If some kid has an obsession with porn, it's not a computer problem, it's parenting problem.
Well said. I will never understand why so many people don't get this. It's natural for kids to be curious, but proper parenting is needed to direct that curiosity. If they are after porn, they are going to find it, and tactics like those suggested above are just going to make the kid more determined. If you don't want them going after porn, then teach them why porn is an inappropriate target.
The same thing happens with alcohol. My parents taught me to drink responsibly as a teenager. We had wine and beer around (even brandy, for that matter), and none of it was ever locked up. We children were allowed some at dinner on occasion, and taught proper respect for the stuff. We were taught that abusing alcohol wasn't acceptable, and why this was the case. As a result, even as an adult, though I drink alcohol casually, I not only don't drink to get drunk, I know my limits and deliberately avoid becoming drunk. Too many parents use the drinking age as an excuse not to teach responsible drinking habits.
The fact is that far too many parents seem unwilling to teach their kids. Unfortunately, locks and chains can't raise a child by themselves. For a well-taught child, they often aren't needed; for a poorly-taught one, they usually won't work.
Personally, I think it's more a matter of AMD realizing that a large percentage of desktop *nix users have have traditionally preferred AMD to Intel, and not wanting to damage the relationship will those users by being seen as uncooperative (in fact, I've gotten the impression that a lot of *nix users have been expecting nothing less than this of AMD ever since the merger was announced). By making ATI cards functional on *nix, the position of AMD in the chipset market is also improved. Heretofore, the choice between CrossFire and SLI support on motherboards has been a no-brainer - CrossFire cards not only aren't functional under X, but prevent X from loading unless they are physically removed from the slot. This has meant *nix users weren't choosing CrossFire boards, which represents nearly all AMD-chipset boards. If CrossFire becomes usable, however, AMD's chipsets will benefit. All-AMD systems become viable, which can only be good for AMD. Furthermore, the OSS drivers represent a huge coup over nVIDIA's binary-only releases.
...video card drivers are hard and someone with the know how, time, and rive has to write them, and keep them updated. Just because OS provides the potential, doesn't mean it will happen.
As I understand it, the X.org DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) project are doing just that. In fact, they have been doing just that for ATI cards (among others) for some time, but progress has been slow, because they've needed to reverse-engineer everything (they previously could get specs with an NDA, but not since the 9200 cards). As a result, the DRI Radeon drivers currently only work with older cards (up through X850, IIRC), and provide little or no 3D acceleration for all but the oldest cards. Even so, the general consensus has been that their drivers are superior to the proprietary, FireGL drivers that ATI provide for Linux (and they work on *BSD, which the FireGL drivers do not[1]). With this information, they should be able to make steady progress on providing support for recent ATI cards under X.
[1] Not natively, at least. Last winter, I believe, they were finally made to work under FreeBSD with Linux binary compatibility.
What is an American law supposed to do for the British author of TFA? I would certainly hope that English law has a comparable statute, but citing Magnuson-Moss won't get him anywhere.
A case like this shouldn't require a lawyer. If the U.K. is anything like the U.S., then the full body of statute law (or at least the last 350 years or so worth of it - maybe not everything from before the Restoration) should be available for public access on-line by now. A little research into the law should give one enough information to convince the store that their policy is faulty. Only if they still balk should the author consult a solicitor, and then only if he thinks it's really worth the trouble. We're talking about replacing a hinge here, after all - is it really worth the expense of legal help?
Use the old, four-clause BSD license. There is no danger of such code being relicensed under the GPL, because the licenses are incompatible. Another (non-comprehensive) solution would be to just add a clause preventing any derivative software from being licensed under the GPL/LGPL, or any other license issued by the FSF.
To be fair, though, if you want to insist on two-way code-sharing, you ought to use a more restrictive license than the BSDL. GPL is one such option, but a more case-specific option would simply be to require any derivative code to be shared with the copyright holder of the original, but not necessarily with anyone else (I'm sure that there is a license which does this already, but I can't remember which one).
I'm quite partial to the BSDL myself (I would even prefer the four-clause version, were it not for the practical problems with it). However, that license simply isn't capable of enforcing two-way sharing - it isn't meant to be. The whole point of the BSDL (likewise the MITL) is to leave the user of the software as free as possible without actually placing the software in the public domain (the point being to prevent plagiarism). This is contrasted against the FSF/GNU ideal of making the code itself as free as possible, even at the expense of the users' freedoms (the point being to enforce code-sharing). It's the difference between preventing theft and enforcing giving.
Is a gift still a "gift" when it's compelled? Is it truly generous to give if you only do so expecting something in return? I certainly don't believe it is, which is why I prefer the BSD license. It's also why I don't like welfare-states. Obviously, though, there are those who believe that if we don't require giving then there won't be enough of it. For those who believe that, there is the GPL (and socialism, if you want). In any case, to complain that the same rule which protects one's own freedom fails to curtail someone else's is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
My state doesn't use voting machines. Vermont requires an actual paper ballot to exist (not just a printout). Many, though as yet not most, polling places use machine-readable ballots (the fill-in-the-bubble type), but the actual ballots are filled out by hand.
In my town, the procedure is essentially thus:
As you enter the room where the polls are, you give your name to the workers at the table there (I've never actually had to state my name, since the people who work the table happen to all know my whole family).
You receive your ballot(s) (either are handed them or pick them up yourself) and are checked off on the roll (in theory, you may have to present ID, but I've never seen it happen - I don't even take ID with me, because, as I said, they know me).
You take a free booth (there are several, so you don't usually have to wait).
All there is the booth is a shelf and a pen, which you mark your ballot(s) with. If it's a primary, then you only mark one party's ballot, and leave the other(s) blank.
After exiting the booth, you go over to the ballot-boxes and put any machine-readable ballots in the reader, while any others are folded and put in the appropriate box. For primaries, there is also a discard box for un-voted ballots. There is someone stationed there to make sure everything goes in the right place (we now have a reader for most things, but the union high school budget and the justices of the peace are still hand-counted).
You leave, possibly after chatting with the poll workers (especially if it's a slow day).
At no point are any timestamps taken which could be traced back to individual voters. When they check you off on the roll, it's just that: a check mark - there is no record of what order people voted in. There aren't any armed guards present, and there isn't any equipment to scan ID's or any such thing (many people in Vermont still have non-laminated driver's licenses, sans photo, anyway).
If you have the level of intimacy to the process that this laid-back approach affords, then fraud is difficult unless the whole precinct is in on it. At the same time, it makes it difficult to know how any one person voted (though any one who knows you well enough can probably guess).
Granted, this is in a moderately-sized town with fewer than 2000 voters and nine hours in which to vote (10-7); however, I don't see why this approach couldn't work in even the biggest cities if you had enough polling places. The nearest city (with 17,000 population) has four polling places, IIRC, and works essentially the same way. If you don't have enough schools and courthouses to use for additional polling places, you can usually find church halls and lodges that would gladly donate space for the day. If you had one polling place per 5000 registered voters, I think it would still work.
IMO, the more tightly-controlled the voting process becomes, the less well it works.
I would like to think that most of the Founding Fathers were pure and noble. At least magnitudes more so than any politician in the last 100 years.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced. I think there is good reason to suspect that their own economic interests were the major factor in their actions, not altruistic principles.
What about the Whigs?
The Whigs were born in the early 1830s. The original parties were the Federalists (led by Hamilton) and the Republicans (later called the Democratic Republicans - the ancestors of todays Democratic Party, led by Jefferson). Washington belonged to neither party. The Federalists had only one President (John Adams), and were defunct by the middle of the 1820s, leaving only one party. The first challenge to Democratic-Republican dominance was the Anti-Masonic party, which did very well in northern New England, but never gained national prominence. Next came the Whigs, who did well during the 1840s, but had collapsed by the middle of the 1850s. The Republican Party was born in the 1850s out of the ashes of the Whigs. Had it not been for the War Between the States, I doubt that the Republican Party would have held together any longer than it's predecessors: all of these parties had substantial amounts of internal disunity on major issues. The War, and Reconstruction, preserved the party long enough to develop a stable base.
Many, but by no means all of the Founding Fathers were either Deist or Unitarian. Jefferson was one, to be sure, as was Adams, but the language in the Declaration is also partly the result of trying to use language that would appeal to the largest number of delegates. "Creator" appealed to the lowest common denominator, since it was a term which the Deists would prefer, but which the Christians present had no qualms with. However, whether the the Revolution was based on principles which can be reconciled with historical Christian principles is another question - one which I think Christians in America (of whom I am one) need to face.
Today's Republicans are merely reverting to the Federalism of their forebears. It was the Democrats who championed states' rights, small government, individual liberties, and true "Conservatism," before the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" drove most of the "Old Right" out of that party. After years of disorganization, they rallied around Reagan, who proclaimed a new vision of the Republican party - one more in line with the displaced "States' Rights Democrats" than with the traditional stances of the GOP. Now, however, the old Republicanism (under the guise of being something new) has regained the upper hand within the party, while the Democrats have yet to return to their own former, pre-FDR ideals. This turn of events has left the true conservatives out in the cold yet again.
Mind you, this explanation is overly simplistic. Ultimately, all of this nation's politicians have been taking us for a ride since the beginning. Anyone who thinks there was a time when the motives of politicians were pure and noble is deluded.
What's more insidious: Bush didn't pick Cheney - Cheney picked himself. Bush appointed Cheney to choose a VP for him, and Cheney announced that he had chosen himself.
It's Cheney who needs to be impeached. It's now clear that he's the one running the government, not Bush. Decisions he makes are being acted on without the appropriate department heads even knowing about it (e.g., the torture memo, which then-Secretary Powell only found out about two years later - through the news media). If Cheney were to go, then the road to Bush would be clear if they need to go that far. Congress gets to appoint the new VP, remember.
That's not to make excuses for Bush, who is an absolute incompetent, and whose obsession with Saddam Hussein and familial honour got us into this whole Iraq mess. His father knew what would have happened if they had marched into Baghdad, but Jr. couldn't get it through his head that his father wasn't a failure for making peace.
As far as Captain America goes, we can only hope the national climate returns to one where Marvel thinks they can bring him back. That's gonna take a while, though, I think.
The fact that Time Lords have thirteen incarnations (original one plus twelve regenerations) has been mentioned on screen, and not just in the movie, either, IIRC. However, I think you're right that if they get to number thirteen they will have (and may already have) a contingency plan in case the show is still popular. The Master found a way to get around that limit, so I should think the Doctor could as well (and in a less evil way than The Master).
Hopefully that's a way off, anyhow, since: A) I hope they get at least a few more seasons out of David Tennant (though I haven't seen season three yet, being in America), and B) every Doctor except Eccleston and McGann (special cases, I'd say) has lasted at least two seasons plus (of the others, Colin Baker had the shortest run at two full seasons plus one four-episode serial). Even if Tennant were to leave after season four, I'd expect at least another five seasons before they'd even get to the Thirteenth Doctor.
...SciFi network is still stuck on the second season....
Yes, if by "stuck," you mean "in re-runs." They have actually shown the whole season at this point. Season three is supposed to start sometime this summer or fall.
...don't know how to count BBC America though so I left it out of the "sold to" list.
It's been airing on SciFi, too, which should certainly count as "sold to." SciFi is also basic cable, which BBC America is not. Actually, SciFi is the primary outlet for it in the U.S., and is a season ahead of BBC America: SciFi finished the second new season last winter, while BBC America just got through with the first season this spring. Season three is set to start airing on SciFi sometime this summer/fall, I believe.
Yeah, and paying in cash at a busy store doesn't usually piss-off an entire shopping line behind you. The same can't be said for paying with plastic.
I can see the value of credit cards in an emergency and for certain major purchases, but I've never had the occasion to need one yet. I'll have to get one eventually, I suppose, since so many things flat-out require them (rental cars, for instance). Still, I don't like the idea of racking up debt to pay for incidentals, which is done by far too many of my acquaintances (e.g., gas is expensive enough as it is without paying interest on it, IMO).
Also, with cash nobody wants me to show ID, either (except the liquor store or the tobacconist).
My credit union won't do that unless you explicitly sign up for "overdraft protection," and even that tops out (I can't remember what the cap is, because I've never signed up for it). Otherwise, the cheque simply bounces, and debit card transactions simply won't go through.
You are quite right that to suggest that too much trust (or dependence) in a bank (and its technologies) is a bad idea. I suppose the important point for people to learn is that individuals need to be aware of both the law their own bank's policies. Even then, there can be technical errors (as in your case); but preparation makes those easier to rectify.
Debit cards give you NO such protection. If your debit card is stolen and used to drain your bank account, you have no recourse but to eat the losses.
That may be true, but a debit card only gives access to your draught account, not your savings. I, for one, rarely keep more than a couple of hundred dollars in my draught account, due to the better interest paid by the savings. In the event of writing a large cheque, I make a transfer into the draught account to cover it.
Many people have been surprised when their bank/ATM cards (which also function as debit cards) are stolen and used fraudulently to drain their account.
It really depends on who your bank is as to what their policy on this is, anyway (some banks, especially credit unions, are better than others). Besides that, given the daily limit on ATM withdrawals which most banks have, it's hard for a thief to walk away with more than a few hundred dollars. A few hundred isworse than $50, but it's hardly cleaning you out.
I don't own a credit card, because I don't like taking on debt any more than need be. Credit cards pose too much of a temptation, IMHO. I do have a combined debit/ATM card (my credit union offers them through Visa), though I mostly use it on-line, as I prefer to write cheques or (better yet) to use cash. I do see your point, but I think it varies quite a bit from bank to bank. In my experience, the people at my credit union have been very good about verifying charges I make (calling me about unusual activity, etc.).
I don't like the combined licence/debit card, because I don't like licences being used as ID to begin with. Not that it matters much to me, personally, though, since my driver's licence does not have a magnetic strip (and being non-laminated, it wouldn't go though the reader well, anyhow).
I know about the charter. The problem is that it is ineffective, as evidenced by the "hate speech" laws. I didn't say you don't have constitutional protections, I said there weren't any effective ones.
As to guns, I am aware of the vast difference in philosophy here. You have to remember, I live in a country which owes its existence to an armed populace. In fact, this is true twice over, since my own state, Vermont, obtained its independence from New York by forcibly resisting New York's tax collectors. Many of my own ancestors fought in the revolution against Britain, and some later had to flee Massachusetts, after participating in Daniel Shays' failed rebellion (against unfair taxation), to Vermont (then an independent republic), which gave the fugitives asylum (Col. Allen - who commanded the Vermont militia - went so far as to order his men that anyone trying to collect the bounty or carry out the death sentence on Mr. Shays was to be summarily shot). We are very serious about gun rights, because we know that a time can come when self-defence in the form of armed resistance is the only remaining option, whether against an individual aggressor or a tyrannical government.
So that is why "the right to keep and bear arms," is regarded as a fundamental right in the U.S., while it is not in Canada (or any Commonwealth nation, AFAIK). The more libertarian states have made sure not to have any restrictions on the number or type of weapons which may be owned, either, though the feds have steadily been trying to encroach in those areas. My own state goes so far as to not even have restrictions on concealed weapons, which we regard as a right (other states, except Alaska, require a license if they permit concealed-carry at all).
For what it is worth, I do not, personally, own a pistol (we have several hunting rifles and shotguns, in our house, but no pistols). I probably will in the future, though. Recent events have demonstrated, yet again, that people without guns are at the mercy of of those who have them. All the more reason to have guns in the hands of the "good guys," because the "bad guys" will always have them.
I am actually aware of the Canadian Bill of Rights, etc. The reason I said no "effective" protection is that the charter hasn't stopped the hate speech laws from being put into effect in the first place, as they would here. The fact is that the Canadian constitution is essentially based on the British one, and as such, takes a rather different approach towards protecting individual liberties than the American one.
As to "hate speech" laws being used with sanity, I know that that is currently the case, but the very existence of such laws creates an opportunity for abuse. Besides that, I don't see the need: if a person makes an incitement to violence or the like, that has always been a crime (inciting a riot, conspiracy, accessory before the fact, etc.), but their motivation is irrelevant; if they don't, then they should be able to say what they please, even if I, or anyone else, happen to disagree with them (and even if it causes hurt feelings).
I'm not, BTW, meaning to bash Canada. There are many things I do find attractive about Canada though, despite living in Vermont, I've never been across the border. I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons why those of us who are dissatisfied with the status quo in the U.S. don't see moving to Canada as the panacea as the OP suggested it to be.
Canada also has no effective constitutional protections on free speech ("hate speech" is already a crime in Canada, last I checked), freedom of religion (thanks to the broad definition of "hate speech," this is also already being infringed upon), or gun rights (I don't think I even have to comment on the status of those in Canada). Besides, if you don't think this is coming to Canada soon, as well, you are apt to be very disappointed down the road.
In the U.S., at least, even if this passes (and given the present atmosphere, I seriously doubt the wiretap provisions will), we still have some reason to hope that it will be thrown out by the courts. If it doesn't, we still have the option of open revolt, since our government hasn't been able to disarm us yet.
As it stands now, we don't have state ID. We have state-issued motor vehicle operator's licenses. No one forces you to get one if you don't drive (Real ID doesn't either, on paper, but does from a practical standpoint). My state-issued license (in Vermont) carries only the following information: my name, my DoB, my sex, my height, my weight, my legal residence, an ID# (for internal DMV purposes), and the issue and expiry dates of the license - not even my photo - the exact same information (with the exception of the ID#) that appears on my hunting license. It sure as hell doesn't contain detailed biometric data, such as fingerprint data, and all of the information (except the ID# and issue/expiry dates) is provided by me. I don't even have to go to the DMV to get it renewed - I can and do renew it by mail (every four years). The card isn't even laminated, and doesn't have any bar codes or magnetic strips (it has my physical signature - in pen - not a digitized one). Photo licenses of the laminated, bar-code sort are optional (except for new licensees after 2003, who, sadly, must get them).
As it stands today, the only time I have to present a photo ID is if I want to fly (which is a very rare occurrence) or to buy alcohol (only until I turn 31 - being 28, I no longer have to present ID to buy tobacco). For that, I carry (when needed) a state-issued "non-driver photo ID card," (the Department of Liquor Control also have issued photo ID as an alternative) which contains substantially the same data as my license, but does have my photo, my digitized signature, and a bar code.
REAL ID would change that. Under this plan, my single-purpose driver's license becomes an all-purpose ID, complete with detailed personal information. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to know just what information they could be hiding in the bar code and magnetic strip. The worst part, however, is the intrusive new requirement to have state-issued ID do interact with banks or government.
I don't have a problem with having identifying information on licenses (as long as it's relevant). I do have a problem with having a vast store of data being collected about me (much of which I may not be privy to) for general identification use. That is the distinction here, and why I don't have a problem with the status quo. I realize the status quo in other states is different, however, so it would be more accurate to say I don't have a problem with Vermont's status quo.
We do have town-issued ID, though: they're called "birth certificates.";-)
Actually, the situation in the U.S. is somewhat nebulous. The Supreme Court struck down the law against so-called "virtual child porn" because it was overly broad, several years ago (2003, IIRC). As it stood, cartoon drawings and 3D renderings could have been interpreted as illegal child porn, and the court thought that this crossed the line, since no actual child had been victimized in making it. The Congress shortly thereafter slipped substantially the same language which had been struck down into the Amber Alert law (one of several dubious provisions which led my own Congressman, then-Representative [now Senator] Sanders of Vermont, to vote against that law despite the bad-press it was bound to generate), but it stands to reason that this clause is impeded by the prior court ruling and so is null and void. It is my understanding that only in the case where the work in question is indistinguishable from an actual child is the law's constitutionality generally admitted. IANAL, however.
Personally, I don't think "virtual" crimes ought to be admitted as such unless they are essentially proximate to a real offence. Threatening real violence against a person is proximate to a real offence, as is conspiracy. "Virtual rape," in and of itself, like "virtual child porn," is not. There is no tangible violation of the person, even though they may feel emotionally violated; our legal system has historically not given much credence to emotional damages (if they are recognized at all, they should be seen as a civil, rather than a criminal matter). At least a threat can be seen as a precursor to such a physical violation, whereas "virtual rape" cannot even be seen as that.
To my mind, it makes no sense to prosecute people for offending someones sensibilities. If real damage can be demonstrated in these cases, let them take the matter to the civil courts. Otherwise, move on. I'm not trying to defend the action here, mind you, nor to belittle the hurt that a person feels in these cases, but I think we need clear lines between violation and mere hurt feelings. To make virtual offences a crime would be setting a dangerous precedent that could ultimately lead to thought crimes, and therein lies the end of free society, in my opinion.
Totally different issue. If the Fed's wanted to issue their own national ID cards, or even nationalize control of DL's they could. That's not what they are doing, though: they passed an un-funded mandate for the States to make their own DL's comply with a federal standard and to create a database that they would share with the FBI.
The legislation which has actually been passed gives the feds no power to compel any action from the states, other, perhaps, than to withhold federal highway grants. To assert control over DL's, or create a true national ID, would require new legislation which I highly doubt the current Congress would enact.
New Englanders behave the same way - to such a degree that some people outside the country do not realize that New England isn't a state like New Mexico. There is a common cultural identity in the larger region that only starts to break up once you get into the sphere of influence of New York City.
Except that Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, all Rhode Island have their own accents, and other unique identifiers. For instance, I remember a Simpsons episode set in Vermont (my home from birth) recently which had a reference to candlepin bowling, which I found very out of place because that's a southern New Hampshire/eastern Massachusetts thing, not a Vermont thing (I've never even seen a candlepin in expect in photos). In some ways, there's a north/south division (running pretty much along the Vt./Mass. border, across N.H. north of Concord and Manchester, and into Maine) - to a lot of Vermonters, folks from Conn. are just as assuredly "flatlanders" as if they were from New Jersey - this isn't just regional joking, there is some real bad blood as well.
To some extent it's a hierarchy. Up here, we are Vermonters first, Northern New Englanders second, New Englanders third, and Americans (U.S.-ians if you will) last. Of course, Vt. was an independent nation for fourteen years (1777-1791) and there are still a fair number of natives who talk, only half-jokingly, of secession.
As to ethnicity, there are more French people (Quebecois) here than "down-country," but since we make snide remarks about them as well (though much more good natured) I'm not sure it has much to due with the makeup of Vermont. Our makeup has more to do with being to some extent like Australia: formed by people who had legal trouble elsewhere. After all, the Green Mountain Boys began as armed resistance to New York tax men. At least one of my own ancestors came here fleeing Mass. after Shays' rebellion (Shays came here too, with a bounty on his head, and Ethan Allen ordered his men to shoot anyone attempting to carry out said bounty).
Yup: first the drinking age, then seat belts. However, New Hampshire balked at the latter (adults in N.H. still don't have to wear them) and states have gotten bolder. The legislature in my own state of Vermont seems to have finally grown a spine. Last session there was serious debate about lowering the drinking age back to 18 and about outlawing "safety" checkpoints (many of the legislators contend they are already illegal - they were certainly meant to be when the seat-belt law was passed).
As to the license issue, the basic fact to remember about Vt. is that we still have non-photo licenses available (at least for persons holding a valid license before Jan. 2004). I have one: no photo, not even laminated. I renew by mail every four years.
There was such a public outcry against mandatory photos, especially amongst the elderly, that the only way the (then much more moderate) legislature could even partially comply with the (then only expected) Federal mandates was to only require the photos for new drivers. Renewal by mail is a common practice in Vt., and mandatory photos would muck that up. With many people living more than an hour's drive (often over poor roads) from the nearest DMV office, it was been argued that it would place too much of a burden on elderly drivers (many of whom rarely go more than two or three miles from home) to require them to renew in person, even every eight years (new photos are only taken for every other renewal).
I seriously doubt the current Vermont legislature (where Democrats and Progressives, taken together, now hold veto-proof majorities in both chambers) is in any mood to be bullied by the Bush regime. I am quite certain that Senators Leahy and Sanders in Washington are in even less mood for it.
As far as other states go, I can't say, but I don't think this administration has enough credibility left to force this down anyone's throat.
Similar experience for me. Our first cosole was a Colecovision, which we got when I was five. Nominally, it was a present for me, but it was used by the whole family: my parents and my little sister, as well as me. To get a NES all four of us went in for $25 each (five whole weeks of allowances), making it belong to all of us (that was our parents stipulation - they wouldn't buy it for us), ensuring sharing of the machine. Even when they did buy me a SNES, they stipulated that I had to share it with my sister. My parents rarely used either the NES or the SNES, though. We had a computer, but I didn't get my own until I left for college.
None of them were ever kept in my room, always the living room (the computer was in the den at first, and my mother's sewing room, later). The only TV was in the living room as well. I wasn't allowed to have a TV for my room until I was 16 or so, and even then I had to pay for it. My sister got one about the same time I did, but it was the same deal: pay for it yourself (IIRC, she actually got hers first, because she bought a cheaper, b&w set, while I had to save up more money for mine). The principle things in my room were my Legos and my Star Wars figures (my sister had her "My Little Pony" stuff in her room).
We were home-schooled, and we didn't have "homework" as such, because we did the assigned reading and exercises during school time instead (Mom, a former high school teacher, didn't believe in "busy work"). It was occasional that we would get time for videogames or TV in between subjects. The idea, I think, was to provide a reward, and to break the day up into smaller chunks - essentially a recess period.
I think you're right to suggest the educational value of well made games (video or otherwise), an element often overlooked with most games. Parental involvement is a big part of that. One of the reason I remember the Coleco more fondly than the later consoles is that we all played it together. Even as far as non-video games are concerned, we played more with our parents (and grandparents) than with other kids (which is not to say we were isolated - we weren't). My father was the one who taught me chess, and my grandfather played cribbage and poker with me and my sister (my mother had actually taught me cribbage as part of math lessons). The whole extended family would play Trivial Pursuit on New Year's Eve.
Lest anyone suppose it was all indoor stuff, I'll mention that both my parents and grandparents kept a garden and had animals (living in the country has its advantages there). We were involved with those things, and we did play outdoor games like croquet as well. Dad, especially, wasn't one to let us win, either. If we were going to win, we had to earn it. As exasperating as it was at the time, I'm glad he took that approach.
I knew the fear of MOM, not God.
For a kid, the fear of Mom is much more tangible, I think (and I say that as a religious person). We knew the fear of Mom, of Dad, of our aunts and uncles, of both grandmothers, and, most of all perhaps, of our grandfather (only the one was still living when I was born). Corporal punishment (just spankings, nothing abusive) wasn't used much, at least not after we were six or seven, and no one was ever verbally abusive, either; no one needed to be. When your parents are a big part of your life, you don't wan't to disapoint them. You learn to think, "what would they think of me if I did such-and- such," and you care about it. I don't think that happens when parents don't involve themselves.
Far too often, parents, from early on, make their children someone else's problem - first day care, then nursery school, then school and after-school activities. They never learn to deal with the kids themselves.
I almost mentioned that, but didn't because I thought it was a point still in dispute, as far as the fed's were concerned. Although the 60 Minutes piece did mention the wire act as being intended to pertain to sports-betting, the authorities interviewed clearly expressed the opinion that all online gambling was illegal under current legislation. Indeed, poker was the general focus of the discussion. Of course, the current government seems to dispute numerous points that have already been decided by SCOTUS (I suppose, as well, that the problem involves the definition of "sports" and the fact that the internet and telephone systems overlap significantly).
They did mention that the specific U.K. executive mentioned was offering sports-betting as part of his casino operation (as most Las Vegas casinos do, as well - though only on site, of course), but also that he was acting legally as far as British law was concerned. It was at least implied that this was done over the internet, via a website based in the U.K. It's possible they had their facts wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. I will never understand why so many people don't get this. It's natural for kids to be curious, but proper parenting is needed to direct that curiosity. If they are after porn, they are going to find it, and tactics like those suggested above are just going to make the kid more determined. If you don't want them going after porn, then teach them why porn is an inappropriate target.
The same thing happens with alcohol. My parents taught me to drink responsibly as a teenager. We had wine and beer around (even brandy, for that matter), and none of it was ever locked up. We children were allowed some at dinner on occasion, and taught proper respect for the stuff. We were taught that abusing alcohol wasn't acceptable, and why this was the case. As a result, even as an adult, though I drink alcohol casually, I not only don't drink to get drunk, I know my limits and deliberately avoid becoming drunk. Too many parents use the drinking age as an excuse not to teach responsible drinking habits.
The fact is that far too many parents seem unwilling to teach their kids. Unfortunately, locks and chains can't raise a child by themselves. For a well-taught child, they often aren't needed; for a poorly-taught one, they usually won't work.
Personally, I think it's more a matter of AMD realizing that a large percentage of desktop *nix users have have traditionally preferred AMD to Intel, and not wanting to damage the relationship will those users by being seen as uncooperative (in fact, I've gotten the impression that a lot of *nix users have been expecting nothing less than this of AMD ever since the merger was announced). By making ATI cards functional on *nix, the position of AMD in the chipset market is also improved. Heretofore, the choice between CrossFire and SLI support on motherboards has been a no-brainer - CrossFire cards not only aren't functional under X, but prevent X from loading unless they are physically removed from the slot. This has meant *nix users weren't choosing CrossFire boards, which represents nearly all AMD-chipset boards. If CrossFire becomes usable, however, AMD's chipsets will benefit. All-AMD systems become viable, which can only be good for AMD. Furthermore, the OSS drivers represent a huge coup over nVIDIA's binary-only releases.
As I understand it, the X.org DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) project are doing just that. In fact, they have been doing just that for ATI cards (among others) for some time, but progress has been slow, because they've needed to reverse-engineer everything (they previously could get specs with an NDA, but not since the 9200 cards). As a result, the DRI Radeon drivers currently only work with older cards (up through X850, IIRC), and provide little or no 3D acceleration for all but the oldest cards. Even so, the general consensus has been that their drivers are superior to the proprietary, FireGL drivers that ATI provide for Linux (and they work on *BSD, which the FireGL drivers do not[1]). With this information, they should be able to make steady progress on providing support for recent ATI cards under X.
[1] Not natively, at least. Last winter, I believe, they were finally made to work under FreeBSD with Linux binary compatibility.What is an American law supposed to do for the British author of TFA? I would certainly hope that English law has a comparable statute, but citing Magnuson-Moss won't get him anywhere.
A case like this shouldn't require a lawyer. If the U.K. is anything like the U.S., then the full body of statute law (or at least the last 350 years or so worth of it - maybe not everything from before the Restoration) should be available for public access on-line by now. A little research into the law should give one enough information to convince the store that their policy is faulty. Only if they still balk should the author consult a solicitor, and then only if he thinks it's really worth the trouble. We're talking about replacing a hinge here, after all - is it really worth the expense of legal help?
Use the old, four-clause BSD license. There is no danger of such code being relicensed under the GPL, because the licenses are incompatible. Another (non-comprehensive) solution would be to just add a clause preventing any derivative software from being licensed under the GPL/LGPL, or any other license issued by the FSF.
To be fair, though, if you want to insist on two-way code-sharing, you ought to use a more restrictive license than the BSDL. GPL is one such option, but a more case-specific option would simply be to require any derivative code to be shared with the copyright holder of the original, but not necessarily with anyone else (I'm sure that there is a license which does this already, but I can't remember which one).
I'm quite partial to the BSDL myself (I would even prefer the four-clause version, were it not for the practical problems with it). However, that license simply isn't capable of enforcing two-way sharing - it isn't meant to be. The whole point of the BSDL (likewise the MITL) is to leave the user of the software as free as possible without actually placing the software in the public domain (the point being to prevent plagiarism). This is contrasted against the FSF/GNU ideal of making the code itself as free as possible, even at the expense of the users' freedoms (the point being to enforce code-sharing). It's the difference between preventing theft and enforcing giving.
Is a gift still a "gift" when it's compelled? Is it truly generous to give if you only do so expecting something in return? I certainly don't believe it is, which is why I prefer the BSD license. It's also why I don't like welfare-states. Obviously, though, there are those who believe that if we don't require giving then there won't be enough of it. For those who believe that, there is the GPL (and socialism, if you want). In any case, to complain that the same rule which protects one's own freedom fails to curtail someone else's is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
My state doesn't use voting machines. Vermont requires an actual paper ballot to exist (not just a printout). Many, though as yet not most, polling places use machine-readable ballots (the fill-in-the-bubble type), but the actual ballots are filled out by hand.
In my town, the procedure is essentially thus:
At no point are any timestamps taken which could be traced back to individual voters. When they check you off on the roll, it's just that: a check mark - there is no record of what order people voted in. There aren't any armed guards present, and there isn't any equipment to scan ID's or any such thing (many people in Vermont still have non-laminated driver's licenses, sans photo, anyway).
If you have the level of intimacy to the process that this laid-back approach affords, then fraud is difficult unless the whole precinct is in on it. At the same time, it makes it difficult to know how any one person voted (though any one who knows you well enough can probably guess).
Granted, this is in a moderately-sized town with fewer than 2000 voters and nine hours in which to vote (10-7); however, I don't see why this approach couldn't work in even the biggest cities if you had enough polling places. The nearest city (with 17,000 population) has four polling places, IIRC, and works essentially the same way. If you don't have enough schools and courthouses to use for additional polling places, you can usually find church halls and lodges that would gladly donate space for the day. If you had one polling place per 5000 registered voters, I think it would still work.
IMO, the more tightly-controlled the voting process becomes, the less well it works.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced. I think there is good reason to suspect that their own economic interests were the major factor in their actions, not altruistic principles.
The Whigs were born in the early 1830s. The original parties were the Federalists (led by Hamilton) and the Republicans (later called the Democratic Republicans - the ancestors of todays Democratic Party, led by Jefferson). Washington belonged to neither party. The Federalists had only one President (John Adams), and were defunct by the middle of the 1820s, leaving only one party. The first challenge to Democratic-Republican dominance was the Anti-Masonic party, which did very well in northern New England, but never gained national prominence. Next came the Whigs, who did well during the 1840s, but had collapsed by the middle of the 1850s. The Republican Party was born in the 1850s out of the ashes of the Whigs. Had it not been for the War Between the States, I doubt that the Republican Party would have held together any longer than it's predecessors: all of these parties had substantial amounts of internal disunity on major issues. The War, and Reconstruction, preserved the party long enough to develop a stable base.
Many, but by no means all of the Founding Fathers were either Deist or Unitarian. Jefferson was one, to be sure, as was Adams, but the language in the Declaration is also partly the result of trying to use language that would appeal to the largest number of delegates. "Creator" appealed to the lowest common denominator, since it was a term which the Deists would prefer, but which the Christians present had no qualms with. However, whether the the Revolution was based on principles which can be reconciled with historical Christian principles is another question - one which I think Christians in America (of whom I am one) need to face.
Today's Republicans are merely reverting to the Federalism of their forebears. It was the Democrats who championed states' rights, small government, individual liberties, and true "Conservatism," before the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" drove most of the "Old Right" out of that party. After years of disorganization, they rallied around Reagan, who proclaimed a new vision of the Republican party - one more in line with the displaced "States' Rights Democrats" than with the traditional stances of the GOP. Now, however, the old Republicanism (under the guise of being something new) has regained the upper hand within the party, while the Democrats have yet to return to their own former, pre-FDR ideals. This turn of events has left the true conservatives out in the cold yet again.
Mind you, this explanation is overly simplistic. Ultimately, all of this nation's politicians have been taking us for a ride since the beginning. Anyone who thinks there was a time when the motives of politicians were pure and noble is deluded.
What's more insidious: Bush didn't pick Cheney - Cheney picked himself. Bush appointed Cheney to choose a VP for him, and Cheney announced that he had chosen himself.
It's Cheney who needs to be impeached. It's now clear that he's the one running the government, not Bush. Decisions he makes are being acted on without the appropriate department heads even knowing about it (e.g., the torture memo, which then-Secretary Powell only found out about two years later - through the news media). If Cheney were to go, then the road to Bush would be clear if they need to go that far. Congress gets to appoint the new VP, remember.
That's not to make excuses for Bush, who is an absolute incompetent, and whose obsession with Saddam Hussein and familial honour got us into this whole Iraq mess. His father knew what would have happened if they had marched into Baghdad, but Jr. couldn't get it through his head that his father wasn't a failure for making peace.
As far as Captain America goes, we can only hope the national climate returns to one where Marvel thinks they can bring him back. That's gonna take a while, though, I think.
The fact that Time Lords have thirteen incarnations (original one plus twelve regenerations) has been mentioned on screen, and not just in the movie, either, IIRC. However, I think you're right that if they get to number thirteen they will have (and may already have) a contingency plan in case the show is still popular. The Master found a way to get around that limit, so I should think the Doctor could as well (and in a less evil way than The Master).
Hopefully that's a way off, anyhow, since: A) I hope they get at least a few more seasons out of David Tennant (though I haven't seen season three yet, being in America), and B) every Doctor except Eccleston and McGann (special cases, I'd say) has lasted at least two seasons plus (of the others, Colin Baker had the shortest run at two full seasons plus one four-episode serial). Even if Tennant were to leave after season four, I'd expect at least another five seasons before they'd even get to the Thirteenth Doctor.
Yes, if by "stuck," you mean "in re-runs." They have actually shown the whole season at this point. Season three is supposed to start sometime this summer or fall.
It's been airing on SciFi, too, which should certainly count as "sold to." SciFi is also basic cable, which BBC America is not. Actually, SciFi is the primary outlet for it in the U.S., and is a season ahead of BBC America: SciFi finished the second new season last winter, while BBC America just got through with the first season this spring. Season three is set to start airing on SciFi sometime this summer/fall, I believe.
Yeah, and paying in cash at a busy store doesn't usually piss-off an entire shopping line behind you. The same can't be said for paying with plastic.
I can see the value of credit cards in an emergency and for certain major purchases, but I've never had the occasion to need one yet. I'll have to get one eventually, I suppose, since so many things flat-out require them (rental cars, for instance). Still, I don't like the idea of racking up debt to pay for incidentals, which is done by far too many of my acquaintances (e.g., gas is expensive enough as it is without paying interest on it, IMO).
Also, with cash nobody wants me to show ID, either (except the liquor store or the tobacconist).
My credit union won't do that unless you explicitly sign up for "overdraft protection," and even that tops out (I can't remember what the cap is, because I've never signed up for it). Otherwise, the cheque simply bounces, and debit card transactions simply won't go through.
You are quite right that to suggest that too much trust (or dependence) in a bank (and its technologies) is a bad idea. I suppose the important point for people to learn is that individuals need to be aware of both the law their own bank's policies. Even then, there can be technical errors (as in your case); but preparation makes those easier to rectify.
That may be true, but a debit card only gives access to your draught account, not your savings. I, for one, rarely keep more than a couple of hundred dollars in my draught account, due to the better interest paid by the savings. In the event of writing a large cheque, I make a transfer into the draught account to cover it.
It really depends on who your bank is as to what their policy on this is, anyway (some banks, especially credit unions, are better than others). Besides that, given the daily limit on ATM withdrawals which most banks have, it's hard for a thief to walk away with more than a few hundred dollars. A few hundred isworse than $50, but it's hardly cleaning you out.
I don't own a credit card, because I don't like taking on debt any more than need be. Credit cards pose too much of a temptation, IMHO. I do have a combined debit/ATM card (my credit union offers them through Visa), though I mostly use it on-line, as I prefer to write cheques or (better yet) to use cash. I do see your point, but I think it varies quite a bit from bank to bank. In my experience, the people at my credit union have been very good about verifying charges I make (calling me about unusual activity, etc.).
I don't like the combined licence/debit card, because I don't like licences being used as ID to begin with. Not that it matters much to me, personally, though, since my driver's licence does not have a magnetic strip (and being non-laminated, it wouldn't go though the reader well, anyhow).
I know about the charter. The problem is that it is ineffective, as evidenced by the "hate speech" laws. I didn't say you don't have constitutional protections, I said there weren't any effective ones.
As to guns, I am aware of the vast difference in philosophy here. You have to remember, I live in a country which owes its existence to an armed populace. In fact, this is true twice over, since my own state, Vermont, obtained its independence from New York by forcibly resisting New York's tax collectors. Many of my own ancestors fought in the revolution against Britain, and some later had to flee Massachusetts, after participating in Daniel Shays' failed rebellion (against unfair taxation), to Vermont (then an independent republic), which gave the fugitives asylum (Col. Allen - who commanded the Vermont militia - went so far as to order his men that anyone trying to collect the bounty or carry out the death sentence on Mr. Shays was to be summarily shot). We are very serious about gun rights, because we know that a time can come when self-defence in the form of armed resistance is the only remaining option, whether against an individual aggressor or a tyrannical government.
So that is why "the right to keep and bear arms," is regarded as a fundamental right in the U.S., while it is not in Canada (or any Commonwealth nation, AFAIK). The more libertarian states have made sure not to have any restrictions on the number or type of weapons which may be owned, either, though the feds have steadily been trying to encroach in those areas. My own state goes so far as to not even have restrictions on concealed weapons, which we regard as a right (other states, except Alaska, require a license if they permit concealed-carry at all).
For what it is worth, I do not, personally, own a pistol (we have several hunting rifles and shotguns, in our house, but no pistols). I probably will in the future, though. Recent events have demonstrated, yet again, that people without guns are at the mercy of of those who have them. All the more reason to have guns in the hands of the "good guys," because the "bad guys" will always have them.
I am actually aware of the Canadian Bill of Rights, etc. The reason I said no "effective" protection is that the charter hasn't stopped the hate speech laws from being put into effect in the first place, as they would here. The fact is that the Canadian constitution is essentially based on the British one, and as such, takes a rather different approach towards protecting individual liberties than the American one.
As to "hate speech" laws being used with sanity, I know that that is currently the case, but the very existence of such laws creates an opportunity for abuse. Besides that, I don't see the need: if a person makes an incitement to violence or the like, that has always been a crime (inciting a riot, conspiracy, accessory before the fact, etc.), but their motivation is irrelevant; if they don't, then they should be able to say what they please, even if I, or anyone else, happen to disagree with them (and even if it causes hurt feelings).
I'm not, BTW, meaning to bash Canada. There are many things I do find attractive about Canada though, despite living in Vermont, I've never been across the border. I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons why those of us who are dissatisfied with the status quo in the U.S. don't see moving to Canada as the panacea as the OP suggested it to be.
Canada also has no effective constitutional protections on free speech ("hate speech" is already a crime in Canada, last I checked), freedom of religion (thanks to the broad definition of "hate speech," this is also already being infringed upon), or gun rights (I don't think I even have to comment on the status of those in Canada). Besides, if you don't think this is coming to Canada soon, as well, you are apt to be very disappointed down the road.
In the U.S., at least, even if this passes (and given the present atmosphere, I seriously doubt the wiretap provisions will), we still have some reason to hope that it will be thrown out by the courts. If it doesn't, we still have the option of open revolt, since our government hasn't been able to disarm us yet.
As it stands now, we don't have state ID. We have state-issued motor vehicle operator's licenses. No one forces you to get one if you don't drive (Real ID doesn't either, on paper, but does from a practical standpoint). My state-issued license (in Vermont) carries only the following information: my name, my DoB, my sex, my height, my weight, my legal residence, an ID# (for internal DMV purposes), and the issue and expiry dates of the license - not even my photo - the exact same information (with the exception of the ID#) that appears on my hunting license. It sure as hell doesn't contain detailed biometric data, such as fingerprint data, and all of the information (except the ID# and issue/expiry dates) is provided by me. I don't even have to go to the DMV to get it renewed - I can and do renew it by mail (every four years). The card isn't even laminated, and doesn't have any bar codes or magnetic strips (it has my physical signature - in pen - not a digitized one). Photo licenses of the laminated, bar-code sort are optional (except for new licensees after 2003, who, sadly, must get them).
As it stands today, the only time I have to present a photo ID is if I want to fly (which is a very rare occurrence) or to buy alcohol (only until I turn 31 - being 28, I no longer have to present ID to buy tobacco). For that, I carry (when needed) a state-issued "non-driver photo ID card," (the Department of Liquor Control also have issued photo ID as an alternative) which contains substantially the same data as my license, but does have my photo, my digitized signature, and a bar code.
REAL ID would change that. Under this plan, my single-purpose driver's license becomes an all-purpose ID, complete with detailed personal information. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to know just what information they could be hiding in the bar code and magnetic strip. The worst part, however, is the intrusive new requirement to have state-issued ID do interact with banks or government.
I don't have a problem with having identifying information on licenses (as long as it's relevant). I do have a problem with having a vast store of data being collected about me (much of which I may not be privy to) for general identification use. That is the distinction here, and why I don't have a problem with the status quo. I realize the status quo in other states is different, however, so it would be more accurate to say I don't have a problem with Vermont's status quo.
We do have town-issued ID, though: they're called "birth certificates." ;-)
Actually, the situation in the U.S. is somewhat nebulous. The Supreme Court struck down the law against so-called "virtual child porn" because it was overly broad, several years ago (2003, IIRC). As it stood, cartoon drawings and 3D renderings could have been interpreted as illegal child porn, and the court thought that this crossed the line, since no actual child had been victimized in making it. The Congress shortly thereafter slipped substantially the same language which had been struck down into the Amber Alert law (one of several dubious provisions which led my own Congressman, then-Representative [now Senator] Sanders of Vermont, to vote against that law despite the bad-press it was bound to generate), but it stands to reason that this clause is impeded by the prior court ruling and so is null and void. It is my understanding that only in the case where the work in question is indistinguishable from an actual child is the law's constitutionality generally admitted. IANAL, however.
Personally, I don't think "virtual" crimes ought to be admitted as such unless they are essentially proximate to a real offence. Threatening real violence against a person is proximate to a real offence, as is conspiracy. "Virtual rape," in and of itself, like "virtual child porn," is not. There is no tangible violation of the person, even though they may feel emotionally violated; our legal system has historically not given much credence to emotional damages (if they are recognized at all, they should be seen as a civil, rather than a criminal matter). At least a threat can be seen as a precursor to such a physical violation, whereas "virtual rape" cannot even be seen as that.
To my mind, it makes no sense to prosecute people for offending someones sensibilities. If real damage can be demonstrated in these cases, let them take the matter to the civil courts. Otherwise, move on. I'm not trying to defend the action here, mind you, nor to belittle the hurt that a person feels in these cases, but I think we need clear lines between violation and mere hurt feelings. To make virtual offences a crime would be setting a dangerous precedent that could ultimately lead to thought crimes, and therein lies the end of free society, in my opinion.
Totally different issue. If the Fed's wanted to issue their own national ID cards, or even nationalize control of DL's they could. That's not what they are doing, though: they passed an un-funded mandate for the States to make their own DL's comply with a federal standard and to create a database that they would share with the FBI.
The legislation which has actually been passed gives the feds no power to compel any action from the states, other, perhaps, than to withhold federal highway grants. To assert control over DL's, or create a true national ID, would require new legislation which I highly doubt the current Congress would enact.
Except that Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, all Rhode Island have their own accents, and other unique identifiers. For instance, I remember a Simpsons episode set in Vermont (my home from birth) recently which had a reference to candlepin bowling, which I found very out of place because that's a southern New Hampshire/eastern Massachusetts thing, not a Vermont thing (I've never even seen a candlepin in expect in photos). In some ways, there's a north/south division (running pretty much along the Vt./Mass. border, across N.H. north of Concord and Manchester, and into Maine) - to a lot of Vermonters, folks from Conn. are just as assuredly "flatlanders" as if they were from New Jersey - this isn't just regional joking, there is some real bad blood as well.
To some extent it's a hierarchy. Up here, we are Vermonters first, Northern New Englanders second, New Englanders third, and Americans (U.S.-ians if you will) last. Of course, Vt. was an independent nation for fourteen years (1777-1791) and there are still a fair number of natives who talk, only half-jokingly, of secession.
As to ethnicity, there are more French people (Quebecois) here than "down-country," but since we make snide remarks about them as well (though much more good natured) I'm not sure it has much to due with the makeup of Vermont. Our makeup has more to do with being to some extent like Australia: formed by people who had legal trouble elsewhere. After all, the Green Mountain Boys began as armed resistance to New York tax men. At least one of my own ancestors came here fleeing Mass. after Shays' rebellion (Shays came here too, with a bounty on his head, and Ethan Allen ordered his men to shoot anyone attempting to carry out said bounty).
Yup: first the drinking age, then seat belts. However, New Hampshire balked at the latter (adults in N.H. still don't have to wear them) and states have gotten bolder. The legislature in my own state of Vermont seems to have finally grown a spine. Last session there was serious debate about lowering the drinking age back to 18 and about outlawing "safety" checkpoints (many of the legislators contend they are already illegal - they were certainly meant to be when the seat-belt law was passed).
As to the license issue, the basic fact to remember about Vt. is that we still have non-photo licenses available (at least for persons holding a valid license before Jan. 2004). I have one: no photo, not even laminated. I renew by mail every four years.
There was such a public outcry against mandatory photos, especially amongst the elderly, that the only way the (then much more moderate) legislature could even partially comply with the (then only expected) Federal mandates was to only require the photos for new drivers. Renewal by mail is a common practice in Vt., and mandatory photos would muck that up. With many people living more than an hour's drive (often over poor roads) from the nearest DMV office, it was been argued that it would place too much of a burden on elderly drivers (many of whom rarely go more than two or three miles from home) to require them to renew in person, even every eight years (new photos are only taken for every other renewal).
I seriously doubt the current Vermont legislature (where Democrats and Progressives, taken together, now hold veto-proof majorities in both chambers) is in any mood to be bullied by the Bush regime. I am quite certain that Senators Leahy and Sanders in Washington are in even less mood for it.
As far as other states go, I can't say, but I don't think this administration has enough credibility left to force this down anyone's throat.
Similar experience for me. Our first cosole was a Colecovision, which we got when I was five. Nominally, it was a present for me, but it was used by the whole family: my parents and my little sister, as well as me. To get a NES all four of us went in for $25 each (five whole weeks of allowances), making it belong to all of us (that was our parents stipulation - they wouldn't buy it for us), ensuring sharing of the machine. Even when they did buy me a SNES, they stipulated that I had to share it with my sister. My parents rarely used either the NES or the SNES, though. We had a computer, but I didn't get my own until I left for college.
None of them were ever kept in my room, always the living room (the computer was in the den at first, and my mother's sewing room, later). The only TV was in the living room as well. I wasn't allowed to have a TV for my room until I was 16 or so, and even then I had to pay for it. My sister got one about the same time I did, but it was the same deal: pay for it yourself (IIRC, she actually got hers first, because she bought a cheaper, b&w set, while I had to save up more money for mine). The principle things in my room were my Legos and my Star Wars figures (my sister had her "My Little Pony" stuff in her room).
We were home-schooled, and we didn't have "homework" as such, because we did the assigned reading and exercises during school time instead (Mom, a former high school teacher, didn't believe in "busy work"). It was occasional that we would get time for videogames or TV in between subjects. The idea, I think, was to provide a reward, and to break the day up into smaller chunks - essentially a recess period.
I think you're right to suggest the educational value of well made games (video or otherwise), an element often overlooked with most games. Parental involvement is a big part of that. One of the reason I remember the Coleco more fondly than the later consoles is that we all played it together. Even as far as non-video games are concerned, we played more with our parents (and grandparents) than with other kids (which is not to say we were isolated - we weren't). My father was the one who taught me chess, and my grandfather played cribbage and poker with me and my sister (my mother had actually taught me cribbage as part of math lessons). The whole extended family would play Trivial Pursuit on New Year's Eve.
Lest anyone suppose it was all indoor stuff, I'll mention that both my parents and grandparents kept a garden and had animals (living in the country has its advantages there). We were involved with those things, and we did play outdoor games like croquet as well. Dad, especially, wasn't one to let us win, either. If we were going to win, we had to earn it. As exasperating as it was at the time, I'm glad he took that approach.
For a kid, the fear of Mom is much more tangible, I think (and I say that as a religious person). We knew the fear of Mom, of Dad, of our aunts and uncles, of both grandmothers, and, most of all perhaps, of our grandfather (only the one was still living when I was born). Corporal punishment (just spankings, nothing abusive) wasn't used much, at least not after we were six or seven, and no one was ever verbally abusive, either; no one needed to be. When your parents are a big part of your life, you don't wan't to disapoint them. You learn to think, "what would they think of me if I did such-and- such," and you care about it. I don't think that happens when parents don't involve themselves.
Far too often, parents, from early on, make their children someone else's problem - first day care, then nursery school, then school and after-school activities. They never learn to deal with the kids themselves.
I almost mentioned that, but didn't because I thought it was a point still in dispute, as far as the fed's were concerned. Although the 60 Minutes piece did mention the wire act as being intended to pertain to sports-betting, the authorities interviewed clearly expressed the opinion that all online gambling was illegal under current legislation. Indeed, poker was the general focus of the discussion. Of course, the current government seems to dispute numerous points that have already been decided by SCOTUS (I suppose, as well, that the problem involves the definition of "sports" and the fact that the internet and telephone systems overlap significantly).
They did mention that the specific U.K. executive mentioned was offering sports-betting as part of his casino operation (as most Las Vegas casinos do, as well - though only on site, of course), but also that he was acting legally as far as British law was concerned. It was at least implied that this was done over the internet, via a website based in the U.K. It's possible they had their facts wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.