I've never tried any PC VPL, but I've had a go with Lego MindStorms (simple, I know) which use something like you describe. I found that it quickly becomes unmanagable, is hard to use, slow, and inflexible.
When I say that, what I mean is, assembly would have been much easier than it. Which says enough I think.
I live in Australia, and there is no R or AO rating for games, and anything which is not found to be suitable for an M15 classification is given an RC (Refused Classification) rating, and is not allowed.
But the reason that the parents were saying no or to wait was because the government wouldn't allow the game to be sold unless the parent (who was unable to buy the game themselves) bought it themselves.
Take out the last sentence, and my point still holds. It wasn't about immediacy, i was just trying to point out that there are situations when the parent can't buy the game for the child, but still give permission.
I probably shouldn't have put in "Meh, you can wait 2 weeks/a month", everyone seems to be paying attention to that over what I was trying to point out.
It's not the cost itself, it's the principle...and anyway, I don't live in the US, and in Australia, it is the Office Of Film And Literature Classification (a government body) that does this.
What I don't like about it is that the publisher is the one responsible for paying it, when it is clearly meant to be benefiting the majority, and taking away sales from the publisher.
So really, you're charging a publisher to not allow their games to be sold (and especially over here, since there is no R rating for games, and they are simply refused classification, and not allowed to be sold).
If you want *really* painful demolition, you make a think steel-reinforced concrete wall like you said, but in random places, put in some explosives and ball bearings, with a detonator in the middle.
It's the kind of thing that would discourage most people, but you would start to attract lawyers;)
In order to do that, the parents need some control over what their kids are allowed to buy
How is government enforced limitations giving parents control over what their kids are allowed to buy?
Requiring parental permission is not "censorship".
Yes, it is censorship, even if in some cases it is a good thing. Controlling the flow of information that someone gets is censorship, it doesn't matter if it is for good or bad reasons.
And it isn't the families who are supposedly benefiting from this who foot the bill either.
I don't think that the idea of keeping kids in their own world, trying to protect them from the knowledge of bad things in life. And when I say bad, I mean what a few people think are bad.
Especially when such things are decided by a group of people who seem to find fault in anything. And making people pay to have their material censored.
I know, but I was just trying to point out that there are situations where you can have permission, but the parent can't come.
I just happen to be of the opinion that trying to keep kids in their own little world is a bad idea.
Especially since these things are being rated by people who seem to try to censor every single thing that could possibly be seen as offensive by anyone.
What I mean is that there is a difference between giving permission and proving permission, even though in practice there is no difference when it is being enforced.
And then there is the question of whether this should be done at all.
What would you propose? Writing a note? Come on. How on earth would a retailer vet that signature?
If there was a way to verifiy the age remotely, it could always be pre-ordered...but no, I can't think of anything that doesn't involve crypto stuff. Which usually means anything I think of won't work.
Also, you need to remember to make the distinction giving permission and proving that permission was given. Buying it for the child proves that the parent has given permission.
If they are using the network, they already have a security model in place. There shouldn't be any additional security risk offloading cpu/storage to client workstations
But this would mean that clients have access to data that they shouldn't be allowed to see. On a neteork with client/server, the client doesn't get to see that data.
And would it be secure if everyone had physical access to a server with the current system, anyway? No.
Do I have a problem with limiting minors' access to some media without explicit guardian approval? Not a lick
Did I say that there was a problem with that?
And anyway, I was just trying to give an example of a situation where you can have permission, but the parents can't actually buy the game for the child. I'm not saying it's a huge problem, but to me it is annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never tried any PC VPL, but I've had a go with Lego MindStorms (simple, I know) which use something like you describe. I found that it quickly becomes unmanagable, is hard to use, slow, and inflexible.
When I say that, what I mean is, assembly would have been much easier than it. Which says enough I think.
It is a democracy, but it seems that we really just do whatever the US tells us or does themselves.
I mean it's not like we have freedom of speech over here...
I live in Australia, and there is no R or AO rating for games, and anything which is not found to be suitable for an M15 classification is given an RC (Refused Classification) rating, and is not allowed.
How do you think WE would cope if a more advanced civilisation gave GWB or Osama a death star?
But the reason that the parents were saying no or to wait was because the government wouldn't allow the game to be sold unless the parent (who was unable to buy the game themselves) bought it themselves.
Are games able to be banned entirely in the US?
Take out the last sentence, and my point still holds. It wasn't about immediacy, i was just trying to point out that there are situations when the parent can't buy the game for the child, but still give permission.
I probably shouldn't have put in "Meh, you can wait 2 weeks/a month", everyone seems to be paying attention to that over what I was trying to point out.
It's not the cost itself, it's the principle...and anyway, I don't live in the US, and in Australia, it is the Office Of Film And Literature Classification (a government body) that does this.
What I don't like about it is that the publisher is the one responsible for paying it, when it is clearly meant to be benefiting the majority, and taking away sales from the publisher.
So really, you're charging a publisher to not allow their games to be sold (and especially over here, since there is no R rating for games, and they are simply refused classification, and not allowed to be sold).
What distro did you use? Linux supports almost everything from my experience.
It has it in the nVidia drivers, if you use one of their cards.
Well, I'd just get a stripper with a gun hidden...somewhere.
Number of atoms, so probably neither
Who do you think sets the ratings? The companies themselves? It's done by a government agency, and they charge the publisher for it.
If you want *really* painful demolition, you make a think steel-reinforced concrete wall like you said, but in random places, put in some explosives and ball bearings, with a detonator in the middle.
;)
It's the kind of thing that would discourage most people, but you would start to attract lawyers
Better than Coke :)
In order to do that, the parents need some control over what their kids are allowed to buy
How is government enforced limitations giving parents control over what their kids are allowed to buy?
Requiring parental permission is not "censorship".
Yes, it is censorship, even if in some cases it is a good thing. Controlling the flow of information that someone gets is censorship, it doesn't matter if it is for good or bad reasons.
And it isn't the families who are supposedly benefiting from this who foot the bill either.
If they decree you can't have a game, then that's the final say
This isn't about the parents saying the child can't have the game, it's about the government saying it.
I don't think that the idea of keeping kids in their own world, trying to protect them from the knowledge of bad things in life. And when I say bad, I mean what a few people think are bad.
Especially when such things are decided by a group of people who seem to find fault in anything. And making people pay to have their material censored.
I know, but I was just trying to point out that there are situations where you can have permission, but the parent can't come.
I just happen to be of the opinion that trying to keep kids in their own little world is a bad idea.
Especially since these things are being rated by people who seem to try to censor every single thing that could possibly be seen as offensive by anyone.
What I mean is that there is a difference between giving permission and proving permission, even though in practice there is no difference when it is being enforced.
And then there is the question of whether this should be done at all.
Memory doesn't have to be RAM you know
What would you propose? Writing a note? Come on. How on earth would a retailer vet that signature?
If there was a way to verifiy the age remotely, it could always be pre-ordered...but no, I can't think of anything that doesn't involve crypto stuff. Which usually means anything I think of won't work.
Also, you need to remember to make the distinction giving permission and proving that permission was given. Buying it for the child proves that the parent has given permission.
If they are using the network, they already have a security model in place. There shouldn't be any additional security risk offloading cpu/storage to client workstations
But this would mean that clients have access to data that they shouldn't be allowed to see. On a neteork with client/server, the client doesn't get to see that data.
And would it be secure if everyone had physical access to a server with the current system, anyway? No.
Do I have a problem with limiting minors' access to some media without explicit guardian approval? Not a lick
Did I say that there was a problem with that?
And anyway, I was just trying to give an example of a situation where you can have permission, but the parents can't actually buy the game for the child. I'm not saying it's a huge problem, but to me it is annoying.