No, it does not. You do not get to decide games are or are not appropropriate for someone else's kid. Ever.
Exactly! I agree with you here 100%! The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision? You either think that this law forbids the USE of these games by minors or you like red herring. Either way, all this law would do is make it so the parent gets to decide if their child should play these games or not. By removing these laws, you are taking that responsibility AWAY from the parents and giving it to their kids!
These laws do not provide or safeguard anyone's freedom or rights of any kind. Parents already have ultimate and total authority over their kids' gameplay, and nothing the government can do will increase that. Uh, I'm afraid you are wrong here. This law would do exactly that! While it is not perfect, it does ensure that kids are not out buying games without parental knowledge. I did stuff my parents didn't know about. Didn't you?
Alcohol has proven, objectively demonstratable harmful effects. Video games do not, as every single judge in these cases has noted. I realize you "don't give a shit what researchers say", but they do, as they should. Rational people don't ignore scientific research just because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear. Right! Rational people do NOT ignore scientific research. So if scientific research says that violent video games are harmful to children, then the government is completely within their right to ban the sale to minors, right? OK, how's this:
An early study on the effects of video games on children found that playing video games had more positive effects on children than watching television. A conference sponsored by Atari at Harvard University in 1983 presented preliminary data which failed to identify ill effects. More recent research, however, has begun to find connections between children's playing of violent video games and later aggressive behavior. A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993).
Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993).
Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that ea
Please explain the difference between sopranos, which you can get on HBO(which many kids have access to, OMG!), Because parents pay for it. They made the decision to have HBO and let their kids watch it. That's fine with me. Not too many 10 year olds can to to Time Warner and order HBO for their house.
the internet(which many kids have access to, OMG!), the Internet (it's capitalized, by the way) is free speech. However, there are limits. Porn sites are supposed to make sure a visitor is over 18 before showing adult material. This is law. Has it kept adult material off the web and stifled the freedom of the Internet?
a store(which many kids have access to, OMG!), I don't see your point here. Yes, kids have access to stores, so?
or at someone elses house(which many kids have access to, OMG!) This is my favorite! I can monitor what my kid is exposed to at home. I have no control over what my neighbors allow their kids to do. This law at least lets me know that the parents are aware of what games their kids have on their consoles. And in meeting those parents, I can decide if I want my kid hanging out at their house. With no regulations on who can purchase adult video games, I can not know who decided what games are played. Good parents can have bad kids. I trust those good parents much more than I do their kids!
and a video game that you purchase or play If I purchase it, that's OK because I'm an adult. I am mature enough to decide what I want to play and what I want my kids to play. Whose judgment do you value more, yours or you preteen child's?
You say you're a responsible parent, then be one. Don't force others to have less rights so you can uh...be a good parent anyway? Yeah, I'm a responsible parent. So is my wife. Age restrictions on video games do not restrict anyones rights. Just as age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco and porn do not restrict anyones rights. It gives control to parents! Rejecting these laws removes the rights parents have in making the decisions as to what their kids are exposed to.
Please keep your children the hell away from everyone else. You obviously haven't taught them dick about the world and their ignorance is dangerous. Have you taught them how to safely use a knife? (Every Cub Scout is taught this)About firearm safety? (I was taught at 10) Basic self defence? First aid? Hell my neighbor's kids (10 and 12) have each been taking martial arts since 3. They might be on the bus with your kid. And if you kid's unbalanced, ignorant mind decides its a good idea to immitate something he saw on a cartoon on TV on one of those kids, he's gonna get himself hurt. You are a miseable excuse for a parent.
You have no idea how I raise my child. If you think it is a good idea for me to teach my daughter gun safety and proper knife wielding, then you obviously have no idea that some things are inappropriate for children of a certain age. You see, my daughter is 10 months old. She can not walk on her own, much less handle a fire arm! But just as handling a rifle is not appropriate for a 10 month old, so is an extremely violent video game for a 10 year old. When she is old enough, she will be taught. It is up to me to make that decision and the state ensures that it stays that way. That's why she won't be able to walk into Walmart at age 12 and walk out with a rifle! So don't give me any shit about my parenting skills. If you think handing a 10 month old a knife is a good idea, then obviously I'm not the one who is a "miseable excuse for a parent".
From what I can tell from your comment, you know that education is important. I agree that children should know about gun safety, how to use a knife and self defense, but it is up to the parent to decide when. Also, I feel that parents should also know what is on the disc that their kids are feeding their consoles. It is up to me to decide what is age appropriate for my kids. They are unable to make that decision for themselves. Unfortunately, many parents won't take the time to educate themselves, much less their kids. While requiring and ID to purchase an adult video game won't keep kids from playing them, it will force parents to at least know what the kids are playing. Why is that a bad thing?
That doesn't give you any right to set rules over his parenting. "Period" to use the same word you used earlier.
Actually, it does. If every parent educated their kids, there wouldn't be a need for public schools. Unfortunately, many parents won't take the time to teach their kids to read, so we have public schools and parents can be arrested if their kids don't go.
This is supposed to be a free country and that is not your decision to make.
Well, Hell! Since it is a free country, why do we have any laws at all? If I want my kid to ditch school and sell his/her body for cash, I guess I'm free to do so. If I want to put Liquid Plumber in my kids bottle, well, that is not your decision to make! All laws serve a purpose. They restrict freedom for some and at the same time, provide it for others.
If you are religious and Christian, remember how the road to hell is paved. If you are not, just read your history books. "Good intentions", like perhaps the Prohibition (whose net effect was to irrevocably establish organized crime in the USA), have rarely (if ever) turned out positive results.
Comparing the prohibition of alcohol to adults is a poor example. That prohibition still exists for children and it is perfectly Constitutional. As for laws that are designed with good intentions? You mean like the prohibition on slavery? How about the prohibition on hate crimes? What about the prohibition on CEO's raiding retirement funds? All made with good intentions and all successful at making life better for all of us. You need to read the rest of the pages from that history book of yours!
I found your portrayal of a "redneck" family offensive and unnecessary. And it smacks of arrogance.
I'm sorry I offended you. However, what I hinted at although didn't mention directly, was that "Redneck Jim" is actually my father. I will not be told what I can and can not say about my own family. What should offend you is that Redneck Jim and his unruly children actually exist and people like you don't give a damn.
That said - law isn't going to make anyone a better parent. If your example holds true, then "redneck Jim," law or no law, isn't going to go down to the Wal-Mart with his kids to buy Grand Theft Auto, he's going to go down to Wal-Mart and buy them a damned shotgun! -sarc- Well Hell! If law isn't going to make anyone a better parent, why bother? We spend a fortune on things like school, tobacco and alcohol prohibition for children, and ensuring that kids keep out of porn shops, strip clubs and bars. Just think of the money we could save by no longer forcing kids to go to school, not just in the truant officer pay, but in the books, desks and so on! For that matter, speed limits won't make people better drivers. Social Security won't make people better financial experts. Murder laws won't make people respect life any more. If the goal is to make people better people, then let's repeal it all!/sarc
The goal is educate parents. My parents neither had nor have any idea what is out there. I could have purchased anything I wanted as long as I told them that it was OK. My parents had no idea and no one was going to tell them. This is intended to aid parents in making decisions for their kids. It does not prevent them from buying whatever they want for their kids. It helps make them aware. And as for "Redneck Jim" buying his kids a shotgun... well that is a guaranteed right under the Constitution, yet, we have limits on who can purchase one and when. Are you saying gun laws should be banned? I have more of a Constitutional right to a shotgun than I do a video game. You can't claim it is unconstitutional to require age limits on video games and claim that gun restrictions are perfectly Constitutional.
Fine and they trust their kids. Assume for a moment that they know what they're doing. And according to the first statement I quoted, you must also.
Sure, they may trust their kids. It is just as likely that they neglect their kids. Which one is it? Assume for a minute that they don't give a damn what their kids are doing. These kids are going to get on the school bus with my kid.
Now you're out of line. By your own rules and mine. It's none of your business and it's not your decision to make. The unconstitutionality of these laws comes from this, I believe.
I never said that I want to make any decision for you. I just want to make sure that YOU are the one making the decision. If you trust your kid to play Postal2, great! You should have no problem going with your child to wherever you buy video games and getting the game with him/her. This isn't about you trusting your kid, it's about the rest of us trusting you to take care of your kid!
government is never going to love and nurture your children as you can as a parent.
True! But the government can make sure you take care of your kid.
I similarly think age laws on otherwise legal items are self-defeating and unconstitutional themselves. A person is allowed to fight and die for his country at 18, but isn't institutionally trustworthy enough to be allowed to purchase alcohol? But they're also just a bad idea. If a child is going to decide to smoke cigarettes, that's what they're going to do. Making them a lawbreaker in the bargain teaches irreverence to the law. I agree 100% For that matter, I feel that the age for video games should be something like 14, not 18. A 14 yr old is mature enough to make decisions like that. A 12-yr old, not so much.
There is also no constitutional right to take over parenting someone else's children. I prefer to lean to the side of freedom.
True. However, YOU are probably not the problem. For that matter, most here are Slashdot won't let their kids go to GameStop without them. Not because they are necessarily good parents, but excited about buying the game!! The problem is redneck Jim who has four kids, two of them running around wearing nothing but a diaper and drinking Coca Cola from a baby bottle. The other two are out shooting something or trying to blow something up. Jim is asleep in his recliner, beer in his lap with a plate of glazed chicken wing bones at his side, NASCAR on TV. This is the guy who I want to have to go to Walmart with his kids in order to purchase the latest GTA. This is the guy who I want to pay some kind of attention to his kids, even if it is to show ID when he purchases the game. I see video games no differently than I see movies. While I like a good skin-flick, I don't want my kids to be able to purchase them on DVD!
(nothing against rednecks... I come from a long line of 'em.)
BTW, a good write up on the effects of violent media can be found HERE.
Parents can educate themselves and even their children on the various ratings systems used for movies, TV and video games. While these ratings are not a guarantee to protect children from violence, they represent an effort from the industry to help educate parents and children on age-appropriate material.
Your drunk driving correlation is incorrect. Laws to stop drunk driving != keeping tabs on every single American just in case they might drunk drive.
The GP brought up drunk driving. But since you responded, this database doesn't keep tabs every American either, so I guess it does fit and your correlation is incorrect.
How do those living in such constant fear even go to sleep at night? Oh, yeah -- by blindly trusting their daddy government to keep those scary terrorists at bay. Funny, an AC calls me a coward. Go back and read my posts. It's not fear that keeps me up at night. It's rage. It puts me in a rage knowing that these people want to kill you and me. I don't need my government to protect me. I need them to kill the bastards that want to kill us all, the slower, the better!
As a conservative, I find it unlikely that I can vote Republican ever again. Then you're really not a conservative are you? Who will you vote for, Hillary? Obama? Edwards? Please!
Gotta love how there's a considerable body of research that proves that even today, violent video games and actual violence are not correlated, yet you just completely dismiss it as a hunch. Get some real common sense... and stop trying to pry into other people's lives.
I don't dismiss it as a hunch, I dismiss it as complete bullshit. BTW, you got a link that says that? I don't take a random researcher's work, I sure as hell are not going to take yours? But, since you brought it up, I found my own research HERE:
Research over the past 20 years has shown that violent television and, more recently, violent movies and video games can negatively affect brain development, sleep patterns, grades, mental and physical health and social behavior. Hundreds of reputable studies have shown that children who view violence are more likely to settle conflicts with violence, more fearful of the world and less sensitive to the suffering of others (NAEYC Statement on Media Violence in Children's Lives, 1998). And rather listen to some other research that says otherwise, I used some common sense. If researcher X say that kids don't copy what they see on TV and then I see one kid pile drive another because they saw it on TV or see a news report about a kid that is dead because he tried to copy a stunt he saw on Jackass... Well, common sense tells me that Researcher X is full of shit! Do you believe everything a researcher says? Maybe YOU should apply some common sense and stop believing everything you hear.
You can do whatever the hell you want with your kids, but lay off mine.
I'm not telling you what to do with your kids. I'm telling you to take care of your kids. If you are too lazy to get off your fat ass to take your kid to the mall to see what they are buying, then I certainly don't want your neglected little monsters playing Postal2 and getting ideas as to what they are going to do the other kids on the schoolbus! Hell, you should be taking an interest in what your kids are doing and going with them to buy their video games anyway. I want this law so you will do YOUR fucking job and take care of YOUR kids!
There have been plenty of studies - mainly on suicide rates - which show that people have a very strong fiction vs. reality filter. Fiction does not affect you. Reality can make some people want to mimic it - it gives them permission.
A 13-yr-old? Sure. No problem telling the difference between reality and fiction. A 5-yr-old telling the difference between Mario or Mortal Kombat and real life? Again, no problem. However, games of today look and "feel" much more real than the side-scrollers of yesteryear. And while a 5-yr-old knows that what he controls in a game is not real, they have a hard time separating the consequences of those same actions in real life. My example was "professional" wrestling. The "athletes" on WWE are indeed shown as hurt, and many times, they really are. Although that does not make a difference as kids still copy what they see on TV, studies be damned! Research may show that those who play violent video games are no more likely to grow up to be serial killers, but it does not show that kids don't imitate the actions of those they see on TV and in video games. Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be warning labels on Superman costume that warn kids, "Wearing this garment will not enable you to fly!"
But back to the topic: These laws do not prevent children from playing or owning these games. They just prevent those of a certain age from being able to purchase them without an adult. Again, what is wrong with that?
Hmmm . . . so you think that the GP quote questioning the causal relashionship between video game violence and real-life violence is somehow ignoring a proven causal relationship between real-life violence and real-life violence? I'd like to hear (or read) your further explanation of this
Do you think a five-year-old can tell the difference between video-game violence and real-life violence? Kids pick up and repeat words that they hear, do you think actions are somehow different? Have you ever seen two ten-year-olds perform wrestling moves on each-other that they saw watching WWF (or WWE, whatever)? How many kids were injured because they tried to repeat the stunts they saw on Jackass?
I'm no psychologist or psychological researcher, but I know what I see. When I hear a behavioral researcher tell me that violence on TV has no effect on kids while I see one kid pile-drive another... I have to call bullshit!
Studies have repeatedly failed to establish a causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence.
Really? You mean that all those studies that show that children of wife beaters are more likely to grow up to be wife beaters were wrong?
TFA made the comparison that it's similar to prohibiting minors for buying cigarettes. Prohibiting minors from buying cigarettes makes sense because cigarettes have been proven to be detrimental to one's health. But lacking evidence of negative effects of video games the only reason you have left if your own moral distaste.
Why is it the government's job to make sure that kids are not harming their bodies? If a parent wants to buy smokes for their kids, that's their choice. I think it is a wrong choice, but that's for them to decide on their own. How's this: If an adult has the right to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or dirty magazines or whatever, why not children? Answer that and apply that answer to violent video games.
If that's enough that these should be laws you may as well pass a law stating that no person may at any time sell or make anything available to a minor (hey if their parents still want them to have it they can buy it for them, right?).
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I think such a law would be an extreme over reaction. But you are arguing the opposite, that it is OK for children to buy anything they want, with or without their parents' permission.
The bottom line is this: A child is a parent's responsibility. All these laws would do is ensure that parents are doing their job! How is that a bad thing?
13,000+ people died from drunk people getting into their car and hitting other cars or other objects last year. 13,000+ people died the year before for the same reason. If 3000 people is enough to justify ubiquitous information gathering you espouse, what would 13K dead each year justify?
I fully support tough anti-drunk driving legislation. So what's you point? I especially support more common sense laws like allowing liquor to be sold 24 hours a day at liquor stores and limiting the amount of time bars can remain open. With bars, the patron still has to get home. At least with a liquor store, they are probably going to take it home where they won't have to drive anywhere. But what does that have to do with terrorism?
Fear is motivating you, but it's an irrational fear, as evidenced by the example above. Looking at it from a anecdotal justification like 'oh my god, it could be my sister, or my mother, or father", becomes a recipe to justify any excess.
I think you've misjudged me. It's not fear, it's anger. It pisses me off when lowlife cowardly thugs target and kill innocent civilians and then celebrate it. I want to do whatever it takes to stop these pieces of shit from being able to do that. Sorry, but fear is not my motivator.
Also, you're reversing the idea behind the Constitution, Try looking at it as maximal powers granted to the government instead of the maximum allowed to the individual.
I don't see how this database prevented me from doing anything at all. I'm sorry, but a bunch of ones and zeros on a bank of government hard drives is not going to keep me from speaking freely. It does not prevent me from being secure in my home, papers or effects. It does not limit the freedom of the press or keep me from going to church of my choice (or NOT go!). A remote database has no affect on me.
The idea of holding dossiers on American Citizens strikes me as anathema to very core of what America and the Constitution represents and stands for. After all, if 3000 people can justify the erosion of Constitutional protections, what would you propose to do about the death of 13K people each year?
I can not find anything in the Constitution that prevents the gov't from keeping an eye on me. However, I do see where the prohibition against alcohol was repealed. So, strictly interpreting Constitution, I have more a Constitutional right to drive drunk that I do to drive free from surveillance. However, I assume you agree with drunk driving regulation. How is that different than anti-terror legislation?
Most violent video games out there that people freak out about are extremely tame compared to many horror movies out there, but the outrage seems to be much less tame... Where's your outrage over all the violence on TV and movies?
Like I said, I don't care about Mortal Kombat. Impossible cartoon violence doesn't bother me. As to horror movies, those get rated R. I don't know of a theater that will let a 10-yr old in to see Hostel without a parent. Theaters are pretty good about self regulating. Game Stop is not. TV is also regulated.
What about the internet? What would stop someone from porting these games to flash and putting them out for free on a website. Nothing really. However, the Internet really is free speech. A video game for sale is not. Free commerce is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
By your same arguments, we should start doing this stuff for television... but hey, you can't. Uh, we can and we do. Janet Jackson showed a boob during the Super Bowl half time show and CBS got fined for it. The Sopranos was not on ABC, it was on HBO. That's a bit different.
Video games are an important cultural part of our society, and reflect, just like any media or artform, the characteristics of that society. I could say the same thing about peep-shows, strip clubs, and bars. But I still don't think children should be allowed in these places without a parent! Besides, preventing children from purchasing these games without a parent will not change that.
Children aren't going to be conditioned and trained as mindless killers because they played Postal2, but they ARE going to be unprepared to cope with a lot of things if they're 'shielded' from all these 'godless' 'evils'. That's up to me as a parent to decide when and how to educate my kids about "godless evils".
Also, have you actually looked up the correlations between children who play violent video games and actual violence? Go do so. Have you read the correlation between children who go to strip clubs and and those that actually become violent? Are you going to take you seven year old daughter a strip club? Have you read the correlation between children and sexual activity? Are you going to take your little girl to the a swingers club? Of course not! In other words, I don't give a shit what researchers say. I don't think it is a good idea for children to be exposed to adult themes without their parents' knowledge!
I'll be letting my kids play whatever games they want. They'll be better, much more intelligent people.:) Do you really know what they are playing? I hope so. If you're OK with it, great! I'm glad you have the type of relationship with your kids where you can do that. Do you watch porn with your daughters? If so, good for you. If not, why not? Would you mind me giving your kids a burned copy of Back Door Bitches while they wait at the bus stop? I'm just trying to make the better, much more intelligent people.
No, it's not worth 3000 lives to live in a surveillance state.
Uh, you know the IRS has a file on you, right? Did you know that the Social Security Administration has a file on you as well? Does this mean we are living in a surveillance state? Do you really think that YOU are in the Homeland Security's database? Do you think that Agent Smith types are keeping tabs on your every move? Are you so conceited that you think your life is so interesting that they just can't stop keeping tabs on you? Get over yourself!
Is it worth 10000 lives to live in a Fascist dictatorship? Like I said above, if the government keeping a file on you makes you live in a "Fascist Dictatorship", then well, guess what... Oh, by the way, we are neither Fascist, nor a dictatorship. But keep throwing that "Bush is a Nazi" thing around. Eventually, it will have no meaning.
When does it end? How much is 300 million people's freedom worth? Scratch that -- you've said, somewhere between 0 and 3000 lives, but not more than that, otherwise we'd need to wait for a second 9/11.
You got a bank account? Do you have credit cards? How about a mortgage or car loan? Do you know that credit card companies have this information? Feeling "not so free" yet?
Another thing you do is lead the question -- "wouldn't affect you, probably". It always affects people. There isn't a surveilled citizen that hasn't had their life altered by monitoring. The people with the data _always_ find a way to put it to use you never intended or authorized, eventually. Don't forget the fact that the data is often wrong or misinterpreted, and we'll reap those consequences, too. They've had this database running for years. For that matter, it is running RIGHT NOW! Have the people with the data found a way to abuse you yet? You did say that it _ALWAYS_ does. How has it this time?
Personally, I'd rather live in a free state where I feared terrorists bombing symbols of their own exploitation (that I could easily avoid) Really? Do you travel? Do you go to work? Do you think the people on those planes could have easily avoided what happened to them?
than under a surveillance state, where I lived in constant fear of government reprisal, intimidation, mis-monitoring, and misinterpretation, no matter where I was. Are you planning on moving to a tribe in Africa? If not, then you are going to remain under constant government surveillance. Have you been intimidated by the Feds? Why don't you call CNN or MSNBC or even your local TV station. I'm sure they'd like to hear how you government is abusing you.
"We are land of the free because we are home of the brave."
Its time for someone to grow a backbone and stick to traditional American values like bravery instead of blatant cowardice.
OK. If 3000 dead is not enough for the Department of Homeland Security to have a file on you, is 30,000? How about 300,000? 3,000,000? How about all of us, that's 300 million? Do you doubt for a second that the guys that pulled of 9-11 wouldn't kill us all if they had the chance?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'll gladly die for my freedoms as well as yours. These freedoms include a freedom of the press, free speech, religion and so on. Some database that will not stop me from leaving my house, or saying what I will, or going where I want, or stop me from doing any of the things provided to me by the Constitution, is worth dying for. It's not worth seeing my daughter die. It's not worth seeing my mother, wife, father, brother, sister, you or any of yours die. Because here is the kicker
I'm sorry, but I don't see how these laws are unconstitutional. A child is a parents' responsibility. What games a child plays is up to the parents, period! Because I am a responsible parent, I'm not worried about my child playing violent video games because I know she won't. I won't let her. She is my responsibility. Am I depriving my child of her Constitutional rights? No! I'm being a responsible parent. There is no Constitutional right to bad parenting!
Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible. Some parents give their child birthday money or allowance or whatever and let them buy whatever they want. This child that plays Postal2 who thinks that whacking people with a shovel is OK, is not going to beat himself up. He's going to go after my child! Now I can't stop this kid from playing Postal2, and I wouldn't if I could, but I would like to at least know that his parents are aware of what he is playing. I like the idea that the parents have to go to the store with their kid and see what game they are purchasing. I would hope that they would ask their kid, "Johnny? Why do I have to show ID for you to have this game?" If the parent still wants to buy it, great! That's their choice. They are mature enough to make it. A 10-yr old child is not!
Of course, these laws do not prevent any adult from purchasing these games. And when I say violent video games, I'm not talking about Mortal Kombat. I don't care about impossible, cartoon violence. No kid is going to do the Sub-Zero kill move on my daughter! I'm talking about Postal2 and games that are violent for the purpose of being violent. Games where the point is violence over game play.
Can whomever applied the "slashdotliberalwhining" tag to this article, presumably a self-described conservative or libertarian, please explain how a government that engages in surveillance of provably nonviolent political activism is exactly "small"?
First put yourself in the government's shoes on 9/12/01. They are looking at who was on the planes and trying to figure out why they didn't catch 19 terrorists purchasing tickets and boarding planes on the same day at roughly the same time from the same part of the country. A few months later, they failed to catch that many of these same known terrorists were enrolled in flight school. Oh, and many had also overstayed their visas. Further investigation shows that each intelligence department had a piece of the puzzle. The CIA knew that something was about to happen. The FBI knew that these guys were not interested in learning to take off and land the planes, just wanted to know how to fly straight and do some basic navigation. The Department of Immigration and Nationalization knew that many of these guys had overstayed their visas. Unfortunately, none of these departments were speaking to eachother. While the government had all the pieces, each of the pieces were kept separate from eachother.
Now, pretend you are in charge, with Congress the media and the public wanting to know how this happened and what are you doing to prevent it from happening again. What would you do? Well, for starters, I think I would set up some sort of tracking database system that notifies me of various alerts. I don't know, something like 19 known Mid Eastern men who attended terrorist training camps have all purchased one-way plane tickets for the same day at the same time departing from the same part of the country, just before they sent a whole bunch of money back to the Middle East.
Don't you think that tool would have been useful on 9-10-01? Don't you think you'd put such a database in place to prevent the next attack like that from happening again?
But let's be honest, is the knowledge that the government no longer has a database that you would never see, that wouldn't affect you life at all, but it might, although probably wouldn't, be tracking your movements worth another 3000 innocent lives?
However, some users over at the 2CPU forums have discovered an unexplained connection with audio playback resulting in a cap at approximately 5%-10% of total network throughput.
Then you would complain that Intel was 'milking' the market by pricing the Penryn's at a 'monopolist' premium.
No, I would do what I did thirteen or so years ago. I purchased a K5 at 100 Mhz for my low end system and a Pentium at 75Mhz for my high end. The P75 cost me much more, but the performance was worth it. The K5 was a plenty fast for my GF to write her papers on while the P75 was fast enough for me to play Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans on. Sure, I payed a premium for the P75, but I was OK with that because I had a choice.
It wouldn't be much different today. If I just had to have the greatest, I'd pay the premium for the fastest available and give my Opteron 175 to my wife. It's plenty fast for her to do her teacher stuff on and leaves me with the screamer to play my games on.
But to not release it at all. Well, that's just wrong!
Only 268 or so years left until Voyager comes back. Well, I'm not sure which one it is, but one of them is coming back. But we've got some time to deal with the carbon lifeform infestation.
Well, I for one will welcome our misspelled, silicon based overlord!
(sorry, but he beat me to the ST The Motion Picture reference!)
Be careful what you wish for. There is a slim chance that Intel could be holding onto this technology because they don't want to be 'anti-competitive'. Let's assume Intel could hypothetically release chips that are twice as fast as anything that is out there right now. What would happen? It could kill AMD if Intel can keep up that technological growth at a much superior rate than AMD. Anti-trust lawsuits would follow.
But, before you call the anti-trust lawyers a bunch of SOB's stifeling technological growth, consider this. If Intel did run AMD out of existance. Intel would no longer have a reason to sink as much money in R&D. They could slack off with only moderate growth and nobody could do anything about it.
I dare say Intel understands very well and they are going to do all that they can to remain #1 in the industry while at the same time avoiding all possible litigation that could be brought against them by the competition.
I agree. Five words that sends Intel into a panic: "AMD is out of business". However, I would be OK with one chip manufacturer as long as I knew they would continue to innovate and sell me the best they can produce at a reasonable price. But from what we see here, Intel is just not that kind of company. Intel is the type of company that will corner the processor market and then use that leverage to go after the motherboard, video and RAM markets (remember RDRAM?).
Intel could still release these chips but sell them at a price that would not prevent Barcelonas from selling well. AMD spent years as a "value" chip maker and did quite well at it while Intel took the high end and still made a killing. I see no reason why AMD could not go back into the niche and leave the consumers with a choice.
AMD wasn't even remotely competitive until 99 when the Athlon came out
AMD released the K6 in April of 1997. After that, they released the K6-2 and even the K6-3 right before the Athlon came out. The K6 competed very well against the PII. The K6-2 and K6-3 competed will against the P-III until the Athlon was released. Well, you know the story from there.
I try to buy AMD exclusively and this article is a fine example why. I won't buy from a company who is holding back their best from me in order to milk every last hard earned dime they can from me. I'm sure AMD would do the same if they could, but they are not, so I buy from them.
If intel has the fastest and lowest power consumption now, and AMD is not a threat, so why release a faster CPU, intel can still make lots of money selling the old. When AMD releases their new CPU, intel has a response ready, meaning intel will make more money.
Because that is the actions of a monopoly. When you stop innovating (or stop releasing) new products because of a lack of competition, then you've become a monopoly.
Of course, making money is not a bad thing, but Intel is a technology company. They can improve technology and still make money. They are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, Intel will not improve the tech until not doing so will hurt their bottom line. That's what pisses me off about it. They are intentionally limiting what we can purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! I agree with you here 100%! The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision? You either think that this law forbids the USE of these games by minors or you like red herring. Either way, all this law would do is make it so the parent gets to decide if their child should play these games or not. By removing these laws, you are taking that responsibility AWAY from the parents and giving it to their kids!
These laws do not provide or safeguard anyone's freedom or rights of any kind. Parents already have ultimate and total authority over their kids' gameplay, and nothing the government can do will increase that.
Uh, I'm afraid you are wrong here. This law would do exactly that! While it is not perfect, it does ensure that kids are not out buying games without parental knowledge. I did stuff my parents didn't know about. Didn't you?
Alcohol has proven, objectively demonstratable harmful effects. Video games do not, as every single judge in these cases has noted. I realize you "don't give a shit what researchers say", but they do, as they should. Rational people don't ignore scientific research just because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
Right! Rational people do NOT ignore scientific research. So if scientific research says that violent video games are harmful to children, then the government is completely within their right to ban the sale to minors, right? OK, how's this:
An early study on the effects of video games on children found that playing video games had more positive effects on children than watching television. A conference sponsored by Atari at Harvard University in 1983 presented preliminary data which failed to identify ill effects. More recent research, however, has begun to find connections between children's playing of violent video games and later aggressive behavior. A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993).
Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993).
and HERE:
Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that ea
Please explain the difference between sopranos, which you can get on HBO(which many kids have access to, OMG!),
Because parents pay for it. They made the decision to have HBO and let their kids watch it. That's fine with me. Not too many 10 year olds can to to Time Warner and order HBO for their house.
the internet(which many kids have access to, OMG!),
the Internet (it's capitalized, by the way) is free speech. However, there are limits. Porn sites are supposed to make sure a visitor is over 18 before showing adult material. This is law. Has it kept adult material off the web and stifled the freedom of the Internet?
a store(which many kids have access to, OMG!),
I don't see your point here. Yes, kids have access to stores, so?
or at someone elses house(which many kids have access to, OMG!)
This is my favorite! I can monitor what my kid is exposed to at home. I have no control over what my neighbors allow their kids to do. This law at least lets me know that the parents are aware of what games their kids have on their consoles. And in meeting those parents, I can decide if I want my kid hanging out at their house. With no regulations on who can purchase adult video games, I can not know who decided what games are played. Good parents can have bad kids. I trust those good parents much more than I do their kids!
and a video game that you purchase or play
If I purchase it, that's OK because I'm an adult. I am mature enough to decide what I want to play and what I want my kids to play. Whose judgment do you value more, yours or you preteen child's?
You say you're a responsible parent, then be one. Don't force others to have less rights so you can uh...be a good parent anyway?
Yeah, I'm a responsible parent. So is my wife. Age restrictions on video games do not restrict anyones rights. Just as age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco and porn do not restrict anyones rights. It gives control to parents! Rejecting these laws removes the rights parents have in making the decisions as to what their kids are exposed to.
Please keep your children the hell away from everyone else. You obviously haven't taught them dick about the world and their ignorance is dangerous. Have you taught them how to safely use a knife? (Every Cub Scout is taught this)About firearm safety? (I was taught at 10) Basic self defence? First aid? Hell my neighbor's kids (10 and 12) have each been taking martial arts since 3. They might be on the bus with your kid. And if you kid's unbalanced, ignorant mind decides its a good idea to immitate something he saw on a cartoon on TV on one of those kids, he's gonna get himself hurt. You are a miseable excuse for a parent.
You have no idea how I raise my child. If you think it is a good idea for me to teach my daughter gun safety and proper knife wielding, then you obviously have no idea that some things are inappropriate for children of a certain age. You see, my daughter is 10 months old. She can not walk on her own, much less handle a fire arm! But just as handling a rifle is not appropriate for a 10 month old, so is an extremely violent video game for a 10 year old. When she is old enough, she will be taught. It is up to me to make that decision and the state ensures that it stays that way. That's why she won't be able to walk into Walmart at age 12 and walk out with a rifle! So don't give me any shit about my parenting skills. If you think handing a 10 month old a knife is a good idea, then obviously I'm not the one who is a "miseable excuse for a parent".
From what I can tell from your comment, you know that education is important. I agree that children should know about gun safety, how to use a knife and self defense, but it is up to the parent to decide when. Also, I feel that parents should also know what is on the disc that their kids are feeding their consoles. It is up to me to decide what is age appropriate for my kids. They are unable to make that decision for themselves. Unfortunately, many parents won't take the time to educate themselves, much less their kids. While requiring and ID to purchase an adult video game won't keep kids from playing them, it will force parents to at least know what the kids are playing. Why is that a bad thing?
More accurately, Republicans aren't conservative anymore.
Well, you got me there! I guess I'm going to have to go vote against people rather than for others!
That doesn't give you any right to set rules over his parenting. "Period" to use the same word you used earlier.
Actually, it does. If every parent educated their kids, there wouldn't be a need for public schools. Unfortunately, many parents won't take the time to teach their kids to read, so we have public schools and parents can be arrested if their kids don't go.
This is supposed to be a free country and that is not your decision to make.
Well, Hell! Since it is a free country, why do we have any laws at all? If I want my kid to ditch school and sell his/her body for cash, I guess I'm free to do so. If I want to put Liquid Plumber in my kids bottle, well, that is not your decision to make!
All laws serve a purpose. They restrict freedom for some and at the same time, provide it for others.
If you are religious and Christian, remember how the road to hell is paved. If you are not, just read your history books. "Good intentions", like perhaps the Prohibition (whose net effect was to irrevocably establish organized crime in the USA), have rarely (if ever) turned out positive results.
Comparing the prohibition of alcohol to adults is a poor example. That prohibition still exists for children and it is perfectly Constitutional.
As for laws that are designed with good intentions? You mean like the prohibition on slavery? How about the prohibition on hate crimes? What about the prohibition on CEO's raiding retirement funds? All made with good intentions and all successful at making life better for all of us. You need to read the rest of the pages from that history book of yours!
I found your portrayal of a "redneck" family offensive and unnecessary. And it smacks of arrogance.
/sarc
I'm sorry I offended you. However, what I hinted at although didn't mention directly, was that "Redneck Jim" is actually my father. I will not be told what I can and can not say about my own family. What should offend you is that Redneck Jim and his unruly children actually exist and people like you don't give a damn.
That said - law isn't going to make anyone a better parent. If your example holds true, then "redneck Jim," law or no law, isn't going to go down to the Wal-Mart with his kids to buy Grand Theft Auto, he's going to go down to Wal-Mart and buy them a damned shotgun!
-sarc-
Well Hell! If law isn't going to make anyone a better parent, why bother? We spend a fortune on things like school, tobacco and alcohol prohibition for children, and ensuring that kids keep out of porn shops, strip clubs and bars. Just think of the money we could save by no longer forcing kids to go to school, not just in the truant officer pay, but in the books, desks and so on! For that matter, speed limits won't make people better drivers. Social Security won't make people better financial experts. Murder laws won't make people respect life any more. If the goal is to make people better people, then let's repeal it all!
The goal is educate parents. My parents neither had nor have any idea what is out there. I could have purchased anything I wanted as long as I told them that it was OK. My parents had no idea and no one was going to tell them. This is intended to aid parents in making decisions for their kids. It does not prevent them from buying whatever they want for their kids. It helps make them aware.
And as for "Redneck Jim" buying his kids a shotgun... well that is a guaranteed right under the Constitution, yet, we have limits on who can purchase one and when. Are you saying gun laws should be banned? I have more of a Constitutional right to a shotgun than I do a video game. You can't claim it is unconstitutional to require age limits on video games and claim that gun restrictions are perfectly Constitutional.
Sure, they may trust their kids. It is just as likely that they neglect their kids. Which one is it? Assume for a minute that they don't give a damn what their kids are doing. These kids are going to get on the school bus with my kid.
Now you're out of line. By your own rules and mine. It's none of your business and it's not your decision to make. The unconstitutionality of these laws comes from this, I believe.
I never said that I want to make any decision for you. I just want to make sure that YOU are the one making the decision. If you trust your kid to play Postal2, great! You should have no problem going with your child to wherever you buy video games and getting the game with him/her. This isn't about you trusting your kid, it's about the rest of us trusting you to take care of your kid!
government is never going to love and nurture your children as you can as a parent.
True! But the government can make sure you take care of your kid.
I similarly think age laws on otherwise legal items are self-defeating and unconstitutional themselves. A person is allowed to fight and die for his country at 18, but isn't institutionally trustworthy enough to be allowed to purchase alcohol? But they're also just a bad idea. If a child is going to decide to smoke cigarettes, that's what they're going to do. Making them a lawbreaker in the bargain teaches irreverence to the law.
I agree 100% For that matter, I feel that the age for video games should be something like 14, not 18. A 14 yr old is mature enough to make decisions like that. A 12-yr old, not so much.
There is also no constitutional right to take over parenting someone else's children. I prefer to lean to the side of freedom.
True. However, YOU are probably not the problem. For that matter, most here are Slashdot won't let their kids go to GameStop without them. Not because they are necessarily good parents, but excited about buying the game!! The problem is redneck Jim who has four kids, two of them running around wearing nothing but a diaper and drinking Coca Cola from a baby bottle. The other two are out shooting something or trying to blow something up. Jim is asleep in his recliner, beer in his lap with a plate of glazed chicken wing bones at his side, NASCAR on TV. This is the guy who I want to have to go to Walmart with his kids in order to purchase the latest GTA. This is the guy who I want to pay some kind of attention to his kids, even if it is to show ID when he purchases the game. I see video games no differently than I see movies. While I like a good skin-flick, I don't want my kids to be able to purchase them on DVD!
(nothing against rednecks... I come from a long line of 'em.)
BTW, a good write up on the effects of violent media can be found HERE. Parents can educate themselves and even their children on the various ratings systems used for movies, TV and video games. While these ratings are not a guarantee to protect children from violence, they represent an effort from the industry to help educate parents and children on age-appropriate material.
Your drunk driving correlation is incorrect. Laws to stop drunk driving != keeping tabs on every single American just in case they might drunk drive.
The GP brought up drunk driving. But since you responded, this database doesn't keep tabs every American either, so I guess it does fit and your correlation is incorrect.
How do those living in such constant fear even go to sleep at night? Oh, yeah -- by blindly trusting their daddy government to keep those scary terrorists at bay.
Funny, an AC calls me a coward.
Go back and read my posts. It's not fear that keeps me up at night. It's rage. It puts me in a rage knowing that these people want to kill you and me. I don't need my government to protect me. I need them to kill the bastards that want to kill us all, the slower, the better!
As a conservative, I find it unlikely that I can vote Republican ever again.
Then you're really not a conservative are you? Who will you vote for, Hillary? Obama? Edwards? Please!
I don't dismiss it as a hunch, I dismiss it as complete bullshit. BTW, you got a link that says that? I don't take a random researcher's work, I sure as hell are not going to take yours? But, since you brought it up, I found my own research HERE: Research over the past 20 years has shown that violent television and, more recently, violent movies and video games can negatively affect brain development, sleep patterns, grades, mental and physical health and social behavior. Hundreds of reputable studies have shown that children who view violence are more likely to settle conflicts with violence, more fearful of the world and less sensitive to the suffering of others (NAEYC Statement on Media Violence in Children's Lives, 1998). And rather listen to some other research that says otherwise, I used some common sense. If researcher X say that kids don't copy what they see on TV and then I see one kid pile drive another because they saw it on TV or see a news report about a kid that is dead because he tried to copy a stunt he saw on Jackass... Well, common sense tells me that Researcher X is full of shit! Do you believe everything a researcher says? Maybe YOU should apply some common sense and stop believing everything you hear.
You can do whatever the hell you want with your kids, but lay off mine.
I'm not telling you what to do with your kids. I'm telling you to take care of your kids. If you are too lazy to get off your fat ass to take your kid to the mall to see what they are buying, then I certainly don't want your neglected little monsters playing Postal2 and getting ideas as to what they are going to do the other kids on the schoolbus! Hell, you should be taking an interest in what your kids are doing and going with them to buy their video games anyway. I want this law so you will do YOUR fucking job and take care of YOUR kids!
None of which showed people getting hurt, per se.
There have been plenty of studies - mainly on suicide rates - which show that people have a very strong fiction vs. reality filter. Fiction does not affect you. Reality can make some people want to mimic it - it gives them permission.
A 13-yr-old? Sure. No problem telling the difference between reality and fiction. A 5-yr-old telling the difference between Mario or Mortal Kombat and real life? Again, no problem. However, games of today look and "feel" much more real than the side-scrollers of yesteryear. And while a 5-yr-old knows that what he controls in a game is not real, they have a hard time separating the consequences of those same actions in real life. My example was "professional" wrestling. The "athletes" on WWE are indeed shown as hurt, and many times, they really are. Although that does not make a difference as kids still copy what they see on TV, studies be damned! Research may show that those who play violent video games are no more likely to grow up to be serial killers, but it does not show that kids don't imitate the actions of those they see on TV and in video games. Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be warning labels on Superman costume that warn kids, "Wearing this garment will not enable you to fly!"
But back to the topic: These laws do not prevent children from playing or owning these games. They just prevent those of a certain age from being able to purchase them without an adult. Again, what is wrong with that?
Hmmm . . . so you think that the GP quote questioning the causal relashionship between video game violence and real-life violence is somehow ignoring a proven causal relationship between real-life violence and real-life violence? I'd like to hear (or read) your further explanation of this
Do you think a five-year-old can tell the difference between video-game violence and real-life violence? Kids pick up and repeat words that they hear, do you think actions are somehow different? Have you ever seen two ten-year-olds perform wrestling moves on each-other that they saw watching WWF (or WWE, whatever)? How many kids were injured because they tried to repeat the stunts they saw on Jackass?
I'm no psychologist or psychological researcher, but I know what I see. When I hear a behavioral researcher tell me that violence on TV has no effect on kids while I see one kid pile-drive another... I have to call bullshit!
Studies have repeatedly failed to establish a causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence.
Really? You mean that all those studies that show that children of wife beaters are more likely to grow up to be wife beaters were wrong?
TFA made the comparison that it's similar to prohibiting minors for buying cigarettes. Prohibiting minors from buying cigarettes makes sense because cigarettes have been proven to be detrimental to one's health. But lacking evidence of negative effects of video games the only reason you have left if your own moral distaste.
Why is it the government's job to make sure that kids are not harming their bodies? If a parent wants to buy smokes for their kids, that's their choice. I think it is a wrong choice, but that's for them to decide on their own. How's this: If an adult has the right to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or dirty magazines or whatever, why not children? Answer that and apply that answer to violent video games.
If that's enough that these should be laws you may as well pass a law stating that no person may at any time sell or make anything available to a minor (hey if their parents still want them to have it they can buy it for them, right?).
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I think such a law would be an extreme over reaction. But you are arguing the opposite, that it is OK for children to buy anything they want, with or without their parents' permission.
The bottom line is this: A child is a parent's responsibility. All these laws would do is ensure that parents are doing their job! How is that a bad thing?
13,000+ people died from drunk people getting into their car and hitting other cars or other objects last year. 13,000+ people died the year before for the same reason. If 3000 people is enough to justify ubiquitous information gathering you espouse, what would 13K dead each year justify?
I fully support tough anti-drunk driving legislation. So what's you point? I especially support more common sense laws like allowing liquor to be sold 24 hours a day at liquor stores and limiting the amount of time bars can remain open. With bars, the patron still has to get home. At least with a liquor store, they are probably going to take it home where they won't have to drive anywhere. But what does that have to do with terrorism?
Fear is motivating you, but it's an irrational fear, as evidenced by the example above. Looking at it from a anecdotal justification like 'oh my god, it could be my sister, or my mother, or father", becomes a recipe to justify any excess.
I think you've misjudged me. It's not fear, it's anger. It pisses me off when lowlife cowardly thugs target and kill innocent civilians and then celebrate it. I want to do whatever it takes to stop these pieces of shit from being able to do that. Sorry, but fear is not my motivator.
Also, you're reversing the idea behind the Constitution, Try looking at it as maximal powers granted to the government instead of the maximum allowed to the individual.
I don't see how this database prevented me from doing anything at all. I'm sorry, but a bunch of ones and zeros on a bank of government hard drives is not going to keep me from speaking freely. It does not prevent me from being secure in my home, papers or effects. It does not limit the freedom of the press or keep me from going to church of my choice (or NOT go!). A remote database has no affect on me.
The idea of holding dossiers on American Citizens strikes me as anathema to very core of what America and the Constitution represents and stands for. After all, if 3000 people can justify the erosion of Constitutional protections, what would you propose to do about the death of 13K people each year?
I can not find anything in the Constitution that prevents the gov't from keeping an eye on me. However, I do see where the prohibition against alcohol was repealed. So, strictly interpreting Constitution, I have more a Constitutional right to drive drunk that I do to drive free from surveillance. However, I assume you agree with drunk driving regulation. How is that different than anti-terror legislation?
Most violent video games out there that people freak out about are extremely tame compared to many horror movies out there, but the outrage seems to be much less tame... Where's your outrage over all the violence on TV and movies?
:)
Like I said, I don't care about Mortal Kombat. Impossible cartoon violence doesn't bother me. As to horror movies, those get rated R. I don't know of a theater that will let a 10-yr old in to see Hostel without a parent. Theaters are pretty good about self regulating. Game Stop is not. TV is also regulated.
What about the internet?
What would stop someone from porting these games to flash and putting them out for free on a website. Nothing really. However, the Internet really is free speech. A video game for sale is not. Free commerce is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
By your same arguments, we should start doing this stuff for television... but hey, you can't.
Uh, we can and we do. Janet Jackson showed a boob during the Super Bowl half time show and CBS got fined for it. The Sopranos was not on ABC, it was on HBO. That's a bit different.
Video games are an important cultural part of our society, and reflect, just like any media or artform, the characteristics of that society.
I could say the same thing about peep-shows, strip clubs, and bars. But I still don't think children should be allowed in these places without a parent! Besides, preventing children from purchasing these games without a parent will not change that.
Children aren't going to be conditioned and trained as mindless killers because they played Postal2, but they ARE going to be unprepared to cope with a lot of things if they're 'shielded' from all these 'godless' 'evils'.
That's up to me as a parent to decide when and how to educate my kids about "godless evils".
Also, have you actually looked up the correlations between children who play violent video games and actual violence? Go do so.
Have you read the correlation between children who go to strip clubs and and those that actually become violent? Are you going to take you seven year old daughter a strip club? Have you read the correlation between children and sexual activity? Are you going to take your little girl to the a swingers club? Of course not! In other words, I don't give a shit what researchers say. I don't think it is a good idea for children to be exposed to adult themes without their parents' knowledge!
I'll be letting my kids play whatever games they want. They'll be better, much more intelligent people.
Do you really know what they are playing? I hope so. If you're OK with it, great! I'm glad you have the type of relationship with your kids where you can do that. Do you watch porn with your daughters? If so, good for you. If not, why not? Would you mind me giving your kids a burned copy of Back Door Bitches while they wait at the bus stop? I'm just trying to make the better, much more intelligent people.
No, it's not worth 3000 lives to live in a surveillance state.
Uh, you know the IRS has a file on you, right? Did you know that the Social Security Administration has a file on you as well? Does this mean we are living in a surveillance state? Do you really think that YOU are in the Homeland Security's database? Do you think that Agent Smith types are keeping tabs on your every move? Are you so conceited that you think your life is so interesting that they just can't stop keeping tabs on you? Get over yourself!
Is it worth 10000 lives to live in a Fascist dictatorship?
Like I said above, if the government keeping a file on you makes you live in a "Fascist Dictatorship", then well, guess what... Oh, by the way, we are neither Fascist, nor a dictatorship. But keep throwing that "Bush is a Nazi" thing around. Eventually, it will have no meaning.
When does it end? How much is 300 million people's freedom worth? Scratch that -- you've said, somewhere between 0 and 3000 lives, but not more than that, otherwise we'd need to wait for a second 9/11.
You got a bank account? Do you have credit cards? How about a mortgage or car loan? Do you know that credit card companies have this information? Feeling "not so free" yet?
Another thing you do is lead the question -- "wouldn't affect you, probably". It always affects people. There isn't a surveilled citizen that hasn't had their life altered by monitoring. The people with the data _always_ find a way to put it to use you never intended or authorized, eventually. Don't forget the fact that the data is often wrong or misinterpreted, and we'll reap those consequences, too.
They've had this database running for years. For that matter, it is running RIGHT NOW! Have the people with the data found a way to abuse you yet? You did say that it _ALWAYS_ does. How has it this time?
Personally, I'd rather live in a free state where I feared terrorists bombing symbols of their own exploitation (that I could easily avoid)
Really? Do you travel? Do you go to work? Do you think the people on those planes could have easily avoided what happened to them?
than under a surveillance state, where I lived in constant fear of government reprisal, intimidation, mis-monitoring, and misinterpretation, no matter where I was.
Are you planning on moving to a tribe in Africa? If not, then you are going to remain under constant government surveillance. Have you been intimidated by the Feds? Why don't you call CNN or MSNBC or even your local TV station. I'm sure they'd like to hear how you government is abusing you.
Yes, freedom is worth the sacrifice.
"We are land of the free because we are home of the brave."
Its time for someone to grow a backbone and stick to traditional American values like bravery instead of blatant cowardice.
OK. If 3000 dead is not enough for the Department of Homeland Security to have a file on you, is 30,000? How about 300,000? 3,000,000? How about all of us, that's 300 million? Do you doubt for a second that the guys that pulled of 9-11 wouldn't kill us all if they had the chance?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'll gladly die for my freedoms as well as yours. These freedoms include a freedom of the press, free speech, religion and so on. Some database that will not stop me from leaving my house, or saying what I will, or going where I want, or stop me from doing any of the things provided to me by the Constitution, is worth dying for. It's not worth seeing my daughter die. It's not worth seeing my mother, wife, father, brother, sister, you or any of yours die. Because here is the kicker
It does not affect my life at all!!!
I'm sorry, but I don't see how these laws are unconstitutional. A child is a parents' responsibility. What games a child plays is up to the parents, period! Because I am a responsible parent, I'm not worried about my child playing violent video games because I know she won't. I won't let her. She is my responsibility. Am I depriving my child of her Constitutional rights? No! I'm being a responsible parent. There is no Constitutional right to bad parenting!
Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible. Some parents give their child birthday money or allowance or whatever and let them buy whatever they want. This child that plays Postal2 who thinks that whacking people with a shovel is OK, is not going to beat himself up. He's going to go after my child! Now I can't stop this kid from playing Postal2, and I wouldn't if I could, but I would like to at least know that his parents are aware of what he is playing. I like the idea that the parents have to go to the store with their kid and see what game they are purchasing. I would hope that they would ask their kid, "Johnny? Why do I have to show ID for you to have this game?" If the parent still wants to buy it, great! That's their choice. They are mature enough to make it. A 10-yr old child is not!
Of course, these laws do not prevent any adult from purchasing these games. And when I say violent video games, I'm not talking about Mortal Kombat. I don't care about impossible, cartoon violence. No kid is going to do the Sub-Zero kill move on my daughter! I'm talking about Postal2 and games that are violent for the purpose of being violent. Games where the point is violence over game play.
Can whomever applied the "slashdotliberalwhining" tag to this article, presumably a self-described conservative or libertarian, please explain how a government that engages in surveillance of provably nonviolent political activism is exactly "small"?
First put yourself in the government's shoes on 9/12/01. They are looking at who was on the planes and trying to figure out why they didn't catch 19 terrorists purchasing tickets and boarding planes on the same day at roughly the same time from the same part of the country. A few months later, they failed to catch that many of these same known terrorists were enrolled in flight school. Oh, and many had also overstayed their visas. Further investigation shows that each intelligence department had a piece of the puzzle. The CIA knew that something was about to happen. The FBI knew that these guys were not interested in learning to take off and land the planes, just wanted to know how to fly straight and do some basic navigation. The Department of Immigration and Nationalization knew that many of these guys had overstayed their visas. Unfortunately, none of these departments were speaking to eachother. While the government had all the pieces, each of the pieces were kept separate from eachother.
Now, pretend you are in charge, with Congress the media and the public wanting to know how this happened and what are you doing to prevent it from happening again. What would you do? Well, for starters, I think I would set up some sort of tracking database system that notifies me of various alerts. I don't know, something like 19 known Mid Eastern men who attended terrorist training camps have all purchased one-way plane tickets for the same day at the same time departing from the same part of the country, just before they sent a whole bunch of money back to the Middle East.
Don't you think that tool would have been useful on 9-10-01? Don't you think you'd put such a database in place to prevent the next attack like that from happening again?
But let's be honest, is the knowledge that the government no longer has a database that you would never see, that wouldn't affect you life at all, but it might, although probably wouldn't, be tracking your movements worth another 3000 innocent lives?
However, some users over at the 2CPU forums have discovered an unexplained connection with audio playback resulting in a cap at approximately 5%-10% of total network throughput.
Wow! I bet streaming audio must suck!
Yeah. A frictionless environment will do wonders for your MPG...
That and the gravity boosts these probes got from our sun and the gas giants.
Then you would complain that Intel was 'milking' the market by pricing the Penryn's at a 'monopolist' premium.
No, I would do what I did thirteen or so years ago. I purchased a K5 at 100 Mhz for my low end system and a Pentium at 75Mhz for my high end. The P75 cost me much more, but the performance was worth it. The K5 was a plenty fast for my GF to write her papers on while the P75 was fast enough for me to play Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans on. Sure, I payed a premium for the P75, but I was OK with that because I had a choice.
It wouldn't be much different today. If I just had to have the greatest, I'd pay the premium for the fastest available and give my Opteron 175 to my wife. It's plenty fast for her to do her teacher stuff on and leaves me with the screamer to play my games on.
But to not release it at all. Well, that's just wrong!
Only 268 or so years left until Voyager comes back. Well, I'm not sure which one it is, but one of them is coming back. But we've got some time to deal with the carbon lifeform infestation .
Well, I for one will welcome our misspelled, silicon based overlord!
(sorry, but he beat me to the ST The Motion Picture reference!)
Be careful what you wish for. There is a slim chance that Intel could be holding onto this technology because they don't want to be 'anti-competitive'. Let's assume Intel could hypothetically release chips that are twice as fast as anything that is out there right now. What would happen? It could kill AMD if Intel can keep up that technological growth at a much superior rate than AMD. Anti-trust lawsuits would follow.
But, before you call the anti-trust lawyers a bunch of SOB's stifeling technological growth, consider this. If Intel did run AMD out of existance. Intel would no longer have a reason to sink as much money in R&D. They could slack off with only moderate growth and nobody could do anything about it.
I dare say Intel understands very well and they are going to do all that they can to remain #1 in the industry while at the same time avoiding all possible litigation that could be brought against them by the competition.
I agree. Five words that sends Intel into a panic: "AMD is out of business". However, I would be OK with one chip manufacturer as long as I knew they would continue to innovate and sell me the best they can produce at a reasonable price. But from what we see here, Intel is just not that kind of company. Intel is the type of company that will corner the processor market and then use that leverage to go after the motherboard, video and RAM markets (remember RDRAM?).
Intel could still release these chips but sell them at a price that would not prevent Barcelonas from selling well. AMD spent years as a "value" chip maker and did quite well at it while Intel took the high end and still made a killing. I see no reason why AMD could not go back into the niche and leave the consumers with a choice.
AMD wasn't even remotely competitive until 99 when the Athlon came out
AMD released the K6 in April of 1997. After that, they released the K6-2 and even the K6-3 right before the Athlon came out. The K6 competed very well against the PII. The K6-2 and K6-3 competed will against the P-III until the Athlon was released. Well, you know the story from there.
I try to buy AMD exclusively and this article is a fine example why. I won't buy from a company who is holding back their best from me in order to milk every last hard earned dime they can from me. I'm sure AMD would do the same if they could, but they are not, so I buy from them.
If intel has the fastest and lowest power consumption now, and AMD is not a threat, so why release a faster CPU, intel can still make lots of money selling the old. When AMD releases their new CPU, intel has a response ready, meaning intel will make more money.
Because that is the actions of a monopoly. When you stop innovating (or stop releasing) new products because of a lack of competition, then you've become a monopoly.
Of course, making money is not a bad thing, but Intel is a technology company. They can improve technology and still make money. They are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, Intel will not improve the tech until not doing so will hurt their bottom line. That's what pisses me off about it. They are intentionally limiting what we can purchase.