You know, that's the most down to earth explanation I've heard. I completely agree with you. I don't believe in just "banning things for the common good" (heck, I'm even opposed to the v-chip). However, I do believe in making your kids understand and teaching them right and wrong. (Of course, that may change one I actually have kids.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of any of the "Postal" series. I think it's a horrible premise for a game. However, I did play "Doom" and "Quake", and have "Red Faction" for PS2, so I cannot condemn violent games. I just believe in teaching right for wrong (and not playing the game until the kids are in bed).
...but parents really do need to take responsibility for what they're kids see/play. At least any reasonable adult can tell the difference between a "make-believe" world of video games and reality. The truth is that kids (especially young ones) will mimic what they see in games/movies/etc.
I could go into the big news headlines of kids killing their sisters with WWE moves, kids with guns, etc., but I'll go with this one:
My buddy has a 3 year old. During the time his wife was away, my buddy would play GTA: Vice City, and his son would watch. The son thought it was cool when daddy "beat the shit" of of other guys with the bats. Well, Mom came home to see her son, and saw her son going to town on his favourite teddy bear with a kid-sized hockey stick. He said to his mom that it was because daddy did this "on tv". (And yes, the son would say daddy "beat the shit" out of somebody on tv.)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
A while back, one of the US T.V. Stations (ABC, CBS, NBC...don't remember which) ran a movie called "Hitler: Rise of Evil" (or something like that). The movie focused on Hitler's rise to power in Germany just before WW2.
The scary similarity comes from this: in the movie, a prominent Germain government building came "under attack" from a "terrorist" group (unknown if this was true or not). So, in order to stem any future "terrorist" attacks, Hitler drafted an act that proposed drastic measures, effectively limiting the freedoms people in Germany enjoyed. The act included (among other things) a ban on demonstrations, limited freedom of the press, and the right to be arrested without a warrant or evidence to support a crime being committed. Even "Hitler" himself said that they "would only be temporoary", and that anybody who was opposed to these new measures was "against Germany".
We all know what came out of that. The abuse of this power led to Hitler's WW2 and the attrocities he committed.
I saw this in the movie and immediately thought of the Patriot Act. I am not suggesting we would see a WW2 type atrocity happening in America. What I am suggesting (and seeing) is a slow erosion of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Should we be concerned? I would say yes.
As an example, over the last year/couple of years in the UK the HomeSec has been trying to get 'entitlement' cards, but a lot realized that this was little more than a backdoor way of getting compulsory ID...
As a matter of fact, there is discussion here in Canada for citizenship cards for Canadian citizens. Also, (I'm not sure if it's Canadian or American) Immigration officials have been requesting fingerprints of people "from specific ethnic origins" (read: from India, Pakistan, etc.)...all in the name of security. I am REALLY not a fan of either initiative.
Enough of a stink was made about it
Unfortunately, here in Canada, you'd have to move mountains to form a protest against anything. I'm hoping that will not be the case forever, but it just seems like us Canadians "take it in the chin".
Let's face it: in our digital age, privacy has become a scarce commodity. We just have to surf the net and wonderful items such as cookies and spyware are downloaded to our machine at no additional cost. Not to mention corporate internet tracking tools to see what employees are surfing.
And what about credit card information? Why should I have somebody analyze my purchases to determine what I buy? Or, retail companies who analyze sales data by region (even right down to the household). If I want to buy from your store, I will.
As much as people say, "You're information will not be shared with anybody else...", I personally don't believe it. That's like saying we can carry a water with a siv.
The old addage of, "Well, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear..." is a load of crap. Why should we have anything to track our movements? All we need is somebody to say something is illegal/unethical/etc, and they can find out who's been going to those "illegal/unethical/etc" places (whether on the net or on the street).
People have been crying to governments for years for privacy, but it seems governments cannot keep up with technology. Heck, even governments allow this kind of activity. There's been quite a controversy over street cameras here in Canada, whether they be cameras to patrol the streets to stop crime, to photo-radar to stop speeding, to red-light cameras...with no proof it stops crime.
I know this sounds too much like a rant, but what I'd like to know is what can we do about it? We cry when our privacy is invaded, but how can we protect it? I'm looking for some realistic and practical solutions (blowing up governments is not a practical solution:-) ).
Furthermore, Red Hat has shown no evidence that it is likely to be sued by SCO.
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well, what did you expect, Darl? You threaten the open-source community, actively call Linux customers and tell them they're liable for using Linux, and you don't expect somebody with some guts (and cash) to stand up to you?
It's like the school bully running to the principle after somebody he's pushed around pushed back.
...hybrid cars as well. Since the "great blackout of 2003", I've started to wonder about our need for energy and are looking at ways to saving energy. The fact a hybrid car burns less gas ( which means less dependency on fossil fuels, cleaner running, don't have to fill up as much, etc.) appeals to me right now.
However, "Car and Driver" did a review on the new Civic. While the milege was good and the body shape looked good, there were a couple of things they pointed out:
- You will end up spending more on the car (between the hybrid version and the regular Civic) than you will save on gas.
- The battery will last about 7-8 years, and (currently) there isn't a way to replace the battery.
So, be ready to spend a few $.
Mind you, I'm glad they now look like real cars as opposed to something that says, "With this car, I cannot possibly get a date!"
...but isn't the judge overdoing it a bit by making the spammer pay 250,000?
I think the spammer got off easy! It costs a lot more in people's time to delete unwanted spam from your e-mail (not to mention wasted bandwith, server space, time trying to filter these messages), and all for what? I keep getting "enlarge your penis" e-mails, no matter how many filters I can put on my private e-mail system. Let's face it, spammers can change the "from" in your e-mail address to a phrase or even a random sampling of letters.
"There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker - Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us." To Mr Raymond's partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.
Well, of course Mr. Raymond won't tell him who it is. Mr. McBride didn't sign the NDA!
A lot has been said about Redhat gaining publicity with this move, but I offer these questions: what if nobody decided to do anything? How would the public view it?
IBM is already knee-deep in this case since SCO "killed" their UNIX deal (puts a lot of AIX customers on the ropes). So, of course they'll launch a counter-suit. However, I think there would be a cry from the Linux community for somebody to stand up to SCO *other* than IBM.
You have to give Redhat credit. They're putting their money where their product is.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of any of the "Postal" series. I think it's a horrible premise for a game. However, I did play "Doom" and "Quake", and have "Red Faction" for PS2, so I cannot condemn violent games. I just believe in teaching right for wrong (and not playing the game until the kids are in bed).
I could go into the big news headlines of kids killing their sisters with WWE moves, kids with guns, etc., but I'll go with this one:
My buddy has a 3 year old. During the time his wife was away, my buddy would play GTA: Vice City, and his son would watch. The son thought it was cool when daddy "beat the shit" of of other guys with the bats. Well, Mom came home to see her son, and saw her son going to town on his favourite teddy bear with a kid-sized hockey stick. He said to his mom that it was because daddy did this "on tv". (And yes, the son would say daddy "beat the shit" out of somebody on tv.)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
I believe it's called parenting.
A while back, one of the US T.V. Stations (ABC, CBS, NBC...don't remember which) ran a movie called "Hitler: Rise of Evil" (or something like that). The movie focused on Hitler's rise to power in Germany just before WW2.
The scary similarity comes from this: in the movie, a prominent Germain government building came "under attack" from a "terrorist" group (unknown if this was true or not). So, in order to stem any future "terrorist" attacks, Hitler drafted an act that proposed drastic measures, effectively limiting the freedoms people in Germany enjoyed. The act included (among other things) a ban on demonstrations, limited freedom of the press, and the right to be arrested without a warrant or evidence to support a crime being committed. Even "Hitler" himself said that they "would only be temporoary", and that anybody who was opposed to these new measures was "against Germany".
We all know what came out of that. The abuse of this power led to Hitler's WW2 and the attrocities he committed.
I saw this in the movie and immediately thought of the Patriot Act. I am not suggesting we would see a WW2 type atrocity happening in America. What I am suggesting (and seeing) is a slow erosion of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Should we be concerned? I would say yes.
Naked.
Oh, thanks! That's one mental image I can do without! LOL!
The return of Yoko Ono?
As a matter of fact, there is discussion here in Canada for citizenship cards for Canadian citizens. Also, (I'm not sure if it's Canadian or American) Immigration officials have been requesting fingerprints of people "from specific ethnic origins" (read: from India, Pakistan, etc.)...all in the name of security. I am REALLY not a fan of either initiative.
Enough of a stink was made about it
Unfortunately, here in Canada, you'd have to move mountains to form a protest against anything. I'm hoping that will not be the case forever, but it just seems like us Canadians "take it in the chin".
But isn't there something fundamentally wrong that we have to pay for privacy? Isn't that a right?
Let's face it: in our digital age, privacy has become a scarce commodity. We just have to surf the net and wonderful items such as cookies and spyware are downloaded to our machine at no additional cost. Not to mention corporate internet tracking tools to see what employees are surfing.
And what about credit card information? Why should I have somebody analyze my purchases to determine what I buy? Or, retail companies who analyze sales data by region (even right down to the household). If I want to buy from your store, I will.
As much as people say, "You're information will not be shared with anybody else...", I personally don't believe it. That's like saying we can carry a water with a siv.
The old addage of, "Well, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear..." is a load of crap. Why should we have anything to track our movements? All we need is somebody to say something is illegal/unethical/etc, and they can find out who's been going to those "illegal/unethical/etc" places (whether on the net or on the street).
People have been crying to governments for years for privacy, but it seems governments cannot keep up with technology. Heck, even governments allow this kind of activity. There's been quite a controversy over street cameras here in Canada, whether they be cameras to patrol the streets to stop crime, to photo-radar to stop speeding, to red-light cameras...with no proof it stops crime.
I know this sounds too much like a rant, but what I'd like to know is what can we do about it? We cry when our privacy is invaded, but how can we protect it? I'm looking for some realistic and practical solutions (blowing up governments is not a practical solution :-) ).
Thanks.
That's a big drop for first thing in the morning.
And this is a bad thing...how? :-)
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well, what did you expect, Darl? You threaten the open-source community, actively call Linux customers and tell them they're liable for using Linux, and you don't expect somebody with some guts (and cash) to stand up to you?
It's like the school bully running to the principle after somebody he's pushed around pushed back.
Oh, wait...
Besides, CNN was showing people in NYClining up for groceries, batteries, etc. Then, they showed Canada - people lining up at the beer store!!!!
Well...could this mean we have our priorities?
You mean you get tax insentives?! They wouldn't do that in Canada. Besides, even if they did, they'd just raise the gas tax.
We have t-shirts up here that says, "Tax me, I'm Canadian".
However, "Car and Driver" did a review on the new Civic. While the milege was good and the body shape looked good, there were a couple of things they pointed out:
- You will end up spending more on the car (between the hybrid version and the regular Civic) than you will save on gas.
- The battery will last about 7-8 years, and (currently) there isn't a way to replace the battery.
So, be ready to spend a few $.
Mind you, I'm glad they now look like real cars as opposed to something that says, "With this car, I cannot possibly get a date!"
-----------
-----------
I think the spammer got off easy! It costs a lot more in people's time to delete unwanted spam from your e-mail (not to mention wasted bandwith, server space, time trying to filter these messages), and all for what? I keep getting "enlarge your penis" e-mails, no matter how many filters I can put on my private e-mail system. Let's face it, spammers can change the "from" in your e-mail address to a phrase or even a random sampling of letters.
So, no, I don't think $250,000 is too much.
Well, of course Mr. Raymond won't tell him who it is. Mr. McBride didn't sign the NDA!
Is it possible these people in the RIAA also run SCO? I'll just wait until I get the invoice.
>Graduation will now be known as "Upgrading" >or "Security Patching". ...or is that "Assimulation"?
A lot has been said about Redhat gaining publicity with this move, but I offer these questions: what if nobody decided to do anything? How would the public view it? IBM is already knee-deep in this case since SCO "killed" their UNIX deal (puts a lot of AIX customers on the ropes). So, of course they'll launch a counter-suit. However, I think there would be a cry from the Linux community for somebody to stand up to SCO *other* than IBM. You have to give Redhat credit. They're putting their money where their product is.