llnwd.net is a CDN. You *can* block it if you like, but you'll be blocking a lot of other things, like Netflix, Amazon Prime videos, Sony DLC, and all manner of Internet content.
Limelight hat on - The reason for this actually extends all the way to the Olympics committee and how they choose to license the broadcasting of events to each particular country. NBC does not have license to provide this content outside the US. That requirement propagates to every edge of their service offering. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of it.
Limelight hat off - Given the scope of NBC's offering, and how well it's all gone off, I would hope that what was done this year set's the bar for future events, and offers a new dimension to including the entire world. This event was a real kick in the pants to work on, and the ramifications it has for live content over the internet is staggering. Until Congress fucks up net neutrality.
If you think about it, that's just a case of refactoring Spaceship Two. Right now, it's built as a vehicle capable of re-entry. Drop that requirement and re-engineer for a longer burn capability, perhaps with some of the scramjet technology from the HyperX platform. Most of the weight of a Space Shuttle launch is fuel, and a staggering amount is expended just getting it off the pad. Rutan's approach, while slower, is much more efficient. Trading out Spaceship Two for a longer, heavier second stage module with slaved avionics/control surfaces isn't that far fetched of a notion. I wonder how the size of the toys they're building over at Bigelow Aerospace compares.
People need to stop buying vendor-locked phones. My last phone was a Motorola E815, subsidized by Verizon, and I'll never buy a phone like that again. Need a ringtone? Gotta buy it. Engineering spec shows full bluetooth capability, but it's vendor locked to limit your choices to their pay services. I upgraded to a Treo 700wx *instead* of an Iphone, and I'm never going back to a vendor locked solution. Smartphones can be done right, you just need to break out of the rat maze they want you to stay in.
Google search on a capable phone isn't going to fail. It's already a success. If Dvorak has this view on the subject, it's because he's trying to ramp up adSense traffic for his point of view, or he's still rocking a mid-80s brick phone, kicking it Zack Morris style.
Disclaimer: I do not work for any of the companies or providers I'm about to mention. I am an end user in every respect, with regards to this discussion, however technically adept.
I own a Treo 700wx, running Windows Mobile, on Verizon's network, with an unlimited usage EVDO data plan. However much Microsoft tends to piss me off, this is the single most useful phone I've ever owned, and that is largely because of the Google Maps application I installed on it, post purchase.
The ability to lookup anything puts real value into the money I spend on a data plan for the phone. Combined with an I-blue Bluetooth GPS receiver (that happily goes to sleep when you're not talking to it), I can search for anything around my current location, like a bank, an ATM, a restaurant, a car repair place, and get it on a map, and save the contact information directly to my phonebook. It's one more option to get driving directions from my current location to the selected destination, without calling anyone, including a pay-per-use 411 style information service.
Search on a smartphone works. Period. Google did it right. I don't blame them one bit for finding a way to monetize it and leverage what is already an excellent service offering. I haven't cracked a phone book in years to begin with. They pile up on my porch and get used in my fireplace.
It's this simple: Put your kids' computers and internet connected devices in a family room, not in bedrooms. Apply some discipline and supervision with usage.
Like the television, the Xbox and the Internet in general are the new babysitters, and that's bad.
So the connection is being drawn, that exposure to violent concepts and scenes triggers violent tendencies. Will this bill extend to prohibiting the display of violence in the news? Violence in movie previews? Violence in commercials?
Taken in scale, the real question come to the fore.. When do we get our daily doses of Prozium?
The problem with violence is that it's a psychoreactive stimulus. In the case of media, we're talking about engaging characters in fight-or-flight inducing situations, without the risk. This is a playground for seeding addictive behaviour, which is something American's traditionally have problems dealing with. Alcoholism, drug habits, horrible spending habits. Reality television shows are no better than violent video games, in this respect. Are they next on the chopping block?
The human animal thrives on conflict, be it political, physical, or d) other. This is basic human nature, and it's written in our history. Legislation will not solve this problem unless it promotes true *cultural reform*. The number of factors that must be addressed to foment this kind of change highlight this kind of legislation as narrow minded and indicative of sociological myopia. Violence isn't the problem. Violence is simply there. It's how we treat it, react to it, and ultimately, understand it (or don't).
Do you deploy a Snort-style IDS system because you trust your users? Do you inspect all your network traffic, packet by packet, because you expect all traffic to be benign? These are simple concepts present in both methodologies. You cannot accept one without accepting the other. The only difference is the volume and the relevant statistics.
Other things I might be doing that other users will likely want to know about: Chatting up your sister. Chatting up your girlfriend. Chatting up your mom. Chatting up your girlfriend AND your sister. Shagging any combination of the above.
All of these things are possible now that you've got an xbox 360 and don't leave your room.
Perhaps this would be better phrased as 'Linux developers take 68% longer to possibly implement security holes, as opposed to Windows developers using MS supplied canned libraries and APIs that ship with holes already present.'
Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.
Sec. 238.1 Bait advertisement.
No advertisement containing an offer to sell a product should be published when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised product. [Guide 1]
Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.
(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.
(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception."
If an ISP (as in P stands for Provider), they can't filter/block access to anything and still sell 'Internet Service.' To do so means they become a Publisher, since they're controlling what you can access (I think AOL fits into this role in certain aspects), and that's a bundle of liability to make many companies tread lightly. If I buy service from a company offering 'Internet' access, I have a reasonable expectation that any IP based technology will work with it, be it software I run on my computer, or an off the shelf consumer device designed to work with the Internet. Companies providing bundled services need to step lightly on this subject. Selling me 'Internet' access, blocking VOIP transit, and offering a comparable VOIP service (for a fee, of course), is asking for trouble.
Just to throw some more light on what this does and how it helps. The query cache stores queries and result sets for tables that haven't changed. By allotting an amount of RAM to hold this, you can serve query results from the cache faster, since the DB only needs to look at the last modified timestamps on the tables involved in the query (a sweet time saver for complex joins on reference tables).
mysql: show status Variable_name Value Qcache_free_memory 978408 Qcache_hits 3603029 Qcache_inserts 153341 Qcache_queries_in_cache 2
Hits greater than Inserts. The bigger that disparity, the more your query cache is working for you. 2 queries in my cache are saving me 3.6 million full queries. I'm bad at math, but..
Set up multiple read slaves to carry the bulk of your read traffic, especially for your mirrors. Considering MyISAM's native table locking behavior, this should reduce your master db load quite a bit, even just moving your mirror read-load to a slave replicant.
Assuming you're in a managed windows environment where standard users are lacking the privileges to make changes to the operating system and it's settings (outside of application specific user options), you can apply certain registry settings that make all USB mass storage devices read-only.
This, coupled with good remote log hosts and alarm systems will not only prevent users from smuggling data, good or bad, it can also alert you to the activity.
This is, of course, moot if the workstations are equipped with floppies and burners. Your firewall policy can also negate the advantage is you have no network accounting in place or a hardened outbound traffic policy.
The science of man/machine neural interfaces is still fledgling, at best. Recent advances have scientists inserting bundles of probes by the thousands and talking the brain into grafting nerves on to them for the purposes of recieving and recording signalling from the brain. The brain adapts to this and sees it as just another set of nerves to send impulses to, be it to move a cursor on a screen, or move a robotic arm.
However, these are purely motor functions. Over time, it will be possible for a human input text, or even simulated audio, ala speech, directly from the brain, once we have the knowledge and technology and *neural training* to use that kind of facility, as opposed to simple human speech.
Again, this is simply an output function. Neurology shows us that the brain functions almost identically when remembering something as it did when you experienced it, so the loose theory there is that it's possible to playback memory and possibly record it. But contextually, that's as useful as having home movies and considering them to be a recording of your life. This raises two problems: Being able to record and synthesize a memory into a useful data structure, and being able to query the brain to perform a sequential dump of the sum of your memories.
Problem one: Parsing a memory. This will be possible once we reach two distinct points in technology: Being able to 'record' a memory (or even a dream), and having sufficient AI capability to examine a scene and identify its contents in full, while understanding what the event is, and correctly correlating the emotional context along with relevence.
Problem two: The ability of the brain to accept and parse input from a machine. This means adapting the brain to accept a seventh form of sensory input (Yes, I said seven. I maintain that everyone has a sixth sense. Argue with me later, this is 'me' time.) Gibson has gifted us with an amazing prediction of the world to come, with all the reality that could possibly be attached to it.
Recent advances in science have given us the first and most basic of these interfaces, by grafting photoreceptors to the optic nerve to create and generate impulses that the optic nerve, and by extension, the brain, are capable of relearning as a replacement form of input. I postulate that it's not a large step from that point to replacing the photoreceptor layer with a much finer set of inputs that provide a feed from machine video output, because after all, that's just a set of voltage based signals as well.
Gibson's vision of cyberspace fits pretty well into this notion, and enables it as a possibility. So, will it be possible to record a personality construct? I think it will be. Will people be able to subject themselves to reliving their entire lives to that point in order to make a backup of themselves? Possibly, but I'm not sure I want to be one of them, because I don't have enough faith in my fellow man to be sure that I'll get to keep all of the memories I want in the event that I have to be restored from backup, if restored at all.
The large shiny theory of immortality has a flip side, and it's based entirely upon human nature. Imagine that you're a strident Republican who's against this kind of technology, but you get talked into the process by your loving family. What kind of risk are you taking with this process, that when all is said and done, the backup you make isn't tampered with or subtly altered, in coincidence with an untimely accident, for policital reasons?
Once you're dead, you're dead. You're out of the game until someone puts you back into play. Like the venerable Dix, would you know you were changed? Also, cloning and the like permitting, are you being restored to an organic brain that may not be capable of taking a perfect restoration, or are you getting a shiny positronic core? Are you still considered to BE the person you WERE, or does the existential question of who you ARE come to the fore?
Think it won't happen? I predict now that it will, sho
And how would you identify them before purchasing? They're not marked. You have to view them to discover the commercials and other lead-ins that you can't skip.
I dropped a note to Former President Hillary earlier.
In response to a particular quote from the Senator: "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place."
Litigation of video game content isn't the solution. My response to this statement is to suggest an alternative way of saying the same thing, that sheds light on where the solution lies: "Children are being permitted by their parents, to play a game.."
Columbine. Red Lakes. Any scene of child/teen violence. There's a common thread to all of them. Where were the parents at?
The past 20-30 years has given us two generations of children raised by the media. I'm one of them. Schools are the beating heart of a media consuming jungle inhabited by a savage culture straight out of 'Lord of the Flies'. In the absence of adult supervision, children will make their own way. There are leaders, there are followers, and there are outcasts.
In typical American fashion, you, and other lawmakers, not to mention parasitic attorneys, are looking at the *symptom*. Kids are being medicated to address the symptoms of a bigger problem. Media outlets are under threat of sanction (nevermind the 1st amendment implications), for propagating violent themes to an audience who isn't the intended recipient. Parents are crying out for a *systemic solution* to the problem they themselves are creating!
Violence, and it's effects on the human psyche, hasn't fundamentally changed in over 2,000 years. Back then, we had coliseums. Now we have television. This isn't a media problem. It's not a video game problem. It's a parenting problem. In the absence of 'dietary' control over the media children consume, they're going to go after the junk food.
If you want to propose a law that will actually fix this problem, make parents liable for the actions of their minor children. Only then will the disease receive the treatment it desperately needs.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll know what direction we're headed, for sure, when Netflix starts buying ISPs.
llnwd.net is a CDN. You *can* block it if you like, but you'll be blocking a lot of other things, like Netflix, Amazon Prime videos, Sony DLC, and all manner of Internet content.
Disclaimer: I work for Limelight.
Limelight hat on -
The reason for this actually extends all the way to the Olympics committee and how they choose to license the broadcasting of events to each particular country. NBC does not have license to provide this content outside the US. That requirement propagates to every edge of their service offering. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of it.
Limelight hat off -
Given the scope of NBC's offering, and how well it's all gone off, I would hope that what was done this year set's the bar for future events, and offers a new dimension to including the entire world. This event was a real kick in the pants to work on, and the ramifications it has for live content over the internet is staggering. Until Congress fucks up net neutrality.
I'm curious what the lifting capacity on the new 'mothership' is. If they can make that center mount modular..
If you think about it, that's just a case of refactoring Spaceship Two. Right now, it's built as a vehicle capable of re-entry. Drop that requirement and re-engineer for a longer burn capability, perhaps with some of the scramjet technology from the HyperX platform. Most of the weight of a Space Shuttle launch is fuel, and a staggering amount is expended just getting it off the pad. Rutan's approach, while slower, is much more efficient. Trading out Spaceship Two for a longer, heavier second stage module with slaved avionics/control surfaces isn't that far fetched of a notion. I wonder how the size of the toys they're building over at Bigelow Aerospace compares.
People need to stop buying vendor-locked phones. My last phone was a Motorola E815, subsidized by Verizon, and I'll never buy a phone like that again. Need a ringtone? Gotta buy it. Engineering spec shows full bluetooth capability, but it's vendor locked to limit your choices to their pay services. I upgraded to a Treo 700wx *instead* of an Iphone, and I'm never going back to a vendor locked solution. Smartphones can be done right, you just need to break out of the rat maze they want you to stay in.
Google search on a capable phone isn't going to fail. It's already a success. If Dvorak has this view on the subject, it's because he's trying to ramp up adSense traffic for his point of view, or he's still rocking a mid-80s brick phone, kicking it Zack Morris style.
Disclaimer: I do not work for any of the companies or providers I'm about to mention. I am an end user in every respect, with regards to this discussion, however technically adept.
I own a Treo 700wx, running Windows Mobile, on Verizon's network, with an unlimited usage EVDO data plan. However much Microsoft tends to piss me off, this is the single most useful phone I've ever owned, and that is largely because of the Google Maps application I installed on it, post purchase.
The ability to lookup anything puts real value into the money I spend on a data plan for the phone. Combined with an I-blue Bluetooth GPS receiver (that happily goes to sleep when you're not talking to it), I can search for anything around my current location, like a bank, an ATM, a restaurant, a car repair place, and get it on a map, and save the contact information directly to my phonebook. It's one more option to get driving directions from my current location to the selected destination, without calling anyone, including a pay-per-use 411 style information service.
Search on a smartphone works. Period. Google did it right. I don't blame them one bit for finding a way to monetize it and leverage what is already an excellent service offering. I haven't cracked a phone book in years to begin with. They pile up on my porch and get used in my fireplace.
Where were the parents at?
It's this simple:
Put your kids' computers and internet connected devices in a family room, not in bedrooms.
Apply some discipline and supervision with usage.
Like the television, the Xbox and the Internet in general are the new babysitters, and that's bad.
So the connection is being drawn, that exposure to violent concepts and scenes triggers violent tendencies. Will this bill extend to prohibiting the display of violence in the news? Violence in movie previews? Violence in commercials?
Taken in scale, the real question come to the fore.. When do we get our daily doses of Prozium?
The problem with violence is that it's a psychoreactive stimulus. In the case of media, we're talking about engaging characters in fight-or-flight inducing situations, without the risk. This is a playground for seeding addictive behaviour, which is something American's traditionally have problems dealing with. Alcoholism, drug habits, horrible spending habits. Reality television shows are no better than violent video games, in this respect. Are they next on the chopping block?
The human animal thrives on conflict, be it political, physical, or d) other. This is basic human nature, and it's written in our history. Legislation will not solve this problem unless it promotes true *cultural reform*. The number of factors that must be addressed to foment this kind of change highlight this kind of legislation as narrow minded and indicative of sociological myopia. Violence isn't the problem. Violence is simply there. It's how we treat it, react to it, and ultimately, understand it (or don't).
Do you deploy a Snort-style IDS system because you trust your users? Do you inspect all your network traffic, packet by packet, because you expect all traffic to be benign? These are simple concepts present in both methodologies. You cannot accept one without accepting the other. The only difference is the volume and the relevant statistics.
Other things I might be doing that other users will likely want to know about:
Chatting up your sister.
Chatting up your girlfriend.
Chatting up your mom.
Chatting up your girlfriend AND your sister.
Shagging any combination of the above.
All of these things are possible now that you've got an xbox 360 and don't leave your room.
Try here instead:
http://www.billn.net/text/kickstart-HOWTO.txt
Slightly outdated, but still functional.
Perhaps this would be better phrased as 'Linux developers take 68% longer to possibly implement security holes, as opposed to Windows developers using MS supplied canned libraries and APIs that ship with holes already present.'
From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm:
"Sec. 238.0 Bait advertising defined.1
Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.
Sec. 238.1 Bait advertisement.
No advertisement containing an offer to sell a product should be published when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised product. [Guide 1]
Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.
(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.
(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception."
If an ISP (as in P stands for Provider), they can't filter/block access to anything and still sell 'Internet Service.' To do so means they become a Publisher, since they're controlling what you can access (I think AOL fits into this role in certain aspects), and that's a bundle of liability to make many companies tread lightly. If I buy service from a company offering 'Internet' access, I have a reasonable expectation that any IP based technology will work with it, be it software I run on my computer, or an off the shelf consumer device designed to work with the Internet. Companies providing bundled services need to step lightly on this subject. Selling me 'Internet' access, blocking VOIP transit, and offering a comparable VOIP service (for a fee, of course), is asking for trouble.
Chances are.. as a Linux user.. you've already own the series on DVD, and have seen the movie. Twice.
Relax. You'll probably see it again this weekend anyway. Send the link to your Windows using friends.
Screw that. You play fast and loose with network security, I'd never hire you.
Just to throw some more light on what this does and how it helps. The query cache stores queries and result sets for tables that haven't changed. By allotting an amount of RAM to hold this, you can serve query results from the cache faster, since the DB only needs to look at the last modified timestamps on the tables involved in the query (a sweet time saver for complex joins on reference tables).
mysql: show status
Variable_name Value
Qcache_free_memory 978408
Qcache_hits 3603029
Qcache_inserts 153341
Qcache_queries_in_cache 2
Hits greater than Inserts. The bigger that disparity, the more your query cache is working for you. 2 queries in my cache are saving me 3.6 million full queries. I'm bad at math, but..
You're going to see the same problems with any CMS. *ALWAYS* tune your database first. Then decide if that's really your problem.
Not all CMS schemas are good. Not all come with indexing that makes sense for the usage. Most don't do any tuning of your database parameters, either.
Here's a subtle hint that will probably help:
set global query_cache_size = 1000000;
Works like a champ.
Set up multiple read slaves to carry the bulk of your read traffic, especially for your mirrors. Considering MyISAM's native table locking behavior, this should reduce your master db load quite a bit, even just moving your mirror read-load to a slave replicant.
Also, query caching is a beautiful thing.
Assuming you're in a managed windows environment where standard users are lacking the privileges to make changes to the operating system and it's settings (outside of application specific user options), you can apply certain registry settings that make all USB mass storage devices read-only.
This, coupled with good remote log hosts and alarm systems will not only prevent users from smuggling data, good or bad, it can also alert you to the activity.
This is, of course, moot if the workstations are equipped with floppies and burners. Your firewall policy can also negate the advantage is you have no network accounting in place or a hardened outbound traffic policy.
*cough* If a lower uid is all you need to be right.. }=)
The science of man/machine neural interfaces is still fledgling, at best. Recent advances have scientists inserting bundles of probes by the thousands and talking the brain into grafting nerves on to them for the purposes of recieving and recording signalling from the brain. The brain adapts to this and sees it as just another set of nerves to send impulses to, be it to move a cursor on a screen, or move a robotic arm.
However, these are purely motor functions. Over time, it will be possible for a human input text, or even simulated audio, ala speech, directly from the brain, once we have the knowledge and technology and *neural training* to use that kind of facility, as opposed to simple human speech.
Again, this is simply an output function. Neurology shows us that the brain functions almost identically when remembering something as it did when you experienced it, so the loose theory there is that it's possible to playback memory and possibly record it. But contextually, that's as useful as having home movies and considering them to be a recording of your life. This raises two problems: Being able to record and synthesize a memory into a useful data structure, and being able to query the brain to perform a sequential dump of the sum of your memories.
Problem one: Parsing a memory. This will be possible once we reach two distinct points in technology: Being able to 'record' a memory (or even a dream), and having sufficient AI capability to examine a scene and identify its contents in full, while understanding what the event is, and correctly correlating the emotional context along with relevence.
Problem two: The ability of the brain to accept and parse input from a machine. This means adapting the brain to accept a seventh form of sensory input (Yes, I said seven. I maintain that everyone has a sixth sense. Argue with me later, this is 'me' time.) Gibson has gifted us with an amazing prediction of the world to come, with all the reality that could possibly be attached to it.
Recent advances in science have given us the first and most basic of these interfaces, by grafting photoreceptors to the optic nerve to create and generate impulses that the optic nerve, and by extension, the brain, are capable of relearning as a replacement form of input. I postulate that it's not a large step from that point to replacing the photoreceptor layer with a much finer set of inputs that provide a feed from machine video output, because after all, that's just a set of voltage based signals as well.
Gibson's vision of cyberspace fits pretty well into this notion, and enables it as a possibility.
So, will it be possible to record a personality construct? I think it will be. Will people be able to subject themselves to reliving their entire lives to that point in order to make a backup of themselves? Possibly, but I'm not sure I want to be one of them, because I don't have enough faith in my fellow man to be sure that I'll get to keep all of the memories I want in the event that I have to be restored from backup, if restored at all.
The large shiny theory of immortality has a flip side, and it's based entirely upon human nature. Imagine that you're a strident Republican who's against this kind of technology, but you get talked into the process by your loving family. What kind of risk are you taking with this process, that when all is said and done, the backup you make isn't tampered with or subtly altered, in coincidence with an untimely accident, for policital reasons?
Once you're dead, you're dead. You're out of the game until someone puts you back into play. Like the venerable Dix, would you know you were changed? Also, cloning and the like permitting, are you being restored to an organic brain that may not be capable of taking a perfect restoration, or are you getting a shiny positronic core? Are you still considered to BE the person you WERE, or does the existential question of who you ARE come to the fore?
Think it won't happen? I predict now that it will, sho
And how would you identify them before purchasing?
They're not marked. You have to view them to discover the commercials and other lead-ins that you can't skip.
And you typically can't return opened media.
All kidding aside, a geothermal tap fed to an inverted Peltier stack to generate power from the temperature difference would last a lot longer.
I dropped a note to Former President Hillary earlier.
In response to a particular quote from the Senator:
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place."
Litigation of video game content isn't the solution. My response to this statement is to suggest an alternative way of saying the same thing, that sheds light on where the solution lies:
"Children are being permitted by their parents, to play a game.."
Columbine. Red Lakes. Any scene of child/teen violence. There's a common thread to all of them. Where were the parents at?
The past 20-30 years has given us two generations of children raised by the media. I'm one of them. Schools are the beating heart of a media consuming jungle inhabited by a savage culture straight out of 'Lord of the Flies'. In the absence of adult supervision, children will make their own way. There are leaders, there are followers, and there are outcasts.
In typical American fashion, you, and other lawmakers, not to mention parasitic attorneys, are looking at the *symptom*. Kids are being medicated to address the symptoms of a bigger problem. Media outlets are under threat of sanction (nevermind the 1st amendment implications), for propagating violent themes to an audience who isn't the intended recipient. Parents are crying out for a *systemic solution* to the problem they themselves are creating!
Violence, and it's effects on the human psyche, hasn't fundamentally changed in over 2,000 years. Back then, we had coliseums. Now we have television. This isn't a media problem. It's not a video game problem. It's a parenting problem. In the absence of 'dietary' control over the media children consume, they're going to go after the junk food.
If you want to propose a law that will actually fix this problem, make parents liable for the actions of their minor children. Only then will the disease receive the treatment it desperately needs.