Without DRM, the copies cease to have value, but the skilled labor that goes into their creation still does, and could be sold even in the absence of DRM (or copyright).
This makes sense in the context of SL, but not in something such as music. Basically, musical artists would become minstrels. They would have no incentive to reproduce music for the masses. Instead, you'd most likely have crappy quality recordings of live concerts made by some guys who snuck in a recording device...
Home locks are pickable so that police and locksmiths can open them. Your home is accessible by law.
Wow, don't know what principality you live in, but I can't find anything in local, federal or state law that requires me to have a lock that is pickable...
That said, radio devices are not homes, WEP is not a lock, and accessing a device which sole purpose by design is sharing access is not invading private property. Metaphors are not real. Radio is not "yours", ideas are not "yours". Such semantic confusion -- intentional confusion -- leads to things like 17 year old kids going to prison for a crime that only exists in the the minds of hornswoggled. The thing to look out for in the years ahead is the first execution of a person for "stealing" a metaphor. Probably going to happen a lot sooner than even I believe it will.
Since we are playing with semantics I have to point out that since the "device" has WEP, it's sole purpose is not to share access. If sharing access were it's only purpose it wouldn't have WEP. I should also point out that ALL crime exists in our heads. We decide (depending on your country) what is a crime. This notion that something needs to take place physically to be a crime is ridiculous.
That article is filled with conjecture. They get a reply that doesn't either confirm or deny that the account had been flagged and assume this is the official word...
Culture isn't something you create, sell, market, purchase, and/or trade. Culture is something that happens amoung a people. You're eating up the line the entertainment industry keeps making that they "produce" culture, when they at best ride the cultural wave, making products that pander to, and to some degree shape, the prevailing cultural movement.
That is way too much of a blanket statement. Are you saying George Lucas hasn't created cultural icons? How about Gene Roddenbury? Our culture (in the west) as it is now is a huge mish-mash of television and movies. Half the conversations I hear around me are filled with lines or ideas taken from film or television (aka Pop-Culture). I don't think the big studios "make" culture, but there are artists (directors, writers, actors, painters, musicians) who make a giant contribution to our cultural makeup.
The sucess of indie films, blogs, grassroots movements, and services like YouTube should be evidence enough that they aren't in control. If a large part of the Chinese populance wants western entertainment, then that IS a part of the culture.
Indie stuff is great, the problem is you get maybe 1 good film for every 1000 made. The same is true of blogs and the stuff on YouTube. The reason? Most of the stuff is made by people just learning how to make films, etc. It's great to have these outlets, but I don't want the professionals to stop making movies/television/music.
As I said, it was very likely that it was hard coded into the application.
I would think that googles developers would be smarter than that; given what they have accomplished so far.
It's the same principle as not negotiating with terrorists. To do so encourages many others to follow suit so that they get their way.
What is wrong with using the rational minds we were blessed with and saying google shouldn't suggest illegal activities, but it's okay for them to include suggestions that a company may not like that aren't illegal.
On another note, it doesn't matter whether you negotiate with terrorists or not. They strike when they strike. If you look at the history of terrorism, the principle of non-negotiation doesn't seem too compelling and then there's the whole question of who qualifies as a terrorist. We negotiate with other criminals all the time (not including the ones in the government).
Of course, that starts down a very slippery slope, especially when you think of things like Google.cn
Ah, the old familiar slippery slope argument...
This argument has held up stupid ideas for long enough. There is no slippery slope.
If the government asks you to register your weapons you are not short years away from being in a police state. That only happens when you allow GB into office.
Allowing two homosexuals to marry does not mean we are on the road to allowing inter-species marriages.
Also, are you telling me that a company that can find every web site in its database with the words "tolkien calendar" (2.3 mil) in.22 seconds cannot filter out a simple list of words from its suggestions? I call bullshit. This isn't some SQL server sitting under a desk in Prague, it's millions (billions?) of dollars worth of hardware and software constantly ripping through data. Apparently, even Google lies.
If Google were to put such a filter in place, they now have to examine each search result, and attempt to determine if the instance is talking about breaking software, protecting software, or illegally using software.
They wouln't need to filter search results. What they are asking them to do doesn't affect your search results. You could still type 'microsoft office crack' and get the results you want. What they are asking is that their "intellisense" technology not suggest the words "crack" "keygen" when someone is typing in the name of their software. I don't think that is un-reasonable and I imagine (or at least hope) that they are not throwing all the search words associated with "natalie portman" up there. I imagine there are some I wouldn't want my children seeing.
Maybe there's something about human nature, some genetic thread that predisposes us to gather and build power to any extent and by any method available. And maybe some day we evolve to the point that is no longer necessary.
That would be nice. I fear I will be long dead by then:(
(For the record, while MS is prominent in my examples they are by no means unique... but when you have the industry footprint of a MS, you're going to get heavy duty scrutiny. I've sounded off about many other companies, but this forum is largely anti-MS, as I'm sure you've inferred long ago.... Anyway, nice chatting. I've "friended" you.)
For the record, contrite doesn't mean regret or sorrow
From your link: "grieving and penitent for sin or shortcoming". Call me crazy but that sounds synonymous with regret/sorrow. I think if you look in another dictionary you may find even more synonyms...
You're welcome, Mr. Ad Hominem.
You are correct. I question your motives in my opening paragraphs, much the same as your comment on the article.
I never cease to be amazed at the capacity for rationalization. Rationale 1: anthromorphize the company, make it some kind of "them", and nobody need accept ethical blame or responsibility.; and Rationale 2: My company isn't as bad as some other companies.
#1: huh? I don't recall making the case that there should be no ethical blame. In fact I believe I said they (MS) may have some ethical issues (I am not privey to any of it if they do).
#2: And what exactly is wrong with this? I believe it to be a true statement although I would replace "some" with "most".
Unless you want to change our economic system (which I am all for BTW), you are going to have corporations do everything they can to make a buck (including the ones that have favored status on slashdot). Don't hate the player, hate the game...
Unethical behavior is unethical behavior, period. The fact that MS may be able to point to another company and claim that company to be dirtier changes nothing about Microsoft's behavior, period.
What exactly are you refering to as unethical behavior (as opposed to unlawful)? Regardless of your answer, I agree. Unethical is unethical. I just find it infinately ammusing (not to mention hypocritical) to hear all this MS bashing, when most of us here probably work for corporations that have bent or broken the law at one time or another. Reminds me of a quote I recal from Sunday school, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", I've always liked that quote.
It's easy to point as MS and say, "There's the problem..."; much easier than looking at the real problems of our crooked/broken system. But I guess we don't want to change "us", we just want to change "them"...
Aside from the obvious puff-piece nature of this article, it's a bit of a Trojan Horse. Under the auspices of a broad view of what life at Microsoft is like, the author gets to air out the PR spin that Microsoft's Not Evil in seven contrite paragraphs (the average number of paragraphs for each segment is closer to four).
Do you know what contrite means? None of the paragraphs I read had the air or regret or sorrow. A person who works at MS is telling it the way he sees it and you call it a puff-piece. I can see your mind will not be bent by any opinion other than your own, but I've never let that stop me before.
Also, assign credibility inversely proportional to the distance from the source. This guy works there, okay so the only way to describe "work at Microsoft" is to be there, but come on, are we going to get objective information?
Thank you Mr. Obvious. An employees view of their company (good or bad) is not (by definition) objective. I would argue that there are few people in the technology industry that can really be objective about MS.
For the record, I once worked at Microsoft, and agree with his observations that the people there are like people elsewhere, and they're bright, and they're hard-working, etc. But, to equate individual ethical behavior somehow with a collective corporate ethos doesn't add up, the calculus is flawed. In my opinion, Microsoft as a corporation exhibits behavior that could be considered evil, certainly some/much of its behavior has been found in a court of law to be illegal.
For the record, I actually work there now and as a person who has worked at many companies in the area, I have to say that corporations (no matter how high minded) have one job. That job is to make money. Many of them will do it any way they can (overpricing, creative bookkeeping, screwing the customer, screwing the competition, breaking the law, etc.). MS may not be the cleanest company out there, but they are far from the dirtiest.
Microsoft's ill-gotten gains were long the easy way to sustain the talent pipe-line. Market forces are catching up, and Microsoft is starting to have to compete on more equal footing with other companies to get talent in the door (no more, "you're guaranteed to be a millionaire in fiver years" promises). And, it's a little annoying to hear the Microsoft have-nots whine about this -- join the rest of the world folks.
Wow, so many words and so little said. I have to disagree with the original author in his saying that the benifits are "on-par" with other tech companies in the area. They are well beyond most companies; in this state anyway.
I don't know that it matters too much for the conversation, but the last news from the website (dated Feb 23, 2005) says the comic book will no longer be published.
The article linked in this article is from January of 2004...
I agree with the poster here, Google took a risk by agreeing to work with the chinese government. Just because its only a PR issue doesn't mean its not significant, bad PR can destroy a company relatively quickly.
I call BS. If bad publicity destroyed companies so easily Wal-Mart and Microsoft would be dead. You think the average Joe-Schmo on the street knows anything about this? You think the main revenue streams for Google (advertisers) see this as anything more than a good business decision? Wake up, this country (USA) doesn't even care when our own government screws us, why should they care when a company over here screws a group of people in another country. If they did, Nike and Wal-Mart would be out of business.
While influencing change in China isn't something that happens quickly, Google has made a slight difference by increasing China's involvement with the West through their company. As long as China remains as isolated as they are, change will happen slowly. By opening up the exchange between China and the West, that process is sped up, if only slightly.
China isn't as isolated as you think. They have a great deal of trade with the West. They aren't making the same mistake the USSR made. They are allowing a lot of trade, but they keep a tight grip on the ideas that spread. This (Google) is just another one of those deals; they allow the trade thereby pacifying the people who want the consumable, but they filter the cultural/political influences of the consumable.
The author of the article makes a great point, but I'm not sure that he realizes it. Most good change does not happen with a bang, it takes time. Google's business in China is one of the parts of that slow moving process, in my opinion. It could very well happen that we're looking back on this time years later and thinking about the items that led to free speech in China.
I can't conceive of a way that limiting free speech can possibly lead to free speech.
Good changes that happened with a bang:
French Revolution
American Revolution
Toppling of the Berlin Wall
Fall of the USSR
Granted that these may have been long in coming, but when they did it wasn't a slow progression; it was an explosion. Freedom isn't something you get in small steps, it's something you demand fully from the beginning. Martin Luther King didn't have a dream of semi-equality or a trickling of rights, he had a dream of absolute equality.
Shame on you microsoft, for forcing people to create docens of different, incompatible, buggy, installers
I think if you go through this whole thread there are several different installers mentioned for all the different distributions of Linux. In fact, if you go to some web sites that offer free software you can quickly get blinded by all the different packages or versions for each flavor of Linux.
If a novice was forced to install both, I'd bet $100 that they'd get Linux installed properly first. A Linux install comes with most necessary drivers/software that you'll need. A novice Windows user would _never_ find the drivers needed for even an OEM system, like a Sony or HP, where all the drivers are centralized on one site, let alone searching out the drivers from each manufacturer. Linux installs are much easier than XP installs.
You've got to be kidding me. The drivers at most vendor sites default to Windows XP drivers. Throw in your average hardware vendor's CD and it will run in Windows. This is not so for Linux. I don't know what distro you are using, but I have never installed a distro where all my hardware worked as expected without editing a bunch of text files and reading a couple of README files.
The only place that XP is at all easier is finding software for it. Linux software is easier to install (RPM are very convienient, klik:// is even easier, and the GUI package managers are drop dead easy, especially Mandriva's URPMI GUI and SuSE's YaST GUI), and easier to remove.
Yes, RPMs are very easy to use. Unfortunately, the problem comes in making sure you have every single library that the app you're installing uses. There are better installers out there, but every single one I have used has had dependency issues with one piece of software or another.
Linux systems require no habitual maintenance. You don't have to worry about anti-virus or anti-spyware, and even if you did worry about it, you could simply install the anti-virus software that comes with your distribution, using the distributions own package manager. Don't believe me? SuSE's YaST has "ClamAV", as well as several other anti-virus packages included.
Apparently, you don't ever update your Linux systems with the various security and stability patches.
If you can show me Windows software that installs as easily as this: http://amavis-ng.klik.atekon.de/ , I'll be mighty impressed.
Hmmm... First you have to install something that handles klik://, not a default in the last distro I ran...
For many people who don't know better, they expect that a blue screen of death and monthly patching is part of a standard computing environment. Just Say No to Microsoft: How to Ditch Microsoft and Why It's Not as Hard as You Think is an interesting read that will open the eyes of those users to a cheaper, more secure and robust open source solution.
Maybe I'm just extremely lucky, but I haven't seen a BSOD on my home machine since Windows 98 and I haven't seen an OS in the last few years other than Apple that hasn't had some sort of monthly if not weekly patching. Hell, even my black box (Linux based) media center has at least a patch a month. God, don't even get me started on how often I have to download drivers for my video card (3rd party).
Obviously free is cheaper, but that all depends on what price you put on your time...
If this is the gist of the book, I don't see any point in reading it. I get plenty of this propoganda on Slashdot...
"I can't come up with anything else in the entire marketing world where marketers knowingly introduce a flawed or inadequate product [and] it helps grow your user base."
Is anyone else tired of every asshat on the planet trying to compare computers and software to every other product in the world; from cars to soda pop?
You will probably be able to read RFID from hundreds of metres away soon. Far enough away to make selective targeting a reality.
A good marksman with a scope can ID and eliminate a target from further away than that. Selective targeting has been a reality for a long time.
I don't think this raised anyone's awareness, it just increased the agitation of already paranoid people. I see people voluntarily give away their information everytime I go to the supermarket or when I see someone signing up for a credit card or library card or any number of other identifiers; many of which can easily be tracked back to a social security number.
I'm not saying that personal information security is not important. I'm saying that we as people are once again aiming our crosshairs at the wrong targets.
Freedom of speech. Identity protection. Not even mentioning his unbelievable track record as a programmer.
While I do applaud anyone that makes freedom of speech and identity protection an issue. I fail to see what this has to do with personal freedom?
Why shouldn't a place like the U.N. have this type of security in place? Especially since many of the people in the building are perfect political targets?
His little protest would make more sense if he was protesting them using the chips in a super market or on credit cards. Pulling this kind of stunt in the U.N. really just makes him look like he belongs in the tin-foil hat club and thus makes his message seem like it comes from the tin-foil hat club. Definately not the best way to get an important (IMHO) message out.
"Smart" people are easy vicitims of social engineering. People who follow orders often are not. I think a good mix of both is necessary to have good security.
Are you saying these are mutually exclusive? You can't follow orders and be smart?
Really, you should have just taken out the "smart" section of your comment. People are easy victims of social engineering. If the social engineering does not conflict with your orders then you could follow orders and still be socially engineered.
By undermining the concept that the parents are responsible for their children and what comes into their homes.
It seems to me that by passing this law, the state has taken the responsibility onto themselves. I have noticed through the years that as the state takes on more of the responsibility of raising children the parents in our society start taking less responsibility.
When merchants will sell anything to anybody, yes, they do. The government can't do anything about parents who give sips of wine to their kids at dinner but it can certainly prevent merchants from selling merlot to a nine year old. This law lets parents do what the parents want with their kid and seeks to ensure that the decision remains with them.
They also can't do a whole hell of a lot about stores selling inappropriate materials to minors. You think the agencies that enforce this stuff really have the time and manpower to do it? Ever had your house burglarized? Unless there was violence involved, it is doubtful (in most parts of the country) that much will be done other than to record the losses.
What was the equivalent of GTA:SA that your parents needed to worry about being brought into the home?
When I was a kid it was Heavy Metal music and MTV. When my parents were children is was Rock and Roll and dancing.
This bill has everything to do with parental control... please reconsider: a law that says that shopkeepers aren't allowed to sell things to minors that their parents don't want them to have certainly doesn't do much for anybody else.
Do you really think the government gives two squirts if your kid purchases a violent video game? The government makes these kind of useless getures to garner votes. They know it's not enforceable in any large scale way. I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of the 15 year olds who have played this game didn't purchase it anyway...
All-in-all it's just another wasted opportunity, because you can't fix society with rules and regulations.
taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex,or excretion
Apparently these people forgot what being a teenager is like. I seem to recal finding all of the above in the back of the Sears catalog and they were fully clothed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, don't know what principality you live in, but I can't find anything in local, federal or state law that requires me to have a lock that is pickable...
Since we are playing with semantics I have to point out that since the "device" has WEP, it's sole purpose is not to share access. If sharing access were it's only purpose it wouldn't have WEP. I should also point out that ALL crime exists in our heads. We decide (depending on your country) what is a crime. This notion that something needs to take place physically to be a crime is ridiculous.
That article is filled with conjecture. They get a reply that doesn't either confirm or deny that the account had been flagged and assume this is the official word...
Get some more facts and come back.
That is way too much of a blanket statement. Are you saying George Lucas hasn't created cultural icons? How about Gene Roddenbury? Our culture (in the west) as it is now is a huge mish-mash of television and movies. Half the conversations I hear around me are filled with lines or ideas taken from film or television (aka Pop-Culture). I don't think the big studios "make" culture, but there are artists (directors, writers, actors, painters, musicians) who make a giant contribution to our cultural makeup.
Indie stuff is great, the problem is you get maybe 1 good film for every 1000 made. The same is true of blogs and the stuff on YouTube. The reason? Most of the stuff is made by people just learning how to make films, etc. It's great to have these outlets, but I don't want the professionals to stop making movies/television/music.
I would think that googles developers would be smarter than that; given what they have accomplished so far.
What is wrong with using the rational minds we were blessed with and saying google shouldn't suggest illegal activities, but it's okay for them to include suggestions that a company may not like that aren't illegal.
On another note, it doesn't matter whether you negotiate with terrorists or not. They strike when they strike. If you look at the history of terrorism, the principle of non-negotiation doesn't seem too compelling and then there's the whole question of who qualifies as a terrorist. We negotiate with other criminals all the time (not including the ones in the government).
Ah, the old familiar slippery slope argument...
This argument has held up stupid ideas for long enough. There is no slippery slope.
If the government asks you to register your weapons you are not short years away from being in a police state. That only happens when you allow GB into office.
Allowing two homosexuals to marry does not mean we are on the road to allowing inter-species marriages.
Also, are you telling me that a company that can find every web site in its database with the words "tolkien calendar" (2.3 mil) in .22 seconds cannot filter out a simple list of words from its suggestions? I call bullshit. This isn't some SQL server sitting under a desk in Prague, it's millions (billions?) of dollars worth of hardware and software constantly ripping through data. Apparently, even Google lies.
They wouln't need to filter search results. What they are asking them to do doesn't affect your search results. You could still type 'microsoft office crack' and get the results you want. What they are asking is that their "intellisense" technology not suggest the words "crack" "keygen" when someone is typing in the name of their software. I don't think that is un-reasonable and I imagine (or at least hope) that they are not throwing all the search words associated with "natalie portman" up there. I imagine there are some I wouldn't want my children seeing.
Google is just being stubborn on this one.
That would be nice. I fear I will be long dead by then :(
You too...
From your link: "grieving and penitent for sin or shortcoming". Call me crazy but that sounds synonymous with regret/sorrow. I think if you look in another dictionary you may find even more synonyms...
You are correct. I question your motives in my opening paragraphs, much the same as your comment on the article.
#1: huh? I don't recall making the case that there should be no ethical blame. In fact I believe I said they (MS) may have some ethical issues (I am not privey to any of it if they do).
#2: And what exactly is wrong with this? I believe it to be a true statement although I would replace "some" with "most".
Unless you want to change our economic system (which I am all for BTW), you are going to have corporations do everything they can to make a buck (including the ones that have favored status on slashdot). Don't hate the player, hate the game...
What exactly are you refering to as unethical behavior (as opposed to unlawful)?
Regardless of your answer, I agree. Unethical is unethical. I just find it infinately ammusing (not to mention hypocritical) to hear all this MS bashing, when most of us here probably work for corporations that have bent or broken the law at one time or another. Reminds me of a quote I recal from Sunday school, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", I've always liked that quote.
It's easy to point as MS and say, "There's the problem..."; much easier than looking at the real problems of our crooked/broken system. But I guess we don't want to change "us", we just want to change "them"...
Do you know what contrite means? None of the paragraphs I read had the air or regret or sorrow.
A person who works at MS is telling it the way he sees it and you call it a puff-piece. I can see your mind will not be bent by any opinion other than your own, but I've never let that stop me before.
Thank you Mr. Obvious. An employees view of their company (good or bad) is not (by definition) objective. I would argue that there are few people in the technology industry that can really be objective about MS.
For the record, I actually work there now and as a person who has worked at many companies in the area, I have to say that corporations (no matter how high minded) have one job. That job is to make money. Many of them will do it any way they can (overpricing, creative bookkeeping, screwing the customer, screwing the competition, breaking the law, etc.). MS may not be the cleanest company out there, but they are far from the dirtiest.
Wow, so many words and so little said. I have to disagree with the original author in his saying that the benifits are "on-par" with other tech companies in the area. They are well beyond most companies; in this state anyway.
Well, enough of that...
I don't know that it matters too much for the conversation, but the last news from the website (dated Feb 23, 2005) says the comic book will no longer be published.
The article linked in this article is from January of 2004...
Little late for us all to be outraged...
Anyone in China that wants to spread the idea of freedom or criticize there own government.
I call BS. If bad publicity destroyed companies so easily Wal-Mart and Microsoft would be dead. You think the average Joe-Schmo on the street knows anything about this? You think the main revenue streams for Google (advertisers) see this as anything more than a good business decision? Wake up, this country (USA) doesn't even care when our own government screws us, why should they care when a company over here screws a group of people in another country. If they did, Nike and Wal-Mart would be out of business.
China isn't as isolated as you think. They have a great deal of trade with the West. They aren't making the same mistake the USSR made. They are allowing a lot of trade, but they keep a tight grip on the ideas that spread. This (Google) is just another one of those deals; they allow the trade thereby pacifying the people who want the consumable, but they filter the cultural/political influences of the consumable.
I can't conceive of a way that limiting free speech can possibly lead to free speech.
Good changes that happened with a bang:
French Revolution
American Revolution
Toppling of the Berlin Wall
Fall of the USSR
Granted that these may have been long in coming, but when they did it wasn't a slow progression; it was an explosion. Freedom isn't something you get in small steps, it's something you demand fully from the beginning. Martin Luther King didn't have a dream of semi-equality or a trickling of rights, he had a dream of absolute equality.
Although science as practiced by us humble human beings has it's share of dogma...
I think if you go through this whole thread there are several different installers mentioned for all the different distributions of Linux. In fact, if you go to some web sites that offer free software you can quickly get blinded by all the different packages or versions for each flavor of Linux.
You've got to be kidding me. The drivers at most vendor sites default to Windows XP drivers. Throw in your average hardware vendor's CD and it will run in Windows. This is not so for Linux. I don't know what distro you are using, but I have never installed a distro where all my hardware worked as expected without editing a bunch of text files and reading a couple of README files.
Yes, RPMs are very easy to use. Unfortunately, the problem comes in making sure you have every single library that the app you're installing uses. There are better installers out there, but every single one I have used has had dependency issues with one piece of software or another.
Apparently, you don't ever update your Linux systems with the various security and stability patches.
Hmmm... First you have to install something that handles klik://, not a default in the last distro I ran...
Maybe I'm just extremely lucky, but I haven't seen a BSOD on my home machine since Windows 98 and I haven't seen an OS in the last few years other than Apple that hasn't had some sort of monthly if not weekly patching. Hell, even my black box (Linux based) media center has at least a patch a month. God, don't even get me started on how often I have to download drivers for my video card (3rd party).
Obviously free is cheaper, but that all depends on what price you put on your time...
If this is the gist of the book, I don't see any point in reading it. I get plenty of this propoganda on Slashdot...
Is anyone else tired of every asshat on the planet trying to compare computers and software to every other product in the world; from cars to soda pop?
A good marksman with a scope can ID and eliminate a target from further away than that. Selective targeting has been a reality for a long time.
I don't think this raised anyone's awareness, it just increased the agitation of already paranoid people. I see people voluntarily give away their information everytime I go to the supermarket or when I see someone signing up for a credit card or library card or any number of other identifiers; many of which can easily be tracked back to a social security number.
I'm not saying that personal information security is not important. I'm saying that we as people are once again aiming our crosshairs at the wrong targets.
While I do applaud anyone that makes freedom of speech and identity protection an issue. I fail to see what this has to do with personal freedom?
Why shouldn't a place like the U.N. have this type of security in place? Especially since many of the people in the building are perfect political targets?
His little protest would make more sense if he was protesting them using the chips in a super market or on credit cards. Pulling this kind of stunt in the U.N. really just makes him look like he belongs in the tin-foil hat club and thus makes his message seem like it comes from the tin-foil hat club. Definately not the best way to get an important (IMHO) message out.
Are you saying these are mutually exclusive? You can't follow orders and be smart?
Really, you should have just taken out the "smart" section of your comment. People are easy victims of social engineering. If the social engineering does not conflict with your orders then you could follow orders and still be socially engineered.
It does when your a 15-year old in the early eighties. Also, national geographic...
It seems to me that by passing this law, the state has taken the responsibility onto themselves. I have noticed through the years that as the state takes on more of the responsibility of raising children the parents in our society start taking less responsibility.
They also can't do a whole hell of a lot about stores selling inappropriate materials to minors. You think the agencies that enforce this stuff really have the time and manpower to do it? Ever had your house burglarized? Unless there was violence involved, it is doubtful (in most parts of the country) that much will be done other than to record the losses.
When I was a kid it was Heavy Metal music and MTV. When my parents were children is was Rock and Roll and dancing.
Do you really think the government gives two squirts if your kid purchases a violent video game? The government makes these kind of useless getures to garner votes. They know it's not enforceable in any large scale way. I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of the 15 year olds who have played this game didn't purchase it anyway...
All-in-all it's just another wasted opportunity, because you can't fix society with rules and regulations.
Apparently these people forgot what being a teenager is like. I seem to recal finding all of the above in the back of the Sears catalog and they were fully clothed.