f you "grew up" with these kinds of games, you must be in your early 20's and not what most people consider as a member of an age group known for making great choices or having much experience (in general, not you specifically).
I'm in my last 20s personally. Lets be real here, when I was growing up (in 7th and 8th grade), we were already being told how bad our generation was (Gen X). I think that might have done far more damage then any video game ever did.
Secondly, just because you might feel our choices are bad, doesn't mean they are. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we're in the wrong.
I just think that these things should not be sold to kids without their parents permission.
Why can't you just take the game after they bought it? Why should the clerk be burdened with checking that the game fits with YOUR morals (which, BTW, is probably different then alot of other parents) at the store?
I want to decide what my children watch. I don't want the government to do it and I also don't want big companies to do it. But the gaming world isn't a passive thing. There is big money being spent to intice people to buy these games.
If the kid makes their own money, they're probably old enough to play the games then.
If you really want to force the issue, how about just taking it when you see in it your house? You act like you're powerless once they bought the game. Do your job as a parent, and stop trying to take away the few rights children have left.
I feel I should have some control over what is being pushed on them without having to be with them 24/7.
Its only being pushed on them 24/7 if you plant them in front of the TV 24/7. They do sleep right? Game companies are somehow beaming suggestions to buy thier games into your kids head at night?
Do you have to buy everything you see advertised? Why do you think your kids do?
And it is none of the state's business if a little kid wants to buy beer, smokes or cocaine, right?
Yup, its not. Children are people and people have rights, no age limits attached. Lets also note that 14 isn't really a child anymore either...more like a young adult.
I don't want people pushing this crap on my kids.
No one is FORCING your kid to look at porn or violence. They chose to. And the fact that you want the state to do your job (which, BTW is preparing them for the real world by letting them see it for what it is, and trying to educate them on the dangers of cocain use, for example) b/c you're either to lazy or to incompetent to do it yourself.
I just don't understand you people.
I don't understand you either, trying to tell OTHER people how to raise THEIR kids.
It must be that most of you don't have kids or are still kids yourselves
My wife's kids ended up fine, not because she relied on babysitting laws, but b/c she educated her kids.
he display of sex promotes the objectification of the opposite sex
Um, bullshit. Do you have any hard proof, or are you just accepting whatever you are told, or this is what you made up on your own to justify censorship?...he desire to have sex
Of course! No one would ever want to have sex unless we had porn. Idiot.
"Casual" sex with strangers, the most common type of sex shown, devalues relationships and promotes the idea that the opposite sex exists for your pleasure.
Ever think there's nothing wrong ith casual sex? Why MUST sex be tied to a relationship? Why does it promote the idea that the opposite sex is just there for your pleasure instead of saying you can have pleasure doing something with the opposite sex? Oh wait, b/c the latter doesn't fit w/your preconceved notions.
This is not something that Americans want to promote
I'm an american, and I DO want to promote this. I think our country would be alot healtier with a healthier outlook on sex.
because they feel that society is based upon families and monogamy
Society based on family doesn't really have any impact on casual sex now does it? Monogamy is a personal choice, not something that society should have a say in.
Violence, while shocking, doesn't make you want to kill anyone.
You seem to have totally lost it here. So why is it that violence doesn't cause violence but porn causes people to want to have sex? I don't think you can say that viewing one thing causes a behavior and viewing something does not. Either waht you see influences your behavior or it doesn't.
Lastly, did you stop to think that people are rude and mean b/c they ARE only shown the bad things in life (like violence) and not the good things (like sex)? Maybe if we showed that there's alot more good and enjoyable things in life, people wouldnt' be as miserable as they are now.
Letting police have the power to search anyone's home at anytime may stop alot of crimes too, but do you think we should really be doing that?
You can argue that just about any action MIGHT harm someone else and now, according to your logic, that thing should be banned. Where do you draw the line?
People die, whether from drunk drivers or heart attacks. Someone that kills another from drunk driving won't be on the street again anytime soon if convicted of a murder charge.
Right to work state or not, I believe its still illegal to can someone for cooperating with law enforcement.
More generally, even in right to work states there is still such a thing as wrongful termination (which covers more then just discrimination). Please post links to laws saying something to the contrary.
Just to point that DWI and homicide are two different things....hence two separate laws.
I understand that, I'm arguing against having checkpoints / DWI laws at all.
Say you are driving fine, no weaving, going speed limit, in other words, your driving while intoxicated has caused you to infringe on no laws. But, say you have a tail light out. You get pulled over for that...and the officer smells liquor on you. You can get busted for DWI, but, no other laws were broken.
Exactly my point. You now have broken a law that crimializes something that may NOT have harmed anyone else. What is the justification for penalizing someone that hasn't actually caused harm to anyone else? When they do, fine, charge them with something, probably adding various reckless charges.
But, a premeditated hate crime murder is the same as any other premeditated murder. Why two laws?
I agree; in both cases, the person is still just as dead. Hate crime laws seem to say 'its not as bad to kill someone for money as it is b/c they are black, white, whatever.'
Sentencing is best left up to judges and juries, not legislators.
Where your "right" to be stupid starts to interfere with my "right" to be safe
I'm not so sure about a right to be safe...life is after all dangerous, and any illusion that its not is, well, an illusion.
But lets examine your statement a bit. Your 'right' to be safe may be interefered with if you're on the sidewalk and there's a drunk driver within 200 feet. I can buy that.
What if he's now 5 blocks away? Is it now ok for him to be drunk and driving? He's not interfering with your 'right' to be safe is he? What if you're on the 2nd floor of a building? Across town? What if he's the only one within 1/4 mile of any other living human? The only one he could possibly harm is himself, so it should be perfectly legal then.
So it seems that if other people are adequitly protected (by being indoors) or far enough way is a big factor in interfering with your 'right' to safety, so shouldn't that also be captured within drunk driving laws?
Also consider the example where you are on the side walk and within 200 ft...he's drunk, you feel threated, but he doesn't hit you and continues on..what harm have you suffered? You got scared? It seems to me that people pay to scare themselves (movies, amusement parks, etc)...but if you are scared against your will, should that be a crime too?
There are all kinds of things that COULD harm you, but do we start banning everything? Even following the rules its possible for you to be struck and killed by a driver. I'd really like to see the # of people killed by a non-drunk driver compared with a drunk one. Is the difference so astronomical? Even if it is, we have methods to deal with 'reckless endangerment and disregard' as these can help determine Murder 1 from manslaughter.
And B&E != robbery. I don't think they can convict you of shoplifting unless you do make it out of the store (if you're in the store, you still have a chance to put the item back or pay for it..how do you KNOW they were going to steal it?)
There's also attempted robbery and robbery. What was your point stupid?
What's the real difference between killing one healthy newborn infant that is specifically guarenteed to otherwise become a productive member of socitey
Ugh. You're an idiot. Yes, a serial murder is a productive member of society.
have no problem giving up a little bit of personal freedom for a genuine increase in safety (e.g. drunk driving laws, fire regulations) but trading freedom for the illusion of safety provided by airport spot checks and the like just doesn't fly with me (so to speak).
I'm always curious about this. You say that 'drunk driving' laws are a necessary encroachment on freedom. What specific laws are you talking about? The checkpoints, taking away licenses?
If you support checkpoints, I have to ask you..why do we even need a seperate law for drunk driving? Should someone be killed by a drunk driver, couldn't we keep that under existing laws? Murder 2 perhaps?
Same with laws stating that its illegal to shout fire if there's really no fire. Why are we restricting speech, when there are other alternatives, such as making the one who shouted fire pay for the expense of bringing emergency officals out, liable to be sued by someone who lost their house from a real fire b/c the fire trucks were at the wrong place, and something like muder 2 to cover anyone that died?
Those seem much more reasonable to me then taking away freedoms. I have a serious problem with the notion of punishing someone b/c something bad MIGHT have happened due to their behavior. Seems like you can say just about anything MIGHT hurt someone, then ban it.
That's the problem; prices are going up, not down. Should 40 year old CDs still cost $25? Don't think so, but they do.
I could not be buying the cd for several reasons, not just that I think its too expensive. Downloading it indicates that yes there is a demand, but no, not at 18 a pop.
If you devalue the property, you hurt the business.
It only has a value based on what people are willing to pay. They aren't listenign to that, instead saying 'i believe this is worth x dollars' when in reality its not. I can try to sell my car for double what i paid for it, but no one will buy it. So by your logic, another auto dealer selling the same car for a lower price is now causing me harm, and I should have legal recourse. Bull.
you don't like the cost of something, don't buy it. That will send the message much better than stealing it.
Yes, because of course I didn't buy it b/c it was too expensive, not because I didn't have extra money for it, or I bought something else instead. The fact is they don't know why I didn't buy it. Now if alot of people are downloadig, but few are buying, that's actually a good indicator that people do want your product, but aren't willing to pay the price you artifically set.
If you dont buy it they lower the price until you get a mutually acceptable price and move on. You are arbitrarily setting the price to zero and where do they negotiate from there?
They are abirtrarly setting the price to $20, and where do I negotiate from there? You can use that same arguemnt from both sides. Note that I haven't seen record prices drop in an attempt to sell more, they've actually been going up. If i download, its says i'm willing to pay at least 0, but not 20 for your product. So maybe they should see that and lower prices to 10. And lower it more if that still doesn't work. If it gets to be so low, maybe the product is really worth $0. Just because someone put effort into a CD doesn't mean its worth anything at all.
Get some morals here.
I have some, the industry does not. Maybe they should get some first, and see if that helps.
You are not entitled to everything you want
Just as they are not entitled to make money from every CD they print.
Using the same logic that you just did, there's nothing inherently wrong with stealing anything. You didn't pay for it, so it has no value...
I think part of the equation of no value is that music CAN be reprocuded with zero cost, thus is no longer rare. So by copying the cd you are not depriving the original owner of anything, but steal a car and you would be.
Yeah but you must admit, without an alternative you would be more likely to buy it.
No, withouth that alternative, I wouldn't be listening to music period. Its just not worth $18 for a music CD (and no, i couldn't give two shits about the cds artwork etc. If i buy a cd its to listen to it, thats it), especially considering a DVD is 20-30.
Football games are about to tank like the mid 90s where EA released complete garbage, and they don't give a fuck. Cause sports fan no longer have a choice.
Wow, didn't know that having real NFL teams was the only way to make a football game. Does it really matter that much? Sorry, IANASGP (Sports Game Player)
I understand your reasoning, but I think its somewhat flawed.
As you stated the 20-30 is only an average, so saying that means that a bug will show up quickly I don't think quite follows.
Since it is an average, 75% of the bugs might only present when the program is in state C, perhaps because state C wasn't well understood by the programmer that coded it, or other's that try to 'fix' issues with it. I don't think the bugs are stattered evenly through the source (if they are, then yes i agree, the bugs should show up quickly)...however its more likely they are concentated in a few (complex) spots, and these spots might be rarely hit.
Not necessarly. If the bug only shows up when the code is in state C, and state is a valid but very rare, there's still a bug, but its likely that it wouldn't affect you most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
f you "grew up" with these kinds of games, you must be in your early 20's and not what most people consider as a member of an age group known for making great choices or having much experience (in general, not you specifically).
I'm in my last 20s personally. Lets be real here, when I was growing up (in 7th and 8th grade), we were already being told how bad our generation was (Gen X). I think that might have done far more damage then any video game ever did.
Secondly, just because you might feel our choices are bad, doesn't mean they are. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we're in the wrong.
I just think that these things should not be sold to kids without their parents permission.
Why can't you just take the game after they bought it? Why should the clerk be burdened with checking that the game fits with YOUR morals (which, BTW, is probably different then alot of other parents) at the store?
I want to decide what my children watch. I don't want the government to do it and I also don't want big companies to do it. But the gaming world isn't a passive thing. There is big money being spent to intice people to buy these games.
If the kid makes their own money, they're probably old enough to play the games then.
If you really want to force the issue, how about just taking it when you see in it your house? You act like you're powerless once they bought the game. Do your job as a parent, and stop trying to take away the few rights children have left.
I feel I should have some control over what is being pushed on them without having to be with them 24/7.
Its only being pushed on them 24/7 if you plant them in front of the TV 24/7. They do sleep right? Game companies are somehow beaming suggestions to buy thier games into your kids head at night?
Do you have to buy everything you see advertised? Why do you think your kids do?
And it is none of the state's business if a little kid wants to buy beer, smokes or cocaine, right?
Yup, its not. Children are people and people have rights, no age limits attached. Lets also note that 14 isn't really a child anymore either...more like a young adult.
I don't want people pushing this crap on my kids.
No one is FORCING your kid to look at porn or violence. They chose to. And the fact that you want the state to do your job (which, BTW is preparing them for the real world by letting them see it for what it is, and trying to educate them on the dangers of cocain use, for example) b/c you're either to lazy or to incompetent to do it yourself.
I just don't understand you people.
I don't understand you either, trying to tell OTHER people how to raise THEIR kids.
It must be that most of you don't have kids or are still kids yourselves
My wife's kids ended up fine, not because she relied on babysitting laws, but b/c she educated her kids.
he display of sex promotes the objectification of the opposite sex
...he desire to have sex
Um, bullshit. Do you have any hard proof, or are you just accepting whatever you are told, or this is what you made up on your own to justify censorship?
Of course! No one would ever want to have sex unless we had porn. Idiot.
"Casual" sex with strangers, the most common type of sex shown, devalues relationships and promotes the idea that the opposite sex exists for your pleasure.
Ever think there's nothing wrong ith casual sex? Why MUST sex be tied to a relationship? Why does it promote the idea that the opposite sex is just there for your pleasure instead of saying you can have pleasure doing something with the opposite sex? Oh wait, b/c the latter doesn't fit w/your preconceved notions.
This is not something that Americans want to promote
I'm an american, and I DO want to promote this. I think our country would be alot healtier with a healthier outlook on sex.
because they feel that society is based upon families and monogamy
Society based on family doesn't really have any impact on casual sex now does it? Monogamy is a personal choice, not something that society should have a say in.
Violence, while shocking, doesn't make you want to kill anyone.
You seem to have totally lost it here. So why is it that violence doesn't cause violence but porn causes people to want to have sex? I don't think you can say that viewing one thing causes a behavior and viewing something does not. Either waht you see influences your behavior or it doesn't.
Lastly, did you stop to think that people are rude and mean b/c they ARE only shown the bad things in life (like violence) and not the good things (like sex)? Maybe if we showed that there's alot more good and enjoyable things in life, people wouldnt' be as miserable as they are now.
Letting police have the power to search anyone's home at anytime may stop alot of crimes too, but do you think we should really be doing that?
You can argue that just about any action MIGHT harm someone else and now, according to your logic, that thing should be banned. Where do you draw the line?
People die, whether from drunk drivers or heart attacks. Someone that kills another from drunk driving won't be on the street again anytime soon if convicted of a murder charge.
Right to work state or not, I believe its still illegal to can someone for cooperating with law enforcement.
More generally, even in right to work states there is still such a thing as wrongful termination (which covers more then just discrimination). Please post links to laws saying something to the contrary.
Just to point that DWI and homicide are two different things....hence two separate laws.
I understand that, I'm arguing against having checkpoints / DWI laws at all.
Say you are driving fine, no weaving, going speed limit, in other words, your driving while intoxicated has caused you to infringe on no laws. But, say you have a tail light out. You get pulled over for that...and the officer smells liquor on you. You can get busted for DWI, but, no other laws were broken.
Exactly my point. You now have broken a law that crimializes something that may NOT have harmed anyone else. What is the justification for penalizing someone that hasn't actually caused harm to anyone else? When they do, fine, charge them with something, probably adding various reckless charges.
But, a premeditated hate crime murder is the same as any other premeditated murder. Why two laws?
I agree; in both cases, the person is still just as dead. Hate crime laws seem to say 'its not as bad to kill someone for money as it is b/c they are black, white, whatever.'
Sentencing is best left up to judges and juries, not legislators.
Heh..didn't reconize your name, but apparently we butted heads on a censorship article a few days ago.
Well nothing wrong w/a healthy debate is there?
Where your "right" to be stupid starts to interfere with my "right" to be safe
I'm not so sure about a right to be safe...life is after all dangerous, and any illusion that its not is, well, an illusion.
But lets examine your statement a bit. Your 'right' to be safe may be interefered with if you're on the sidewalk and there's a drunk driver within 200 feet. I can buy that.
What if he's now 5 blocks away? Is it now ok for him to be drunk and driving? He's not interfering with your 'right' to be safe is he? What if you're on the 2nd floor of a building? Across town? What if he's the only one within 1/4 mile of any other living human? The only one he could possibly harm is himself, so it should be perfectly legal then.
So it seems that if other people are adequitly protected (by being indoors) or far enough way is a big factor in interfering with your 'right' to safety, so shouldn't that also be captured within drunk driving laws?
Also consider the example where you are on the side walk and within 200 ft...he's drunk, you feel threated, but he doesn't hit you and continues on..what harm have you suffered? You got scared? It seems to me that people pay to scare themselves (movies, amusement parks, etc)...but if you are scared against your will, should that be a crime too?
There are all kinds of things that COULD harm you, but do we start banning everything? Even following the rules its possible for you to be struck and killed by a driver. I'd really like to see the # of people killed by a non-drunk driver compared with a drunk one. Is the difference so astronomical? Even if it is, we have methods to deal with 'reckless endangerment and disregard' as these can help determine Murder 1 from manslaughter.
Cool, then we should get rid of that law on taking pics down women's blouses, since of course there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
All the upskirt sites, rejoice!
And B&E != robbery. I don't think they can convict you of shoplifting unless you do make it out of the store (if you're in the store, you still have a chance to put the item back or pay for it..how do you KNOW they were going to steal it?)
There's also attempted robbery and robbery. What was your point stupid?
What's the real difference between killing one healthy newborn infant that is specifically guarenteed to otherwise become a productive member of socitey
Ugh. You're an idiot. Yes, a serial murder is a productive member of society.
Why is this insightful? Its not possible that they weren't doing enough and have now gone overboard?
I'd think stunts like that are rare though, since again, if caught, it will bring nothing be headaches to the employer.
Is it not the same in the UK as the US? I believe you CANNOT be legally fired for complying with law enforcement.
have no problem giving up a little bit of personal freedom for a genuine increase in safety (e.g. drunk driving laws, fire regulations) but trading freedom for the illusion of safety provided by airport spot checks and the like just doesn't fly with me (so to speak).
I'm always curious about this. You say that 'drunk driving' laws are a necessary encroachment on freedom. What specific laws are you talking about? The checkpoints, taking away licenses?
If you support checkpoints, I have to ask you..why do we even need a seperate law for drunk driving? Should someone be killed by a drunk driver, couldn't we keep that under existing laws? Murder 2 perhaps?
Same with laws stating that its illegal to shout fire if there's really no fire. Why are we restricting speech, when there are other alternatives, such as making the one who shouted fire pay for the expense of bringing emergency officals out, liable to be sued by someone who lost their house from a real fire b/c the fire trucks were at the wrong place, and something like muder 2 to cover anyone that died?
Those seem much more reasonable to me then taking away freedoms. I have a serious problem with the notion of punishing someone b/c something bad MIGHT have happened due to their behavior. Seems like you can say just about anything MIGHT hurt someone, then ban it.
And inflation is depriving me of nothing as well.
Depends. If your wages increase at least at the rate of inflation, then no, it doesn't cost you anything.
At any rate, inflation isn't even something you could buy if you wanted to, and isn't something you can even really control with great success.
I think you're just trolling, but in case you're not, what exactly is your point?
That's the problem; prices are going up, not down. Should 40 year old CDs still cost $25? Don't think so, but they do.
I could not be buying the cd for several reasons, not just that I think its too expensive. Downloading it indicates that yes there is a demand, but no, not at 18 a pop.
So have similar but not exact...like Joe Montain (with almost the exact same stats). If debby does dallas can do it...
Maybe its b/c i just don't care for sports video games, but I thought the thrill of football was the game itself, not some icon.
If you devalue the property, you hurt the business.
It only has a value based on what people are willing to pay. They aren't listenign to that, instead saying 'i believe this is worth x dollars' when in reality its not. I can try to sell my car for double what i paid for it, but no one will buy it. So by your logic, another auto dealer selling the same car for a lower price is now causing me harm, and I should have legal recourse. Bull.
you don't like the cost of something, don't buy it. That will send the message much better than stealing it.
Yes, because of course I didn't buy it b/c it was too expensive, not because I didn't have extra money for it, or I bought something else instead. The fact is they don't know why I didn't buy it. Now if alot of people are downloadig, but few are buying, that's actually a good indicator that people do want your product, but aren't willing to pay the price you artifically set.
If you dont buy it they lower the price until you get a mutually acceptable price and move on. You are arbitrarily setting the price to zero and where do they negotiate from there?
They are abirtrarly setting the price to $20, and where do I negotiate from there? You can use that same arguemnt from both sides. Note that I haven't seen record prices drop in an attempt to sell more, they've actually been going up. If i download, its says i'm willing to pay at least 0, but not 20 for your product. So maybe they should see that and lower prices to 10. And lower it more if that still doesn't work. If it gets to be so low, maybe the product is really worth $0. Just because someone put effort into a CD doesn't mean its worth anything at all.
Get some morals here.
I have some, the industry does not. Maybe they should get some first, and see if that helps.
You are not entitled to everything you want
Just as they are not entitled to make money from every CD they print.
Using the same logic that you just did, there's nothing inherently wrong with stealing anything. You didn't pay for it, so it has no value...
I think part of the equation of no value is that music CAN be reprocuded with zero cost, thus is no longer rare. So by copying the cd you are not depriving the original owner of anything, but steal a car and you would be.
Yeah but you must admit, without an alternative you would be more likely to buy it.
No, withouth that alternative, I wouldn't be listening to music period. Its just not worth $18 for a music CD (and no, i couldn't give two shits about the cds artwork etc. If i buy a cd its to listen to it, thats it), especially considering a DVD is 20-30.
Football games are about to tank like the mid 90s where EA released complete garbage, and they don't give a fuck. Cause sports fan no longer have a choice.
Wow, didn't know that having real NFL teams was the only way to make a football game. Does it really matter that much? Sorry, IANASGP (Sports Game Player)
I understand your reasoning, but I think its somewhat flawed.
As you stated the 20-30 is only an average, so saying that means that a bug will show up quickly I don't think quite follows.
Since it is an average, 75% of the bugs might only present when the program is in state C, perhaps because state C wasn't well understood by the programmer that coded it, or other's that try to 'fix' issues with it. I don't think the bugs are stattered evenly through the source (if they are, then yes i agree, the bugs should show up quickly)...however its more likely they are concentated in a few (complex) spots, and these spots might be rarely hit.
Not necessarly. If the bug only shows up when the code is in state C, and state is a valid but very rare, there's still a bug, but its likely that it wouldn't affect you most of the time.