We never had people bringing guns to school before video games became popular.
care to prove that?
I have lived long enough to remember what it was like before violent video games. And it has only been in the recent history that kids have brought guns to school, and in some cases killed their classmates.
The question is "where did these kids get the idea that to bring guns to school". Or "why didn't the kids sense of right and wrong kick in". The anwser is obvious, video games have taken the role of parents in teaching them a set of values.
It is simple, kids have no right to enter into contracts. Kids have no rights to decide how to live. Parents do. And if a parent is negligent, then society steps in (much like the criminal system). As a taxpayer, to me the anwser is simple. Regulate the violence before it becomes enough of a problem that these kids have to be locked up.
I'm sorry but it isn't up to the Government to decide how a child is raised. If the blue collar family that you so *ignorantly* described wants to babysit their children in that manner, so be it.
Then what would you want to have happen? How do you give *that* child a good shot for a good future? If both parents work, who is there to look out for the kids?? Companies certainly don't care about the wellbeing of the kid, they just want to make money.
I'd like to see how this is handled if some kid downloads America's Army...
I am not familiar with that game, but I can comment about the whole on-line thing. What Illinois can do is regulate Illinois ISP's. They can tell ISP's to block mature content unless a customer asks for it.
The other course of action is to have a federal law. Maybe there is a lawyer here who can comment on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution (the part of the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate ALL commerce between states). This might be a problem for states because a buisness outside of Illinois could claim Illinois is violating there rights to commerce using powers the state does not have. Illinois could retort that since they are blocking content from those under 18 who don't have the legal ability to enter into a contract to start with.
If Blagojavic can get the ISP's to voluntarily go along, that would be much better. I don't see how this is that much different than a V chip in a tv set. It gives more power to parents.
I thought that as we matured as a society that this type of conservative bullshit would cease. Perhaps we are regressing?
First, Blagojavic is a democrat. You should have some facts before posting.
Alcohol and tobacco are PHYSICALLY HARMFUL. You can die from alcohol and tobacco. You *cannot* die from abuse of video games... Explicit or otherwise.
Yep, you can die from video games. Games influance people just like anything else. Have enough apathy? Feeling easily irritable? Think it is cool to take a gun to school? These are the attributes to video games.
We never had people bringing guns to school before video games became popular. So I would tell you to get your facts straight.
"We already place limits on alcohol, tobacco, even adult movies. It's just logical that video games, which are so heavily marketed to young kids but many of which contain adult images, should not be available to young people or to minors," Ottenhoff said.
I am suprised these laws don't already exsist. When I was young, it was damn hard to find a playboy or anything fun.
I think what they should try and eliminate is the violence in video games. There have been studies in universities which shows links between playing video games and being violent. Humans learn by watching, and do we really want young kids learning from video games?
And I expect some will say "It must be the parents who decide what their kids can do". To them I would say, check out the lower middle class where both parents work, and the kid has nothing but a tv set and playstation.
have you heard about the pager-like device that they have over there? They enter their preferences for a perfect mate in it, and when they get within 25 feet of someone that meets their criteria, if that person has one too, they light up and buzz so the people can choose to meet each other. Again, this would never work in the US
actually, it does work in the USA. it is called Buzzing Vaginal Inserts, and anytime a woman gets within 20 feet of me, she gets g-spot stimulation. it is very effective. no talking, just orgasims. although it does creat more work for the department of streets and sanitation.
If the problem is one of the network being an official municipal structure, then let's make it not so official.
Set up a non-profit group to actually run the shindig and have some large anonomous donations get the ball rolling.
This is a good idea, but who would be the people to set it up and who would pay? The nice thing about local government is they could do it so it costs everyone a few pennies. Multiply that by 1000's of people and they have enough money. If a non-profit group wanted to start it up, they would have to raise money, and it would not be pennies per person because not everyone would pay.
And how would this be set up? Would the group buy a T1 line? What liability would a private group have?
I have to admit your post has me thinking about the possibilities. I will have to bring this up with the local Linux group, and see if they want to try it out. The only problem I can see of is how do you split a line so there is enough distance between the routers. Eventually there is a limit to how far cabling and wi-fi can carry a signal. The nice thing about government is they can set up wi-fi on land they own- police stations, fire stations, libraries, train station, schools, and so on.
Often the places that don't get broadband are the poorest. When @home started offering broadband service in my area, a pal who lived 15 miles away saw how much better it was then dial-up so he called to get it too. They said it was not available in his area. Years have passed and they have not offered it.
I love the idea of a town saying we want to provide this service, and we can do it for a fraction of the cost. It reminds me of my college housing, where the collective purchase power of all the apartments was leveraged by the owner of the property to get us satelite tv for a few bucks a month, something like 80% off the normal price.
This is a perfect example of how money should not mix with politics. Verizon gives money to candidates who then write bad laws.
Politicians have a responsibility to the people they represent, not to making some CEO wealthy.
So, if my small town decides they want to use their collective purchase power and set up a wi-fi, then Verizon feels threatened? Unfair competition? How? Verison could lower their fee and be more competitive.
Dijjer uses "UDP hole punching" to allow it to operate from behind firewalls without any need for manual reconfiguration... With many P2P applications you must reconfigure your firewall to get the most out of them. Not so with Dijjer, we use state-of-the-art "NAT2NAT" techniques to get the most out of your internet connection without any reconfiguration.
I am going to have to think about it before I install something that automatically reconfigures my firewall. NO!!
Zomeone iz very zmart. Too zmart. We must take you away, for your own protection, for the people. Zeee how good it izz for you here? Yezzz, you must like it.
There have been news stories about serial numbers being embedded in printing for years. The first I read of it, at least 7 or 8 years ago was the same yellow microprint from color inkjet printers, which was mandated by the U.S. Gov't, to prevent counterfit bills from being printed
What is this serial number like? Is it like a MAC address? Is there any way to print the secret serial number out without printing any text or is the serial number embedded in the text?
I wonder if counterfitting is that much of a problem? Stores now use pens to make bills to see if they are counterfit. I wonder how many people are out there printing their own money. Heck, I think it would be impossible to even find paper that feels enough like real money.
Is anyone else curious what evil, horrible things Slashdotters do, that causes them to freak out like this? If I make a copy of a newsletter, I really couldn't care less that someone knows I printed it.
Really?
I remember reading a court case, from a political science class, where a person was sent to prision in the 1920's because he was distributing communist literature. The question is, do we want free information, or do we want to track information? Both sides have pro's and con's. In many cases, it comes down to how much to trust government. In my case, I have some trust for government, but who knows what future administrations will bring. Did anyone expect Ashcroft to become attorney general? Could it get worse?
I think information is harmelss. If someone wants to take information and do something dumb, then there are other ways to track their actions.
*This is 100% from a USA point of view*
If it costs more money to do buisness on the internet, maybe brick stores will have a better shot of getting buisness. I don't know about all of you, but it scares me to think that in the future I will have to rely on the internet to buy, say for example, books, because amazon is profitable and Borders is not. I want a brick store, it adds jobs to my community. With the internet, dollars I spend could concievable go to a warehouse outside the USA. What if amazon decides to set up shop in mexico?? That means the money I spend will no longer support american jobs.
Secondly, if they start taxing something like bandwith or emails, that works for me too. I already pay for my internet connection, and would not mind paying a penny an email. Anything to get the spammers out of buisness.
The problem is that NONE of those are being espoused by the U.S. and its policy makers, who instead seem hell-bent on enslaving their own people.
Money corrupts. And I agree, the USA is becomming a profit driven country. The problem is politicians no longer view people as their electorate, instead they view complex algorithms of where to spend money on advertising as the equation to get elected. We have become sheep. And it is the corporations which fund politicians. Is it any wonder why politicians pass these rediculous laws? They need the continued financial support to wage their election campaigns.
Now, commercials are what pay for the free content. So if I watch TV, should I feel morally obliged to watch commercials? If I read a newspaper, should I be obliged to read some ads? Should I be legally required to do so? If I stop watching the commercials, will they stop providing the free content? Am I willing to give that up?
I see your point. But when every character on friends can demand 1 million dollars per episode, and a 30 second spot on the superbowl costs over 2 million dollars, I think the true value of spending is too high. Would a company fight to ensure everyone watches the advertsing they paid 2 million to put on the air? Is 30 seconds worth 2 million dollars? Is an actor worth 1 million for a half hour show? These are the real questions, what does society value. And if a commercial is worth 2 million dollars, we should ask ourselves, do we have free will. The company is not giving money away, they expect to sell more than what they pay in advertising. Do people really see that commercial for McDonalds and think "I need to be lovin' it too"?
To be honest, all this is doing to me is making me go back to reading more. Sometimes, all the advertising gets to be too much. There is no peaceful enjoyment of TV. Every 12 or 13 minutes is some commercial, which is louder than the show I was watching, with much brighter colors, yelling to buy their product. This kind of intermittent intrusion takes away from the overall enjoyment of the television show. Say you are watching a tender drama like Terms of Endearment where the mother of young children is in the hospital dying and the grandmother is crying and looking for a doctor to help ease her childs pain, and you are getting really into it, then BAM.... OXYCLEAN, WE REMOVE ALL STAINS, GRASS STAINS, JELLY STAINS, CUTS OR SCRAPES, NO STAINS SURVIVE WITH OXYCLEAN. THE SECRET TO OUR FORMULA IS IN OXYGEN, LIFE GIVING OXYGEN TO KEEP YOUR WHITES WHITE AND YOUR COLORS COLORED. YOU NEED OXYCLEAN NOW. then it is back to the tender show. the mother had died and the grandmother is dealing with the pain. yeah, you keep the same mood going???
it's gotten to the point where the federal government is actually proposing criminalizing the use of technology to ignore a corporation's mind-numbing commercial pabulum
Then you will hate what else is comming. Did you hear about the new hypnotic advertising? Say you are walking in a mall past the McDonalds. All of a sudden you get the thought you are hungry. It could be the store is using a low sound to place the thought in your head.
And before you think about suing them for making you fat, by making you eat when you otherwise would not have, the goverment passed laws outlawing that too.
Why is this a problem? If you're not out there ripping people off and distributing copyrighted material, you shouldn't have a problem, yes? I'm sure that the Slashdot crowd will get all huffy about this, but in the end, after all the convoluted chest thumping, the bottom line is: don't steal from people.
I don't think that is the issue. The issue is the following language:
under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited
I think many are unhappy that they can't escape the commericalism that is everywhere. I think many people are overwhelmed by advertising everywhere. It is in the ballpark when you go there, and even worse, when you turn on your tv to watch a ballgame they now have advertising images superimposed behind the batters box. It is on billboards, in rural communities where before there was no intrusive advertising signs.
I think people like using their VCR or Tivo or whatever to record a show and skip the commercials. According to the story, that would become illegal.
In the end, I don't think techonolgy can keep people free of advertising. Companies know people don't like/respond to traditional advertising, so they are now using things like product placement on shows. Did anyone watche "Still Standing" last week. It ended with the main character drinking an Amstel light, and holding the bottle in a way like she was showcasing it for the camera.
1) We have never stolen anyone else's code
2) Even if we did, we believe it cannot be proven
3) If someone does claim to prove it, we will destroy them in court
All companies are like this, to some extent. They quickly decide what costs more, to go to court or pay out a claim. Think about cars. Back when Ford had those bad tires and cars rolled over. Rather than change the tires on ALL fords, they decided the one death per 100,000* would cost less to settle in court. *number made up to illustrate point.
But I think this is a good move on Microsofts part. They are standing behind their product. I like that. Now if they will stand behind it a little more and offer a product the customers want rather than one which seems to be more and more filled with drm.
What did I miss. Who said M$ used stolen code? Is this just some scare tactic for people who use Linux, to say "see... you could get sued an nobody will protect you"??
But on the other hand, I have to say it is nice to have a manufacturer stand behind their product. Although I would preffer if M$ withheld windows release dates until they had all the bugs worked out.
OK, so you claim search warrants are a thing of the past.
You are detached from reality. I don't know whose propaganda you've been listening to, but search warrants have not been done away with.
Lets examine your statement. You said that search warrents are still needed. I said the government does not have to get them. So what is the end result? Government has taken away a safegaurd people have. And I am the one listening to propaganda? Do you watch the news? Do you see how government is treating american citizens? All government needs to do is suspect you, and they can lock you up without legal help and search your stuff. What is next? If there is another terror attack, do we lose more freedoms?
What scares me the most is the idea government can pick you up off the streat and send you away somewhere without notifying anyone they have taken you into custody. No lawyers. Nothing.
I sure hope the current members of the Supreme Court can stay alive another 4 more years. I feel sorry for some of them, who probably wanted to retire years ago. If they retire or die in office, Bush gets to pick replacements.
Now let's examine your statement: "the FBI no longer need search warrants" That is a false statement. You know perfectly well the FBI still needs to seek search warrants. So what are you here to do? Make false claims or get at the truth?
Not according to the patriot act. Not only do they not need search warrents, but they can search without you knowing. There have been storeis about the FBI demanding bank information about people, and then ordering the bank to never release the fact that information was released.
You know, when you look back Ashcroft wasn't so bad. He turned the FBI around and changed its mission radically.
Yeah, he did change the FBI. They no longer need search warrents, and they have no respect of our civil liberties. If you ask me, he damaged the USA. We were a more free people before he came to power. And don't forget, Ashcroft was the guy who lost his senate seat because the people of his state elected a dead guy rather than have 6 more years of him.
Slashdot Mirror
care to prove that?
I have lived long enough to remember what it was like before violent video games. And it has only been in the recent history that kids have brought guns to school, and in some cases killed their classmates.
The question is "where did these kids get the idea that to bring guns to school". Or "why didn't the kids sense of right and wrong kick in". The anwser is obvious, video games have taken the role of parents in teaching them a set of values.
It is simple, kids have no right to enter into contracts. Kids have no rights to decide how to live. Parents do. And if a parent is negligent, then society steps in (much like the criminal system). As a taxpayer, to me the anwser is simple. Regulate the violence before it becomes enough of a problem that these kids have to be locked up.
Then what would you want to have happen? How do you give *that* child a good shot for a good future? If both parents work, who is there to look out for the kids?? Companies certainly don't care about the wellbeing of the kid, they just want to make money.
I am not familiar with that game, but I can comment about the whole on-line thing. What Illinois can do is regulate Illinois ISP's. They can tell ISP's to block mature content unless a customer asks for it.
The other course of action is to have a federal law. Maybe there is a lawyer here who can comment on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution (the part of the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate ALL commerce between states). This might be a problem for states because a buisness outside of Illinois could claim Illinois is violating there rights to commerce using powers the state does not have. Illinois could retort that since they are blocking content from those under 18 who don't have the legal ability to enter into a contract to start with.
If Blagojavic can get the ISP's to voluntarily go along, that would be much better. I don't see how this is that much different than a V chip in a tv set. It gives more power to parents.
First, Blagojavic is a democrat. You should have some facts before posting.
Alcohol and tobacco are PHYSICALLY HARMFUL. You can die from alcohol and tobacco. You *cannot* die from abuse of video games... Explicit or otherwise.
Yep, you can die from video games. Games influance people just like anything else. Have enough apathy? Feeling easily irritable? Think it is cool to take a gun to school? These are the attributes to video games.
We never had people bringing guns to school before video games became popular. So I would tell you to get your facts straight.
I am suprised these laws don't already exsist. When I was young, it was damn hard to find a playboy or anything fun.
I think what they should try and eliminate is the violence in video games. There have been studies in universities which shows links between playing video games and being violent. Humans learn by watching, and do we really want young kids learning from video games?
And I expect some will say "It must be the parents who decide what their kids can do". To them I would say, check out the lower middle class where both parents work, and the kid has nothing but a tv set and playstation.
actually, it does work in the USA. it is called Buzzing Vaginal Inserts, and anytime a woman gets within 20 feet of me, she gets g-spot stimulation. it is very effective. no talking, just orgasims. although it does creat more work for the department of streets and sanitation.
This is a good idea, but who would be the people to set it up and who would pay? The nice thing about local government is they could do it so it costs everyone a few pennies. Multiply that by 1000's of people and they have enough money. If a non-profit group wanted to start it up, they would have to raise money, and it would not be pennies per person because not everyone would pay.
And how would this be set up? Would the group buy a T1 line? What liability would a private group have?
I have to admit your post has me thinking about the possibilities. I will have to bring this up with the local Linux group, and see if they want to try it out. The only problem I can see of is how do you split a line so there is enough distance between the routers. Eventually there is a limit to how far cabling and wi-fi can carry a signal. The nice thing about government is they can set up wi-fi on land they own- police stations, fire stations, libraries, train station, schools, and so on.
I love the idea of a town saying we want to provide this service, and we can do it for a fraction of the cost. It reminds me of my college housing, where the collective purchase power of all the apartments was leveraged by the owner of the property to get us satelite tv for a few bucks a month, something like 80% off the normal price.
Politicians have a responsibility to the people they represent, not to making some CEO wealthy.
So, if my small town decides they want to use their collective purchase power and set up a wi-fi, then Verizon feels threatened? Unfair competition? How? Verison could lower their fee and be more competitive.
I am going to have to think about it before I install something that automatically reconfigures my firewall. NO!!
And what is this "udp hole punching"??
Zomeone iz very zmart. Too zmart. We must take you away, for your own protection, for the people. Zeee how good it izz for you here? Yezzz, you must like it.
What is this serial number like? Is it like a MAC address? Is there any way to print the secret serial number out without printing any text or is the serial number embedded in the text?
I wonder if counterfitting is that much of a problem? Stores now use pens to make bills to see if they are counterfit. I wonder how many people are out there printing their own money. Heck, I think it would be impossible to even find paper that feels enough like real money.
Really?
I remember reading a court case, from a political science class, where a person was sent to prision in the 1920's because he was distributing communist literature. The question is, do we want free information, or do we want to track information? Both sides have pro's and con's. In many cases, it comes down to how much to trust government. In my case, I have some trust for government, but who knows what future administrations will bring. Did anyone expect Ashcroft to become attorney general? Could it get worse?
I think information is harmelss. If someone wants to take information and do something dumb, then there are other ways to track their actions.
Secondly, if they start taxing something like bandwith or emails, that works for me too. I already pay for my internet connection, and would not mind paying a penny an email. Anything to get the spammers out of buisness.
They will tax you at the point of sale. So the guy selling you the X will add on 1% or 2% sales tax.
Money corrupts. And I agree, the USA is becomming a profit driven country. The problem is politicians no longer view people as their electorate, instead they view complex algorithms of where to spend money on advertising as the equation to get elected. We have become sheep. And it is the corporations which fund politicians. Is it any wonder why politicians pass these rediculous laws? They need the continued financial support to wage their election campaigns.
I see your point. But when every character on friends can demand 1 million dollars per episode, and a 30 second spot on the superbowl costs over 2 million dollars, I think the true value of spending is too high. Would a company fight to ensure everyone watches the advertsing they paid 2 million to put on the air? Is 30 seconds worth 2 million dollars? Is an actor worth 1 million for a half hour show? These are the real questions, what does society value. And if a commercial is worth 2 million dollars, we should ask ourselves, do we have free will. The company is not giving money away, they expect to sell more than what they pay in advertising. Do people really see that commercial for McDonalds and think "I need to be lovin' it too"?
To be honest, all this is doing to me is making me go back to reading more. Sometimes, all the advertising gets to be too much. There is no peaceful enjoyment of TV. Every 12 or 13 minutes is some commercial, which is louder than the show I was watching, with much brighter colors, yelling to buy their product. This kind of intermittent intrusion takes away from the overall enjoyment of the television show. Say you are watching a tender drama like Terms of Endearment where the mother of young children is in the hospital dying and the grandmother is crying and looking for a doctor to help ease her childs pain, and you are getting really into it, then BAM.... OXYCLEAN, WE REMOVE ALL STAINS, GRASS STAINS, JELLY STAINS, CUTS OR SCRAPES, NO STAINS SURVIVE WITH OXYCLEAN. THE SECRET TO OUR FORMULA IS IN OXYGEN, LIFE GIVING OXYGEN TO KEEP YOUR WHITES WHITE AND YOUR COLORS COLORED. YOU NEED OXYCLEAN NOW. then it is back to the tender show. the mother had died and the grandmother is dealing with the pain. yeah, you keep the same mood going???
Then you will hate what else is comming. Did you hear about the new hypnotic advertising? Say you are walking in a mall past the McDonalds. All of a sudden you get the thought you are hungry. It could be the store is using a low sound to place the thought in your head.
And before you think about suing them for making you fat, by making you eat when you otherwise would not have, the goverment passed laws outlawing that too.
I don't think that is the issue. The issue is the following language:
under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited
I think many are unhappy that they can't escape the commericalism that is everywhere. I think many people are overwhelmed by advertising everywhere. It is in the ballpark when you go there, and even worse, when you turn on your tv to watch a ballgame they now have advertising images superimposed behind the batters box. It is on billboards, in rural communities where before there was no intrusive advertising signs.
I think people like using their VCR or Tivo or whatever to record a show and skip the commercials. According to the story, that would become illegal.
In the end, I don't think techonolgy can keep people free of advertising. Companies know people don't like/respond to traditional advertising, so they are now using things like product placement on shows. Did anyone watche "Still Standing" last week. It ended with the main character drinking an Amstel light, and holding the bottle in a way like she was showcasing it for the camera.
1) We have never stolen anyone else's code 2) Even if we did, we believe it cannot be proven 3) If someone does claim to prove it, we will destroy them in court
All companies are like this, to some extent. They quickly decide what costs more, to go to court or pay out a claim. Think about cars. Back when Ford had those bad tires and cars rolled over. Rather than change the tires on ALL fords, they decided the one death per 100,000* would cost less to settle in court. *number made up to illustrate point.
But I think this is a good move on Microsofts part. They are standing behind their product. I like that. Now if they will stand behind it a little more and offer a product the customers want rather than one which seems to be more and more filled with drm.
But on the other hand, I have to say it is nice to have a manufacturer stand behind their product. Although I would preffer if M$ withheld windows release dates until they had all the bugs worked out.
Lets examine your statement. You said that search warrents are still needed. I said the government does not have to get them. So what is the end result? Government has taken away a safegaurd people have. And I am the one listening to propaganda? Do you watch the news? Do you see how government is treating american citizens? All government needs to do is suspect you, and they can lock you up without legal help and search your stuff. What is next? If there is another terror attack, do we lose more freedoms?
What scares me the most is the idea government can pick you up off the streat and send you away somewhere without notifying anyone they have taken you into custody. No lawyers. Nothing.
I sure hope the current members of the Supreme Court can stay alive another 4 more years. I feel sorry for some of them, who probably wanted to retire years ago. If they retire or die in office, Bush gets to pick replacements.
Not according to the patriot act. Not only do they not need search warrents, but they can search without you knowing. There have been storeis about the FBI demanding bank information about people, and then ordering the bank to never release the fact that information was released.
Yeah, he did change the FBI. They no longer need search warrents, and they have no respect of our civil liberties. If you ask me, he damaged the USA. We were a more free people before he came to power. And don't forget, Ashcroft was the guy who lost his senate seat because the people of his state elected a dead guy rather than have 6 more years of him.