The game publisher is a member of the ESRB. What you are claiming is that by a slight of hand (i.e. using technicalities to claim that the publisher is responsible for X and the ESRB is responsible for Y, thus creating a loophole to commit fraud), the game publisher can ship an AO game rated as M. And if you think of it in that manner, then it is obviously not a legitimate thing to do.
The ESRB claims that they rate games in a consistant manner according to published criteria. If they do not in fact follow their own guidelines and rate things in a capricious manner, then they are not doing what they ADVERTISE that they do. Thus, false advertising. This is precisely the argumen underlying the FTC's actions in this case.
There is a difference between "seeing a nipple" and getting sexually aroused by pornography. Not that I agree with the anti-sex crusaders, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that getting sexually excited by a magazine or a computer game confuses children (gives them unrealistic ideas) about how they should behave in real romantic relationships later in life.
If violent content is less objectionable it is because we don't aspire to have our children become violent gun fighters. However, read any book on handgun self defence and they will tell you that if you get your ideas on how to behave in a gunfight from movies or video games, that you will end up dead.
So, it is precisely BECAUSE we expect our children to be in sexual relationships that people object to children being exposed to pr0n.
it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it?
Well, there's this thing that we in the business call "False Advertising"...
When you charge a fine for speech, that abridges the freedom, methinks.
You make the mistake in thinking that the constitution of the united states actually is worth the parchment it is printed on. The US has not been a free country for a very very long time (if ever).
That is a valid argument for allowing schools to kick out very troubled students. Jeffery Canada (prominent educator and author of "Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun") once said that if he could kick out just a few kids (less than 10), he could have changed the whole dynamic of his violent inner city school.
The problem with the libertarian approach is simply that the school isn't making the decision whether the child goes to school - the parent is making that decision. There are a lot of very good children that come from poor/bad homes. There are lots of successful adults who had parents who were complete losers. There are parents who would choose not to send their kids to school just to be mean to them. Under the current system, these kids sometimes do well in school (or even just "OK"), and they can make it through and eventually do something worthwhile with their lives.
I just enrolled my daughter into private school for next year. It is affordable for me, but I can easily imagine parents who wouldn't be willing to make any sacrifice for their kids. I used to have neighbors who never had food in the house, never provided decent clothes for their kids, made them sleep on the floor because they were constantly having pot parties. They didn't give two shits about either of their two children, but they had a $10,000 wide screen TV that they went heavily in debt to buy. I could easily picture these kids being turned out onto the street during the day in a libertarian society. As it was, they were in the school, didn't cause trouble in school (they LIKED school - HATED being at home), and while they weren't on the Honor Roll, they weren't flunking out either.
In many places, however, it is ILLEGAL for a theater to let under 18 kids into an R rated movie. The theater can be FINED for doing this. So, it is not voluntary.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't we just put a microscopic pebble bed reactor on the IC?
Ben & Jerry's buys Harley Davidson...
Gaming has *never* been one of Apple's core competencies
Dude... Oregon Trail!!!!!
then maybe Nintendo would be the one with enough money to buy Mac!
Oh, come on. I'm sure they have enough money now to buy a Mac.
Come on, we all know no one on Slashdot has a wife.
The game publisher is a member of the ESRB. What you are claiming is that by a slight of hand (i.e. using technicalities to claim that the publisher is responsible for X and the ESRB is responsible for Y, thus creating a loophole to commit fraud), the game publisher can ship an AO game rated as M. And if you think of it in that manner, then it is obviously not a legitimate thing to do.
The ESRB claims that they rate games in a consistant manner according to published criteria. If they do not in fact follow their own guidelines and rate things in a capricious manner, then they are not doing what they ADVERTISE that they do. Thus, false advertising. This is precisely the argumen underlying the FTC's actions in this case.
Freedom doesn't mean anything unless it means the freedom for people you don't like to do thinks you don't approve of.
There is a difference between "seeing a nipple" and getting sexually aroused by pornography. Not that I agree with the anti-sex crusaders, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that getting sexually excited by a magazine or a computer game confuses children (gives them unrealistic ideas) about how they should behave in real romantic relationships later in life.
If violent content is less objectionable it is because we don't aspire to have our children become violent gun fighters. However, read any book on handgun self defence and they will tell you that if you get your ideas on how to behave in a gunfight from movies or video games, that you will end up dead.
So, it is precisely BECAUSE we expect our children to be in sexual relationships that people object to children being exposed to pr0n.
it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it?
Well, there's this thing that we in the business call "False Advertising"...
Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?
Because the job of censoring video games naturally attracts empty headed imbeciles?
When you charge a fine for speech, that abridges the freedom, methinks.
You make the mistake in thinking that the constitution of the united states actually is worth the parchment it is printed on. The US has not been a free country for a very very long time (if ever).
Ha ha. You said "phony" in an article about PHONES!!!!111!!
Yeah, sorry you left your $40,000 Mercedes in the parking lot outside. You must be dumb for abandoning it like that. LOL.
Yeah, only 13 more months and you'll be a half century old!
In Soviet Russion, MegaFunction Gadget Overlords shrink YOU!
By "met my wife", I assume you mean "purchased a Real Doll". You are a slashdotter, after all.
That is a valid argument for allowing schools to kick out very troubled students. Jeffery Canada (prominent educator and author of "Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun") once said that if he could kick out just a few kids (less than 10), he could have changed the whole dynamic of his violent inner city school.
The problem with the libertarian approach is simply that the school isn't making the decision whether the child goes to school - the parent is making that decision. There are a lot of very good children that come from poor/bad homes. There are lots of successful adults who had parents who were complete losers. There are parents who would choose not to send their kids to school just to be mean to them. Under the current system, these kids sometimes do well in school (or even just "OK"), and they can make it through and eventually do something worthwhile with their lives.
I just enrolled my daughter into private school for next year. It is affordable for me, but I can easily imagine parents who wouldn't be willing to make any sacrifice for their kids. I used to have neighbors who never had food in the house, never provided decent clothes for their kids, made them sleep on the floor because they were constantly having pot parties. They didn't give two shits about either of their two children, but they had a $10,000 wide screen TV that they went heavily in debt to buy. I could easily picture these kids being turned out onto the street during the day in a libertarian society. As it was, they were in the school, didn't cause trouble in school (they LIKED school - HATED being at home), and while they weren't on the Honor Roll, they weren't flunking out either.
I went to the movies last night at this theater:
UA Movies at Patchogue 13
600 Sunrise Hwy.
Patchogue, NY 11772
The theater had a sign up citing a law that makes it illegal for them to allow anyone under 18 to see an R rated movie.
In many places, however, it is ILLEGAL for a theater to let under 18 kids into an R rated movie. The theater can be FINED for doing this. So, it is not voluntary.
And crank up Big Black on the car stereo.
D00d!!!1! Ur teh su>0rz!!!!one!!eleven!!?! l9SOs r teh roolerz!!1!!!11!!!!
DO NOT QUESTION DVORAK!
Yes. After all, he did create that crappy keyboard layout that no one uses.
It must be great to work in the marketing department at Panasonic.
how are ipods a health issue?
The exact same way that Walkmans were in the 80s and portable transistor radios were in the late 50s and 60s.