The idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" may have worked when the village consisted of 100 people of the same moral/religious background as the parents, but in today's mix of cultures, religions, and values, it doesn't work all that well. These days, parents actually have to take responsibility for their children, instead of expecting the village/state to. Who is to say that your opinions of what is appropriate for a child to see/play/read will be the same as your next-door neighbor's, let alone the entire country's? Then why should the state be able to dictate what your child is allowed to see/play/read? What the ratings system teaches people is that it's impossible for the government to a) rate all media by the same scale, and b) that it's impossible, outside of a police state, to enforce all of the restrictions.
Interview with the Vampire was rated R in theatres, but the book is available to everyone of every age in most bookstores, for less than the cost of seeing the movie in theatres, most of the time. People argue that some media is more graphic than others, but just watch Quills (rated R), go read Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom, and Other Writings (available to anyone who wants to pay $25.50 for a trade paperback), and then tell me which is more graphic. There is a reason that despite the prevalence of video games and movies, some print is still censored in some countries and schools. For crying out loud, the Harry Potter movies are rated PG, which allows children to go see it in theatres without parental supervision, but reading the book at school can result in the book being confiscated, or even the child being suspended.
It's time to stop blaming the ratings system and the media itself for peoples' actions, and start taking personal responsibility. If you don't want your children doing/watching/reading something, you have to pay attention. Granted, it's impossible to do this 24/7, but didn't knowing that your parents would find out eventually and understanding that there would be consequences influence your behaviour as a child? The government, by its very nature, will never be consistent. If you want your children to turn out in a way that you approve, then it's time for parents to be.
Granted, I don't think that Bloggers deserve to be nominated as "People of the Year" -- it's much too wide a designation. It's like saying that all people who keep a personal diary are spectacular. That's just too silly to think about.
What really gets me is all of the people complaining about blogs cluttering up Google with irrelevant content and, boiling it all down, the attitude that the internet should only be for geeks and nerds. Give me a break. Just because people don't have the same opinion, computer knowledge and skills as you, they shouldn't be publishing what they write? In a completely free, you-only-have-to-read-it-if-you-want-to way, no less. For crying out loud, it's not like bloggers are spamming your personal email account with the day-to-day chronicle of their lives.
If we extend that kind of reasoning, public resources like the local library would suffer from a serious scarcity of resources. Does anybody else remember their English teachers poo-pooing all novels that weren't regarded as "classics"? What would happen if only those with a masters degree in English were allowed to rate the books that went into the library as suitable? Should we only have access to Faust, while Lord of the Rings is stripped from the shelves?
A search through my local library's database for A Tale of Two Cities will yield everything from the Dickens novel all the way to Iraq the Land by April Fast. How dare a non-Dickens novel come up in that search! It was totally irrelevant to what I was looking for.
Give up on the attitude, people. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" doesn't just apply to your hockey card collection.
If the buyer doesn't have internet access, most stores that sell software products do have access in the store somewhere, if only on the demo computers they've got set up. If the only internet access is on staff-only machines, you can always ask one of the employees to look up the EULA for you and print it out. Most employees will be good enough to do this, especially since the sale of the $1000 Adobe Suite that you're looking at will seriously help their commission.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" may have worked when the village consisted of 100 people of the same moral/religious background as the parents, but in today's mix of cultures, religions, and values, it doesn't work all that well. These days, parents actually have to take responsibility for their children, instead of expecting the village/state to. Who is to say that your opinions of what is appropriate for a child to see/play/read will be the same as your next-door neighbor's, let alone the entire country's? Then why should the state be able to dictate what your child is allowed to see/play/read? What the ratings system teaches people is that it's impossible for the government to a) rate all media by the same scale, and b) that it's impossible, outside of a police state, to enforce all of the restrictions.
Interview with the Vampire was rated R in theatres, but the book is available to everyone of every age in most bookstores, for less than the cost of seeing the movie in theatres, most of the time. People argue that some media is more graphic than others, but just watch Quills (rated R), go read Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom, and Other Writings (available to anyone who wants to pay $25.50 for a trade paperback), and then tell me which is more graphic. There is a reason that despite the prevalence of video games and movies, some print is still censored in some countries and schools. For crying out loud, the Harry Potter movies are rated PG, which allows children to go see it in theatres without parental supervision, but reading the book at school can result in the book being confiscated, or even the child being suspended.
It's time to stop blaming the ratings system and the media itself for peoples' actions, and start taking personal responsibility. If you don't want your children doing/watching/reading something, you have to pay attention. Granted, it's impossible to do this 24/7, but didn't knowing that your parents would find out eventually and understanding that there would be consequences influence your behaviour as a child? The government, by its very nature, will never be consistent. If you want your children to turn out in a way that you approve, then it's time for parents to be.
Granted, I don't think that Bloggers deserve to be nominated as "People of the Year" -- it's much too wide a designation. It's like saying that all people who keep a personal diary are spectacular. That's just too silly to think about.
What really gets me is all of the people complaining about blogs cluttering up Google with irrelevant content and, boiling it all down, the attitude that the internet should only be for geeks and nerds. Give me a break. Just because people don't have the same opinion, computer knowledge and skills as you, they shouldn't be publishing what they write? In a completely free, you-only-have-to-read-it-if-you-want-to way, no less. For crying out loud, it's not like bloggers are spamming your personal email account with the day-to-day chronicle of their lives.
If we extend that kind of reasoning, public resources like the local library would suffer from a serious scarcity of resources. Does anybody else remember their English teachers poo-pooing all novels that weren't regarded as "classics"? What would happen if only those with a masters degree in English were allowed to rate the books that went into the library as suitable? Should we only have access to Faust, while Lord of the Rings is stripped from the shelves?
A search through my local library's database for A Tale of Two Cities will yield everything from the Dickens novel all the way to Iraq the Land by April Fast. How dare a non-Dickens novel come up in that search! It was totally irrelevant to what I was looking for.
Give up on the attitude, people. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" doesn't just apply to your hockey card collection.
If the buyer doesn't have internet access, most stores that sell software products do have access in the store somewhere, if only on the demo computers they've got set up. If the only internet access is on staff-only machines, you can always ask one of the employees to look up the EULA for you and print it out. Most employees will be good enough to do this, especially since the sale of the $1000 Adobe Suite that you're looking at will seriously help their commission.