I guess us Canucks have to watch ourselves though; I'm sure Sarah Palin is keeping an eye on us from her house.
Nah, she's too busy protecting both of our countries from Putin. There's 12 other US States that share a border with Canada. I suspect that their Governors are the ones busy keeping an eye on you Canucks so don't get any ideas;)
We'd have to invade them and burn down their White House again.
You mean you'd have to get your British friends to do it for you?;)
Besides, we all know the US and Canada will never come to blows. In the worst case scenario it will just be decided by a winner-take-all game of ice hockey. If the Americans win you'll see millions of people screaming "USA! USA! USA!" If we lose we'll just go back to watching football (no, not that "football") because who gives a shit about ice hockey anyway?;)
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news."
It's only big news if you watch CNN, MSNBC or Fox. The network news broadcasts have barely mentioned it and the Newshour hasn't even touched on it at all. I'm sorry to say that I get most of my news from Jim Lehrer and I'm completely out of the loop on what dog the Obama family is considering getting. I should write PBS and tell them they need to do a better job of covering this important story.
Just remember the cable news people are the same ones that can devote hours of coverage (and helicopters!) to Britney Spears arraignment while our country is bogged down in two wars, one of which they apparently forgot existed until recently. I just can't take them seriously any longer.
Once Obama pulls all the troops back from Iraq, they can invade Canada.:-)
Pffft, easier said than done. If you think an Iraqi insurgent with an IED is a tough adversary just wait until you see a Canadian with a hockey stick..... besides, I don't think the Baldwin family can afford a war with Canada;)
I'm with ya on the learning stuff from games. I self-taught myself how to program C by administering a MUD when I was 14-17 years old. I guess I just don't see the appeal in the console FPS games for kids though. What do you learn from playing Halo? How to veg out in front of the TV and eat junk food?
I wouldn't tell someone else what to buy for their kids but my kids won't be getting copies of those games for Christmas....
It's the sort of censorship that the establishment wants, and not necessarily the choices a parent migh make.
I love how a five second shot of tits gains a movie an instant R-rating but all that violence and gore typically only garners a PG-13. Personally I'd rather have my kids see the tit than Anakin burning but that's just me.
Another problem I see with the ratings system is how an NC-17 (movie) or AO (video game) rating results in retailers pulling the title from their shelves. Net result: The movie/game receives some minor tweaks and winds up being released as R/M. Perhaps the retailers should consider stocking these titles and actually enforce the age restrictions instead of adopting a holier than thou attitude and deciding what I should be able to purchase?
How would you view games with social networks? For example - if your child grew an interest in World of Warcraft, would you prevent him from playing it?
I grew up playing AD&D so I wouldn't really object to the content in WoW. I'd be concerned about who they were playing with but again this would come back to supervising them. Beyond that I don't think I'd have any major issues with WoW beyond the sheer amount of time that some people wind up "investing" into it. Again though, this is controllable.
Violent games not allowable under a certain age?
Depends on the context of that violence. I honestly don't see any compelling reason that kids need to be exposed to games like GTA or even Halo -- if the entire game consists of shooting things then what the hell is there to learn exactly? Hand-eye coordination? You could gain that playing basketball or flight simulators.....
I enjoyed him more when he spent more time lambasting the traditional (particularly cable) news media for their stupidity and less time pontificating his own political views. Still, he's pretty amusing to watch. Glad they put up full episodes online for those of us who don't have cable.
I actually got to go see a taping of TDS back in January. We learned that John Edwards had dropped out when Jon Stewart asked the audience what they thought about it. Still waiting to get a chance to see a Colbert taping....
I have a much beefier machine on the other side of the firewall for that stuff.
I've thought about it but then I'd have to leave that beefier machine running 24/7 and up would go the power consumption. With the setup I have now I can actually turn my workstation off when I'm not using it (the workstation is a beast too -- 250 watts without the monitor) and still be able to get access the most important stuff that I care about.
I've also thought about looking into a low power solution (maybe gut a laptop board/cpu or use one of the embedded solutions that are out there) but why spend the money if what I have now is still working? When it eventually dies I'll figure something out I suppose.
The only thing that could possibly save journalism would be for them to report the news in an unbiased and objective form
Eh, if that's what you wanna see then get your news from sources that actually manage to do that. PBS and NPR do a better job than most at this, IMHO -- as evidenced by the fact that you'll find people on both the left and the right attacking them;)
Potentially start to rely on drugs/alcohol for entertainment and develop serious issues in the future.
If that happens then you probably should have been paying closer attention to what they were doing.....
I would just like to say that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss certain things (video games, in particular)
I didn't say video games were bad. I think the tone of my post was that playing them to excess is bad. If your kids are playing video games to the exclusion of doing anything else then wouldn't you say that you have a problem? If video games are part of a healthy mix of recreational activities (that hopefully includes some amount of physical/outdoors activity) then I don't see a problem.
I grew up playing video games. My Mom did go out of her way to get me games with what she perceived to be educational value. My favorite one was probably Sim City. Got into the classic version of that on the SNES and eventually wound up getting the newer versions when we bought our first PC. She never would have let us have games like Halo, GTA, Mortal Combat, Lethal Enforcers, etc, etc. Mind you, as an adult I don't have a problem with such games (I'm not with the Jack Thompson lunatic crowd) but I definitely wouldn't buy them for my kids.....
It's like $25/month + $1/min - $1.50/min depending on what size chunk you buy minutes. I mean, it's not cheap, but it's not absurd either.
That's actually cheaper than T-Mobile or AT&T's GSM roaming service. That's kinda cool. Is that price good worldwide or only in your country of origin?
Damn, hit submit too soon. I also keep all of my e-mail in pine (yes, I'm that old fashioned) and access it via ssh. This gives me the ability to get to my e-mail from anywhere in the World without having to host it on someone else's hardware.....
Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.
Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em?;)
The WRT54G draws less than 6W while actively transmitting. Mine has an uptime of 126 on regular wall power, and can saturate my DSL connection even when terminating an OpenVPN connection. If you replace your 486, might I suggest something a little smaller?
I prefer the flexibility of having a full fledged Linux box that I can access from anywhere in the world if I need to. I've thought about going the DD-WRT route but it still doesn't seem as flexible as having a real computer running.
I don't think even the most idealogical Slashdotter would agree that allowing sexual or violent programming during prime-time is a wise idea for family households
I would agree if you are talking about over the air broadcasts. I would disagree if you are talking about cable TV. Cable TV requires that you opt-in and pay money for it. Anybody with a pair of rabbit ears can tune into OTA.
Most families need 2 wage earners just to get by.
Then move somewhere with a cheaper cost of living. Or seek help from your expanded friends and family network. Most families have someone (Grandma or Grandpa?) whom isn't working. Why rely on the TV to supervise your kids after school if you have a family member or friend to fall back on?
It shouldn't be any surprise that out of this is the tendency to pass those responsibilities to the rest of society. That means more laws and more government involvement.
If you resign yourself to more government involvement it would seem to me that it would be better to have it involved in solving the problem of needing two wage earners to afford to live than to have it involved in regulating what can go on TV. Maybe that's just me though.....
but offering up that admonition as The Solution isn't helpful
It's a bigger part of the solution than expecting government or Hollywood to do it for you.......
The idea is fairly simple, actually - the government requires TV shows to have ratings (sort of like they do now) and parents can use government-required technology in their TVs (sort of like the V-Chip) to filter out shows they are objectionable. In return, broadcasters can broadcast anything they want, as long as it's properly rated. (OK, so not anything, but, well, almost anything...)
See, to my way of thinking the bigger problem isn't the violence/sex on TV (although the v-chip is certainly helpful with that) but the sheer amount of TV aimed at children. How many different cable networks are aimed at kids? They can literally zone out in front of the TV from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere. We received a grand total of three channels (CBS, ABC and PBS) with our aerial antenna. Consequently we wound up (*gasp*) playing outside a fair amount. The only time I really remember watching TV much was Saturday mornings. I ditched cable a long time ago. I've tried to encourage my friends to do the same and the response is invariably "But my kids like it". Yeah, so? Your kids aren't going to be traumatized if they can't zone out in front of Cartoon Network for six hours a day during the week and 12 hours on weekends.....
That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?
At the very least, ditch the cable TV service and go with over the air broadcasting only. This accomplishes three things:
1) Cuts down on the number of shows your kids are going to care about and encourages them to do other things.
2) Encourages them to watch PBS, which has a lot more redeeming value (in my experience) than most of the crap they'll zone out on with cable.
3) Saves you a shitload of money.
Install this or that filter on computer
Also a good idea. Combined with supervision it works really well for younger children. Older children can no doubt figure out a way to bypass most filters -- but hopefully by then you've instilled them with enough values that you don't have to worry as much about them anymore. I'd also make an argument for putting the computer in a public area. My kids won't be browsing the internet behind closed doors......
Slashdot Mirror
I guess us Canucks have to watch ourselves though; I'm sure Sarah Palin is keeping an eye on us from her house.
Nah, she's too busy protecting both of our countries from Putin. There's 12 other US States that share a border with Canada. I suspect that their Governors are the ones busy keeping an eye on you Canucks so don't get any ideas ;)
We'd have to invade them and burn down their White House again.
You mean you'd have to get your British friends to do it for you? ;)
Besides, we all know the US and Canada will never come to blows. In the worst case scenario it will just be decided by a winner-take-all game of ice hockey. If the Americans win you'll see millions of people screaming "USA! USA! USA!" If we lose we'll just go back to watching football (no, not that "football") because who gives a shit about ice hockey anyway? ;)
LOL--"do not abbreviate anything. Ever." Read your "sig" lately?
Well, he's an American so he probably has a gun. Maybe he's referring to his SIG Sauer? ;)
That, and we maintain a threatening lead in Zamboni technology [imdb.com]!
True. Of course we have a 29 to 1 advantage in baseball teams and all of those guys use steroids so they could be pretty tough to beat in a fight ;)
I can't find it.... where is it?
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news."
It's only big news if you watch CNN, MSNBC or Fox. The network news broadcasts have barely mentioned it and the Newshour hasn't even touched on it at all. I'm sorry to say that I get most of my news from Jim Lehrer and I'm completely out of the loop on what dog the Obama family is considering getting. I should write PBS and tell them they need to do a better job of covering this important story.
Just remember the cable news people are the same ones that can devote hours of coverage (and helicopters!) to Britney Spears arraignment while our country is bogged down in two wars, one of which they apparently forgot existed until recently. I just can't take them seriously any longer.
Once Obama pulls all the troops back from Iraq, they can invade Canada. :-)
Pffft, easier said than done. If you think an Iraqi insurgent with an IED is a tough adversary just wait until you see a Canadian with a hockey stick..... besides, I don't think the Baldwin family can afford a war with Canada ;)
I'm with ya on the learning stuff from games. I self-taught myself how to program C by administering a MUD when I was 14-17 years old. I guess I just don't see the appeal in the console FPS games for kids though. What do you learn from playing Halo? How to veg out in front of the TV and eat junk food?
I wouldn't tell someone else what to buy for their kids but my kids won't be getting copies of those games for Christmas....
It's the sort of censorship that the establishment wants, and not necessarily the choices a parent migh make.
I love how a five second shot of tits gains a movie an instant R-rating but all that violence and gore typically only garners a PG-13. Personally I'd rather have my kids see the tit than Anakin burning but that's just me.
Another problem I see with the ratings system is how an NC-17 (movie) or AO (video game) rating results in retailers pulling the title from their shelves. Net result: The movie/game receives some minor tweaks and winds up being released as R/M. Perhaps the retailers should consider stocking these titles and actually enforce the age restrictions instead of adopting a holier than thou attitude and deciding what I should be able to purchase?
Do you have any other suggestions what could deter you from coming?
More attitude from assholes like yourself that think Americans like me who actually travel the world and get out of our own country are the problem?
How would you view games with social networks? For example - if your child grew an interest in World of Warcraft, would you prevent him from playing it?
I grew up playing AD&D so I wouldn't really object to the content in WoW. I'd be concerned about who they were playing with but again this would come back to supervising them. Beyond that I don't think I'd have any major issues with WoW beyond the sheer amount of time that some people wind up "investing" into it. Again though, this is controllable.
Violent games not allowable under a certain age?
Depends on the context of that violence. I honestly don't see any compelling reason that kids need to be exposed to games like GTA or even Halo -- if the entire game consists of shooting things then what the hell is there to learn exactly? Hand-eye coordination? You could gain that playing basketball or flight simulators.....
I'd add John Stewart to that list.
I enjoyed him more when he spent more time lambasting the traditional (particularly cable) news media for their stupidity and less time pontificating his own political views. Still, he's pretty amusing to watch. Glad they put up full episodes online for those of us who don't have cable.
I actually got to go see a taping of TDS back in January. We learned that John Edwards had dropped out when Jon Stewart asked the audience what they thought about it. Still waiting to get a chance to see a Colbert taping....
I have a much beefier machine on the other side of the firewall for that stuff.
I've thought about it but then I'd have to leave that beefier machine running 24/7 and up would go the power consumption. With the setup I have now I can actually turn my workstation off when I'm not using it (the workstation is a beast too -- 250 watts without the monitor) and still be able to get access the most important stuff that I care about.
I've also thought about looking into a low power solution (maybe gut a laptop board/cpu or use one of the embedded solutions that are out there) but why spend the money if what I have now is still working? When it eventually dies I'll figure something out I suppose.
The only thing that could possibly save journalism would be for them to report the news in an unbiased and objective form
Eh, if that's what you wanna see then get your news from sources that actually manage to do that. PBS and NPR do a better job than most at this, IMHO -- as evidenced by the fact that you'll find people on both the left and the right attacking them ;)
Potentially start to rely on drugs/alcohol for entertainment and develop serious issues in the future.
If that happens then you probably should have been paying closer attention to what they were doing.....
I would just like to say that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss certain things (video games, in particular)
I didn't say video games were bad. I think the tone of my post was that playing them to excess is bad. If your kids are playing video games to the exclusion of doing anything else then wouldn't you say that you have a problem? If video games are part of a healthy mix of recreational activities (that hopefully includes some amount of physical/outdoors activity) then I don't see a problem.
I grew up playing video games. My Mom did go out of her way to get me games with what she perceived to be educational value. My favorite one was probably Sim City. Got into the classic version of that on the SNES and eventually wound up getting the newer versions when we bought our first PC. She never would have let us have games like Halo, GTA, Mortal Combat, Lethal Enforcers, etc, etc. Mind you, as an adult I don't have a problem with such games (I'm not with the Jack Thompson lunatic crowd) but I definitely wouldn't buy them for my kids.....
It's like $25/month + $1/min - $1.50/min depending on what size chunk you buy minutes. I mean, it's not cheap, but it's not absurd either.
That's actually cheaper than T-Mobile or AT&T's GSM roaming service. That's kinda cool. Is that price good worldwide or only in your country of origin?
Damn, hit submit too soon. I also keep all of my e-mail in pine (yes, I'm that old fashioned) and access it via ssh. This gives me the ability to get to my e-mail from anywhere in the World without having to host it on someone else's hardware.....
What more are you doing with your router? :-)
I run samba to make it easy to transfer files between it and my Windows box and then have the ability to remotely access those files as needed.
Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.
Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em? ;)
The WRT54G draws less than 6W while actively transmitting. Mine has an uptime of 126 on regular wall power, and can saturate my DSL connection even when terminating an OpenVPN connection. If you replace your 486, might I suggest something a little smaller?
I prefer the flexibility of having a full fledged Linux box that I can access from anywhere in the world if I need to. I've thought about going the DD-WRT route but it still doesn't seem as flexible as having a real computer running.
so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.
Amen to that.
I don't think even the most idealogical Slashdotter would agree that allowing sexual or violent programming during prime-time is a wise idea for family households
I would agree if you are talking about over the air broadcasts. I would disagree if you are talking about cable TV. Cable TV requires that you opt-in and pay money for it. Anybody with a pair of rabbit ears can tune into OTA.
Most families need 2 wage earners just to get by.
Then move somewhere with a cheaper cost of living. Or seek help from your expanded friends and family network. Most families have someone (Grandma or Grandpa?) whom isn't working. Why rely on the TV to supervise your kids after school if you have a family member or friend to fall back on?
It shouldn't be any surprise that out of this is the tendency to pass those responsibilities to the rest of society. That means more laws and more government involvement.
If you resign yourself to more government involvement it would seem to me that it would be better to have it involved in solving the problem of needing two wage earners to afford to live than to have it involved in regulating what can go on TV. Maybe that's just me though.....
but offering up that admonition as The Solution isn't helpful
It's a bigger part of the solution than expecting government or Hollywood to do it for you.......
The idea is fairly simple, actually - the government requires TV shows to have ratings (sort of like they do now) and parents can use government-required technology in their TVs (sort of like the V-Chip) to filter out shows they are objectionable. In return, broadcasters can broadcast anything they want, as long as it's properly rated. (OK, so not anything, but, well, almost anything...)
See, to my way of thinking the bigger problem isn't the violence/sex on TV (although the v-chip is certainly helpful with that) but the sheer amount of TV aimed at children. How many different cable networks are aimed at kids? They can literally zone out in front of the TV from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere. We received a grand total of three channels (CBS, ABC and PBS) with our aerial antenna. Consequently we wound up (*gasp*) playing outside a fair amount. The only time I really remember watching TV much was Saturday mornings. I ditched cable a long time ago. I've tried to encourage my friends to do the same and the response is invariably "But my kids like it". Yeah, so? Your kids aren't going to be traumatized if they can't zone out in front of Cartoon Network for six hours a day during the week and 12 hours on weekends.....
Don't have TV
That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?
At the very least, ditch the cable TV service and go with over the air broadcasting only. This accomplishes three things:
1) Cuts down on the number of shows your kids are going to care about and encourages them to do other things.
2) Encourages them to watch PBS, which has a lot more redeeming value (in my experience) than most of the crap they'll zone out on with cable.
3) Saves you a shitload of money.
Install this or that filter on computer
Also a good idea. Combined with supervision it works really well for younger children. Older children can no doubt figure out a way to bypass most filters -- but hopefully by then you've instilled them with enough values that you don't have to worry as much about them anymore. I'd also make an argument for putting the computer in a public area. My kids won't be browsing the internet behind closed doors......
I love Denny Crane! And yeah, that's my form of gun "control".