The biggest difference I have noticed between OO and MS O is file size. Just for kicks save the same file in both office bundles and see which one is bigger. The MS file is typically 4x larger to store than the OO one.
Ah yes but the position will never be filled by someone with a brain. Simply because anyone with a brain knows video games don't kill people. Now he could be replaced with someone more persuasive but I would doubt that intelligence is going to be brought into his spot just from the submersion of rational thought required.
A game is a competition that a player enters either of their own personal entertainment or he entertainment of others. Now whether a person competes vs themself, another player or a npc it doesn't matter.
Ok I am gonna have to say it.....that was the biggest bunch of crap ever uttered. If everything was up for change every election there would be no stability no law no civilization. Laws that are continuous are what really determine when a people begin to be civilized. On gun control....it really doesn't matter if it is "legal" to own guns or not because criminals don't get their guns through legal means anyway so gun control has never really had any effect on the numbers of guns criminals have.
TPB is prehaps the greatest movie that can be watched over and over again. It is an action, adventure, comedy, fairy tale with a love story tied in. Not only is it all of those things but it makes all of them work and work well. So, it is no suprise this appeals to a wide variety of ppl. In fact when I meet ppl that don't like The Princess Bride I usually try to avoid them due to obvious deficiency in their mental capacity.
Although it cannot be denied that you have at least some basis for your opinions, but the world still relies heavily on the US. The whole forming of the EU was because europe had lost its premier spot on the world stage and is actively trying to undermine the US position until we are either at equal footing or below europe.
You are correct the president doesn't represent america however, americans don't like foreigners ESPECIALLY europeans telling us what to do. We had our fill of that by 1775 no reason to revist the past. And remember our step into the lime light was ushered in by the failures of other countries to deal with their own problems. Also, global economy or no look at your home country as a company dealing with other large cooperations and the world political system makes a little more sense. In that light wouldn't it be stupid for 1 cooperation to hand over assest to other cooperations just because the antagonist cooperations are dependent upon that asset?
Not to be to much of nitpicker and knowing you are just re-iterating what someone else said. But you are incorrectly using the term High-horse. Which derived from the middle ages when knights had 2 horse they would go to battle with. 1 was a destrier and the other a charger. The High-Horse was the one they went into battle on. So, when someone is getting on their high horse they are preparing for battle via words or swords it is battle none the less. It is not inrefference to taking the moral high ground.
Not having any of my books with me I can't dispute the Emperor who established Christianity as the state religion. But if you could please stop with the All Mighty....Righteous bullshit about what I am saying.
I have not once tried to justify what they do through religion you have I haven't. Religion did not play the same role in Rome as it did for us today or those in the middle ages. Remember Rome's religion before Christianity, which was shortly before the fall, was just an compliation of all the different areas they conquered. Rome's economy was based off of expanding empire i.e. sacking enemy cities. That in mind Rome didn't usually totaly devastate an area considering it was just going to make it harder for those area's to become productive tax payers.
You act as tho slavery is different than having massive debt today. Or having no education working a job. It isn't. The lash is just a different weapon. You also keep mixing the terms of service for a slave if you will. American slaves were the complete and total property of the slave owner, which included offspring etc. Roman slaves were not. Slaves in ancient times were more like early colonial indentured servants.
You realize that is the most rediculous thing you have said. Remember Christians got their foot hold very shortly before the fall of Rome. They were not there during expansion. If you are talking about how jews expanded their kingdom. Well at least don't use the bible as an example of historical literature. Christian Lords and Knights actually had a much different system and didn't take slaves for the most part. Remember if you were of the knightly caste you could be ransomed off to your family i.e. lords and ladies etc. If you were a peasant you were tied to the land and a slave to whichever lord owned the land and they had rules regarding such as those. Also, when rome marched into an area you could submit and pay a tithe to Rome have you major political official become a Roman Governor or you could get your ass kicked and be taken as slaves. It wasn't slavery as a first option. Rome had really interesting punishments for those that resisted such as enslaving large portions of the populations and moving them to a different part of the empire, cowing an enemy and deminishing their population base is a good idea.
I think you misread my comments. I didn't say we should enslave border hoppers. And just because you haven't read up much on ancient rome/greece doesn't mean that their form of slavery wasn't fairly gracious. Slaves were paid in form of cash. Because they had families which were not necessarily slaves. It wasn't just we maintain you with food and cloths and you work until death. Rome did not confer citizenship on most of the empire. Only those in present day italy were typically citizens and a select few ruling families in the provinces. To trade in the city of rome you had to be a citizen. Becoming a slave was a way for merchants to do this. Because when you became a slave you in point of fact were becoming a member of you owner's family. He had the same rights over you as he did over his children. Which incidentally by roman law a father could sell his son into slavery 3 times before the son was no longer considered under his fathers jurisdiction.
So, you should think of ancient slaves as sort of adopted people along with contracted workers. They had to work for a certain amount of time to pay off their debt which if large enough could be life. But in exchange for that they became part of their owners family when freed from bondage.
Your refernce from historical fact coming from the bible is misplaced. Most things written in the bible are not historically acurate. Anyway the fact is that slaves were not lifetime slaves and their children were not born into bondage. you could choose if you wanted to sell your childed into slavery if it would buy you out of your debt but it is very rare in history where an entire race is enslaved just because they are a race.
Could you just get up and walk away from your job and not worry about creditors? Can you afford to not work and let your children starve? That is somewhat the same idea. A slave was in ancient times an addition to someones household staff they had to be maintained and paid like any retainer the only difference was their social caste.
Both of my parents worked but they found time to keep tabs on me and my 2 older sisters. There are tons of avenues open to parents to do this. 1 of which is activities such as sports, book clubs, etc....just because your parents want a career doesn't mean they can't act as parents also.
A more acurate statement is that "The lovely young couple want a kid but do not want their free time encombered by a screaming unintelligable child. Due to this they try to find ways to keep the kid entertained while not requiring themselves to spend very much time actively participating in said child's life." I guess I might just be tired of seeing crappy parents but you can't legislate morality or family discipline. Unless the gov't wants to install video monitors into all our houses kids will still watch R rated movies and M rated games. An easy solution to the game problem is simply not allow your kid to play a game on a TV/computer that is in their room.
Just as an aside. Slavery in the ancient world WAS NOT like slavery in America. It was not a permanent situation. Slaves were still paid, if menially, the children of slaves were not slaves but citizens of the country, city, state of the owner. Most slaves were taken from an enemey ravaged by war and would probably have starved to death if left in their own country considering it was standard practice to loot all food stores and destroy the rest during an invasion.
Slavery is not a terrible thing. And is it any different than paying someone such a small wage they never have the means to improve their life? The type of slavery that is bad is slavery just based off of race or religion. Which allows for absolutely no hope of ever being anything other than a slave. During the Roman empire 1 way for someone not born a citizen to become one was to become a slave. And yes there were reasons people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery to become a citizen. Ask yourself if the people hoping the border into the EU or US wouldn't do the same?
We hear and we obey =P. No in all honesty the Internet SHOULD NOT be regulated by government. Governments have agenda's, moral policy makers, the list goes on. The US root servers were implemented by our military at great expense. The interenet revolution was funded by the US Govt.
Now after all of it is up and running you think a piece of our national security should be handed over to the most incompetent and impotent body of politics ever created? Just to be clear on what the UN actually is. The reason the UN exists is to prevent a breakdown in communication between world powers that would result in a catastrophic world war. The UN DOES NOT exist to regulate or govern international affairs because the members of this world body are not elected and the funding is not representative.
Is it really a threat if these countries make their own web? China already has one and I could care less. I have a better idea. How about these other countries fund the UN 1/10th the amount the US does before they start bitching about how we run OUR internet. We don't hold a gun to their heads making them join in.
Maybe I am confused by your post but from TFA he was more concerned about his grand kids being unable to understand technology. Even at that the average tech person should understand what they are working with or developing. Other than that they need to know nothing.
Invention and inovation come when someone gets a good idea and has to create a workable design or idea and get others to contribute their knowledge. If you actually want to be honest about it the average 8th grader today has more technical knowledge than anyone did 400 years ago. Every year we humans expand our knowlege and are forced to assimilate more information. This leads to specialization due to to much innovation.
Anyways the guy from TFA is an idiot ranting expressing his stupidity.
Not really about your post but.....what the hell does rorting or rorted mean? I mean I looked them up and all but no one seems to know and as you use it twice a a descriptor I figured it was important. Is this some Austrailian slang?
the comment Al made was rediculous. I presupposes that people believe satalites are "HOOKED" via cable to the earth. Gravatiy is a cool new concept that I believe the other dude is trying to get Al to read about.
If it says fedral offense. It means it falls under FEDERAL jurisdiction. AKA illegal and able to be prosecuted by the DoJ. And yes the USPS is still a part of the US Govt even if it was "spun-off" their checks still come from the fedral government. Postmaster Generals are still chosen by the govt, stamp prices are still approved by congress.
So, lets be clear a clerk or marketing person cant arbitrarily write "mis-use of this box is a federal offense" on a box. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo envolved. Most organizations are smart enough to pass their stuff by legal before showing it to the world.
I am guessing that the article wouldn't have caused a stir had Cnet contacted google first before publising in 1 compendium all the information about one of their exec's. Someone that "important" can look at the collecting and mass posting of personal information as a threat considering a bunch of loonies can just start stalking them now w/o any leg work. I wouldn't care if it had been Bill Gates as the person searched for by CNET. It is not ok to collect personal information about someone and spread it across the net in mass form w/o their knowledge and approval.
I don't disagree it is wrong to love microsoft. Just wanted to correct your concept of love. It has nothing to do with whether or not love is reciprocated or hate is reciprocated. Your emotions are not predicated by or dependent upon anyone but yourself. I am sure that everyone that reads/. has people that seriously hate them but are totally oblivious to it. Does that mean they aren't really hated?
I really hate to side with big business or governmental intrusion, but broadcasting to the world was irresponsible. We live in a society that does have laws. He had to break the law to get the information he got so why should he be investigated. Not only did he break the law but he published his research so that malicious hackers will have a specific area to target.
It is time people grow up and realize that actions have consequences. And no it isn't THOUGHT POLICE. That idea is about "correct" or "incorrect" thought. The problem this guy had was he didn't "think" he just got an idea and went with it. What do you think the government would have done if he would have given general information about weaknesses in NORAD or some other very important national security installation. So, the moral of the story is if you find away to bypass, break, or abuse security systems that could pose a threat to the general population you best not tell everyone and their brother about it.
ah you fail to see my point. If I control the access you have to something then the idea is you best not piss me off so much I shut down your access. Also, if you are trying to use something I control to you advantage and my detriment then I will shut down your access to it. I don't care if it is cool or the best moral stance to take. It is a very good strategic stance because, A.) its not illegal. B.) it doesn't stop them from sueing the crap out of the Union for endangering and intimidating their employees. and C.) it makes it more difficult for the Union to organize their strike thus putting them in a weaker barganing position.
Hmmmm it is not cool to censor the internet but nothing says that a carrier has to carry every site. If the site in particular will do harm to their business either financially or physically why should they allow it. Personally if I was a telco I wouldn't allow access to Union pages if they were striking against me.
I challenge you to take a look at the constitution of the U.S. and Bill of Rights. W/o the Bill of Rights the Constitution as it is written would never have passed in New York or Mass. Your arguments in favor of government censorship make as much sense as arguments for the PATRIOT act. Yes it might alieviat some problems but it would cause just as many more and add in the wonderful side effect of cluttering jails and having more civil suits.
You didn't survive childhood because of the wonderful welfare system that this country has. I know how shitty it is, the #1 priority of the DSHS is to keep kids together with their parrents even if that parent has a history of neglect. If our society (the US) would stop making excuses for our own problems and deal with life then we wouldn't even need to have these stupid arguments.
I don't disagree that kids shouldn't watch R rated movies but that sure as hell didn't stop me from watching them when I was 13-16 all it took was knowing someone that was 17 AND IT STILL DOES!!!! It is the same agrument for taking hand guns away via legislation. Criminals can smuggle in drugs by the truck load do you think that a ban on hand guns will do anything to keep the dangerous killers from getting them?
What does banning sales to kids get us for M rated games. Absolutely nothing!!! Parents will still buy their kids whatever the kid wants. If you censor it and keep it out of stores that kids go to then you are INFRINGING on my rights as a consumer. So please take responsibility for your own actions. If you think that video games are a problem then try to get legislation past that puts more responsibility for a childs action on the parents where it belongs. If the parent is to busy to know what their kids are doing and monitor what they play then they are to busy to have kids in the first place and the kid should be placed in a more loving and caring environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing bliz's pension for giving alliance the weird crap I could venture to guess goblins.
The biggest difference I have noticed between OO and MS O is file size. Just for kicks save the same file in both office bundles and see which one is bigger. The MS file is typically 4x larger to store than the OO one.
Ah yes but the position will never be filled by someone with a brain. Simply because anyone with a brain knows video games don't kill people. Now he could be replaced with someone more persuasive but I would doubt that intelligence is going to be brought into his spot just from the submersion of rational thought required.
A game is a competition that a player enters either of their own personal entertainment or he entertainment of others. Now whether a person competes vs themself, another player or a npc it doesn't matter.
Ok I am gonna have to say it.....that was the biggest bunch of crap ever uttered. If everything was up for change every election there would be no stability no law no civilization. Laws that are continuous are what really determine when a people begin to be civilized. On gun control....it really doesn't matter if it is "legal" to own guns or not because criminals don't get their guns through legal means anyway so gun control has never really had any effect on the numbers of guns criminals have.
TPB is prehaps the greatest movie that can be watched over and over again. It is an action, adventure, comedy, fairy tale with a love story tied in. Not only is it all of those things but it makes all of them work and work well. So, it is no suprise this appeals to a wide variety of ppl. In fact when I meet ppl that don't like The Princess Bride I usually try to avoid them due to obvious deficiency in their mental capacity.
Although it cannot be denied that you have at least some basis for your opinions, but the world still relies heavily on the US. The whole forming of the EU was because europe had lost its premier spot on the world stage and is actively trying to undermine the US position until we are either at equal footing or below europe.
You are correct the president doesn't represent america however, americans don't like foreigners ESPECIALLY europeans telling us what to do. We had our fill of that by 1775 no reason to revist the past. And remember our step into the lime light was ushered in by the failures of other countries to deal with their own problems. Also, global economy or no look at your home country as a company dealing with other large cooperations and the world political system makes a little more sense. In that light wouldn't it be stupid for 1 cooperation to hand over assest to other cooperations just because the antagonist cooperations are dependent upon that asset?
Not to be to much of nitpicker and knowing you are just re-iterating what someone else said. But you are incorrectly using the term High-horse. Which derived from the middle ages when knights had 2 horse they would go to battle with. 1 was a destrier and the other a charger. The High-Horse was the one they went into battle on. So, when someone is getting on their high horse they are preparing for battle via words or swords it is battle none the less. It is not inrefference to taking the moral high ground.
Not having any of my books with me I can't dispute the Emperor who established Christianity as the state religion. But if you could please stop with the All Mighty....Righteous bullshit about what I am saying.
I have not once tried to justify what they do through religion you have I haven't. Religion did not play the same role in Rome as it did for us today or those in the middle ages. Remember Rome's religion before Christianity, which was shortly before the fall, was just an compliation of all the different areas they conquered. Rome's economy was based off of expanding empire i.e. sacking enemy cities. That in mind Rome didn't usually totaly devastate an area considering it was just going to make it harder for those area's to become productive tax payers.
You act as tho slavery is different than having massive debt today. Or having no education working a job. It isn't. The lash is just a different weapon. You also keep mixing the terms of service for a slave if you will. American slaves were the complete and total property of the slave owner, which included offspring etc. Roman slaves were not. Slaves in ancient times were more like early colonial indentured servants.
You realize that is the most rediculous thing you have said. Remember Christians got their foot hold very shortly before the fall of Rome. They were not there during expansion. If you are talking about how jews expanded their kingdom. Well at least don't use the bible as an example of historical literature. Christian Lords and Knights actually had a much different system and didn't take slaves for the most part. Remember if you were of the knightly caste you could be ransomed off to your family i.e. lords and ladies etc. If you were a peasant you were tied to the land and a slave to whichever lord owned the land and they had rules regarding such as those. Also, when rome marched into an area you could submit and pay a tithe to Rome have you major political official become a Roman Governor or you could get your ass kicked and be taken as slaves. It wasn't slavery as a first option. Rome had really interesting punishments for those that resisted such as enslaving large portions of the populations and moving them to a different part of the empire, cowing an enemy and deminishing their population base is a good idea.
I think you misread my comments. I didn't say we should enslave border hoppers. And just because you haven't read up much on ancient rome/greece doesn't mean that their form of slavery wasn't fairly gracious. Slaves were paid in form of cash. Because they had families which were not necessarily slaves. It wasn't just we maintain you with food and cloths and you work until death. Rome did not confer citizenship on most of the empire. Only those in present day italy were typically citizens and a select few ruling families in the provinces. To trade in the city of rome you had to be a citizen. Becoming a slave was a way for merchants to do this. Because when you became a slave you in point of fact were becoming a member of you owner's family. He had the same rights over you as he did over his children. Which incidentally by roman law a father could sell his son into slavery 3 times before the son was no longer considered under his fathers jurisdiction.
So, you should think of ancient slaves as sort of adopted people along with contracted workers. They had to work for a certain amount of time to pay off their debt which if large enough could be life. But in exchange for that they became part of their owners family when freed from bondage.
Your refernce from historical fact coming from the bible is misplaced. Most things written in the bible are not historically acurate. Anyway the fact is that slaves were not lifetime slaves and their children were not born into bondage. you could choose if you wanted to sell your childed into slavery if it would buy you out of your debt but it is very rare in history where an entire race is enslaved just because they are a race.
Could you just get up and walk away from your job and not worry about creditors? Can you afford to not work and let your children starve? That is somewhat the same idea. A slave was in ancient times an addition to someones household staff they had to be maintained and paid like any retainer the only difference was their social caste.
Both of my parents worked but they found time to keep tabs on me and my 2 older sisters. There are tons of avenues open to parents to do this. 1 of which is activities such as sports, book clubs, etc....just because your parents want a career doesn't mean they can't act as parents also.
A more acurate statement is that "The lovely young couple want a kid but do not want their free time encombered by a screaming unintelligable child. Due to this they try to find ways to keep the kid entertained while not requiring themselves to spend very much time actively participating in said child's life." I guess I might just be tired of seeing crappy parents but you can't legislate morality or family discipline. Unless the gov't wants to install video monitors into all our houses kids will still watch R rated movies and M rated games. An easy solution to the game problem is simply not allow your kid to play a game on a TV/computer that is in their room.
Just as an aside. Slavery in the ancient world WAS NOT like slavery in America. It was not a permanent situation. Slaves were still paid, if menially, the children of slaves were not slaves but citizens of the country, city, state of the owner. Most slaves were taken from an enemey ravaged by war and would probably have starved to death if left in their own country considering it was standard practice to loot all food stores and destroy the rest during an invasion.
Slavery is not a terrible thing. And is it any different than paying someone such a small wage they never have the means to improve their life? The type of slavery that is bad is slavery just based off of race or religion. Which allows for absolutely no hope of ever being anything other than a slave. During the Roman empire 1 way for someone not born a citizen to become one was to become a slave. And yes there were reasons people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery to become a citizen. Ask yourself if the people hoping the border into the EU or US wouldn't do the same?
We hear and we obey =P. No in all honesty the Internet SHOULD NOT be regulated by government. Governments have agenda's, moral policy makers, the list goes on. The US root servers were implemented by our military at great expense. The interenet revolution was funded by the US Govt.
Now after all of it is up and running you think a piece of our national security should be handed over to the most incompetent and impotent body of politics ever created? Just to be clear on what the UN actually is. The reason the UN exists is to prevent a breakdown in communication between world powers that would result in a catastrophic world war. The UN DOES NOT exist to regulate or govern international affairs because the members of this world body are not elected and the funding is not representative.
Is it really a threat if these countries make their own web? China already has one and I could care less. I have a better idea. How about these other countries fund the UN 1/10th the amount the US does before they start bitching about how we run OUR internet. We don't hold a gun to their heads making them join in.
Maybe I am confused by your post but from TFA he was more concerned about his grand kids being unable to understand technology. Even at that the average tech person should understand what they are working with or developing. Other than that they need to know nothing.
Invention and inovation come when someone gets a good idea and has to create a workable design or idea and get others to contribute their knowledge. If you actually want to be honest about it the average 8th grader today has more technical knowledge than anyone did 400 years ago. Every year we humans expand our knowlege and are forced to assimilate more information. This leads to specialization due to to much innovation.
Anyways the guy from TFA is an idiot ranting expressing his stupidity.
Not really about your post but.....what the hell does rorting or rorted mean? I mean I looked them up and all but no one seems to know and as you use it twice a a descriptor I figured it was important. Is this some Austrailian slang?
the comment Al made was rediculous. I presupposes that people believe satalites are "HOOKED" via cable to the earth. Gravatiy is a cool new concept that I believe the other dude is trying to get Al to read about.
If it says fedral offense. It means it falls under FEDERAL jurisdiction. AKA illegal and able to be prosecuted by the DoJ. And yes the USPS is still a part of the US Govt even if it was "spun-off" their checks still come from the fedral government. Postmaster Generals are still chosen by the govt, stamp prices are still approved by congress.
So, lets be clear a clerk or marketing person cant arbitrarily write "mis-use of this box is a federal offense" on a box. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo envolved. Most organizations are smart enough to pass their stuff by legal before showing it to the world.
I am guessing that the article wouldn't have caused a stir had Cnet contacted google first before publising in 1 compendium all the information about one of their exec's. Someone that "important" can look at the collecting and mass posting of personal information as a threat considering a bunch of loonies can just start stalking them now w/o any leg work. I wouldn't care if it had been Bill Gates as the person searched for by CNET. It is not ok to collect personal information about someone and spread it across the net in mass form w/o their knowledge and approval.
I don't disagree it is wrong to love microsoft. Just wanted to correct your concept of love. It has nothing to do with whether or not love is reciprocated or hate is reciprocated. Your emotions are not predicated by or dependent upon anyone but yourself. I am sure that everyone that reads /. has people that seriously hate them but are totally oblivious to it. Does that mean they aren't really hated?
I really hate to side with big business or governmental intrusion, but broadcasting to the world was irresponsible. We live in a society that does have laws. He had to break the law to get the information he got so why should he be investigated. Not only did he break the law but he published his research so that malicious hackers will have a specific area to target.
It is time people grow up and realize that actions have consequences. And no it isn't THOUGHT POLICE. That idea is about "correct" or "incorrect" thought. The problem this guy had was he didn't "think" he just got an idea and went with it. What do you think the government would have done if he would have given general information about weaknesses in NORAD or some other very important national security installation. So, the moral of the story is if you find away to bypass, break, or abuse security systems that could pose a threat to the general population you best not tell everyone and their brother about it.
ah you fail to see my point. If I control the access you have to something then the idea is you best not piss me off so much I shut down your access. Also, if you are trying to use something I control to you advantage and my detriment then I will shut down your access to it. I don't care if it is cool or the best moral stance to take. It is a very good strategic stance because, A.) its not illegal. B.) it doesn't stop them from sueing the crap out of the Union for endangering and intimidating their employees. and C.) it makes it more difficult for the Union to organize their strike thus putting them in a weaker barganing position.
Hmmmm it is not cool to censor the internet but nothing says that a carrier has to carry every site. If the site in particular will do harm to their business either financially or physically why should they allow it. Personally if I was a telco I wouldn't allow access to Union pages if they were striking against me.
I challenge you to take a look at the constitution of the U.S. and Bill of Rights. W/o the Bill of Rights the Constitution as it is written would never have passed in New York or Mass. Your arguments in favor of government censorship make as much sense as arguments for the PATRIOT act. Yes it might alieviat some problems but it would cause just as many more and add in the wonderful side effect of cluttering jails and having more civil suits.
You didn't survive childhood because of the wonderful welfare system that this country has. I know how shitty it is, the #1 priority of the DSHS is to keep kids together with their parrents even if that parent has a history of neglect. If our society (the US) would stop making excuses for our own problems and deal with life then we wouldn't even need to have these stupid arguments.
I don't disagree that kids shouldn't watch R rated movies but that sure as hell didn't stop me from watching them when I was 13-16 all it took was knowing someone that was 17 AND IT STILL DOES!!!! It is the same agrument for taking hand guns away via legislation. Criminals can smuggle in drugs by the truck load do you think that a ban on hand guns will do anything to keep the dangerous killers from getting them?
What does banning sales to kids get us for M rated games. Absolutely nothing!!! Parents will still buy their kids whatever the kid wants. If you censor it and keep it out of stores that kids go to then you are INFRINGING on my rights as a consumer. So please take responsibility for your own actions. If you think that video games are a problem then try to get legislation past that puts more responsibility for a childs action on the parents where it belongs. If the parent is to busy to know what their kids are doing and monitor what they play then they are to busy to have kids in the first place and the kid should be placed in a more loving and caring environment.