I'm not going (unless Slayer opens for them or something, even then it's iffy), but if you do go, just remember...
The people wearing costumes are not monsters that you need to attack! This is not a real version of Kingdom Hearts!
With that said, Carlos, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Japan! You, um, can't do that kind of stuff here. You just can't. I mean, it just doesn't work that way. This just has "spooky" and "homoerotic" written all over it. And, being at a Disney place, it's just plain weird. You're probably not worried about getting labeled with a common name like Carlos Rodriguez, but man, think about the people that are before you ask a question like this. You could ruin somebody's social life by making them think that it's ok!
The only thing that they have to do now is put officially licensed cars in the Grand Theft Auto series, and I'll be happy. I'm surprised that they wouldn't want to after its success.
They're just testing to see if the open source software people will actually look at it. Otherwise, you'd know by now that it's just a shitload of ASCII art (like a big page-length piece saying TUX SUX).
Speaking of Dean, that reminds me, Nissan should've used Howard when developing their sonic cannon. I mean, did you see that speech where he started ye...
*Cue music*
NOBODY expects the Moderator Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear.... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency.. and an almost fanatical devotion to the Dean... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise... I'll come in again...
Customer Rep. Exec: Apparently consumers are complaining about hail damage to their cars. CEO: Hail damage? Head Engineer: Great, just great. The biggest problem that people want to complain about, we have no solution for. Hell, we were never even told that this was a problem! CEO: Ok, ok. Look, we have to think. Does anybody have an idea as to how we handle this? Guile: Sonic boom!
And so, Col. Guile's post-Street Fighter career, previously up in the air, was solidified.
Good to see such a well-reasoned argument! You've obviously researched the subject thoroughly and your in-depth answer will go a long way to assuage people's concerns.
My point is that it's not the government's place to do so, it's the parents'. That's what my last two sentences in that paragraph implied. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned maturation rates.
So why can't the parents just buy the games for the kids? Believe it or not, and I know it's shocking but trust me on this, kids don't always obey the law, obey their parents, do what's best for themselves, etc. Ban the sale of violent games to kids and parents can still choose to buy those games for their kids. I, uh, think that's the point...
Of course kids can be bad, no shit. But not every parent wants the government enforcing values upon their children that they either don't agree with or want to enforce themselves. I couldn't care less what "the point" might be, my point is that their bill is too invasive. Let the parents decide whether or not their kids can buy them. Let the parents punish their own kids if they disobey them. Quit trying to act like the government should be a minor's nanny, it's not what they were meant to do.
Parents rights are indeed being infringed. If this was to be made into law, a parent wouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not their kid can pick up violent games on their own, thus imposing on their right to choose what's best for their kids. If a parent wants to let them buy a violent game on their own, that should be their choice. If a kid wasn't allowed to do so by their parent, then it's up to the parent to find out about it and punish them for it. The government should not be able to decide that for the parent. Parents have different ways that they want to handle things, so one way of doing things doesn't work for everyone. Therefore, the government should stay out of those kind of decisions.
Here's a common example; this would be a huge pain in the ass for a family that has teenagers that are considered minors in the eyes of the law, because most teenagers are indeed able to handle violent games. The teenager keeps having to make a parent tag along with them or go pick up a game for them. Some parents might not have the time to go pick them up, some might get tired of having to. In fact, they might get so sick of it that they choose not to pick them up anymore. So, even a kid still could obtain an M-rated game with the help of a parent, these politicans still have their intended result of keeping violent games out of the hands of children, whether or not that's the way the parent sees things.
Other than certain exceptions (Manhunt, possibly GTA), most M-rated games would be the equivalent of a PG-13 movie. Therefore, they're really not that dangerous in a kids' hands anyways. Not to mention, hiding games would be harder than hell for a kid. A parent is bound to notice that the kid is missing some of their money and that they're hiding something from them. If they cannot, then there's probably some negligence issues going on.
I would assume that this bill goes after all M-rated games rather than blacklisting certain ones, simply because it's easier and still accomplishes more of what this politician wants. Does anybody have information that says otherwise?
I'm of the opinion that the government is greatly overstepping their boundaries when they try to control what video games a kid can purchase on their own. That's for the parents to decide and the parents to enforce, not the government.
Now, if a store was to decide what should be sold to minors, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If they don't want to, it's their choice because it's their store. I just don't want them to be forced by the government to do so.
He gets a bad rap, he's only trying to help people. There's a lot of people who have bad grammar, you know! Clippy's just trying to prevent other peoples' stupid mistakes!
While reading the article, I found this lovely excerpt:
Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, who sponsored her state's bill, said bans like this aren't censorship.
"There is a great deal of precedent for restricting dangerous things like alcohol and tobacco to minors," she said.
The last time I checked, alcohol and tobacco are restricted to minors because they posed large physical health risks. A video game's content does not cause physical health problems. If you're worried about their mental health, don't be. Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids. Kids mature at different rates, therefore it should be up to the parent to decide what is best for them.
Politicians like Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson should keep in mind that some people actually want to be parents of their own children, rather than have a whistle-stopper do it for them.
Who ever said that I was attacking him? I was simply stating what I thought he should do, not trying to kick him while he was down. He posed a question, and I gave him an honest answer. Don't try to make it sound like I was wanting to attack. I simply did not want him to make an irrational decision.
Until he responded to my initial post, there was plenty of room for speculation. He did a good enough job clearing that up by responding on his own.
Right, but it doesn't need to be common knowledge. As previously discussed in this thread, you have to have an initial attack to discover that you have a photosensitivity problem. As soon as you are diagnosed, your doctor explains to you your problem and what you should avoid. If a doctor does not, then they are negligent.
This isn't a matter of common knowledge. Epileptics know the score after they are diagnosed. Unless somebody is extremely paranoid, they usually don't try to steer clear of problems that involve a condition that they probably don't have.
So, games shouldn't have to be properly labelled, period.
I never meant to imply that you did support government regulations, I just needed to let it be known that I wasn't for it. I was afraid that I might be giving off "the wrong vibes."
I thought along the lines of "given this situation, what *is* the right thing?" I would imagine that the latter is a more productive question to ask in a public forum.
True, but I would hope that the guy wasn't looking for a good, specific answer in this case.
No, but it's a nice thing to mention if it contains nickle in the alloy... so nickle sensitive individuals can avoid it. In the same vein, it would be nice if videogames mentioned if there was significant strobe lighting.
Nice, yes. But legally necessary? Probably not, nor should it be. We could do a lot of things that are nice, but taking into account each and every special case would be overwhelming.
Many people here seem to think he's looking to sue. Maybe, maybe not. In the group I hang out with, there's a fellow who is very prone to seizures, and we'll occasionally change our plans to avoid things that might give him a problem. Really simple. I have *zero* problem with it, as I had a friend who died having a seizure. I'd rather skip a movie or ride and retain Mark as a living friend.
He made it clear in his post that he expected that potentially harmful games should be labelled. He also wanted to know who is responsible for the labelling of games and whether or not labelling was mandatory. I figured that he might want to sue because, to me, his questions didn't make it seem like he was just curious. I figured that I'd write that last paragraph just in case.
As for your friends, it would be nice if there were more warnings out there for them. I wouldn't want them to be government mandated, but that's a whole different discussion. However, there is a fair amount of risk assessment done before releasing something that's potentially hazardous to the public. Generally, warnings are placed if something has a chance of affecting a large amount of the population. That's why rides list warnings pertaining to people with heart problems, because there are a lot of people who might have them (the overweight) or already do. I don't know specific figures on how many people suffer from epilepsy, but I don't believe there's enough to warrant that kind of warning. Again, you can't cater to every situation. People who have epilepsy know beforehand that they cannot handle certain things, which is why you change plans to suit your friend's needs. Warning the photosensitive about specific potential problems seems to be more of a convenience issue than a protection issue. I would assume that potential problems are outlined by a doctor as soon as one is diagnosed, just as any other health problem is.
A BETTER question might be - are there any websites that list video games that are safe or unsafe for photosensitive individuals. That makes it much easier for a concerned parent to make purchacing decisions. Two minutes on Google didn't find anything... maybe this is a open opportunity. (Lots of medical studies of the effects of video games, though... appears that only 5% of epileptic adults have problems with strobes, but the rate is much higher in children).
Your site idea seems like a very good one. Not only would it help epileptic people, but it would also take pressure off of other groups as well because they wouldn't have another group of people wanting special attention.
He may not have known. Everybody with a risk of seizure has to have a first episode to learn that they have a problem. Now that the parent knows, he'll be looking around for resources.
I believe that he did know. He said:
The game was labeled as one for younger children, but had no warnings about photosensitive seizures on either the packaging or associated documentation, and I assumed that it would be a safe game for him to play.
Now, unless he was extremely overprotective, there would be no reason for him to worry about his son having a photosensitive seizure. As you said, it takes a first episode to learn about having a problem. What's the likelihood of AccUser specifically looking for photosensitivity warnings before knowing that his son had a problem? That would be like him wanting to know if a certain plant or animal could trigger an allergic reaction in certain people before knowing that his son even had allergies.
It would have been nice if AccUser would've told us why he is asking those questions and given a bit more background information on his son's problems, rather than leave us all to speculate.
Just because this game didn't have a warning doesn't mean that it should have been necessary. Your knowledge that some games had these warnings initially should have been enough to tip you off that this game might not have been safe for your child. The fact that it omitted a warning doesn't shouldn't imply anything. Does a fork set imply that it's safe to stick one of its forks into a light socket if it does not include a warning? No, even if there are others that warn you that it's not a bright idea.
I have a feeling that you're wanting to sue somebody in this situation. Instead, you should accept the fact that you made an error in your parental judgement. You shouldn't have let him play the game without consulting his doctor, whether or not the game had a warning, because you knew that video games could potentially cause a problem before you let your son play the game. Besides, you can't go around trying to protect everybody from everything. Don't try to pass blame onto anybody else, just apologize to your son and move on.
I knew it, I just knew it. I thought to myself, "illuminata, don't click the submit button. Don't do it! There's dumbasses running rampant and they have mod points. They'll mod you as a troll!" Well, thank you for proving my initial thought correct.
Now, I have to spell it out for some dipshit moderator who just didn't get it, even though it might spoil the parent's joke. You see, this invetor's name is Michael Fallwell. There is a crazy minister called Jerry Falwell. Jerry hates gay people. He led a campaign against Teletubbie Tinky Winky because he thought it was gay. He blamed gays for the 9/11 attacks, claiming that God was angry with gay people. Search up on him, you'll find out much more.
You know, up until now, I never did know that they made computers with internet access available to people in special ed. Even if I did know beforehand, I would have never fathomed that Slashdot wouldn't be filtered out. Regardless, even being a genuine retard leaves no excuse for modding that post as a troll. If you have the mental capacity to moderate posts on Slashdot, you should also be capable of finding out what a post is talking about before moderating.
Hallelujah. I bet he plans on using this technology that he's developed to spy on homosexuals. He probably just doesn't want any faggy innuendos in the media or God letting terrorist attacks slip through the cracks because of it. Now, he has them by the balls (in a non-gay way), they can't get around this 'scope, baby!
The design looks a bit silly to me. I think he's probably watching a bit too much Puppetry of the Penis. But, he'd never admit to watching that kind of queer shit, even if he was!
I don't know why it was moderated that way. Although, it does make me wonder if Stallman would try and pull something like that off. I mean, this whole "put the community at work to make things better" attitude might just be a front for free labor. Yes, I do know that many get commissioned for their work, but they don't have to be in this situation.
I bet Stallman is much more for anti-corporatism than FOSS alone. Just get a bunch of free software with the source code available, and who would refuse? Instant competition for companies with free to cheap labor behind it, all for the "good" of the community. If this wasn't an anti-corporate thing, why would he be pushing it as a movement anyways? It seems to me like he might just be pushing his view of what freedom is by propagating FOSS while hoping that the corporate software companies shrivel up and die, with good little workers moving things along. Whether or not people endorse him, it's implied by the use and development of FOSS. He's spearheading it, so he takes the credit for it. Right now, it seems as if Stallman's wanting to become a socialist icon in the technology realm by running his own little mini-utopia. I do use Linux (albeit I don't make my software usage a political thing), but I can't help but wonder.
Anyways, as for the funny modifier is fucked up, so maybe modding it informative or insightful was meant as a loophole. I'm starting to think that, if the editors won't allow the funny modifier to be used the right way, maybe it shouldn't be used at all. Just toss out positive modifiers to funny comments with a wink and a nod.
Comcast tells you that they provide digital cable, but all of your basic and extended basic channels (up to the 100s) are still analog. As far as weather goes, Comcast still goes out when a storm rolls over their local property. DirecTV did go out a little bit more often when heavy precipitation occurs, but it's nowhere near ss bad as the cable ads put on.
Comcast also gives me ads on their slow, oversized program guide (provided by TV Guide). When I get program info or use a full-screen menu, they greet me with two. You can even select them with your remote to get more info! Whoopee! They also transmit slowly. At least people who don't purchase any digital packages don't have to put up with them.
As far as picture quality goes, DirecTV still wins. Comcast's signal strength is a problem in my area. They have to work on the area lines about once every three months, and you're generally at their mercy for anywhere from a few hours to a few days. In fact, the analog stations often look better than the digital ones, and sometimes certain digital channels won't be able to find a signal at all. My place had the coaxial cabling rewired throughout when I first moved in, too. There are a lot of blurry edges around objects, much like you'd see with a poorly compressed MPEG. DirecTV's picture is better, although there is about a half second's delay in transmission compared to cable.
Last but not least, Comcast charges more for less. The channels are worse and the packages are grouped so that there's a little bit of everything in each one, rather than grouping them by genre (except for the movie channels). We don't even get basics like the Travel Channel yet. They just now gave us E! and FoodTV.
The only reason that I can see for going with Comcast is to receive local channels in better quality (although DirecTV is picking up the slack in that area). If that isn't a huge sticking point, go with DirecTV.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going (unless Slayer opens for them or something, even then it's iffy), but if you do go, just remember...
The people wearing costumes are not monsters that you need to attack! This is not a real version of Kingdom Hearts!
With that said, Carlos, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Japan! You, um, can't do that kind of stuff here. You just can't. I mean, it just doesn't work that way. This just has "spooky" and "homoerotic" written all over it. And, being at a Disney place, it's just plain weird. You're probably not worried about getting labeled with a common name like Carlos Rodriguez, but man, think about the people that are before you ask a question like this. You could ruin somebody's social life by making them think that it's ok!
It's the "I can tell Vodaphone to swallow my balls now" plan.
I posted that with your idea in mind.
Unless a car company wanted to showcase their security system...
The only thing that they have to do now is put officially licensed cars in the Grand Theft Auto series, and I'll be happy. I'm surprised that they wouldn't want to after its success.
They're just testing to see if the open source software people will actually look at it. Otherwise, you'd know by now that it's just a shitload of ASCII art (like a big page-length piece saying TUX SUX).
Speaking of Dean, that reminds me, Nissan should've used Howard when developing their sonic cannon. I mean, did you see that speech where he started ye...
*Cue music*
NOBODY expects the Moderator Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear.... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency.. and an almost fanatical devotion to the Dean... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise... I'll come in again...
Customer Rep. Exec: Apparently consumers are complaining about hail damage to their cars.
CEO: Hail damage?
Head Engineer: Great, just great. The biggest problem that people want to complain about, we have no solution for. Hell, we were never even told that this was a problem!
CEO: Ok, ok. Look, we have to think. Does anybody have an idea as to how we handle this?
Guile: Sonic boom!
And so, Col. Guile's post-Street Fighter career, previously up in the air, was solidified.
Good to see such a well-reasoned argument! You've obviously researched the subject thoroughly and your in-depth answer will go a long way to assuage people's concerns.
My point is that it's not the government's place to do so, it's the parents'. That's what my last two sentences in that paragraph implied. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned maturation rates.
So why can't the parents just buy the games for the kids? Believe it or not, and I know it's shocking but trust me on this, kids don't always obey the law, obey their parents, do what's best for themselves, etc. Ban the sale of violent games to kids and parents can still choose to buy those games for their kids. I, uh, think that's the point...
Of course kids can be bad, no shit. But not every parent wants the government enforcing values upon their children that they either don't agree with or want to enforce themselves. I couldn't care less what "the point" might be, my point is that their bill is too invasive. Let the parents decide whether or not their kids can buy them. Let the parents punish their own kids if they disobey them. Quit trying to act like the government should be a minor's nanny, it's not what they were meant to do.
Parents rights are indeed being infringed. If this was to be made into law, a parent wouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not their kid can pick up violent games on their own, thus imposing on their right to choose what's best for their kids. If a parent wants to let them buy a violent game on their own, that should be their choice. If a kid wasn't allowed to do so by their parent, then it's up to the parent to find out about it and punish them for it. The government should not be able to decide that for the parent. Parents have different ways that they want to handle things, so one way of doing things doesn't work for everyone. Therefore, the government should stay out of those kind of decisions.
Here's a common example; this would be a huge pain in the ass for a family that has teenagers that are considered minors in the eyes of the law, because most teenagers are indeed able to handle violent games. The teenager keeps having to make a parent tag along with them or go pick up a game for them. Some parents might not have the time to go pick them up, some might get tired of having to. In fact, they might get so sick of it that they choose not to pick them up anymore. So, even a kid still could obtain an M-rated game with the help of a parent, these politicans still have their intended result of keeping violent games out of the hands of children, whether or not that's the way the parent sees things.
Other than certain exceptions (Manhunt, possibly GTA), most M-rated games would be the equivalent of a PG-13 movie. Therefore, they're really not that dangerous in a kids' hands anyways. Not to mention, hiding games would be harder than hell for a kid. A parent is bound to notice that the kid is missing some of their money and that they're hiding something from them. If they cannot, then there's probably some negligence issues going on.
I would assume that this bill goes after all M-rated games rather than blacklisting certain ones, simply because it's easier and still accomplishes more of what this politician wants. Does anybody have information that says otherwise?
I'm of the opinion that the government is greatly overstepping their boundaries when they try to control what video games a kid can purchase on their own. That's for the parents to decide and the parents to enforce, not the government.
Now, if a store was to decide what should be sold to minors, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If they don't want to, it's their choice because it's their store. I just don't want them to be forced by the government to do so.
Clippy has to service more people every day than Lil' Kim does at The Source awards every year. He does his best. Back off.
But... but I like Clippy.
He gets a bad rap, he's only trying to help people. There's a lot of people who have bad grammar, you know! Clippy's just trying to prevent other peoples' stupid mistakes!
And he does it with a smile!
MIPI just got confused. They didn't realize that a file sharing network didn't include physical files.
Besides, with a name like MIPI, could you really stay mad at them for that long?
While reading the article, I found this lovely excerpt:
Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, who sponsored her state's bill, said bans like this aren't censorship.
"There is a great deal of precedent for restricting dangerous things like alcohol and tobacco to minors," she said.
The last time I checked, alcohol and tobacco are restricted to minors because they posed large physical health risks. A video game's content does not cause physical health problems. If you're worried about their mental health, don't be. Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids. Kids mature at different rates, therefore it should be up to the parent to decide what is best for them.
Politicians like Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson should keep in mind that some people actually want to be parents of their own children, rather than have a whistle-stopper do it for them.
Who ever said that I was attacking him? I was simply stating what I thought he should do, not trying to kick him while he was down. He posed a question, and I gave him an honest answer. Don't try to make it sound like I was wanting to attack. I simply did not want him to make an irrational decision.
Until he responded to my initial post, there was plenty of room for speculation. He did a good enough job clearing that up by responding on his own.
Right, but it doesn't need to be common knowledge. As previously discussed in this thread, you have to have an initial attack to discover that you have a photosensitivity problem. As soon as you are diagnosed, your doctor explains to you your problem and what you should avoid. If a doctor does not, then they are negligent.
This isn't a matter of common knowledge. Epileptics know the score after they are diagnosed. Unless somebody is extremely paranoid, they usually don't try to steer clear of problems that involve a condition that they probably don't have.
So, games shouldn't have to be properly labelled, period.
I never meant to imply that you did support government regulations, I just needed to let it be known that I wasn't for it. I was afraid that I might be giving off "the wrong vibes."
I thought along the lines of "given this situation, what *is* the right thing?" I would imagine that the latter is a more productive question to ask in a public forum.
True, but I would hope that the guy wasn't looking for a good, specific answer in this case.
No, but it's a nice thing to mention if it contains nickle in the alloy... so nickle sensitive individuals can avoid it. In the same vein, it would be nice if videogames mentioned if there was significant strobe lighting.
Nice, yes. But legally necessary? Probably not, nor should it be. We could do a lot of things that are nice, but taking into account each and every special case would be overwhelming.
Many people here seem to think he's looking to sue. Maybe, maybe not. In the group I hang out with, there's a fellow who is very prone to seizures, and we'll occasionally change our plans to avoid things that might give him a problem. Really simple. I have *zero* problem with it, as I had a friend who died having a seizure. I'd rather skip a movie or ride and retain Mark as a living friend.
He made it clear in his post that he expected that potentially harmful games should be labelled. He also wanted to know who is responsible for the labelling of games and whether or not labelling was mandatory. I figured that he might want to sue because, to me, his questions didn't make it seem like he was just curious. I figured that I'd write that last paragraph just in case.
As for your friends, it would be nice if there were more warnings out there for them. I wouldn't want them to be government mandated, but that's a whole different discussion. However, there is a fair amount of risk assessment done before releasing something that's potentially hazardous to the public. Generally, warnings are placed if something has a chance of affecting a large amount of the population. That's why rides list warnings pertaining to people with heart problems, because there are a lot of people who might have them (the overweight) or already do. I don't know specific figures on how many people suffer from epilepsy, but I don't believe there's enough to warrant that kind of warning. Again, you can't cater to every situation. People who have epilepsy know beforehand that they cannot handle certain things, which is why you change plans to suit your friend's needs. Warning the photosensitive about specific potential problems seems to be more of a convenience issue than a protection issue. I would assume that potential problems are outlined by a doctor as soon as one is diagnosed, just as any other health problem is.
A BETTER question might be - are there any websites that list video games that are safe or unsafe for photosensitive individuals. That makes it much easier for a concerned parent to make purchacing decisions. Two minutes on Google didn't find anything... maybe this is a open opportunity. (Lots of medical studies of the effects of video games, though... appears that only 5% of epileptic adults have problems with strobes, but the rate is much higher in children).
Your site idea seems like a very good one. Not only would it help epileptic people, but it would also take pressure off of other groups as well because they wouldn't have another group of people wanting special attention.
He may not have known. Everybody with a risk of seizure has to have a first episode to learn that they have a problem. Now that the parent knows, he'll be looking around for resources.
I believe that he did know. He said:
The game was labeled as one for younger children, but had no warnings about photosensitive seizures on either the packaging or associated documentation, and I assumed that it would be a safe game for him to play.
Now, unless he was extremely overprotective, there would be no reason for him to worry about his son having a photosensitive seizure. As you said, it takes a first episode to learn about having a problem. What's the likelihood of AccUser specifically looking for photosensitivity warnings before knowing that his son had a problem? That would be like him wanting to know if a certain plant or animal could trigger an allergic reaction in certain people before knowing that his son even had allergies.
It would have been nice if AccUser would've told us why he is asking those questions and given a bit more background information on his son's problems, rather than leave us all to speculate.
Just because this game didn't have a warning doesn't mean that it should have been necessary. Your knowledge that some games had these warnings initially should have been enough to tip you off that this game might not have been safe for your child. The fact that it omitted a warning doesn't shouldn't imply anything. Does a fork set imply that it's safe to stick one of its forks into a light socket if it does not include a warning? No, even if there are others that warn you that it's not a bright idea.
I have a feeling that you're wanting to sue somebody in this situation. Instead, you should accept the fact that you made an error in your parental judgement. You shouldn't have let him play the game without consulting his doctor, whether or not the game had a warning, because you knew that video games could potentially cause a problem before you let your son play the game. Besides, you can't go around trying to protect everybody from everything. Don't try to pass blame onto anybody else, just apologize to your son and move on.
I knew it, I just knew it. I thought to myself, "illuminata, don't click the submit button. Don't do it! There's dumbasses running rampant and they have mod points. They'll mod you as a troll!" Well, thank you for proving my initial thought correct.
Now, I have to spell it out for some dipshit moderator who just didn't get it, even though it might spoil the parent's joke. You see, this invetor's name is Michael Fallwell. There is a crazy minister called Jerry Falwell. Jerry hates gay people. He led a campaign against Teletubbie Tinky Winky because he thought it was gay. He blamed gays for the 9/11 attacks, claiming that God was angry with gay people. Search up on him, you'll find out much more.
You know, up until now, I never did know that they made computers with internet access available to people in special ed. Even if I did know beforehand, I would have never fathomed that Slashdot wouldn't be filtered out. Regardless, even being a genuine retard leaves no excuse for modding that post as a troll. If you have the mental capacity to moderate posts on Slashdot, you should also be capable of finding out what a post is talking about before moderating.
Hallelujah. I bet he plans on using this technology that he's developed to spy on homosexuals. He probably just doesn't want any faggy innuendos in the media or God letting terrorist attacks slip through the cracks because of it. Now, he has them by the balls (in a non-gay way), they can't get around this 'scope, baby!
The design looks a bit silly to me. I think he's probably watching a bit too much Puppetry of the Penis. But, he'd never admit to watching that kind of queer shit, even if he was!
But masturbation wants to be free.
However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok.
I think that the submitter was just pissed off that he couldn't lift the mice and keyboards anymore.
I don't know why it was moderated that way. Although, it does make me wonder if Stallman would try and pull something like that off. I mean, this whole "put the community at work to make things better" attitude might just be a front for free labor. Yes, I do know that many get commissioned for their work, but they don't have to be in this situation.
I bet Stallman is much more for anti-corporatism than FOSS alone. Just get a bunch of free software with the source code available, and who would refuse? Instant competition for companies with free to cheap labor behind it, all for the "good" of the community. If this wasn't an anti-corporate thing, why would he be pushing it as a movement anyways? It seems to me like he might just be pushing his view of what freedom is by propagating FOSS while hoping that the corporate software companies shrivel up and die, with good little workers moving things along. Whether or not people endorse him, it's implied by the use and development of FOSS. He's spearheading it, so he takes the credit for it. Right now, it seems as if Stallman's wanting to become a socialist icon in the technology realm by running his own little mini-utopia. I do use Linux (albeit I don't make my software usage a political thing), but I can't help but wonder.
Anyways, as for the funny modifier is fucked up, so maybe modding it informative or insightful was meant as a loophole. I'm starting to think that, if the editors won't allow the funny modifier to be used the right way, maybe it shouldn't be used at all. Just toss out positive modifiers to funny comments with a wink and a nod.
Comcast tells you that they provide digital cable, but all of your basic and extended basic channels (up to the 100s) are still analog. As far as weather goes, Comcast still goes out when a storm rolls over their local property. DirecTV did go out a little bit more often when heavy precipitation occurs, but it's nowhere near ss bad as the cable ads put on.
Comcast also gives me ads on their slow, oversized program guide (provided by TV Guide). When I get program info or use a full-screen menu, they greet me with two. You can even select them with your remote to get more info! Whoopee! They also transmit slowly. At least people who don't purchase any digital packages don't have to put up with them.
As far as picture quality goes, DirecTV still wins. Comcast's signal strength is a problem in my area. They have to work on the area lines about once every three months, and you're generally at their mercy for anywhere from a few hours to a few days. In fact, the analog stations often look better than the digital ones, and sometimes certain digital channels won't be able to find a signal at all. My place had the coaxial cabling rewired throughout when I first moved in, too. There are a lot of blurry edges around objects, much like you'd see with a poorly compressed MPEG. DirecTV's picture is better, although there is about a half second's delay in transmission compared to cable.
Last but not least, Comcast charges more for less. The channels are worse and the packages are grouped so that there's a little bit of everything in each one, rather than grouping them by genre (except for the movie channels). We don't even get basics like the Travel Channel yet. They just now gave us E! and FoodTV.
The only reason that I can see for going with Comcast is to receive local channels in better quality (although DirecTV is picking up the slack in that area). If that isn't a huge sticking point, go with DirecTV.
Tech TV is still carried by Comcast where I'm at, but they have juggled it in the new package lineups to a special digital package.