Similarly, it tends to favour species that enter into symbiotic relationships with other species. Consider how well the horse did as a result of its relationship with humanity.
The horse was hunted to extinction on some continents. On others it was made a slave, and still the occasional food source. That is the sort of relationship I think we are all fearing. It is not that different from your sheep example.
A symbiotic relationship requires the ability of one species to help the other. If ET shows up we will be too technologically backwards to provide what we would probably consider an equitable relationship.
Also aggressive does not necessarily mean uncooperative. Aggressiveness just makes a species more selective about who they cooperate with.
First, interstellar colonization? Unlikely. It makes nice SF, but there's no good economic basis for it. A civilization that survives long enough to reach the technological level necessary for interstellar spaceflight will have stabilized its population and learned how to use local resources to make their home world a paradise.
There are numerous flaws with your logic. Exploit and move on has been a successful strategy as long as there are new places to move on to. Sustainability is not a natural condition, it is something forced upon a species. To a species that has just obtained interstellar spaceflight there are plenty of places to move on to.
Also, while a species could have reached a sustainable lifestyle as they develop an earlier level of spaceflight, they may lose that sustainable lifestyle as they obtain the resources of their solar system. They may keep their homeworld as a paradise and strip mine the rest of the solar system as some industrialists kept magnificent gardens on their estate while they strip mined distant lands. Why would keeping the earth as a paradise preclude the skimming of methane gas from other planets, mining asteroid or moons for metals?
Finally, define "paradise"? That is a very subjective state, it is tied to expectations and expectations change over time. What is luxury or an excess to one generation may become a necessity to a future generation.
Evolution may suggest they will not be pacifists
on
The Fermi Paradox is Back
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hopefully, any civilization advanced enough to not blow itself to pieces before developing interstellar transport capability would be reasonably benign...
Why would showing restraint with respect to interactions with your own species mean you would show similar restraint when interacting with other species? Wolves can show much restraint to other wolves, but little to other species.
Evolution favors a combination of aggressiveness and intelligence. Losing either quality will make you vulnerable to those who have not lost either. Consider pacifism. Pacifism only works when isolated or when there are non-pacifists who protect the pacifists. Humans are probably either unique or one of many intelligent species. Given many intelligent species, some may have become pacifist in isolation, but all will not. Those who retain some aggression will dominate in the long term. The more civilizations that have made contact, the less likely we are to meet pacifists. Given that our first contact is also likely to be one of many I'd so the odds of your optimistic scenario are not good.
Try pitching it as being like purchasing a source license rather than a binary license. I find that companies can often be convinced to get a source rather than a binary license by pointing out that in an emergency we can fix a problem ourselves rather than leave our critical business processes dependent on an outsiders availability and software update schedule.
As other have pointed out, IBM, HP, RedHat, and others offer support and training.
The difference between a professional and an amateur is that amateurs work for the love of it and professionals work because they get paid. Sort of the difference between a spouse and a hooker.
Spouses are also professionals. They get a better deal than the hookers because they have a written contract. The amateurs are the girlfriends.
It all depends on how individuals see the world around them. I think managers, who are mostly business school educated, don't see the world the same way the rest of us (developers) do.
Actually most managers do not have an MBA. Many have undergraduate degrees in science and engineering. Also, I'm in an MBA program right now and there is no shortage of engineers and IT (including admins) in my class. Some of my professors who have decades of real world experience in strategy and marketing at major corporations have undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.
They probably don't understand why someone would work for free or why someone would volunteer at a soup kitchen.
That is an extremely ignorant statement. There is a lot of charitable work being performed by business schools, fund raising, volunteering, etc. Additionally, a couple classmates actually work at non-profit research or charitable organizations. I know several that made donations of their time to various charities before entering business school, and who have also continued to make such donations despite having far less spare time now that they are back in school. The school also maintains a list of local charities that could use help in some area of business.
You are engaging in the same ignorant stereotyping that many around here complain of with respect to how geeks, and technical issues/people in general, are portrayed on TV and movies.
Most of the managers would never think that work could be fun unless it payed lots of money. Manager-types chose business school just as a way to get more money, it was a pretty good shortcut -- you go to school, pick business as your major, party for 4 years with buds, and then one of their dads hires you as a manager -- the system works great
That is also a fairly ignorant statement. I have BS and MS degrees in CS. Except for 2nd year calculus and theory of computation I am routinely using more advanced math in marketing classes. Yes, I was completely shocked. Yes, I used to hold the same arrogant and erroneous opinions you now hold.
Developers became developers because they like to write software. Most found ways to get payed for it, but they didn't dream of reaches first, then thought that becoming a developer would get them there and chose 'computer science' as a major in college (those that did do that, probably ended up switching to 'communication', 'business administration' or 'comparative literature' before the 2nd year.)
Bull. The vast majority of CS graduates that I have interviewed basically got into it because someone told them it was a good career path. It is difficult to wade through the applicants and find those truly have an interest in the work. Also, donating time to an open source project does not necessarily identify those with an interest. Some of the more savvy career path types realize that this is an easier way to get something on the resume outside of classwork.
Also, some individuals donate time to FOSS for non-altruistic reasons such as ego, improving credibility/reputation, getting some experience in an esoteric area before applying for a job, etc. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this. Just that your are romantically naive about FOSS developers.
Also keep in mind that you're not likely to get an unbiased view of the legal landscape from the Attorney General of Utah's web site. Major court decisions since the 1970s (where their cites all come from) have gone the other direction entirely, e.g. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=13519. And gee, not a Commerce Clause citation in sight.
The Indianapolis case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant cert to it, is the one that really makes it impractical to dictate content restrictions to retail game publishers.
You are mistaken. The case you cite is very different. This case involves coin operated machines that were in public where a child could see the screen as an adult played. In such cases the court has to balance the right of an adult to play with the right of a child to be in the establishment and incidentally see the game. That is an entirely different set of facts compared to a clerk selling a mature rated video game to a child over the counter. Your citation is irrelevant.
I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed."
Keep Googling until you come up with the Supreme Court's definition for 'adult material'.
Irrelevant. Your claim that restrictions related to minors are a first amendment violation has been debunked as false. In short, there is precedent for restrictions.
Voting machines are a technical non-solution to a non-existing problem.
Agreed.
Counting votes by hand in public view is almost as fast, has much fewer things that could go wrong with them, and is intrinsically open to public scrunity like no machine system can ever be. Plus, it's cheaper.
Wrong on faster and cheaper. As the recount in some Florida counties showed in the 2000 US presidential election.
Voting on paper is fine, but the paper should be mechanically counted. Hand counts should be a last resort when the machines are unable to read a vote or are malfunctioning.
You are an idiot. The topic is potentially illegal surveillance at DefCon. They went to a public event, misrepresented themselves to avoid legal agreements (fraud ?), and attempted to covertly record video and audio. Inviting some idiot to your place for a sting is completely different.
"Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example."
It'll be good to hear you cite the specific law on this one.
Hint: there isn't any...."
Put learning to use google on your list of things to do.;-)
... Stores don't sell Playboy to minors because they don't want to be confronted by torch-wielding zealots the next day.
Your reasoning is precisely analogous to that of the probably-90% of the population who think that it's "illegal" to let kids into an R- or X-rated movie. There is absolutely no legislation of this nature in place. The MPAA was formed under the same threats as the ESRB.
I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed." http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/protec tchild.htm
This DOES mean that the press in its news gathering activities IS specifically protected from laws that restrict their ability to do their job.
That is too vague. Certainly there can be no laws telling them not to gather info on some topic, however the media must be subject to the same laws as other citizens. For example laws regarding trespassing, wiretapping, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that this particular case is one where NBC was doing the right thing - I would prefer the undercover reporter were there doing a story about the government spies who infiltrated the conference, and put their faces on TV so they couldn't infiltrate anything else again. NBC was barking up the wrong tree here
Here I strongly disagree. I think you are being hypocritical to a degree, both are equally valid stories to investigate. **If** hackers were meeting and engaging in criminal conspiracies that would be something to shine a light upon.
Point 1: Citing your own post may be what amounts to law-review material at your school, but not in most cases.:)
Wow, you are just one bad guess after another. I cited the other post two avoid redundancy, to avoid two threads discussing the same point(s) in case others joined in. Your "this stuff isn't that hard to understand" comment just keeps getting funnier.;-)
Point 2: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the same methodology of regulation wouldn't apply to books, movies, and other forms of media. If all you need to do to impose prior restraint is invoke the Commerce Clause, "it's only a rating system," and "we must protect minors," then how come the last five thousand or so attempts to regulate print publishing have been shot down by various courts?
Again, there is no prior restraint. You may make and sell whatever you want to adults. However the courts do consider restrictions with respect to minors reasonable. Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example.
Only be honest to your clergy, doctor or lawyer. Well with respect to past events that could get you into trouble, don't mention future plans to do so.;-) Hmmm... what if a journalist impersonated a member of the clergy, a doctor or a lawyer to get info. You know, I bet they have done it already.
They should be charged with violations against wiretap laws for pulling this stunt.
The media believes it is above the law, and from a practical sense it often is. The media confuses the absolute right to print whatever they discover with a right to do anything they care to, legal or not, in order to obtain that info. They have the former (print) but not the later (discover). However many in power are so dependent on the media to obtain or keep their positions of power they rarely go after the media.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the media is an important check to the power of government. However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors.
"The first amendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress."
It applies to all governmental entities on US soil. (Try having your small-town city council ban a particular religion and see how far you get.)
Again, the "public's" ignorance of, and/or disagreement with, the First Amendment does not invalidate it.
If a private distributor such as Wal-Mart wants to demand the formation of an ESRB-like board, that is perfectly fine.
If parents get together and demand an ESRB-like rating system by voting with their dollars, that's also fine.
If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may notice that we wrote the same thing with respect to who is bound by the first ammendment. By public I am referring to private citizens, your "city council" comment was an exceptionally poor interpretation given that I offered examples of a store owner and book or game publisher.
If Joe Lieberman threatens to impose content legislation if the industry doesn't form the ESRB, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
If the Federal government doesn't regulate the publication of books, movies*, paintings, or jigsaw puzzles, why are you and your friends so enthusiastic about allowing it to regulate games? What's the difference?
You jump to an erroneous conclusion. I am not enthusiastic about government regulation, I prefer the current industry self regulation. If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may realize that I was addressing the "congress shall make no law" comment that contracted Congress' enumerated right to regulate interstate trade.
How does your (quite flawed) understanding of the Commerce Clause account for the Supreme Court's history of rejection of prior restraint?
If Congress devised its own age based rating scheme, and banned the sale of certain ratings to minors, that would not be prior restraint. Again, its best to let industry and retailers implement any such schemes.
RTF Constitution. In the USA (which I realize may not be your home country) the "public" is not given the authority to regulate speech.... There are no exceptions in the First Amendment, period.
The first ammendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress. Read it below. If I have a store I have the right to ban your book or game. If I am a publisher I have the right to censor part of your writings or game (assuming you did not negotiate a contract to the contrary - good luck doing so), etc.
"Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation."
Except it isn't.
There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.
Before your start quoting the Constitution you should really read the entire thing:
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
"You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault.
Tell that to my (now ex) girlfriend who, while we were together, took a nap and had a bad nightmare. I gently tried to wake her up, she woke up with a scream and I wound up with a small scratch before she was really aware of her surroundings. Cops come 'cause some asshole neighbor called and reported someone screaming for all of a half a second... and she wound up in jail because of "zero tolerance".
Note "someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation". In my state your incident would be considered an accident according to the training given every peace officer. A required element of a crime is intent, obviously there was none.
The poor dude was mortified anyway, homeless, and ultimately probably wasn't going to post a torrent of his recording or make a bunch of copies and sell the dupes on the street. In the end we just confiscated the tape, escorted him out of the theatre and told him not to show up again, and that was the end of that.
While I have no problem with how you handled it, I think it is naive to assume that the recording would not go onto a torrent or bootleg tapes. A pirate may simply be taking advantage of the homeless guy, offering him a few dollars to make the recording. Low risk, low cost, high reward.
Teenagers do dumb things, none of us are any different, and learning to deal with the consequences is part of growing up.
"Teenager" somewhat misrepresents things. While accurate in a grammatical sense she was an adult, 19 years old. At 18 you are legally an adult and the "grace period" for learning to growing up is over.
One day at Six Flags, some jerk in front of me has a hunting knife. Six Flags just dealt with it sedately. They didn't call the cops, they just made the guy give it up before entering the park.
That is a poor analogy. The guy with the knife was outside. If the girl's camera was seen before she entered the theater she would have been told to give it up as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Similarly, it tends to favour species that enter into symbiotic relationships with other species. Consider how well the horse did as a result of its relationship with humanity.
The horse was hunted to extinction on some continents. On others it was made a slave, and still the occasional food source. That is the sort of relationship I think we are all fearing. It is not that different from your sheep example.
A symbiotic relationship requires the ability of one species to help the other. If ET shows up we will be too technologically backwards to provide what we would probably consider an equitable relationship.
Also aggressive does not necessarily mean uncooperative. Aggressiveness just makes a species more selective about who they cooperate with.
First, interstellar colonization? Unlikely. It makes nice SF, but there's no good economic basis for it. A civilization that survives long enough to reach the technological level necessary for interstellar spaceflight will have stabilized its population and learned how to use local resources to make their home world a paradise.
There are numerous flaws with your logic. Exploit and move on has been a successful strategy as long as there are new places to move on to. Sustainability is not a natural condition, it is something forced upon a species. To a species that has just obtained interstellar spaceflight there are plenty of places to move on to.
Also, while a species could have reached a sustainable lifestyle as they develop an earlier level of spaceflight, they may lose that sustainable lifestyle as they obtain the resources of their solar system. They may keep their homeworld as a paradise and strip mine the rest of the solar system as some industrialists kept magnificent gardens on their estate while they strip mined distant lands. Why would keeping the earth as a paradise preclude the skimming of methane gas from other planets, mining asteroid or moons for metals?
Finally, define "paradise"? That is a very subjective state, it is tied to expectations and expectations change over time. What is luxury or an excess to one generation may become a necessity to a future generation.
Hopefully, any civilization advanced enough to not blow itself to pieces before developing interstellar transport capability would be reasonably benign ...
Why would showing restraint with respect to interactions with your own species mean you would show similar restraint when interacting with other species? Wolves can show much restraint to other wolves, but little to other species.
Evolution favors a combination of aggressiveness and intelligence. Losing either quality will make you vulnerable to those who have not lost either. Consider pacifism. Pacifism only works when isolated or when there are non-pacifists who protect the pacifists. Humans are probably either unique or one of many intelligent species. Given many intelligent species, some may have become pacifist in isolation, but all will not. Those who retain some aggression will dominate in the long term. The more civilizations that have made contact, the less likely we are to meet pacifists. Given that our first contact is also likely to be one of many I'd so the odds of your optimistic scenario are not good.
Try pitching it as being like purchasing a source license rather than a binary license. I find that companies can often be convinced to get a source rather than a binary license by pointing out that in an emergency we can fix a problem ourselves rather than leave our critical business processes dependent on an outsiders availability and software update schedule.
As other have pointed out, IBM, HP, RedHat, and others offer support and training.
The difference between a professional and an amateur is that amateurs work for the love of it and professionals work because they get paid. Sort of the difference between a spouse and a hooker.
Spouses are also professionals. They get a better deal than the hookers because they have a written contract. The amateurs are the girlfriends.
It all depends on how individuals see the world around them. I think managers, who are mostly business school educated, don't see the world the same way the rest of us (developers) do.
Actually most managers do not have an MBA. Many have undergraduate degrees in science and engineering. Also, I'm in an MBA program right now and there is no shortage of engineers and IT (including admins) in my class. Some of my professors who have decades of real world experience in strategy and marketing at major corporations have undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.
They probably don't understand why someone would work for free or why someone would volunteer at a soup kitchen.
That is an extremely ignorant statement. There is a lot of charitable work being performed by business schools, fund raising, volunteering, etc. Additionally, a couple classmates actually work at non-profit research or charitable organizations. I know several that made donations of their time to various charities before entering business school, and who have also continued to make such donations despite having far less spare time now that they are back in school. The school also maintains a list of local charities that could use help in some area of business.
You are engaging in the same ignorant stereotyping that many around here complain of with respect to how geeks, and technical issues/people in general, are portrayed on TV and movies.
Most of the managers would never think that work could be fun unless it payed lots of money. Manager-types chose business school just as a way to get more money, it was a pretty good shortcut -- you go to school, pick business as your major, party for 4 years with buds, and then one of their dads hires you as a manager -- the system works great
That is also a fairly ignorant statement. I have BS and MS degrees in CS. Except for 2nd year calculus and theory of computation I am routinely using more advanced math in marketing classes. Yes, I was completely shocked. Yes, I used to hold the same arrogant and erroneous opinions you now hold.
Developers became developers because they like to write software. Most found ways to get payed for it, but they didn't dream of reaches first, then thought that becoming a developer would get them there and chose 'computer science' as a major in college (those that did do that, probably ended up switching to 'communication', 'business administration' or 'comparative literature' before the 2nd year.)
Bull. The vast majority of CS graduates that I have interviewed basically got into it because someone told them it was a good career path. It is difficult to wade through the applicants and find those truly have an interest in the work. Also, donating time to an open source project does not necessarily identify those with an interest. Some of the more savvy career path types realize that this is an easier way to get something on the resume outside of classwork.
Also, some individuals donate time to FOSS for non-altruistic reasons such as ego, improving credibility/reputation, getting some experience in an esoteric area before applying for a job, etc. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this. Just that your are romantically naive about FOSS developers.
Also keep in mind that you're not likely to get an unbiased view of the legal landscape from the Attorney General of Utah's web site. Major court decisions since the 1970s (where their cites all come from) have gone the other direction entirely, e.g. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=13519. And gee, not a Commerce Clause citation in sight.
The Indianapolis case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant cert to it, is the one that really makes it impractical to dictate content restrictions to retail game publishers.
You are mistaken. The case you cite is very different. This case involves coin operated machines that were in public where a child could see the screen as an adult played. In such cases the court has to balance the right of an adult to play with the right of a child to be in the establishment and incidentally see the game. That is an entirely different set of facts compared to a clerk selling a mature rated video game to a child over the counter. Your citation is irrelevant.
I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed."
Keep Googling until you come up with the Supreme Court's definition for 'adult material'.
Irrelevant. Your claim that restrictions related to minors are a first amendment violation has been debunked as false. In short, there is precedent for restrictions.
Voting machines are a technical non-solution to a non-existing problem.
Agreed.
Counting votes by hand in public view is almost as fast, has much fewer things that could go wrong with them, and is intrinsically open to public scrunity like no machine system can ever be. Plus, it's cheaper.
Wrong on faster and cheaper. As the recount in some Florida counties showed in the 2000 US presidential election.
Voting on paper is fine, but the paper should be mechanically counted. Hand counts should be a last resort when the machines are unable to read a vote or are malfunctioning.
You are an idiot. The topic is potentially illegal surveillance at DefCon. They went to a public event, misrepresented themselves to avoid legal agreements (fraud ?), and attempted to covertly record video and audio. Inviting some idiot to your place for a sting is completely different.
"However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors."
;-)
I disagree. I believe people are the only real check on the media.
Hmmm... That must be why the media hates the second amendment.
"Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example."
..."
;-)
... Stores don't sell Playboy to minors because they don't want to be confronted by torch-wielding zealots the next day.
Your reasoning is precisely analogous to that of the probably-90% of the population who think that it's "illegal" to let kids into an R- or X-rated movie. There is absolutely no legislation of this nature in place. The MPAA was formed under the same threats as the ESRB.
c tchild.htm
It'll be good to hear you cite the specific law on this one. Hint: there isn't any.
Put learning to use google on your list of things to do.
I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed."
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/prote
This DOES mean that the press in its news gathering activities IS specifically protected from laws that restrict their ability to do their job.
That is too vague. Certainly there can be no laws telling them not to gather info on some topic, however the media must be subject to the same laws as other citizens. For example laws regarding trespassing, wiretapping, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that this particular case is one where NBC was doing the right thing - I would prefer the undercover reporter were there doing a story about the government spies who infiltrated the conference, and put their faces on TV so they couldn't infiltrate anything else again. NBC was barking up the wrong tree here
Here I strongly disagree. I think you are being hypocritical to a degree, both are equally valid stories to investigate. **If** hackers were meeting and engaging in criminal conspiracies that would be something to shine a light upon.
Point 1: Citing your own post may be what amounts to law-review material at your school, but not in most cases. :)
;-)
Wow, you are just one bad guess after another. I cited the other post two avoid redundancy, to avoid two threads discussing the same point(s) in case others joined in. Your "this stuff isn't that hard to understand" comment just keeps getting funnier.
Point 2: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the same methodology of regulation wouldn't apply to books, movies, and other forms of media. If all you need to do to impose prior restraint is invoke the Commerce Clause, "it's only a rating system," and "we must protect minors," then how come the last five thousand or so attempts to regulate print publishing have been shot down by various courts?
Again, there is no prior restraint. You may make and sell whatever you want to adults. However the courts do consider restrictions with respect to minors reasonable. Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example.
Heretic! All shall bow before the iChurch...
... or suffer the flames.
Hey burning at the stake is still with us. It is just more anonymous and less messy nowadays.
Only be honest to your clergy, doctor or lawyer. Well with respect to past events that could get you into trouble, don't mention future plans to do so. ;-) Hmmm ... what if a journalist impersonated a member of the clergy, a doctor or a lawyer to get info. You know, I bet they have done it already.
They should be charged with violations against wiretap laws for pulling this stunt.
The media believes it is above the law, and from a practical sense it often is. The media confuses the absolute right to print whatever they discover with a right to do anything they care to, legal or not, in order to obtain that info. They have the former (print) but not the later (discover). However many in power are so dependent on the media to obtain or keep their positions of power they rarely go after the media.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the media is an important check to the power of government. However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors.
"The first amendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress."
1 07825. Hint: note words like "ratings" and "minors".
;-)
It applies to all governmental entities on US soil. (Try having your small-town city council ban a particular religion and see how far you get.) Again, the "public's" ignorance of, and/or disagreement with, the First Amendment does not invalidate it. If a private distributor such as Wal-Mart wants to demand the formation of an ESRB-like board, that is perfectly fine. If parents get together and demand an ESRB-like rating system by voting with their dollars, that's also fine.
If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may notice that we wrote the same thing with respect to who is bound by the first ammendment. By public I am referring to private citizens, your "city council" comment was an exceptionally poor interpretation given that I offered examples of a store owner and book or game publisher.
If Joe Lieberman threatens to impose content legislation if the industry doesn't form the ESRB, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
As discussed in another post, it does not. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=260273&cid=20
Really. This stuff isn't that hard to understand, is it?
Until you improve your reading comprehension you may want to refrain from such comments.
If the Federal government doesn't regulate the publication of books, movies*, paintings, or jigsaw puzzles, why are you and your friends so enthusiastic about allowing it to regulate games? What's the difference?
You jump to an erroneous conclusion. I am not enthusiastic about government regulation, I prefer the current industry self regulation. If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may realize that I was addressing the "congress shall make no law" comment that contracted Congress' enumerated right to regulate interstate trade.
How does your (quite flawed) understanding of the Commerce Clause account for the Supreme Court's history of rejection of prior restraint?
If Congress devised its own age based rating scheme, and banned the sale of certain ratings to minors, that would not be prior restraint. Again, its best to let industry and retailers implement any such schemes.
RTF Constitution. In the USA (which I realize may not be your home country) the "public" is not given the authority to regulate speech. ... There are no exceptions in the First Amendment, period.
The first ammendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress. Read it below. If I have a store I have the right to ban your book or game. If I am a publisher I have the right to censor part of your writings or game (assuming you did not negotiate a contract to the contrary - good luck doing so), etc.
"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation."
...
...
Except it isn't. There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.
Before your start quoting the Constitution you should really read the entire thing:
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
"You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault.
Tell that to my (now ex) girlfriend who, while we were together, took a nap and had a bad nightmare. I gently tried to wake her up, she woke up with a scream and I wound up with a small scratch before she was really aware of her surroundings. Cops come 'cause some asshole neighbor called and reported someone screaming for all of a half a second... and she wound up in jail because of "zero tolerance".
Note "someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation". In my state your incident would be considered an accident according to the training given every peace officer. A required element of a crime is intent, obviously there was none.
The poor dude was mortified anyway, homeless, and ultimately probably wasn't going to post a torrent of his recording or make a bunch of copies and sell the dupes on the street. In the end we just confiscated the tape, escorted him out of the theatre and told him not to show up again, and that was the end of that.
While I have no problem with how you handled it, I think it is naive to assume that the recording would not go onto a torrent or bootleg tapes. A pirate may simply be taking advantage of the homeless guy, offering him a few dollars to make the recording. Low risk, low cost, high reward.
Teenagers do dumb things, none of us are any different, and learning to deal with the consequences is part of growing up.
"Teenager" somewhat misrepresents things. While accurate in a grammatical sense she was an adult, 19 years old. At 18 you are legally an adult and the "grace period" for learning to growing up is over.
One day at Six Flags, some jerk in front of me has a hunting knife. Six Flags just dealt with it sedately. They didn't call the cops, they just made the guy give it up before entering the park.
That is a poor analogy. The guy with the knife was outside. If the girl's camera was seen before she entered the theater she would have been told to give it up as well.