I agree with your post but there is NO CONTROVERSY, rather there is very strong scientific consensus about the following points.
1. Global warming is occuring.
2. Humans are responsible for the majority of the warming via CO2 emmisions.
The willfully ignorant have not really changed their tack from the old argument the idiot you were responding too is using. There has not been a single peer-reviewed paper for over 10yrs that has questioned either of these scientific FACTS. Sure there has been a plethora of skeptics in the mass media but strangely NONE (yes that's right, none, nada, not one) of these skeptics have had enough confidence in their work to actually bother publishing it in a scientific journal!!!
As for who is "politically motivated", I think the "last word" in TFA is telling...
"President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy."
What this "last word" says is don't do anything to tackle global warming based on climate modeling because our economic models say we will go broke. Now, guess which of the two groups of models have had the most scientific rigour applied to them?
No prizes either for guessing Connaughton's qualifications for the job of top "environment advisor", he has represented GE against the EPA, and was previously employed as a lobbyist on pollution issues for Alcoa, GE, and other major corporations. Putting a pro-pollution lawyer/lobbyist in that position is like deliberately hiring pedophiles to work as kindergarten teachers. The rationale being that they are now working for "the other side".
As an outsider it is obvious the USA is not run by "the people" or even the republicans, the government (on both sides) has become so corrupt that corporations write government policy no matter who is in power. Americans are not alone however, the same "sell out" has also happened here in Australia, except in our case it is coal rather than oil.
I tend to agree with what Albert said when quoting what some other guy said about free will, "A man cannot will what he wills". For a detailed explaination see the books "Godel, Esher, Bach" by D. Hofstadter and "Unweaving the rainbow" by R. Dawkins.
Yes, that is precisely why scientific papers go to great lengths to define key terms. Humans, (and it could be argued, animated lifeforms in general), categorise things to make sense of the universe. Humans go a step further than most animals, they attempt to translate those categories into a common language. eg: To answer the question "is a virus alive", you need to define "virus" and "alive". "Do galaxies evolve", is another question fraught with definition problems.
Simarly, to answer the question "is Pluto a planet", you need to define "planet", defining Pluto is as easy as pointing at it. Most astronomers would answer yes because of convention. Few (none) would go to the trouble of scientifically defining "planet". The name of the game is publish or perish, categorising some heavenly body 'X' as either a planet or a big rock is hardly a "scientific contribution", therefore it adds nothing to the "publish" side of the game.
Category problems are ubiquitous, and my guess is, they expand expotentially faster than the rate of new concepts. In fact a large portion of slashdot threads are fueled entirely by the same problems, just look at the number of posts questioning/defining the meaning of 1.5 pixels. Taking advantage of this kind of confusion to manipulate others is what is known as "spin" (eg: Economic modeling trumps climate modeling).
Of course Louis Carroll said it succinctly and with more elequonce than I can muster...
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'
"Being a stereotypical loner/geek, I have few connections and find it very difficult to get past the typical HR department."
Even if you do not want a contract job try applying for a few. Any agent worth their salt will show you how to deal with HR. I know it's difficult being a geek and all but just talk to them, they won't think less of you because you don't know how to do something. If you still can't go solo and get past HR then go for the contract and let the agent jump through the HR hoops for you.
I would also like to add that having hired programmers via HR departments I know it is not all HR's fault, project managers are the ones who decide what is "essential" and "desirable", HR or the Agent just tries to find people who fit the criteria out of the deluge of CV's.
Having held a CS degree for 15+yrs I have to ask: if you are developing the "latest inventory project" and you don't do any "reseach", what are you being paid for?
The IT industry does not owe anyone an interesting job or a fat pay packet just because they have a CS degree. If all a company wants is someone to crank out code all day why would they pay for a CS degree, outsourcers can get the same job done for less MONEY and in less TIME.
I don't live in the US but the Australian market works in a similar way, outsourcing large chunks of code to developing countries is common practice. I don't see that outsourcing has been an entirely bad thing for the local industry. From my point of view the "bubble burst" cleaned out alot of wannabe's and replaced them with reliable and efficient coders. I don't get the same money as 7-8yrs ago, but I work a lot less hours and I'm still well above the average pay pack. Besides we all knew the bubble would not last forever.
"No, it [ESRB established by ESA] is an industry body in the same genre as the *IAA, it's funding and point of view are directly attributable to the common interests of it's members (as evidenced by it's strong opposition to anything except "self-regulation"). Members pay fines because they want to remain members, other than that, they have no power to enforce ANY rules. I have no need to know anymore, it's rules do not affect me and are not backed up by genuine regulations."
Wether the ESRB is "effective" or not is irrelevant.
lol, check back over the conversation and look at the insults on BOTH sides. Like I said you are a kid, how did I know that - because I am a parent of adult children.
Being a parent is not something you can sit down and intellectualise, you have to experience it....listening to you pontificate about how others should bring up their children is kinda like listening to a virgin give instructions on how to staisfy a woman.
"hydrogen enthusiasts, water vapor is a greenhouse gas too"
Water vapour lasts 10 days in the atmosphere, unless you are expecting the oceans to boil what is the point of the second experiment you propose?
"Now a "consensus scientist" starts out with a single fact."
You have the terms scientific consensus and industry shill confused. Scientific consensus means the accepted scientific view, if you can point to ANY peer-reviewed study published in the last 10yrs that goes aginst the "scientific consensus" on AGW then please give a link to the abstract. While you are looking think about where all the FUD in the popular press could be coming from and who is paying for it?
After having said all that your first experiment asks some good questions that are still the subject of much research, however there are plenty of studies that attempt to answer them. The basic conclusion is "it depends on the exact method and logistics", some proposed systems are simply political-pork, others can make significant cuts in CO2 emmisions. OTOH: A strong global market for CO2 credits would rapidly find the most efficient large scale methods.
No, it is an industry body in the same genre as the *IAA, it's funding and point of view are directly attributable to the common interests of it's members (as evidenced by it's strong opposition to anything except "self-regulation"). Members pay fines because they want to remain members, other than that, they have no power to enforce ANY rules. I have no need to know anymore, it's rules do not affect me and are not backed up by genuine regulations.
"...you had to resort to shifting the argument..."
I have not shifted the argument, I summarised what I see as your point of view and gave up trying to reason with you. I also acknowlaged that you are entitled to your opinion no matter how misguided it happens to be. I did this because of the well known fact that it is impossible to argue with an idiot, especially one who lacks basic comprehension skills and blames his confusion on the author.
"Your response stinks of lacking personal responsibility."
I have created two responsible adults, you have done squat, so go fuck yourself!
""Scientific consensus" is to science as the fur indutry is to baby seals."
You have totally misrepresented and/or misunderstood the term "scientific consensus". It means "the accepted scientific view" and was promoted to drive home the FACT that there is no "contraversy" where AGW is concerned.
"Back up your answer with facts. All of the scientific consensus in the world has yet to produce a climate model that can *predict* the climate for *any* century in the past."
You don't back up any of your rant with any source besides your own imagination. Take a tour of realclimate.org, you will find past climate has been recreated using models. You will also find many examples of predictions made by models in the 90's that have recently been observed in nature (eg: more snow and more melting of Greenland's ice cap). You can even download the software and data and create your own models. These are basically the same models that are used to predict the path and intensiity of hurricanes such as Katrina. Nobody can predict the future but science (by definition) is certainly the most rational view of it.
"water vapor is a greenhouse gas too"
Yes, and it last less than 10days in the atmosphere, so what is your point?
"Publish the results (the data) so everyone can see the methodolgy employed and what the results are. Also publish your conclusions."
It would obviously make no difference to you if they did, your mish-mash of misinformation and urban legend clearly shows you don't read even the abstracts from peer-reviewed papers. Your description of a "consensus scientist" is actually a description of an industry shill, AFAIK the "money" is to found by (loudly) denying the accepted (consensus) view. That is why so very, very few of these industry "scientists" pass even the most cursory of peer-reviews.
BTW: The experiments and data you are looking for have been done to death and your assertions are rubbish. You might have known that if you had done some very basic research of your own. But no, you chose the route that that you have derisively projected on to others, ie: You "started out with a single fact" about fluid volumes and ignored everything else that didn't fit your predetermined conclusion that somhow science and baby seals are equivalent.
"Why is the Australian government even doing this?"
It is in our constitution that what the USA does our government must try to go "one better". It used to be about having cattle stations bigger than a Texan ranch (maybe even bigger than Texas?). Nowadys its all about who can find the most terrorists.
"Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?"
No, Aussies have been targeted in three major Indonesian attacks over the last few years. We have had some "minor" attacks in the past from neo-nazi groups, organised crime and a few solo mental cases. Oh, we also had the Alan Jones riots in Sydney last year. ( His single-handed incitement of the riots was very poorly covered in the media. Politicians continue to give this guy clout by lining up to be on his breakfast show ).
"Do they really think there will be one in the future?"
Of course, the western governments are building an massive industry around it. We are also locking up some new scapegoats, the most recent is known as Jihad Jack who was locked up for 5yrs just a few days ago.
"What's the point, other than crushing freedom?"
Defining, monitoring and dismantling "social networks", preferably before they can form a political movement. Besides our PM has always dreamed of dragging us back to the 1950's.
"That's not the issue at all. Store owners currently deny children the ability to purchase certain games."
As I understand it, that behaviour is optional the shop owner does not have an OBLIGATION to operate that way. What the bill is saying is that it should no longer be optional. It is simply the government mandating what is already practised by most of the shop keepers.
"And you show your ignorance of the situation there..... Check your facts again."
No you missed the part that said "In Australia"... anyway I can see you just don't like the idea of a legally independent authority because it must be set up by "the government". I guess that means you PERSONALLY are satisfied with corporations who sell the stuff also setting the standard for what is/isn't suitable for kids. You also don't mind having no say at all in how those standards are set and it's not a problem that you have no comeback when they are ignored. You are entitled to your trust in corporations but a vast number of parents (including me) would say it is misplaced.
"There is no such link between violent video games and children. I am sure that many well-adjusted teenagers can see that GTA is quite comical and enjoy the game."
Yep I agree and my kids had good exposure to "real life", yet I also understand that a large sub-section of parents do not agree and would like to be able to control THIER kids access to games with violence / sex / drugs (the last two being concepts kids are only just aware of around puberty). Now before you say that it is "unrealistic", I know but remember we are talking about kids ( esp. 8-puberty ). Sneaking off to play GTA or read playboy at a mates house does not intefere with the "social graces" you try to teach to the kids. Most people are violent because they learnt from their parents not because they played video games. You will get the odd screw-ball "go postal" but "screw-ball's" have been doing that since the stone age, you can't stop random nuts because....well... the're random. The whole point is should the shop owner be able to veto a parents "reasonable control" over their kids purchases.
"..there is a difference between an image being broadcast onto the airwaves and someone that is being sold in a store."
I had no intention of "insulting the USA" but I have to say that difference is found "Only in America". Do the kids only watch broadcast TV and don't have pocket money to buy/rent a game/porno from an iresponsible shop owner? Why is brodcast different? In Australia and many other places consistent ratings are set by an independent authority, brodacast ratings change throughout the day, before/after school ect. All broadcast shows (including stuff like "naked news", ect) carry advisories. The ratings are there to guide parents and the easily offended when to "switch it off", there is no major differece between material in the store/theater/broadcast/cable, you cannot rent/sell adult(18+) or "mature age"(15+ I think) material to a minor without a gaurdians permission and this puts the parent firmly in the drivers seat without treading on anyone else's right to enjoy "bad taste material" or play GTA with their own kids.
When my kids were teens the video store owner would ring me and ask if it was ok to if they rent GTA, I was in "control" of that part of my kids environment and society backed me up with a phone call. Sure there are some unhappy kids but that's life when your parents are in control.
If you expect parents to be "responsible" with brining up their kids to meet the requirements for a "well-adjusted" adult then these types of enforced "advisories" should be supported so as to cut a large number of parents some slack and make the whole thing rational. From the day the laws are introduced, all anyone has to do to shut down someone who thinks porno should be banned "because of the children" is show the clip with Eminem pointing to the sticker.
BTW: A minor can also be served alcohol with a meal and the gaurdians permission.
One of the motivations behind the voyager "grand tour" missions was to spot interesting places to "hang around". But I agree, stuff like Cassini or the Great Observatories makes a "Buck Rogers" joy ride to mars look like an expensive cold war stunt.
No it's not, but what does that have to do with the argument, it's illegal to serve a minor alcohol, is that being a parent? No, it means the government is making reasonable regulations on commerce that makes life a bit simpler for parents. The fines and a direct threat via the license, send a clear message to the publican to act as a responsible adult when dealing with somebody else's kid. And if someone does sell your kids a tequila slammer at the local strip joint, it also gives the parent a clear avenue of recourse other than smacking the publican around the side of the head with a bat!
I gotta say as an outsider that I find it bizzare that a flash of tit at the superbowl is "OMG think of the childeren - $$$fine$$$", yet kids can walk in and buy (rent???) R rated movies (magazines???) and that's ok, because ya-know, that's "free speech" and we don't want a "nanny state"?
WTF are you people smoking over there? Make one consistent advisory standard, stick a label on everything and fine any shop owner who blatantly disregards the rules into financial oblivion. How does that affect an adult gamer, a responsible shop owner? How does it stop someone providing this stuff for their own kid if they choose to do so? The least it can possibly do is teach shop owners to respect warnings whilst taking candy from a baby.
Disclaimer: I have two adult kids and I love playing shoot-em-ups on the net.
Perhaps, but by "sick" I think you mean ignorant or apathetic. My partner is finishing her Phd in marketing, even less people understand marketing than understand "hard" science. Sure it has something to do with surveys, brands and even advertising but they are all tools, they are not "marketing". It would be like me saying that C and SQL are computer science, ( why yes IAACS ), clearly that is a nonsensical statement, well maybe someone in the HR dept would belive it.
I'm not sure if you have noticed but there is a ton of psudeo-science in (non peer-rev) climate studies, although it has died down alot since GWB finally acknowlaged that a "threat" exists. Can't wait for the war-on-CO2!
"Why do/.'eans persist in attacking comments which aren't fully explained. I seem to be plauged with it."
Many here on/. have two copies of the pedantic gene. From my point of view the internet has been an absolute boon to research, enabling fast and accurate answers that would have required an army of librarians 20yrs ago. Two categories of people disagree.
1. Experts in their field who don't have a clue how to turn on a computer. EG: Many GP's are in this category.
2. People who can turn on a computer but are absolutely clueless about how to research a question. EG: Many/.'eans are in this category.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your post but there is NO CONTROVERSY, rather there is very strong scientific consensus about the following points.
1. Global warming is occuring.
2. Humans are responsible for the majority of the warming via CO2 emmisions.
The willfully ignorant have not really changed their tack from the old argument the idiot you were responding too is using. There has not been a single peer-reviewed paper for over 10yrs that has questioned either of these scientific FACTS. Sure there has been a plethora of skeptics in the mass media but strangely NONE (yes that's right, none, nada, not one) of these skeptics have had enough confidence in their work to actually bother publishing it in a scientific journal!!!
As for who is "politically motivated", I think the "last word" in TFA is telling...
"President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy."
What this "last word" says is don't do anything to tackle global warming based on climate modeling because our economic models say we will go broke. Now, guess which of the two groups of models have had the most scientific rigour applied to them?
No prizes either for guessing Connaughton's qualifications for the job of top "environment advisor", he has represented GE against the EPA, and was previously employed as a lobbyist on pollution issues for Alcoa, GE, and other major corporations. Putting a pro-pollution lawyer/lobbyist in that position is like deliberately hiring pedophiles to work as kindergarten teachers. The rationale being that they are now working for "the other side".
As an outsider it is obvious the USA is not run by "the people" or even the republicans, the government (on both sides) has become so corrupt that corporations write government policy no matter who is in power. Americans are not alone however, the same "sell out" has also happened here in Australia, except in our case it is coal rather than oil.
"installing a few wires isn't too expensive or difficult"
Take a look at the track lengths in Australia.
I tend to agree with what Albert said when quoting what some other guy said about free will, "A man cannot will what he wills". For a detailed explaination see the books "Godel, Esher, Bach" by D. Hofstadter and "Unweaving the rainbow" by R. Dawkins.
I understand it was an example. The pedantic side of me likes to highlight common misconceptions, I did not intend to imply you held any.
Yes, that is precisely why scientific papers go to great lengths to define key terms. Humans, (and it could be argued, animated lifeforms in general), categorise things to make sense of the universe. Humans go a step further than most animals, they attempt to translate those categories into a common language. eg: To answer the question "is a virus alive", you need to define "virus" and "alive". "Do galaxies evolve", is another question fraught with definition problems.
Simarly, to answer the question "is Pluto a planet", you need to define "planet", defining Pluto is as easy as pointing at it. Most astronomers would answer yes because of convention. Few (none) would go to the trouble of scientifically defining "planet". The name of the game is publish or perish, categorising some heavenly body 'X' as either a planet or a big rock is hardly a "scientific contribution", therefore it adds nothing to the "publish" side of the game.
Category problems are ubiquitous, and my guess is, they expand expotentially faster than the rate of new concepts. In fact a large portion of slashdot threads are fueled entirely by the same problems, just look at the number of posts questioning/defining the meaning of 1.5 pixels. Taking advantage of this kind of confusion to manipulate others is what is known as "spin" (eg: Economic modeling trumps climate modeling).
Of course Louis Carroll said it succinctly and with more elequonce than I can muster...
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'
"When we are talking about the common gods, (christian, jewish, muslum....)"
Just to be pedantic, all three examples worship the same God.
"Being a stereotypical loner/geek, I have few connections and find it very difficult to get past the typical HR department."
Even if you do not want a contract job try applying for a few. Any agent worth their salt will show you how to deal with HR. I know it's difficult being a geek and all but just talk to them, they won't think less of you because you don't know how to do something. If you still can't go solo and get past HR then go for the contract and let the agent jump through the HR hoops for you.
I would also like to add that having hired programmers via HR departments I know it is not all HR's fault, project managers are the ones who decide what is "essential" and "desirable", HR or the Agent just tries to find people who fit the criteria out of the deluge of CV's.
Having held a CS degree for 15+yrs I have to ask: if you are developing the "latest inventory project" and you don't do any "reseach", what are you being paid for?
The IT industry does not owe anyone an interesting job or a fat pay packet just because they have a CS degree. If all a company wants is someone to crank out code all day why would they pay for a CS degree, outsourcers can get the same job done for less MONEY and in less TIME.
I don't live in the US but the Australian market works in a similar way, outsourcing large chunks of code to developing countries is common practice. I don't see that outsourcing has been an entirely bad thing for the local industry. From my point of view the "bubble burst" cleaned out alot of wannabe's and replaced them with reliable and efficient coders. I don't get the same money as 7-8yrs ago, but I work a lot less hours and I'm still well above the average pay pack. Besides we all knew the bubble would not last forever.
They were no smarter or dumber than us, in fact "they" are "us".
Here is my own bit of cut & paste....
"No, it [ESRB established by ESA] is an industry body in the same genre as the *IAA, it's funding and point of view are directly attributable to the common interests of it's members (as evidenced by it's strong opposition to anything except "self-regulation"). Members pay fines because they want to remain members, other than that, they have no power to enforce ANY rules. I have no need to know anymore, it's rules do not affect me and are not backed up by genuine regulations."
Wether the ESRB is "effective" or not is irrelevant.
lol, check back over the conversation and look at the insults on BOTH sides. Like I said you are a kid, how did I know that - because I am a parent of adult children.
Being a parent is not something you can sit down and intellectualise, you have to experience it....listening to you pontificate about how others should bring up their children is kinda like listening to a virgin give instructions on how to staisfy a woman.
"Back up your answer with facts."
Good advice...
"All of the scientific consensus in the world has yet to produce a climate model that can *predict* the climate for *any* century in the past."
I call bullshit
"hockey stick" curve anyone?
I call implied bullshit
"hydrogen enthusiasts, water vapor is a greenhouse gas too"
Water vapour lasts 10 days in the atmosphere, unless you are expecting the oceans to boil what is the point of the second experiment you propose?
"Now a "consensus scientist" starts out with a single fact."
You have the terms scientific consensus and industry shill confused. Scientific consensus means the accepted scientific view, if you can point to ANY peer-reviewed study published in the last 10yrs that goes aginst the "scientific consensus" on AGW then please give a link to the abstract. While you are looking think about where all the FUD in the popular press could be coming from and who is paying for it?
After having said all that your first experiment asks some good questions that are still the subject of much research, however there are plenty of studies that attempt to answer them. The basic conclusion is "it depends on the exact method and logistics", some proposed systems are simply political-pork, others can make significant cuts in CO2 emmisions. OTOH: A strong global market for CO2 credits would rapidly find the most efficient large scale methods.
You are a kid, you will sing a different song when you are a parent.
"The ESRB is an indepedent body"
No, it is an industry body in the same genre as the *IAA, it's funding and point of view are directly attributable to the common interests of it's members (as evidenced by it's strong opposition to anything except "self-regulation"). Members pay fines because they want to remain members, other than that, they have no power to enforce ANY rules. I have no need to know anymore, it's rules do not affect me and are not backed up by genuine regulations.
"...you had to resort to shifting the argument..."
I have not shifted the argument, I summarised what I see as your point of view and gave up trying to reason with you. I also acknowlaged that you are entitled to your opinion no matter how misguided it happens to be. I did this because of the well known fact that it is impossible to argue with an idiot, especially one who lacks basic comprehension skills and blames his confusion on the author.
"Your response stinks of lacking personal responsibility."
I have created two responsible adults, you have done squat, so go fuck yourself!
""Scientific consensus" is to science as the fur indutry is to baby seals."
You have totally misrepresented and/or misunderstood the term "scientific consensus". It means "the accepted scientific view" and was promoted to drive home the FACT that there is no "contraversy" where AGW is concerned.
"Back up your answer with facts. All of the scientific consensus in the world has yet to produce a climate model that can *predict* the climate for *any* century in the past."
You don't back up any of your rant with any source besides your own imagination. Take a tour of realclimate.org, you will find past climate has been recreated using models. You will also find many examples of predictions made by models in the 90's that have recently been observed in nature (eg: more snow and more melting of Greenland's ice cap). You can even download the software and data and create your own models. These are basically the same models that are used to predict the path and intensiity of hurricanes such as Katrina. Nobody can predict the future but science (by definition) is certainly the most rational view of it.
"water vapor is a greenhouse gas too"
Yes, and it last less than 10days in the atmosphere, so what is your point?
"Publish the results (the data) so everyone can see the methodolgy employed and what the results are. Also publish your conclusions."
It would obviously make no difference to you if they did, your mish-mash of misinformation and urban legend clearly shows you don't read even the abstracts from peer-reviewed papers. Your description of a "consensus scientist" is actually a description of an industry shill, AFAIK the "money" is to found by (loudly) denying the accepted (consensus) view. That is why so very, very few of these industry "scientists" pass even the most cursory of peer-reviews.
BTW: The experiments and data you are looking for have been done to death and your assertions are rubbish. You might have known that if you had done some very basic research of your own. But no, you chose the route that that you have derisively projected on to others, ie: You "started out with a single fact" about fluid volumes and ignored everything else that didn't fit your predetermined conclusion that somhow science and baby seals are equivalent.
"Why is the Australian government even doing this?"
It is in our constitution that what the USA does our government must try to go "one better". It used to be about having cattle stations bigger than a Texan ranch (maybe even bigger than Texas?). Nowadys its all about who can find the most terrorists.
"Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?"
No, Aussies have been targeted in three major Indonesian attacks over the last few years. We have had some "minor" attacks in the past from neo-nazi groups, organised crime and a few solo mental cases. Oh, we also had the Alan Jones riots in Sydney last year. ( His single-handed incitement of the riots was very poorly covered in the media. Politicians continue to give this guy clout by lining up to be on his breakfast show ).
"Do they really think there will be one in the future?"
Of course, the western governments are building an massive industry around it. We are also locking up some new scapegoats, the most recent is known as Jihad Jack who was locked up for 5yrs just a few days ago.
"What's the point, other than crushing freedom?"
Defining, monitoring and dismantling "social networks", preferably before they can form a political movement. Besides our PM has always dreamed of dragging us back to the 1950's.
"That's not the issue at all. Store owners currently deny children the ability to purchase certain games."
..... Check your facts again."
... anyway I can see you just don't like the idea of a legally independent authority because it must be set up by "the government". I guess that means you PERSONALLY are satisfied with corporations who sell the stuff also setting the standard for what is/isn't suitable for kids. You also don't mind having no say at all in how those standards are set and it's not a problem that you have no comeback when they are ignored. You are entitled to your trust in corporations but a vast number of parents (including me) would say it is misplaced.
As I understand it, that behaviour is optional the shop owner does not have an OBLIGATION to operate that way. What the bill is saying is that it should no longer be optional. It is simply the government mandating what is already practised by most of the shop keepers.
"And you show your ignorance of the situation there
No you missed the part that said "In Australia"
"There is no such link between violent video games and children. I am sure that many well-adjusted teenagers can see that GTA is quite comical and enjoy the game."
....well... the're random. The whole point is should the shop owner be able to veto a parents "reasonable control" over their kids purchases.
Yep I agree and my kids had good exposure to "real life", yet I also understand that a large sub-section of parents do not agree and would like to be able to control THIER kids access to games with violence / sex / drugs (the last two being concepts kids are only just aware of around puberty). Now before you say that it is "unrealistic", I know but remember we are talking about kids ( esp. 8-puberty ). Sneaking off to play GTA or read playboy at a mates house does not intefere with the "social graces" you try to teach to the kids. Most people are violent because they learnt from their parents not because they played video games. You will get the odd screw-ball "go postal" but "screw-ball's" have been doing that since the stone age, you can't stop random nuts because
"..there is a difference between an image being broadcast onto the airwaves and someone that is being sold in a store."
I had no intention of "insulting the USA" but I have to say that difference is found "Only in America". Do the kids only watch broadcast TV and don't have pocket money to buy/rent a game/porno from an iresponsible shop owner? Why is brodcast different? In Australia and many other places consistent ratings are set by an independent authority, brodacast ratings change throughout the day, before/after school ect. All broadcast shows (including stuff like "naked news", ect) carry advisories. The ratings are there to guide parents and the easily offended when to "switch it off", there is no major differece between material in the store/theater/broadcast/cable, you cannot rent/sell adult(18+) or "mature age"(15+ I think) material to a minor without a gaurdians permission and this puts the parent firmly in the drivers seat without treading on anyone else's right to enjoy "bad taste material" or play GTA with their own kids.
When my kids were teens the video store owner would ring me and ask if it was ok to if they rent GTA, I was in "control" of that part of my kids environment and society backed me up with a phone call. Sure there are some unhappy kids but that's life when your parents are in control.
If you expect parents to be "responsible" with brining up their kids to meet the requirements for a "well-adjusted" adult then these types of enforced "advisories" should be supported so as to cut a large number of parents some slack and make the whole thing rational. From the day the laws are introduced, all anyone has to do to shut down someone who thinks porno should be banned "because of the children" is show the clip with Eminem pointing to the sticker.
BTW: A minor can also be served alcohol with a meal and the gaurdians permission.
One of the motivations behind the voyager "grand tour" missions was to spot interesting places to "hang around". But I agree, stuff like Cassini or the Great Observatories makes a "Buck Rogers" joy ride to mars look like an expensive cold war stunt.
...until you get to know them.
BTW: How about posting your own mug so we can all sit around and judge you?
"The government is not a parent."
No it's not, but what does that have to do with the argument, it's illegal to serve a minor alcohol, is that being a parent? No, it means the government is making reasonable regulations on commerce that makes life a bit simpler for parents. The fines and a direct threat via the license, send a clear message to the publican to act as a responsible adult when dealing with somebody else's kid. And if someone does sell your kids a tequila slammer at the local strip joint, it also gives the parent a clear avenue of recourse other than smacking the publican around the side of the head with a bat!
I gotta say as an outsider that I find it bizzare that a flash of tit at the superbowl is "OMG think of the childeren - $$$fine$$$", yet kids can walk in and buy (rent???) R rated movies (magazines???) and that's ok, because ya-know, that's "free speech" and we don't want a "nanny state"?
WTF are you people smoking over there? Make one consistent advisory standard, stick a label on everything and fine any shop owner who blatantly disregards the rules into financial oblivion. How does that affect an adult gamer, a responsible shop owner? How does it stop someone providing this stuff for their own kid if they choose to do so? The least it can possibly do is teach shop owners to respect warnings whilst taking candy from a baby.
Disclaimer: I have two adult kids and I love playing shoot-em-ups on the net.
1. First they came fo the unicorns.
2. Then the horses with furry feet.
3. Then....OMG PONIES....opps, errr, said too much already...
"We have a sick society"
Perhaps, but by "sick" I think you mean ignorant or apathetic. My partner is finishing her Phd in marketing, even less people understand marketing than understand "hard" science. Sure it has something to do with surveys, brands and even advertising but they are all tools, they are not "marketing". It would be like me saying that C and SQL are computer science, ( why yes IAACS ), clearly that is a nonsensical statement, well maybe someone in the HR dept would belive it.
I'm not sure if you have noticed but there is a ton of psudeo-science in (non peer-rev) climate studies, although it has died down alot since GWB finally acknowlaged that a "threat" exists. Can't wait for the war-on-CO2!
OTOH: Your call of "bullshit" rings true.
"Why do /.'eans persist in attacking comments which aren't fully explained. I seem to be plauged with it."
/. have two copies of the pedantic gene. From my point of view the internet has been an absolute boon to research, enabling fast and accurate answers that would have required an army of librarians 20yrs ago. Two categories of people disagree.
/.'eans are in this category.
Many here on
1. Experts in their field who don't have a clue how to turn on a computer. EG: Many GP's are in this category.
2. People who can turn on a computer but are absolutely clueless about how to research a question. EG: Many
It takes an "Animal Farm" to create a "big brother".