Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.
There are dozens of things that prevent a five year old from purchasing and playing a violent video game. I have listed a number of them in previous posts. Apparently you are too fucking stupid to pick up on them. With a parent like you, god help your poor offspring. These obstacles include, but are not limited to: 1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game. 2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision. 3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls. 4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy. It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution. You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games. I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is, and it truly makes me sad to know that you both vote and are raising a child.
Parents are already responsible for what their kids play. Ignoring the fact that most kids who are under 17 are not legally able to hold jobs and thus do not have the purchasing power to even procure video games without parental consent, any responsible parent (of which it sounds like you are an example) is at least somewhat cognizant of what media his child is consuming. As I am sure you already know, this extends beyond the boundaries of one's own home and into the homes of the child's friends. If you, as a parent, know that little Billy's parents let him watch all of the horror movies that he wants and that is something that you do not approve of your child watching, then it is not only your right but your responsibility as a parent to prevent your child from watching those movies over at little Billy's house, up to and including barring your child from going over to Billy's house to play. That is just common sense.
Now, in the instance of video games, parents actually have much more control than they do over music, literature, pictures, and movies. If a parent doesn't want his kid to play video games, he can simply unhook the console. If he doesn't like his kid playing certain video games, he can either not purchase those games for his kid or disable the ability for the console to play games above a certain rating threshold. To be blunt, a responsible parent already has more than enough means to exercise that responsibility. Beyond that, video game retailers already subscribe to a voluntary system whereby they agree not to sell video games to minors. This system is similar to the system that movie theaters and rental operations have been a part of for decades. In fact, the system in place is already extremely effective.
However, when you want to bring the government into play and give them the power to oversee this entire arrangement, you are not only trampling on the rights of others, you are asking the government to exceed its mandate and limit free speech. It is simply not acceptable in a modern free society to limit the production or distribution of material deemed to be speech simply because one deems it questionable. Aside from the fact that not all people agree on what is or is not questionable, you are asking the government to take on the role of a parent. I fail to see how abdicating one's role as a parent and asking the government to step in and do the job instead is in line with conservative ideals.
The fact of the matter is that conservatives-in-name-only like you are happy to carry the constitution in their breast pockets and flog it at any opportunity in an argument, but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is and actually support the rights espoused within, you would rather take the easy way out and cede your rights and liberty to the government. That doesn't sound very conservative to me.
Calling oneself a conservative does not make it so. Actually espousing conservative beliefs, on the other hand, would go a long way to actually proving one's conservative leanings. Some of those beliefs might include (but not be limited to) limited power of government to abrogate the rights of the citizenry.
States' rights countermand the constitution? That isn't in line with conservative ideals, that is in line with a dissolution of the federal government. Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality. The simple fact of the matter is that the "liberty" that you most likely give lip service to but don't truly believe in means that other people are free to do things that you might not agree with.
How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.
The UN recently declared internet access to be a basic human right. I wonder what they would have to say about the government colluding with corporations to curtail the basic human rights of citizens of the United States. Oh, who am I kidding. They probably won't have anything to say about it at all.
The fact that easy targets still exist in this day and age just goes to show that LulzSec does serve a purpose, even if you disagree with their methods.
As a Jew, I take offense to any and all depictions of Jesus that depict him as caucasian, aryan, or naked. I suppose it's time to move to Tennessee and start suing the bejesus (pun very much intended) out of everybody.
They obviously had someone on board, or OtherOS never would have been available in the first place. Because they had someone on board, they purchased PS3s. Then somebody else made the decision to retroactively remove functionality from the devices that they purchased, and they felt rightly outraged. It shouldn't be necessary to be a stockholder to expect that the consumer devices that you purchase won't be remotely disabled without any recourse in what essentially amounts to a bait-and-switch.
I know the Democrats are screwing up here. As a card carrying Dem I'll apologize for my people. Something that would help us help you though is if we could get a more solid base. The Dems are running scared, and they're pandering to Hollywood just to get enough money to fight the good fight.
So we should vote for a party that is willing to compromise its ideals on the vague promise that once they have enough power they will suddenly grow morals?
I knew that Iran was in league with some shady characters, but the Umbrella Corporation? What the hell are they thinking?! I, for one, am glad that STARS is already on the scene, protecting us from Wesker and Ahmadinejad's zombie outbreak.
While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.
Yeah, what kind of jackass would want to pursue knowledge just for the sake of knowledge? They should have some kind of institution where those wackos are all segregated so that they can do their useless research in peace and not be a nuisance to the rest of us conscientious workers.
It doesn't require any of those things, which is why so many courses from so many reputable institutions of higher learning are available online, free of charge, for anybody interested in learning. I think that one of the most important facets of college is, as you mentioned, that students are not expected to have full-time jobs and are instead expected to dedicate themselves to their studies, and further, that they have educational opportunities forced on them in the form of requirements. The requirement for students to take a course outside of their major isn't because other departments need the numbers.
No, I am working under the understanding that an 4 years in college as an undergraduate is a wonderful opportunity to further the education begun in high school and, for passionate students, to be continued afterward. When career-minded people plan on doing "what [they're] going to be doing for the rest of [their lives]" I find it truly depressing that they don't want to take the opportunity to explore other topics when the opportunity is in front of them. Some of the most interesting classes that I took during my undergraduate career were classes that were not required for my degree. People who don't care about learning should go to tech schools and institutes of technology and leave open the slots in real colleges that they would otherwise be depriving true students.
Maybe you and people like you should stick to trade schools so that you can learn a career and nothing but a career, and leave higher education to the people who actually want to get an education. Cheating your way through an education that you don't want is a disservice to you and a disservice to all of the people whom you are preventing from getting an education by taking up a spot that you don't even want in a class that you don't even care about.
So let me get this straight... The question that you are asking is "Is a platform really open if it is open to everybody and only a small percentage of people take advantage of that openness?"
Is a restaurant really open if only 1% of passersby enter? Is a store open if only 1% of customers make purchases?
Yes. If something is open then it is open, regardless of the percentage of users that take advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.
There are dozens of things that prevent a five year old from purchasing and playing a violent video game. I have listed a number of them in previous posts. Apparently you are too fucking stupid to pick up on them. With a parent like you, god help your poor offspring. These obstacles include, but are not limited to:
1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game.
2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision.
3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls.
4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy.
It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution. You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games. I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is, and it truly makes me sad to know that you both vote and are raising a child.
Parents are already responsible for what their kids play. Ignoring the fact that most kids who are under 17 are not legally able to hold jobs and thus do not have the purchasing power to even procure video games without parental consent, any responsible parent (of which it sounds like you are an example) is at least somewhat cognizant of what media his child is consuming. As I am sure you already know, this extends beyond the boundaries of one's own home and into the homes of the child's friends. If you, as a parent, know that little Billy's parents let him watch all of the horror movies that he wants and that is something that you do not approve of your child watching, then it is not only your right but your responsibility as a parent to prevent your child from watching those movies over at little Billy's house, up to and including barring your child from going over to Billy's house to play. That is just common sense.
Now, in the instance of video games, parents actually have much more control than they do over music, literature, pictures, and movies. If a parent doesn't want his kid to play video games, he can simply unhook the console. If he doesn't like his kid playing certain video games, he can either not purchase those games for his kid or disable the ability for the console to play games above a certain rating threshold. To be blunt, a responsible parent already has more than enough means to exercise that responsibility. Beyond that, video game retailers already subscribe to a voluntary system whereby they agree not to sell video games to minors. This system is similar to the system that movie theaters and rental operations have been a part of for decades. In fact, the system in place is already extremely effective.
However, when you want to bring the government into play and give them the power to oversee this entire arrangement, you are not only trampling on the rights of others, you are asking the government to exceed its mandate and limit free speech. It is simply not acceptable in a modern free society to limit the production or distribution of material deemed to be speech simply because one deems it questionable. Aside from the fact that not all people agree on what is or is not questionable, you are asking the government to take on the role of a parent. I fail to see how abdicating one's role as a parent and asking the government to step in and do the job instead is in line with conservative ideals.
The fact of the matter is that conservatives-in-name-only like you are happy to carry the constitution in their breast pockets and flog it at any opportunity in an argument, but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is and actually support the rights espoused within, you would rather take the easy way out and cede your rights and liberty to the government. That doesn't sound very conservative to me.
Calling oneself a conservative does not make it so. Actually espousing conservative beliefs, on the other hand, would go a long way to actually proving one's conservative leanings. Some of those beliefs might include (but not be limited to) limited power of government to abrogate the rights of the citizenry.
States' rights countermand the constitution? That isn't in line with conservative ideals, that is in line with a dissolution of the federal government. Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality. The simple fact of the matter is that the "liberty" that you most likely give lip service to but don't truly believe in means that other people are free to do things that you might not agree with.
How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.
The UN recently declared internet access to be a basic human right. I wonder what they would have to say about the government colluding with corporations to curtail the basic human rights of citizens of the United States.
Oh, who am I kidding. They probably won't have anything to say about it at all.
The fact that easy targets still exist in this day and age just goes to show that LulzSec does serve a purpose, even if you disagree with their methods.
As a Jew, I take offense to any and all depictions of Jesus that depict him as caucasian, aryan, or naked. I suppose it's time to move to Tennessee and start suing the bejesus (pun very much intended) out of everybody.
They obviously had someone on board, or OtherOS never would have been available in the first place. Because they had someone on board, they purchased PS3s. Then somebody else made the decision to retroactively remove functionality from the devices that they purchased, and they felt rightly outraged. It shouldn't be necessary to be a stockholder to expect that the consumer devices that you purchase won't be remotely disabled without any recourse in what essentially amounts to a bait-and-switch.
I know the Democrats are screwing up here. As a card carrying Dem I'll apologize for my people. Something that would help us help you though is if we could get a more solid base. The Dems are running scared, and they're pandering to Hollywood just to get enough money to fight the good fight.
So we should vote for a party that is willing to compromise its ideals on the vague promise that once they have enough power they will suddenly grow morals?
I knew that Iran was in league with some shady characters, but the Umbrella Corporation? What the hell are they thinking?!
I, for one, am glad that STARS is already on the scene, protecting us from Wesker and Ahmadinejad's zombie outbreak.
While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.
Yeah, what kind of jackass would want to pursue knowledge just for the sake of knowledge? They should have some kind of institution where those wackos are all segregated so that they can do their useless research in peace and not be a nuisance to the rest of us conscientious workers.
hoi paloi
People are stupid.
This is the most delicious kind of irony.
Except for the fact that GaAs is gallium arsenide.
It doesn't require any of those things, which is why so many courses from so many reputable institutions of higher learning are available online, free of charge, for anybody interested in learning. I think that one of the most important facets of college is, as you mentioned, that students are not expected to have full-time jobs and are instead expected to dedicate themselves to their studies, and further, that they have educational opportunities forced on them in the form of requirements. The requirement for students to take a course outside of their major isn't because other departments need the numbers.
No, I am working under the understanding that an 4 years in college as an undergraduate is a wonderful opportunity to further the education begun in high school and, for passionate students, to be continued afterward. When career-minded people plan on doing "what [they're] going to be doing for the rest of [their lives]" I find it truly depressing that they don't want to take the opportunity to explore other topics when the opportunity is in front of them. Some of the most interesting classes that I took during my undergraduate career were classes that were not required for my degree. People who don't care about learning should go to tech schools and institutes of technology and leave open the slots in real colleges that they would otherwise be depriving true students.
Maybe you and people like you should stick to trade schools so that you can learn a career and nothing but a career, and leave higher education to the people who actually want to get an education. Cheating your way through an education that you don't want is a disservice to you and a disservice to all of the people whom you are preventing from getting an education by taking up a spot that you don't even want in a class that you don't even care about.
10-11 hour workdays are perfectly feasible and can actually be easier on you than the typical 8 hour workday.
You are getting three day weekends, right?
That's the point. He doesn't like closed content, and he says that he doesn't plan on using it. Which part did you miss?
Kwispelbier has been around since 2007.
Have you considered buying your groceries at a grocery store?
What kind of idiot would use his real name for a Slashdot account?
So let me get this straight... The question that you are asking is "Is a platform really open if it is open to everybody and only a small percentage of people take advantage of that openness?"
Is a restaurant really open if only 1% of passersby enter? Is a store open if only 1% of customers make purchases?
Yes. If something is open then it is open, regardless of the percentage of users that take advantage.