackers."
While it may not be the best form, it is grammatically correct and your statement is based on only one interpretation.
No, I do not have a solution. However, I am not willing to give up on the problem.
As much as you may not mean financially poor, statistics show that if you separate children based on school performance or quality of home life, you will in fact be treading a demographic line.
And, in my opinion, learning to deal with a difficult educational atmosphere is not all bad. Especially when the resources for success are available. The work environment is really very similar. Difficulties, distractions, and obstacles are ever present.
I think that when you equate the suffering of a child in an abusive home to the "suffering"
of a child in a distracting school atmoshphere, you are the one missing the point. Want to talk about destructive and debilitating? Try living that child's life, whose parent(s) ridicule, beat, or otherwise mistreat him/her. Yes, you are being selfish. Selfishness does not solve problems. It creates more.
I was talking about highschools, not universities and colleges.
The facts that 1.)Most of the students in our colleges and universities are products of our education systems and 2.)Over 500,000 students (see previous post for the source) came to our colleges and universites last year to study indicates that our education system IS producing students who compete with international students. If they did not, as a matter of survival, colleges and universities would have to lower expectations (failing students don't pay tuition) and international students seeking the best education the world can offer would be going elsewhere, not here.
I argue against your assertion. I think that a highschool diploma is _not_ a right, but should be something you actually have to work for or face the consequences.
Agreed.
We shouldnt attempt to educate every child equally, only those that put forth the effort to be educated (and _can_ be)
Vehemently disagree. How can you expect a student, whose parents abuse, physically or otherwise, to put forth the same effort as one from a healthy home environment? How can you expect a student who is working 40 hours a week or more, so that his/her family has enough money to pay the bills and buy groceries, to put forth the same effort as a student who has the time and resources for extracurricular activites and at-home studying? Please explain how you would accomodate and encourage these young people while weeding out the lazy ones who do just as well in class because they have infinately more resources at their hands?
Now, what about those students who do "face the consequences". What are those consequences? Shall we let them starve? Perhaps enter into a life of crime? And what then? Unproductive citizens are just as much a problem for the productive ones as they are for themselves. Our chance to make them productive, to overcome volatile, negative, or violent homes IS WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG! Once they leave the school system, the opportunity to encourage them into a productive citizen is passed. Or, perhaps, we'll simply ship them off to some other country that WILL let them starve, so as not to foul our conscience with such unpleasantries (note, I'm not accusing any other nationality of this attitude, merely making a point).
First off, not every kid should have an internet connection. Period. The Internet is not sesame street (which every kid SHOULD have.) In fact, I consider it more like the streets of NYC, at night, in the bad part of town.
While I agree that not every kid should have an internet connection, I don't believe it is because of the dangers of the 'net. Cost is truly the prohibiting factor here. Internet connections into the classroom increase classroom efficiency. Labs only improve student efficiency outside of class, and then only when the student has free time during the day to go to the lab (rather than another class). The solution to inappropriate content in the public schools is not the lock down net. As a public provided service, it is well within the school's rights (and the student's best interest), for the sites visited from the public computers to be monitored. Proper supervision of this type can keep inappropriate content in check.
The rest of the money here is simply wasted. The current problems with america's education system is epidemic. Youve got underpaid, unmotivated and uneducated teachers, attempting to simply control a group of apathetic and uncaring students, who have little to no motivation and guidance from their gaurdians. The problem cannot be pinned on any single group. Everyone is messing up here, equally.
While I'm sure there are some people who fit this image, it is unfair to cast this sterotype on the entire education system as a whole. Countries like India, China, Japan, etc, do not attempt to educate EVERY child. The consequence of inadequate performance is often horrible. Is this how we should incent our children in the US? I'd rather not. If education standards in the US are so poor, then why do we still have so many international students in our Colleges and Universities? We have problems in our education system partly because our goal of "teach every child, equally and fairly" is so high.
Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it.
Let's think about the effect this policy would have:
1. Company A is forced to retain US employees over internation employees, thus increasing the cost of the service/product delivered by Company A.
2. Company A is therefore less profitable.
3. Due to a lagging economy, Company A must lay off workers to reduce costs.
4. Due to a reduced workforce, Company A is less productive.
5. Due to lost productivity, Company A loses business to an international competitor.
6. Due to lost business, Company A goes bankrupt.
Now, this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because no business cycle can be reduced to six lines. However, the principle holds true. Taxing companies to prevent off-shoring only makes it more difficult for US-based companies to compete in an international market.
What we should be doing is looking at the reasons for off-shoring. Companies off-shore jobs for a single purpose: to reduce costs. Companies reduce costs for a single purpose: to improve profitability. Therefore, we can negate the need for off-shoring by providing incentives that improve company profitability.
Some may argue that companies would still off-shore their jobs to enrich those that control the company. However, I do not believe this is true. Contrary to what many believe, off-shoring is not an attractive option for most companies. It reduces employee moral, is typically bad for customer service, and is not well received by the public. For these reasons, companies will tend to keep jobs here when it is economically feasible.
Having just read the first two sections of the robotic nation essay, I think a couple of points need to be made. Please read the article to understand my rebuttle.
The first argument that should be revisited is the "previous examples" area where the author talks about the birth of flight and our trip to the moon. He uses an inovation that generated jobs to justify his extropolation that a separate inovation will erode jobs. It not a good example. Better to talk about something like the farm industry and how machinery has reduced the number of farm laborers significantly.
Next, let's look at Moore's Law. The author has some very nice statistics that can show anyone the effect Moore's Law has had over the last couple of decades. However, he fails to mention that Moore's Law is not actually a Law of Nature, such as gravity or the speed of light, but rather an observation of the past. We cannot predict when Moore's Law will fail. There is constant speculation, ranging for the near to the very far future. Basing long term speculation on the consistency of Moore's Law is unreliable.
Lastly, does the author ever take into consideration a lagging, and eventually depressed, economy would have on the industries he proclaims will be fully robotic within the next half century? Not that I found, though I didn't make it to the end of the last article. Job losses on the scale the author predicts would devestate the econonmy. Given the author's predictions come true, no one will be eating in the fully robotic fast food restaurants, much less flying on fully robotic planes, because they will either have lost their job to a robot or will have lost their job to a depressed economy. The author seems to consider industry to be separated from the welfare of the people who buy the products produced by the same industry. That is really a silly assumption and it throws the entire rest of the essay offtrack.
That said, it will be interesting to see the inclusion of automated (robotic, if you will) systems into our economy. Certain functions make a lot of sense and will quickly become automated. Retail checkout, fast food ordering, toll booths, even more farm labor, all will grow more and more automated. However, the economy will have to keep pace or risk stalling. People will have to work, or there won't be anyone spending money to keep industry afloat.
John-
You're concerns about rfid tags being used in money are unfounded. Even if the cash was tagged when you left the bank, how does anyone know when you give a $20 to your kid so he can go to the movies? And he gives that $20 to a friend for a $10 and two $5's. It doesn't make any sense.
And your concerns about retailers are unfounded as well. It is almost assured that the tags will be deactivated when they leave the store. It serves no purpose to the store to leave them on, and a very useful purpose to turn them off. If the store deactivates every tag attached to an item that is paid for, then any active tag leaving the store is being stolen. This is useful to the store.
Of course if some group, government or criminal, wanted to spend a lot of time trying to track down your individual habits, they might take advantage of rfid signals. But there are plenty of ways to track you now. I doubt we need to worry about the police going through our garbage (and by the way -- an empty container in the garbage in no way legally implies consumption, much less illegal purchase). They have better things to do.
As I said in my original post, there are some valid privacy concerns, but you have not mentioned one yet. Consider personal identification using rfid, for instance. Or maybe large items that can be tracked back to you now -- like your car. The tags that might be used in these things are not, however, what you will find on a pack of Spearmint. That's what allows them to be a concern...The tag on the pack of Spearmint will not store data about you, will not lead to your ultimate demise in any way shape or form. It's like trying to fit the square peg in the round hole -- just isn't designed for that.
In my (limited) experience, retailers do not care about specific customer names. They certainly can keep your name and whatever information they want from the transaction and store it for as long as they would like. Most do keep it for certain periods of time in some manner or another, but only for accounting records. Law requires that they keep copies of receipts (the retailer I deal with the most keeps electronic copies). This data is not the stuff used for data mining/trend analysis to the best of my knowledge. As far as a large retailer, such as the ones you mentioned, is likely to be concerned, individuals are unpredictable and a waste of time. Inventory management, seasonal trends, and marketing response (all things that are learned by looking at item movement as a whole, not an individuals purchasing habits) are much more useful.
That said, I do know that retailers (and companies like the one I work for that sell retailers their hardware/software solutions) are beginning to think of ways to market to individuals when they enter the store. This would require specific customer information be kept and used. I've always wondered how much of the interest was sparked by the Tom Cruise movie a couple years ago that showed people constantly bombarded by advertisements after id'ing them with retinal scanners...
"How long before that cash gets embedded RFID? Then it could be tracked to an account at a bank. And should it happen, it would be illegal to disable it."
I'm sorry, but this is simply a silly idea. Do you really think that there is actually a physical "account" in your bank with bills stacked in it? And even if there was, how are you going to know who has the cash once it leaves the bank? We would all have to have unique rfid's ourselves first, and then the rfid in the cash would be meaningless, the store could just log the personal rf signal of the shopper. No one is going to care that John Doe has bills X, Y, and Z.
"A bar code can be scanned once and is noticible. "
And why would retailers spend their hard earned money hiding rf readers throughout the store? They know that if you leave with the product, you have to go through the Point of Sale. What possible use could they see in buying and maintaining readers where they don't provide any new information? I can forsee the shelves having readers on them, so that inventory is updated when an item is taken and to help in finding misplaced items, but that doesn't have anything to do with the customer.
"Bar codes aren't uniquely identifiable to a particular instance of an object"
Actually, at least one retailer is already tracking electronics by serial number for warranty purposes. Beyond that, do you really care that JD bought "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" with ISDN 123 instead of ISDN 456? The product bought is enough for any data mining the retailers need. Yes, storage has increased tremendously in the past decade, but processing power has not kept up. Too much data is just as useless as inadequate data. The retailers are not going to care which S/N's you bought for most items (warranty items excluded).
"Can they grab my name/addr/ph from just my debit card usage "
Yes. Your name is included on the magnetic stripe data. Your address and phone number are available from the bank that issued the card.
"Considering the ubiquity of 'gift' cards"
Gift cards are typically among the most anonymous methods of payment. They have a unique number, not tied to any name, but that does link to an amount (ie, like an anonymous account with the retailer). This is why they are so profitable for the retailers. For every card lost, that's money essentially given to the retailer. For every card with $.57 thrown away, there is no way for the customer to recover the $.57, because it is not tied to his/her name, but only to the card.
I believe you meant to be speaking of loyalty cards instead of gift cards. You are partially correct -- the prices for a loyalty customer are about the same as a discount non-loyalty retailer. However, you typically are getting more for your dollar with loyalty program retailers, such as nicer shopping environment, product alerts (yes, some are ads), and other benefits. It's simply a personal choice as to whether you want these perks or want to shop at a retailer that just gives the lowest price it can to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing "being a company that has a monopoly in some market" with "illegally using a monopoly to gain an unfair competitive advantage". A company may very well "break the law to become a monopoly" as you put it. For example, the company might bomb their competitors stores and drive them out of business, achieving a monopoly for themselves. Still, the crime would be "bombing their competitors stores", not "achieving a monopoly for themselves".
Simply having a monopoly in some market IS NOT ILLEGAL.
Wal-Mart has been accused of illegally using their market dominance, but mainly just by workers unions who are upset that they won't hire union workers. There has not been a single court decision against them to my knowledge.
I hadn't read about the Toys R Us stuff. That's interesting. And it illustrates my point very well. Toys R Us did not get in trouble with the FTC for having the dominant market share (monopoly). It got in trouble with the FTC when it used that dominant market share to bully its suppliers into giving it an unfair advantage against certain competitors.
There is no such thing as an illegal monopoly. A company with a monopoly only breaks the law by using a monopoly to obtain an unfair advantage over a competitor, ie MS leveraging their Windows monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the Web Browser market.
I'm not quite sure I understand your references to Toys R US or Wal-Mart. Neither of those retailers are anywhere near to having a monopoly, nor am I aware of any instances where either has been legitimately accused of unfairly leveraging a business advantage.
You seem to be more intent on slandering than on an actual debate...so this shall be my last rebuttle...and it's more of a clarification of our different perspective, i hope.
What you call your right to property, I do not believe is a right. You believe you have a right to own the product sold by the recording studios, and that you have a right to do whatever you wish with it once it's ownership is yours.
This right you're speaking of is not supported by the contsitution. You are not deprived of property when no one provides a product you wish to by on terms you wish to abide by. If you were, the statement could also be said like this, "You must provide for my want otherwise you violate my right". I do not believe many in this country would like to be on the 'you' end of this statement. I am certain the constitution does not provide for it.
You again seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of a the words you use. Perhaps this will help:
right -- as defined by dictionary.com -- That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
free will -- as defined by dictionary.com -- The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
You have the ability to choose to do all the things you listed, but you do not have the right to do them. In fact, you will be the one violating another's rights when you do those things.
As for this statement:
For starters, Freedom of Speech is the only legal freedom of the three you mention. Freedom of choice is another reference to free will (conveniently defined above for you). What you think freedom of personally property is, I have no idea.
A company does not violate your Freedom of Speech by imposing restrictions on a product they sell. It is your freedom of choice that I am suggesting you exercise, when I say "if you don't like their product, don't buy it!".
You have explained it yourself. The consumers did not like the way in which a product was sold, or in the examples you listed, to whom it was sold. They therefore elected officials who imposed legal restrictions on those products. Like it or not, this is how our country works and reflects the ideas and prinicples on which it was founded.
/. about the evils of the RIAA is not.
A company has every right to impose whatever restrictions it pleases on whatever it sells, so long as those restrictions do not violate the law and do not violate another entity's rights.
If you don't like DRM, don't buy the products and attempt to elect an official who will try to enact legislation that makes it illegal. Both of these are very effective means of obtaining a goal -- ranting on
You seem to have an odd impression of the meaning of culture. Culture is not defined by any goods bought or sold. Perhaps this Wikipedia definition will help you understand the real meaing.
How can you deem to tell a company, "you must sell your product, but you are not allowed to set the conditions of the sale", and call that a fight for freedom? What gives you, the consumer, the right to dictate the conditions on which another entity must part with their property? Our culture, ie, the ideas which have molded and formed our society, says that you in fact do not have that right.
I haven't tried editing the wikipedia entry on Wal-Mart (I don't really have anything to add), but I did read the article on this when I first saw it on slashdot (or digg or wherever it was I ran across it). I'm not advocating that no one is doing as you say--watching the article and methodically manipulating it. The point I'm making is that such a project (for everything in business is a project of one sort or another) would not fit into the way W*M does business. For one, it would be VERY expensive (the alleged changes are not ignorant propoganda. they are well worded and placed, though obviously biased). People capable of doing this type of work and not talking about it don't come cheaply. As you say, the articles seem to be watched closely, so that means several of these people. You're talking a lot of money, and W*M does not spend a lot of money without knowing what they're getting for it.
There are a lot of interest groups out there with money to throw around and there are a lot groups of people who believe what they believe and don't mind spending a lot of time in the interest of their beliefs.
This type of activity just doesn't make business sense. The overhead would be enormous, and the payback would be undefined. That's not to say someone isn't doing it...I just don't think it's Wal-Mart Store, Inc.
Really? You think all fiction fits that profile? Sometimes--especially in genres like crime fiction, spy thrillers, and horror--a story is just entertainment, meant to be read or viewed as such. I don't think Quentin Tarrantino had a big message or moral in the highly regarded Pulp Fiction--which had a whole scene featuring extremely predatory sexual behavior.
Yes, I do. An idea or a belief does not have to be earth shattering or deep. The idea can simply be a story meant to entertain, as you have pointed out. It remains an idea or a belief. There is a difference in telling a story about a horrific situation, even if the purpose is personal monetary gain, and taking part in activities simulating horrific situations--in my opinion.
In my eyes, not it is not different. A story is a story. Some stories are heart-warming, some stories are horrific. I strongly believe everyone has the right to tell whatever story they wish. But playing a game is not telling a story. I do not believe the first amendment should come into play here.
I agree that we all need to think hard about where we draw our lines. I also agree that reading is a much more thought-invoking pasttime than is gaming--I would go so far as to say that most of the traditional entertainment mediums are (I think television is probably at the bottom of that spectrum though).
However, I think we have found the point on which we disagree. The author, poet, director, etc, is telling a story. He or she is not doing so merely for personal entertainment, but to convey some idea or belief. The actor is a little different, because the story being told is not his or her own. But for the actor or actress, there is no choice involved. He or she is following the script, in an effort to convey some meaning, rather than choosing to act in that manner for personal entertainment.
The gamer, however, has a choice. If he or she "tells" the game character to perform an action, the character does so. There is no audience for which the action is intended to convey some idea or meaning. The act of playing the game has no purpose other than to entertain the gamer. That is where I believe the line should be drawn.
I think you have brought up an interesting point. Much of the discussion on this question is about the whether there is any difference between games and other more traditional entertainment mediums.
You equate video games to books, films, plays, etc. However, I believe there is a very basic difference between them. The difference is passive interaction versus active interaction. With the exception of the occasional audience-cast interactive play, we all engage in the use of these other mediums through passive interaction. We read, watch, listen, etc, but we do not actually affect the outcome or the choice of characters involved. Therefore, we do not choose to perform the actions portrayed in those mediums, but witness them being performed.
With video games, that is no longer the case. The gamer is actually choosing how the character acts. A game in which the plot surrounding the game involved heinous crimes does not concern me. We all see that on the news every night. However, a game in which the plot involves the gamer-character actually choosing to act in a heinous manner does concern me.
First things first, I haven't read the bill and thus I am not commenting on it specifically. I have, however, read many of the comments here and I believe that there is something here worth being discussed that so far has not.
Should games encourage actions (within the game) that in real life would be heinous? I'm not talking about "shooting the bad guy" or the other typical FPS type games. For argument's sake, let's limit it to the user committing rape. Should free speech allow gamers to "choose" to perform this type of act within the confines of a game? If so, should it be available to all gamers, or should it be age-restricted?
In my opinion, the answer is no. There are some things that should be off limits. My reasoning is this: Games allow us to simulate life (not necessarily reality) in a consequence free atmosphere. While they are just games, they do reflect life and they do affect those playing them. The military has proven this and is using that effect to help train its soldiers. So to me, there is a difference between "fighting an enemy" (ie, shooting the bad guy) and raping a bystander. I personally do not want the general public to find entertainment in simulating the rape of another individual. The effect on the individual is not something that I find acceptable.
I understand that many disagree with this, but I do not understand why. What is the argument for including this type of choice into games? Do you believe it will enhance the gaming experience? Is it simply a matter of principle and free speech?
For those that agree that there should be a line somewhere, where should that line be?
IBM sold their pc division to lenovo, including the Thinkpad brand. So far, these are the same machines, manufactured by the same people, as they were before. That may or may not change in the future, but that is beside the point. These are still Thinkpads, the person at the top of the food chain just has a different name tag...
there are subsections (http://it.slashdot.org/, for example)of slashdot and article filtering. No need to see stuff you're not interested in.
Perhaps you should re-read the post:
"BBC News is reporting that the British police National High Tech Crime Unit has foiled an attempted fraud by hackers using keylogging software."
This sentence can be read interpretted both ways:
1. "...foiled an attempted fraud by hackers [who were] using keylogging software."
2. "...High Tech Crime Unit, [using key logging software], has foiled an attempted fraud by hackers."
While it may not be the best form, it is grammatically correct and your statement is based on only one interpretation.
No, I do not have a solution. However, I am not willing to give up on the problem.
As much as you may not mean financially poor, statistics show that if you separate children based on school performance or quality of home life, you will in fact be treading a demographic line.
And, in my opinion, learning to deal with a difficult educational atmosphere is not all bad. Especially when the resources for success are available. The work environment is really very similar. Difficulties, distractions, and obstacles are ever present.
I think that when you equate the suffering of a child in an abusive home to the "suffering" of a child in a distracting school atmoshphere, you are the one missing the point. Want to talk about destructive and debilitating? Try living that child's life, whose parent(s) ridicule, beat, or otherwise mistreat him/her. Yes, you are being selfish. Selfishness does not solve problems. It creates more.
The facts that
1.)Most of the students in our colleges and universities are products of our education systems and
2.)Over 500,000 students (see previous post for the source) came to our colleges and universites last year to study
indicates that our education system IS producing students who compete with international students. If they did not, as a matter of survival, colleges and universities would have to lower expectations (failing students don't pay tuition) and international students seeking the best education the world can offer would be going elsewhere, not here.
Agreed.
Vehemently disagree. How can you expect a student, whose parents abuse, physically or otherwise, to put forth the same effort as one from a healthy home environment? How can you expect a student who is working 40 hours a week or more, so that his/her family has enough money to pay the bills and buy groceries, to put forth the same effort as a student who has the time and resources for extracurricular activites and at-home studying? Please explain how you would accomodate and encourage these young people while weeding out the lazy ones who do just as well in class because they have infinately more resources at their hands?
Now, what about those students who do "face the consequences". What are those consequences? Shall we let them starve? Perhaps enter into a life of crime? And what then? Unproductive citizens are just as much a problem for the productive ones as they are for themselves. Our chance to make them productive, to overcome volatile, negative, or violent homes IS WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG! Once they leave the school system, the opportunity to encourage them into a productive citizen is passed. Or, perhaps, we'll simply ship them off to some other country that WILL let them starve, so as not to foul our conscience with such unpleasantries (note, I'm not accusing any other nationality of this attitude, merely making a point).
While I'm sure there are some people who fit this image, it is unfair to cast this sterotype on the entire education system as a whole. Countries like India, China, Japan, etc, do not attempt to educate EVERY child. The consequence of inadequate performance is often horrible. Is this how we should incent our children in the US? I'd rather not. If education standards in the US are so poor, then why do we still have so many international students in our Colleges and Universities? We have problems in our education system partly because our goal of "teach every child, equally and fairly" is so high.
Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it.
Let's think about the effect this policy would have:
1. Company A is forced to retain US employees over internation employees, thus increasing the cost of the service/product delivered by Company A.
2. Company A is therefore less profitable.
3. Due to a lagging economy, Company A must lay off workers to reduce costs.
4. Due to a reduced workforce, Company A is less productive.
5. Due to lost productivity, Company A loses business to an international competitor.
6. Due to lost business, Company A goes bankrupt.
Now, this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because no business cycle can be reduced to six lines. However, the principle holds true. Taxing companies to prevent off-shoring only makes it more difficult for US-based companies to compete in an international market.
What we should be doing is looking at the reasons for off-shoring. Companies off-shore jobs for a single purpose: to reduce costs. Companies reduce costs for a single purpose: to improve profitability. Therefore, we can negate the need for off-shoring by providing incentives that improve company profitability. Some may argue that companies would still off-shore their jobs to enrich those that control the company. However, I do not believe this is true. Contrary to what many believe, off-shoring is not an attractive option for most companies. It reduces employee moral, is typically bad for customer service, and is not well received by the public. For these reasons, companies will tend to keep jobs here when it is economically feasible.
Having just read the first two sections of the robotic nation essay, I think a couple of points need to be made. Please read the article to understand my rebuttle.
The first argument that should be revisited is the "previous examples" area where the author talks about the birth of flight and our trip to the moon. He uses an inovation that generated jobs to justify his extropolation that a separate inovation will erode jobs. It not a good example. Better to talk about something like the farm industry and how machinery has reduced the number of farm laborers significantly.
Next, let's look at Moore's Law. The author has some very nice statistics that can show anyone the effect Moore's Law has had over the last couple of decades. However, he fails to mention that Moore's Law is not actually a Law of Nature, such as gravity or the speed of light, but rather an observation of the past. We cannot predict when Moore's Law will fail. There is constant speculation, ranging for the near to the very far future. Basing long term speculation on the consistency of Moore's Law is unreliable.
Lastly, does the author ever take into consideration a lagging, and eventually depressed, economy would have on the industries he proclaims will be fully robotic within the next half century? Not that I found, though I didn't make it to the end of the last article. Job losses on the scale the author predicts would devestate the econonmy. Given the author's predictions come true, no one will be eating in the fully robotic fast food restaurants, much less flying on fully robotic planes, because they will either have lost their job to a robot or will have lost their job to a depressed economy. The author seems to consider industry to be separated from the welfare of the people who buy the products produced by the same industry. That is really a silly assumption and it throws the entire rest of the essay offtrack.
That said, it will be interesting to see the inclusion of automated (robotic, if you will) systems into our economy. Certain functions make a lot of sense and will quickly become automated. Retail checkout, fast food ordering, toll booths, even more farm labor, all will grow more and more automated. However, the economy will have to keep pace or risk stalling. People will have to work, or there won't be anyone spending money to keep industry afloat.
John- You're concerns about rfid tags being used in money are unfounded. Even if the cash was tagged when you left the bank, how does anyone know when you give a $20 to your kid so he can go to the movies? And he gives that $20 to a friend for a $10 and two $5's. It doesn't make any sense.
And your concerns about retailers are unfounded as well. It is almost assured that the tags will be deactivated when they leave the store. It serves no purpose to the store to leave them on, and a very useful purpose to turn them off. If the store deactivates every tag attached to an item that is paid for, then any active tag leaving the store is being stolen. This is useful to the store.
Of course if some group, government or criminal, wanted to spend a lot of time trying to track down your individual habits, they might take advantage of rfid signals. But there are plenty of ways to track you now. I doubt we need to worry about the police going through our garbage (and by the way -- an empty container in the garbage in no way legally implies consumption, much less illegal purchase). They have better things to do.
As I said in my original post, there are some valid privacy concerns, but you have not mentioned one yet. Consider personal identification using rfid, for instance. Or maybe large items that can be tracked back to you now -- like your car. The tags that might be used in these things are not, however, what you will find on a pack of Spearmint. That's what allows them to be a concern...The tag on the pack of Spearmint will not store data about you, will not lead to your ultimate demise in any way shape or form. It's like trying to fit the square peg in the round hole -- just isn't designed for that.
In my (limited) experience, retailers do not care about specific customer names. They certainly can keep your name and whatever information they want from the transaction and store it for as long as they would like. Most do keep it for certain periods of time in some manner or another, but only for accounting records. Law requires that they keep copies of receipts (the retailer I deal with the most keeps electronic copies). This data is not the stuff used for data mining/trend analysis to the best of my knowledge. As far as a large retailer, such as the ones you mentioned, is likely to be concerned, individuals are unpredictable and a waste of time. Inventory management, seasonal trends, and marketing response (all things that are learned by looking at item movement as a whole, not an individuals purchasing habits) are much more useful.
That said, I do know that retailers (and companies like the one I work for that sell retailers their hardware/software solutions) are beginning to think of ways to market to individuals when they enter the store. This would require specific customer information be kept and used. I've always wondered how much of the interest was sparked by the Tom Cruise movie a couple years ago that showed people constantly bombarded by advertisements after id'ing them with retinal scanners...
Yes, they will be easy to disable. I expect most retailers to disable them when they leave the store, though that is yet to be determined.
"How long before that cash gets embedded RFID? Then it could be tracked to an account at a bank. And should it happen, it would be illegal to disable it."
I'm sorry, but this is simply a silly idea. Do you really think that there is actually a physical "account" in your bank with bills stacked in it? And even if there was, how are you going to know who has the cash once it leaves the bank? We would all have to have unique rfid's ourselves first, and then the rfid in the cash would be meaningless, the store could just log the personal rf signal of the shopper. No one is going to care that John Doe has bills X, Y, and Z.
"A bar code can be scanned once and is noticible. "
And why would retailers spend their hard earned money hiding rf readers throughout the store? They know that if you leave with the product, you have to go through the Point of Sale. What possible use could they see in buying and maintaining readers where they don't provide any new information? I can forsee the shelves having readers on them, so that inventory is updated when an item is taken and to help in finding misplaced items, but that doesn't have anything to do with the customer.
"Bar codes aren't uniquely identifiable to a particular instance of an object"
Actually, at least one retailer is already tracking electronics by serial number for warranty purposes. Beyond that, do you really care that JD bought "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" with ISDN 123 instead of ISDN 456? The product bought is enough for any data mining the retailers need. Yes, storage has increased tremendously in the past decade, but processing power has not kept up. Too much data is just as useless as inadequate data. The retailers are not going to care which S/N's you bought for most items (warranty items excluded).
"Can they grab my name/addr/ph from just my debit card usage "
Yes. Your name is included on the magnetic stripe data. Your address and phone number are available from the bank that issued the card.
"Considering the ubiquity of 'gift' cards"
Gift cards are typically among the most anonymous methods of payment. They have a unique number, not tied to any name, but that does link to an amount (ie, like an anonymous account with the retailer). This is why they are so profitable for the retailers. For every card lost, that's money essentially given to the retailer. For every card with $.57 thrown away, there is no way for the customer to recover the $.57, because it is not tied to his/her name, but only to the card.
I believe you meant to be speaking of loyalty cards instead of gift cards. You are partially correct -- the prices for a loyalty customer are about the same as a discount non-loyalty retailer. However, you typically are getting more for your dollar with loyalty program retailers, such as nicer shopping environment, product alerts (yes, some are ads), and other benefits. It's simply a personal choice as to whether you want these perks or want to shop at a retailer that just gives the lowest price it can to everyone.