What stops them from "regulating" online conferencing, telephony (such as Skype), etc? That seems practically impossible unless the government starts monitoring the internet. Is it only going to involve telephones? What, really, seperates a telephone system (a traditional one) and a computer w/ a microphone?
Oh, but of course, the government doesn't understand it's own creation-- the internet. I think we've all seen that enough already...
I wonder if streaming video embeded in web pages will ever become common place or even feasible? As networking technology improves websites get flashier and flashier....
...but the only people who can afford it are wealthy old men with rollercoasters in the backyard and robotic butlers that answer the front door, I'm sure.
Why, there are many gothic poem generators, for example.
http://www.gis.net/~jspower/random.html http:// scribble.com/dghq/gothlyric/ http://www.deadloung e.com/poetry/index.html...Of course, random "depressing" words isn't saying much, is it? It all depends on how you define poetry, I guess.
It's not anything resembling a good idea. If you have a problem with a company selling "adult" products to minors, take it up with the store, not the government.
It's called hysteria. The media is big on distortion and REALLY big on false cause/effect correlations.
I might be wrong but I bet that study might simply show a correlation between violence and video game playing, and not an actual verified cause/effect relationship.
Why don't we stop pointing fingers and blame the actual morons that pull the triggers?
It's naive to think that parents can control everything their children do, say, and think. Or even most of it. Parenting is just one of the many factors that determine how someone acts.
The parents COULD be at a large fault, but especially when the kids are teens doing that stupid shit...
Oops, I apologize, I misread the intent of the message I replied to-- I thought the argument was "since minors can't look at porn either, why not violent video games?", something someone will make eventually anyway.
It doesn't matter. Keeping porn/violence/etc away should be the parent's job, not the government's.
If the government can do this to minors, what prevents the government from censoring content from adults simply because certain politicians fear nudity or violence, or even for more political reasons?
No, if the parent is so inclined, THEY should take it away. It is their rights (whether you agree with how they parent or not). It is NOT the government's right to censor people.
The government should not be doing it for video games, the government should not be doing it for porn. Like I said above, what stops them from censoring it from everyone? Oh, that's right, it's not that easy for minors to sue-- and the courts don't give a crap, anyway.
If Joe Smoe doesn't give a damn whether his son sees pixilated polygons that resemble aliens emit a green liquid when zapped with an ElectroGun, he will still have to get off his lazy ass because the government says he has to buy it for his son.
I've been in the same situation: When I was younger I had to have my dad buy the game for me due to the policies of certain stores even though he wanted me to buy it while he shopped elsewhere.
It's ridiculous. I don't care if the child will try to sneak in the games/porn if they can buy it themselves even though their parents don't allow it. That's the parents' problem.
Just another moralist do-gooder wanting to take away our rights to appease their foolish emotional desires. Bah.
I know someone will bring up child pornography... but in that case, someone is harmed. Now, if it was some 16-year old slut flashing herself over a webcam, I personally wouldn't call that child porn... that's another debate though.
http://www.scamorama.com/lordkenneth-ekpontu.html
Very fun. Of course, it ended ubruptly, because I got into the little fuck's hotmail account by getting his password question's answer right, then e-mailing people he was conning.:)
How are they a monopoly, if they DO NOT control the market?
Of course, this is debateable, but adding video players/web browser/etc (and requiring distrubing companies to keep them in) really doesn't seem to violate any laws I'm aware of.
I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't broken the law or hasn't tried to stifle competition, but I'm not sure as to whether it's really a monopoly or not.
In fact, the stuff Microsoft includes is usually inferior to what's out there and available. How many of us really use IE on our home computers, or use Windows Media Player for our MP3s on a regulary basis?
And what's the limit? Where do we decide certain programs are too much?
Why can't Microsoft choose what software they want bundled with their OS? After all, it is their OS, as they own the copyright.
If you don't like what is included, simply delete it or don't use it-- or don't buy Windows.
KaZaA, for example, is filesharing BUT has mp3 playing and movie playing built in. Should KaZaA be restricted to only filesharing?
I agree, they are "features". Maybe not of the best quality, but they are "features" of windows nevertheless.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, I can just imagine... people running around accusing each other of hacking... just like a normal MMORPG.
If someone develops trainers, or other similar hacks, will Ubi Soft do anything about it? After all, they are "hacking the matrix".
I just can't see myself playing a game that encourages cheating and hacking.;)
Slashdot Mirror
What stops them from "regulating" online conferencing, telephony (such as Skype), etc? That seems practically impossible unless the government starts monitoring the internet. Is it only going to involve telephones? What, really, seperates a telephone system (a traditional one) and a computer w/ a microphone?
Oh, but of course, the government doesn't understand it's own creation-- the internet. I think we've all seen that enough already...
I wonder if streaming video embeded in web pages will ever become common place or even feasible? As networking technology improves websites get flashier and flashier....
Aimed at the 18 to 45 age group
...but the only people who can afford it are wealthy old men with rollercoasters in the backyard and robotic butlers that answer the front door, I'm sure.
Why, there are many gothic poem generators, for example.
/ scribble.com/dghq/gothlyric/g e.com/poetry/index.html ...Of course, random "depressing" words isn't saying much, is it? It all depends on how you define poetry, I guess.
http://www.gis.net/~jspower/random.html
http:/
http://www.deadloun
It's not anything resembling a good idea. If you have a problem with a company selling "adult" products to minors, take it up with the store, not the government.
What's the first amendment?
(this is sarcasm, not ignorance)
So if a parent doesn't mind what their children play, they "aren't parenting"?
Nice logic there...
It's called hysteria. The media is big on distortion and REALLY big on false cause/effect correlations.
I might be wrong but I bet that study might simply show a correlation between violence and video game playing, and not an actual verified cause/effect relationship.
Can anyone verify that?
Why don't we stop pointing fingers and blame the actual morons that pull the triggers?
It's naive to think that parents can control everything their children do, say, and think. Or even most of it. Parenting is just one of the many factors that determine how someone acts.
The parents COULD be at a large fault, but especially when the kids are teens doing that stupid shit...
How many of us played "Power Rangers", "Cops and Robbers", or even "Mortal Kombat" when we were young? And I mean not the games, but play fighting?
Hell, it seems to me kids in younger generations hunted earlier and more often, too... and that's with an actual gun and living target.
Oops, I apologize, I misread the intent of the message I replied to-- I thought the argument was "since minors can't look at porn either, why not violent video games?", something someone will make eventually anyway.
;)
And sorry for my bad formatting as well.
It doesn't matter. Keeping porn/violence/etc away should be the parent's job, not the government's. If the government can do this to minors, what prevents the government from censoring content from adults simply because certain politicians fear nudity or violence, or even for more political reasons? No, if the parent is so inclined, THEY should take it away. It is their rights (whether you agree with how they parent or not). It is NOT the government's right to censor people. The government should not be doing it for video games, the government should not be doing it for porn. Like I said above, what stops them from censoring it from everyone? Oh, that's right, it's not that easy for minors to sue-- and the courts don't give a crap, anyway. If Joe Smoe doesn't give a damn whether his son sees pixilated polygons that resemble aliens emit a green liquid when zapped with an ElectroGun, he will still have to get off his lazy ass because the government says he has to buy it for his son. I've been in the same situation: When I was younger I had to have my dad buy the game for me due to the policies of certain stores even though he wanted me to buy it while he shopped elsewhere. It's ridiculous. I don't care if the child will try to sneak in the games/porn if they can buy it themselves even though their parents don't allow it. That's the parents' problem. Just another moralist do-gooder wanting to take away our rights to appease their foolish emotional desires. Bah. I know someone will bring up child pornography... but in that case, someone is harmed. Now, if it was some 16-year old slut flashing herself over a webcam, I personally wouldn't call that child porn... that's another debate though.
It's a movement away from the freedom and choice of choosing one of Microsoft's fine, fine products!
http://www.scamorama.com/lordkenneth-ekpontu.html Very fun. Of course, it ended ubruptly, because I got into the little fuck's hotmail account by getting his password question's answer right, then e-mailing people he was conning. :)
How are they a monopoly, if they DO NOT control the market?
Of course, this is debateable, but adding video players/web browser/etc (and requiring distrubing companies to keep them in) really doesn't seem to violate any laws I'm aware of.
I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't broken the law or hasn't tried to stifle competition, but I'm not sure as to whether it's really a monopoly or not.
In fact, the stuff Microsoft includes is usually inferior to what's out there and available. How many of us really use IE on our home computers, or use Windows Media Player for our MP3s on a regulary basis?
And what's the limit? Where do we decide certain programs are too much?
Why can't Microsoft choose what software they want bundled with their OS? After all, it is their OS, as they own the copyright. If you don't like what is included, simply delete it or don't use it-- or don't buy Windows. KaZaA, for example, is filesharing BUT has mp3 playing and movie playing built in. Should KaZaA be restricted to only filesharing? I agree, they are "features". Maybe not of the best quality, but they are "features" of windows nevertheless. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, I can just imagine... people running around accusing each other of hacking... just like a normal MMORPG. If someone develops trainers, or other similar hacks, will Ubi Soft do anything about it? After all, they are "hacking the matrix". I just can't see myself playing a game that encourages cheating and hacking. ;)