In case you missed it, I'm more or less agreeing that things shouldn't be restricted. Perhaps it didn't come out the right way in my post. If anything, I seem to be slightly more extreme in my viewpoint. Prohibition, age-based or not, does absolutely nothing to help anything. This applies even to alcohol and cigarettes (my original point).
I agree with idea one, but I doubt 2 and 3 would ever work, not to mention that they would annoy everyone else. It's not the job of government or industry to be a parent. It's not that hard to be involved with your kid, insofar as knowing what games they play and what TV they watch. The truth is, there is no answer. Prohibition, whether age-based (games, movies, alcohol, tobacco, etc...) or complete (marijuana, cocaine) never solves anything, because people invariably get around it. Sadly, some people are bad parents. The only way to fix it is to make sure that kids receive some measure of discipline and maturity from the school system, and even that won't work entirely (because then parents will sue).
If by Thames you mean "Boston Harbour", you would be correct. Now *that* was an act of terrorism; it was merely meant to make the tea-drinkers afraid that their supply would be cut off, and it didn't accomplish any military ends... for shame, America.
And, guess what? 90% of the parents are right. How many teens have killed someone versus the number of teens who have played GTA? I'll give you a hint, not 1:10, that's for sure. Parents are quite possibly the most able to make that judgement, and it certainly shouldn't be made by government. It's usually the kids who's parents don't pay any attention to them whatsoever, and buy whatever game they want, that are the ones in danger. Of course, there is the occasional parent who is completely divorced from reality, but I doubt it's as common as you imply.
Up to 14? That's absolutely bizzare, unless by "computers" you mean "violent games", in which case I'm still not sure it's the best idea, but it's not irretrievably stupid. Sheltering your kids will do no good; trust me, I have seen the results, and they usually involve resentment and/or psychopathic tendencies (I'm not joking here). Plus, keeping your kids away from computers will do absolutely no good for them educationally. If computers are considered necessary now, it's nothing to where they will be in 20 years.
Or perhaps parents *gasp* actually want to be nice to their offspring! If you can afford to buy a car for your kid, why not? A 60" TV is excessive IMO, but who are we to judge? My parents bought me a car. It doesn't turn you into some evil beast. Now, breaking the agreement is another thing, but if the parents are willing to let it slide, it shouldn't matter to you. Or are you just jealous that she has a car and a nice TV?
You have to for alcohol and cigarettes. Some people would argue that this is a similar situation (not me, mind you I don't think alcohol or cigarettes should be restricted either).
Same. Every M game (up to about 15 years old) did require somewhat of a battle to obtain, but by and large, my parents don't really care what I play. Perhaps these complaining parents (there are some, just look at Parent's Television Council) should have a trusting relationship with their kids, where they don't have to worry if their kids see violence.
Not necessarily. Just someone who doesn't have their head up their ass. I know my parents let me play video games, and probably don't care if I'm virgin or not. Some people just realize that there are bigger things to worry about.
Hey, it stopped me (briefly) from smoking. Just a simple ID check. That being said, I still have the occasional cigar when I get a chance. It helps somewhat, but it isn't exactly foolproof.
I've never heard of that game, but it sounds really stupid and boring. I wouldn't so much worry about desenitization, so much as I would about the intellect of the people who would buy such a game.
It's not very reasonable to restrict teens from seeing this sort of thing, unless they have some underlying personality disorder, such as a history of violence. They *will* get around it, and there's a good possibility they might resent you for it. The truth is that, by the teenage years, there's very little you can do: the teen will find a way to do whatever it is they want to do. The only hope a parent has is to build a relationship with their child in the earlier years, that can be used to persuade their child not to do bad things. I don't drink underage, except on vacation and the like, purely because I have no desire to, not because it's hard or something like that. And it should be self-explanitory why I don't carry videogame violence over to the real world.
Well, to a degree, that's true. Mature children should be allowed to play M-rated games. You can't convince me that there's a great difference between a mature 16 year old and an immature 17 or 18 year old. The problem is that parents usually make a bad judgement that way, because they aren't involved in their kids lives. It was a long struggle for me (14 or 15 at the time, I can't recall) to convince my parents that I could "handle" GTA III. In the end, I got it, and they were able to trust that I could handle such entertainment. But, that's not to say that I think everyone at that age could handle it, just like I think it's foolish that you can get a learner's permit at 14 (although it made me quite happy). The root problem is lack of parental involvment.
Frankly, I don't give two shits what CR says, because both my BMW and my Dad's MB are working fine, and have never needed any repair, other than when the SLK hit a ladder that dropped off a truck and was sitting in the middle of a highway. The BMW had precisely one incident, involving the drivetrain, that was fixed fully under warranty. Not a bad record, I'd say.
As did, I believe, the Ford F150 (if my memory is correct). My dad also owns one of these, which has gone completely without incident. Either he's incredibly lucky, or CR is full of shit. I lean toward the latter. Either way, my post was based upon my own personal experiences, which fly in the face of everything CR has to say.
If the US doesn't want these things in their country, then they are free to stop them at the border and arrest the people who ordered them. My guess is there was some sort of warning along the lines of "this may be illegal in your jurisdiction", so I fail to see how Emery is responsible. Furthermore, I think it's disgraceful that the Canadian authorities responded to arm-twisting by the Americans on this case.
Hmmm... how interesting. I never really said anything about MB, so it's entirely possible (even likely) that MB is mostly a prestige brand. BMW, however, is a performance brand. Oddly enough, by dad's SLK hasn't been in the shop for anything except routine maintainance (oil changes and the like), so I suppose it's possible that some people are just unlucky with their cars.
If the US (the country that most often seems to come up in this sort of thing) doesn't like something in its country, it should stop it at the border. The US has become drunk with power, to the point where it extrodites foreign citizens for commiting crimes on foreign soil, if they have so much as a relation to the US. For example, this story. This has to end at some point before the US rules the world.
I know you're just a troll, but anyway... having driven many cars, trust me, BMW is more than just a prestige brand. It handles better than any other car I've driven. In my mind, the question of repair frequency is automatically skewed against expensive cars, because people who buy expensive cars are less likely to let small things go unfixed. I certainly haven't noticed any undue maintainance problems with mine.
Ah yes... and occasionally, you get the truly excellent drivers who can somehow manage to coordinate their speed with the person in the other lane (usually about 10 km/h under the speed limit, of course) so that no one can get by.
Well, if you're competent to drive on a freeway, you should have no trouble. You could say the same thing about a driver's license. As an almost-related point of interest, why don't we make driver licensing more like pilot licensing? To fly at night, or in bad conditions, you need additional training. Why isn't there a similar system for driver licensing?
If you can see over it, run over it. That's what I was taught in driver's ed, and it seems to work out quite well. On the other hand, if you're about to hit a moose, you should really do your best to avoid it.
It depends what kind of road you're talking about. Weaving in and out of traffic isn't a good idea, and will no doubt cause an accident eventually. On the other hand, if you are talking about a relatively empty highway, I don't see anything wrong with going faster and passing, as long as it is done in a safe manner (i.e. you don't pass on a double line).
Slashdot Mirror
In case you missed it, I'm more or less agreeing that things shouldn't be restricted. Perhaps it didn't come out the right way in my post. If anything, I seem to be slightly more extreme in my viewpoint. Prohibition, age-based or not, does absolutely nothing to help anything. This applies even to alcohol and cigarettes (my original point).
I agree with idea one, but I doubt 2 and 3 would ever work, not to mention that they would annoy everyone else. It's not the job of government or industry to be a parent. It's not that hard to be involved with your kid, insofar as knowing what games they play and what TV they watch. The truth is, there is no answer. Prohibition, whether age-based (games, movies, alcohol, tobacco, etc...) or complete (marijuana, cocaine) never solves anything, because people invariably get around it. Sadly, some people are bad parents. The only way to fix it is to make sure that kids receive some measure of discipline and maturity from the school system, and even that won't work entirely (because then parents will sue).
If by Thames you mean "Boston Harbour", you would be correct. Now *that* was an act of terrorism; it was merely meant to make the tea-drinkers afraid that their supply would be cut off, and it didn't accomplish any military ends... for shame, America.
And, guess what? 90% of the parents are right. How many teens have killed someone versus the number of teens who have played GTA? I'll give you a hint, not 1:10, that's for sure. Parents are quite possibly the most able to make that judgement, and it certainly shouldn't be made by government. It's usually the kids who's parents don't pay any attention to them whatsoever, and buy whatever game they want, that are the ones in danger. Of course, there is the occasional parent who is completely divorced from reality, but I doubt it's as common as you imply.
Up to 14? That's absolutely bizzare, unless by "computers" you mean "violent games", in which case I'm still not sure it's the best idea, but it's not irretrievably stupid. Sheltering your kids will do no good; trust me, I have seen the results, and they usually involve resentment and/or psychopathic tendencies (I'm not joking here). Plus, keeping your kids away from computers will do absolutely no good for them educationally. If computers are considered necessary now, it's nothing to where they will be in 20 years.
Or perhaps parents *gasp* actually want to be nice to their offspring! If you can afford to buy a car for your kid, why not? A 60" TV is excessive IMO, but who are we to judge? My parents bought me a car. It doesn't turn you into some evil beast. Now, breaking the agreement is another thing, but if the parents are willing to let it slide, it shouldn't matter to you. Or are you just jealous that she has a car and a nice TV?
You have to for alcohol and cigarettes. Some people would argue that this is a similar situation (not me, mind you I don't think alcohol or cigarettes should be restricted either).
Same. Every M game (up to about 15 years old) did require somewhat of a battle to obtain, but by and large, my parents don't really care what I play. Perhaps these complaining parents (there are some, just look at Parent's Television Council) should have a trusting relationship with their kids, where they don't have to worry if their kids see violence.
Not necessarily. Just someone who doesn't have their head up their ass. I know my parents let me play video games, and probably don't care if I'm virgin or not. Some people just realize that there are bigger things to worry about.
Hey, it stopped me (briefly) from smoking. Just a simple ID check. That being said, I still have the occasional cigar when I get a chance. It helps somewhat, but it isn't exactly foolproof.
I've never heard of that game, but it sounds really stupid and boring. I wouldn't so much worry about desenitization, so much as I would about the intellect of the people who would buy such a game.
It's not very reasonable to restrict teens from seeing this sort of thing, unless they have some underlying personality disorder, such as a history of violence. They *will* get around it, and there's a good possibility they might resent you for it. The truth is that, by the teenage years, there's very little you can do: the teen will find a way to do whatever it is they want to do. The only hope a parent has is to build a relationship with their child in the earlier years, that can be used to persuade their child not to do bad things. I don't drink underage, except on vacation and the like, purely because I have no desire to, not because it's hard or something like that. And it should be self-explanitory why I don't carry videogame violence over to the real world.
Well, to a degree, that's true. Mature children should be allowed to play M-rated games. You can't convince me that there's a great difference between a mature 16 year old and an immature 17 or 18 year old. The problem is that parents usually make a bad judgement that way, because they aren't involved in their kids lives. It was a long struggle for me (14 or 15 at the time, I can't recall) to convince my parents that I could "handle" GTA III. In the end, I got it, and they were able to trust that I could handle such entertainment. But, that's not to say that I think everyone at that age could handle it, just like I think it's foolish that you can get a learner's permit at 14 (although it made me quite happy). The root problem is lack of parental involvment.
Frankly, I don't give two shits what CR says, because both my BMW and my Dad's MB are working fine, and have never needed any repair, other than when the SLK hit a ladder that dropped off a truck and was sitting in the middle of a highway. The BMW had precisely one incident, involving the drivetrain, that was fixed fully under warranty. Not a bad record, I'd say.
As did, I believe, the Ford F150 (if my memory is correct). My dad also owns one of these, which has gone completely without incident. Either he's incredibly lucky, or CR is full of shit. I lean toward the latter. Either way, my post was based upon my own personal experiences, which fly in the face of everything CR has to say.
I'm not sure if you get the joke or not, but Dihydrogen Monoxide is, in fact, water.
If the US doesn't want these things in their country, then they are free to stop them at the border and arrest the people who ordered them. My guess is there was some sort of warning along the lines of "this may be illegal in your jurisdiction", so I fail to see how Emery is responsible. Furthermore, I think it's disgraceful that the Canadian authorities responded to arm-twisting by the Americans on this case.
Hmmm... how interesting. I never really said anything about MB, so it's entirely possible (even likely) that MB is mostly a prestige brand. BMW, however, is a performance brand. Oddly enough, by dad's SLK hasn't been in the shop for anything except routine maintainance (oil changes and the like), so I suppose it's possible that some people are just unlucky with their cars.
"I don't know one, therefore it doesn't exist." That's some excellent logic there, buddy...
If the US (the country that most often seems to come up in this sort of thing) doesn't like something in its country, it should stop it at the border. The US has become drunk with power, to the point where it extrodites foreign citizens for commiting crimes on foreign soil, if they have so much as a relation to the US. For example, this story. This has to end at some point before the US rules the world.
I know you're just a troll, but anyway... having driven many cars, trust me, BMW is more than just a prestige brand. It handles better than any other car I've driven. In my mind, the question of repair frequency is automatically skewed against expensive cars, because people who buy expensive cars are less likely to let small things go unfixed. I certainly haven't noticed any undue maintainance problems with mine.
Ah yes... and occasionally, you get the truly excellent drivers who can somehow manage to coordinate their speed with the person in the other lane (usually about 10 km/h under the speed limit, of course) so that no one can get by.
Well, if you're competent to drive on a freeway, you should have no trouble. You could say the same thing about a driver's license. As an almost-related point of interest, why don't we make driver licensing more like pilot licensing? To fly at night, or in bad conditions, you need additional training. Why isn't there a similar system for driver licensing?
If you can see over it, run over it. That's what I was taught in driver's ed, and it seems to work out quite well. On the other hand, if you're about to hit a moose, you should really do your best to avoid it.
It depends what kind of road you're talking about. Weaving in and out of traffic isn't a good idea, and will no doubt cause an accident eventually. On the other hand, if you are talking about a relatively empty highway, I don't see anything wrong with going faster and passing, as long as it is done in a safe manner (i.e. you don't pass on a double line).