I'd submit that there is a big difference between a man having the responsibility of taking care of his kids and a game designer having the responsibility of the content of the game. When you have kids, you are creating humans which must be cared for if they are to live. There is no choice on the part of the kids as to whether they exist or not. The man has a responsibility simply because they exist. A game designer may or may not sell any games. Anyone who buys the game is doing so voluntarily. They don't have to play the game, they have that choice, but a child being born doesn't have the choice on whether to be born or not.
This is why I do not feel that game designers have any responsibility at all. They can still choose to take it, but there is no inherent responsibility.
There is still another point. If you create a game that is horribly violent and disgusting, the only people who will play it are those who are already attracted to that level of violence. People who are not already interested in violence will avoid the game. Nobody is being forced to play them. If a child commits violence after playing a game, it's not *because* they played the game, it's because they are already the type of person who will commit violence.
Game designers should be able to make any type of game they want to with any type of content they see fit. If it's too disgusting and violent, people simply won't play it. If they do, it's because they're already into that type of thing.
Very good response. It's not often I can have intelligent convos here.:) I like how you put "harm" and yes it is slippery slope. There is still a huge difference though. If you screw a chicken in front of your house, you directly are doing something "immoral", and you directly are breaking a law. When a video game designer creates a game, then a child plays the game and kills someone then blames the game, the designer is not directly involved with the breaking of any law.
To disagree on one point, when something is illegal that does not mean you cannot do it. It means there is a possible punishment after you do it. Murder is illegal yet people get murdered every day. Speeding is illegal, yet just today I sped. I happened to get away with speeding today as well. Nothing prevented me from speeding, but if I had been caught then there would be a punishment. So yes, you are allowed to build a building that will fall, screw a chicken, or murder someone, but that does not mean there are no consequences for doing so.
If legislators didn't destroy the concept of causation then there would be so much less money for them and their corporate friends to make.
A toaster causes toast. You put in bread, press the lever, and you get toast, every time.
A violent video game doesn't cause violence. If it did then every kid that played a violent game would go out and cause violence, just as a toaster causes toast, every single time.
It's easy to see the difference between causation and correlation but try explaining that to our legislators or even the general public. Video games don't cause violence, yet even though its an extremely simply concept to understand they just don't get it.
Sorry but morality has nothing to do with ones relationship to the divine and absolutely nothing to do with religion. Some people use religion as source material for their morals but there are many different places to get morals from, religion being only one of them. Children develop morals by watching their parents and by being disciplined by their parents way before they can even begin to understand religion.
www.dictionary.com Morals: 1 Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2 Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3 Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4 Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Not a single mention of religion. Religion is not required to have morals, though it can be a good source for them.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I was talking about individual morals, not culpability. You brought up a completely different subject.
What you're talking about is actual physical harm. A building falling down and killing people because of poor design is very different than a percieved non-physical harm caused by a video game. Whether you design a building to stand or fall has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with competance. A competant architect can build a building that stands, an incompetant one's buildings fall. And yes, you are allowed to build buildings that fall. It is impossible to prevent that. It is possible to punish it after the fact though. You're stuck in a universe where bad things are actually preventable and that is just not reality. You can lower the chances of bad things happening but you cannot prevent them. Trying to do so is what leads to nonsense laws like this.
If you want to discuss how society should hold people accountable then we can, but please don't change the subject just so you can accuse me of being an insensitive clod.:)
Sorry but that just doesn't make sense. Morals are self imposed. Each person decides what their own personal morals are. When they leave the realm of the individual and start applying to more than one person they become ethics. We used to have ethics classes in public schools, but never had morals classes because you can teach a group of people ethics but you cannot teach morals. You can try, as many do, but in the end morals are strictly a personal thing. If you can tell someone that their morals are wrong, then others can tell you that yours are wrong. If you don't think that others can dictate your morals for you then you cannot attempt to dictate them for others. To do so is called bigotry.
Since each person has their own unique set of morals, there can be no moral responsibility outside of the individual, and even then the individual decides if there will even be responsibility.
One person may feel that cheating on a spouse is perfectly moral while another feels it's immoral. The person who feels it's moral may choose to not cheat and the person who feels it's immoral may choose to cheat. What your morals are and whether you take responsibility for them is strictly an individuals choice and cannot be dictated. There is no such thing as moral responsibility until it's created by the individual.
What most people are talking about here are ethics, not morals. It can be argued that making violent video games is unethical but it is impossible to argue that it is immoral and to do so only shows that one does not understand the difference between morals and ethics.
What one chooses is not black and white, but all shades of grey. I believe you are the one reducing one's choices to black and white, where an individual may take all, some, or no responsibility for their creations.
Just as the Founding Fathers of the USA should have been more responsible, civic minded people and followed the rules of England, right? Dumping all that tea into the Boston Harbor was an act of terrorism, wasn't it?
One can choose to take responsibility or abandon it. You can give someone responsibility but that doesn't mean they have to take it. There is no such thing as inherent responsibility that is out of ones control. This is the essence of free will, the ability to choose what you do, what you create, and what you give a crap about. I'm not saying that there aren't any consequences for their actions, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be any, but the initial choice rests with the individual alone. If a game maker is forced to "take responsibility" through consequences, then all artists, musicians, and creators will have to be as well.
Do artists have a moral responsibility? Do authors have a moral responsibility? Do writers have a moral responsibility? They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.
On the screenshots page http://stripesnoop.sourceforge.net/screenshots.htm l there's a screenshot that has the text "Possibly a: "AAMVA Compliant North American Driver's License" then below that "Issuing Territory: California" It also says the standard is used in some parts of Canada as well. Where's my tin foil hat?
You obviously missed the whole point of his fight. He has no problem going though extra security checks. He does have a problem with invisible laws. RTFA next time before you rant and make yourself look silly and accuse him of something that is totally irrelevant.
I used to be a hard core trekkie. I loved every episode of TNG and Voyager. I liked most of DS9. I watched the first half of the first episode of Enterprise and knew that the trek phenomena was dead, at least on TV. I gotta agree with the parent, these things can only last so long then they die and I would much rather see that money put to something new, even if it is a new trek series.
Did we forget already that those have been practically banned because Bush didn't like the fact that Haliburton was sued in a class action lawsuit regarding asbestos. Bush even gave a speech where he called asbestos suits "frivolous", as if having millions of little needles poking holes in your lungs and killing you is just a silly little thing that doesn't warrant lawsuits.
So in answer to your question, you win the right to pay to travel to wherever the suit is being held so you can appear in person and then you get to win a tiny percentage of a settlement that will be capped which I figure will be around $5. Don't spend it all in one place, k?
Corporations are people. The courts have ruled that corporations have a lot of the same rights under the constitution as an individual does. Not all, but a lot of them.
Sorry...forgot...no legal action is required to get records. It's federal law for the companies to voluntarily hand over those records. Businesses selling cigs online that get a subpoena are most likely violating federal law in the first place and it has nothing to do with privacy.
The cig tax is a consumer use tax. This means it matters where the consumer is rather than where the item is sold. It doesn't matter if the cigs are bought from a Native American reservation or from Russia, the purchaser has to pay the tax for whatever state they are in.
I spoke with the Revenue dept. of the state I live in and they said that many states have been billing people for cig taxes for a few years now now. They don't bill everyone, but some states make more of an effort than others. This is very old, very un-newsworthy news.
There are roads that are not maintained by the government, and many people drive out of state on a regular basis. Sure it would be easy to read the odometer but that also counts the miles you drove on your private property if you have it, the miles driven in the private community that maintains it's own raods, and the miles driven around Las Vegas that one weekend. GPS allows them to set up tax/no-tax zones and is really the only way (besides toll booths) to keep things fair.
Do you really think ranch owners have separate cars for driving on a ranch and on public roads? I've known people who did 90% of their driving on their private ranch who's roads they have to pay to maintain themselves. The question is will they still be charged a tax for these miles?
Okay I TOTALLY agree with you on the change aspect. Counting change doesn't even require math if you know how to do it, just basic counting skills. What I'm talking about is basic operation. Order a burger and ask for no pickles. Usually they'll stare at you for a minute hoping you say "nevermind", then they'll stare at the register, then they'll call a manager over, then they'll just give up and tell the cook to not put pickles on your burger.
I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Think of all the jobs available that do not use computers of some kind. Without basic computer usage abilities, kids will be at a major disadvantage in the job market. Look at the register at a fast food place even. Ever tried to order food and had the kid not be able to figure out how to make changes or put in the order?
Your arguement requires the "what if" to be actually possible. It's not supposed to be anywhere near accurate because that's not the point. The point is to stretch the imagination and invent a story based on pure speculation. To take into account the possibility that someone else would have just done it ruins the exercize and makes the whole thing a dumb waste of time. It's just fun man. Don't ruin the fun.
What if slashdotters all had girlfriends? Don't wreck the fantasy man...
Slashdot Mirror
Very well put. Thanks for the response.
I'd submit that there is a big difference between a man having the responsibility of taking care of his kids and a game designer having the responsibility of the content of the game. When you have kids, you are creating humans which must be cared for if they are to live. There is no choice on the part of the kids as to whether they exist or not. The man has a responsibility simply because they exist.
A game designer may or may not sell any games. Anyone who buys the game is doing so voluntarily. They don't have to play the game, they have that choice, but a child being born doesn't have the choice on whether to be born or not.
This is why I do not feel that game designers have any responsibility at all. They can still choose to take it, but there is no inherent responsibility.
There is still another point. If you create a game that is horribly violent and disgusting, the only people who will play it are those who are already attracted to that level of violence. People who are not already interested in violence will avoid the game. Nobody is being forced to play them. If a child commits violence after playing a game, it's not *because* they played the game, it's because they are already the type of person who will commit violence.
Game designers should be able to make any type of game they want to with any type of content they see fit. If it's too disgusting and violent, people simply won't play it. If they do, it's because they're already into that type of thing.
Very good response. It's not often I can have intelligent convos here. :) I like how you put "harm" and yes it is slippery slope. There is still a huge difference though. If you screw a chicken in front of your house, you directly are doing something "immoral", and you directly are breaking a law. When a video game designer creates a game, then a child plays the game and kills someone then blames the game, the designer is not directly involved with the breaking of any law.
To disagree on one point, when something is illegal that does not mean you cannot do it. It means there is a possible punishment after you do it. Murder is illegal yet people get murdered every day. Speeding is illegal, yet just today I sped. I happened to get away with speeding today as well. Nothing prevented me from speeding, but if I had been caught then there would be a punishment. So yes, you are allowed to build a building that will fall, screw a chicken, or murder someone, but that does not mean there are no consequences for doing so.
In the toaster silly!
If legislators didn't destroy the concept of causation then there would be so much less money for them and their corporate friends to make.
A toaster causes toast. You put in bread, press the lever, and you get toast, every time.
A violent video game doesn't cause violence. If it did then every kid that played a violent game would go out and cause violence, just as a toaster causes toast, every single time.
It's easy to see the difference between causation and correlation but try explaining that to our legislators or even the general public. Video games don't cause violence, yet even though its an extremely simply concept to understand they just don't get it.
Sorry but morality has nothing to do with ones relationship to the divine and absolutely nothing to do with religion. Some people use religion as source material for their morals but there are many different places to get morals from, religion being only one of them. Children develop morals by watching their parents and by being disciplined by their parents way before they can even begin to understand religion.
www.dictionary.com
Morals:
1 Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2 Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3 Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4 Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Not a single mention of religion. Religion is not required to have morals, though it can be a good source for them.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I was talking about individual morals, not culpability. You brought up a completely different subject.
:)
What you're talking about is actual physical harm. A building falling down and killing people because of poor design is very different than a percieved non-physical harm caused by a video game. Whether you design a building to stand or fall has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with competance. A competant architect can build a building that stands, an incompetant one's buildings fall. And yes, you are allowed to build buildings that fall. It is impossible to prevent that. It is possible to punish it after the fact though. You're stuck in a universe where bad things are actually preventable and that is just not reality. You can lower the chances of bad things happening but you cannot prevent them. Trying to do so is what leads to nonsense laws like this.
If you want to discuss how society should hold people accountable then we can, but please don't change the subject just so you can accuse me of being an insensitive clod.
Sorry but that just doesn't make sense. Morals are self imposed. Each person decides what their own personal morals are. When they leave the realm of the individual and start applying to more than one person they become ethics. We used to have ethics classes in public schools, but never had morals classes because you can teach a group of people ethics but you cannot teach morals. You can try, as many do, but in the end morals are strictly a personal thing. If you can tell someone that their morals are wrong, then others can tell you that yours are wrong. If you don't think that others can dictate your morals for you then you cannot attempt to dictate them for others. To do so is called bigotry.
Since each person has their own unique set of morals, there can be no moral responsibility outside of the individual, and even then the individual decides if there will even be responsibility.
One person may feel that cheating on a spouse is perfectly moral while another feels it's immoral. The person who feels it's moral may choose to not cheat and the person who feels it's immoral may choose to cheat. What your morals are and whether you take responsibility for them is strictly an individuals choice and cannot be dictated. There is no such thing as moral responsibility until it's created by the individual.
What most people are talking about here are ethics, not morals. It can be argued that making violent video games is unethical but it is impossible to argue that it is immoral and to do so only shows that one does not understand the difference between morals and ethics.
What one chooses is not black and white, but all shades of grey. I believe you are the one reducing one's choices to black and white, where an individual may take all, some, or no responsibility for their creations.
Just as the Founding Fathers of the USA should have been more responsible, civic minded people and followed the rules of England, right? Dumping all that tea into the Boston Harbor was an act of terrorism, wasn't it?
One can choose to take responsibility or abandon it. You can give someone responsibility but that doesn't mean they have to take it. There is no such thing as inherent responsibility that is out of ones control. This is the essence of free will, the ability to choose what you do, what you create, and what you give a crap about. I'm not saying that there aren't any consequences for their actions, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be any, but the initial choice rests with the individual alone. If a game maker is forced to "take responsibility" through consequences, then all artists, musicians, and creators will have to be as well.
Do artists have a moral responsibility?
Do authors have a moral responsibility?
Do writers have a moral responsibility?
They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.
On the screenshots page http://stripesnoop.sourceforge.net/screenshots.htm l there's a screenshot that has the text "Possibly a: "AAMVA Compliant North American Driver's License"
then below that "Issuing Territory: California"
It also says the standard is used in some parts of Canada as well. Where's my tin foil hat?
You obviously missed the whole point of his fight. He has no problem going though extra security checks. He does have a problem with invisible laws. RTFA next time before you rant and make yourself look silly and accuse him of something that is totally irrelevant.
I used to be a hard core trekkie. I loved every episode of TNG and Voyager. I liked most of DS9. I watched the first half of the first episode of Enterprise and knew that the trek phenomena was dead, at least on TV. I gotta agree with the parent, these things can only last so long then they die and I would much rather see that money put to something new, even if it is a new trek series.
Did we forget already that those have been practically banned because Bush didn't like the fact that Haliburton was sued in a class action lawsuit regarding asbestos. Bush even gave a speech where he called asbestos suits "frivolous", as if having millions of little needles poking holes in your lungs and killing you is just a silly little thing that doesn't warrant lawsuits.
So in answer to your question, you win the right to pay to travel to wherever the suit is being held so you can appear in person and then you get to win a tiny percentage of a settlement that will be capped which I figure will be around $5. Don't spend it all in one place, k?
heh..."in reality"....heh
Corporations are people. The courts have ruled that corporations have a lot of the same rights under the constitution as an individual does. Not all, but a lot of them.
Sorry...forgot...no legal action is required to get records. It's federal law for the companies to voluntarily hand over those records. Businesses selling cigs online that get a subpoena are most likely violating federal law in the first place and it has nothing to do with privacy.
The cig tax is a consumer use tax. This means it matters where the consumer is rather than where the item is sold. It doesn't matter if the cigs are bought from a Native American reservation or from Russia, the purchaser has to pay the tax for whatever state they are in.
I spoke with the Revenue dept. of the state I live in and they said that many states have been billing people for cig taxes for a few years now now. They don't bill everyone, but some states make more of an effort than others. This is very old, very un-newsworthy news.
There are roads that are not maintained by the government, and many people drive out of state on a regular basis. Sure it would be easy to read the odometer but that also counts the miles you drove on your private property if you have it, the miles driven in the private community that maintains it's own raods, and the miles driven around Las Vegas that one weekend. GPS allows them to set up tax/no-tax zones and is really the only way (besides toll booths) to keep things fair.
Do you really think ranch owners have separate cars for driving on a ranch and on public roads? I've known people who did 90% of their driving on their private ranch who's roads they have to pay to maintain themselves. The question is will they still be charged a tax for these miles?
KVM
Just get a KVM switch and hook it up to a linux box and a windows box. Problem solved.
Okay I TOTALLY agree with you on the change aspect. Counting change doesn't even require math if you know how to do it, just basic counting skills. What I'm talking about is basic operation. Order a burger and ask for no pickles. Usually they'll stare at you for a minute hoping you say "nevermind", then they'll stare at the register, then they'll call a manager over, then they'll just give up and tell the cook to not put pickles on your burger.
I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Think of all the jobs available that do not use computers of some kind. Without basic computer usage abilities, kids will be at a major disadvantage in the job market. Look at the register at a fast food place even. Ever tried to order food and had the kid not be able to figure out how to make changes or put in the order?
Your arguement requires the "what if" to be actually possible. It's not supposed to be anywhere near accurate because that's not the point. The point is to stretch the imagination and invent a story based on pure speculation. To take into account the possibility that someone else would have just done it ruins the exercize and makes the whole thing a dumb waste of time. It's just fun man. Don't ruin the fun.
What if slashdotters all had girlfriends? Don't wreck the fantasy man...