"If so, that would mean that the government would have to pay for our cost of living as I no longer have a job. So yes, we would protect the rights of minors so that they could buy cigarettes at the cost of a huge percentage of our work force."
The government does not owe you the cost of living. You can make a choice to raise your child correctly so that he wouldn't go out and buy cigarettes as soon as you are not there and maintain your job employment or you can take the extreme route you propose. Based on your opinion, I'd say that it's pretty obvious you were raised by a parent who, instead of teaching you what's right and wrong, stood over you and forced your hand at every instance. Not everyone was raised this way and, unlike you who in the abscence of a parent 24/7, wants the government to serve that role.
"The government says you can not sell Playboy to a minor. The content of playboy is no worse then anything you'd see in an R-rated movie today (due to the rating association lowering standards and bowing down to big budget movie makers). The problem is not that the government does prevent the sale of R-rated material to minors. The problem is that a corporate entity has altered the ratings system to maximize profits."
Way to shift the argument!
Why do you believe government intervention is needed here? Any laws preventing minors from accessing games or movies would be state-wide - hardly representative of community standards. There is no reason for government involvement here. Raising children is not easy but it is much more valuable to raise a child who can make decisions on his own rather than having the government preventing the child from making "the wrong decision" on his own.
You sound like you're very needy and expect everyone else to take care of you. I feel sorry for you, Rick.
"Why should the government prohibit the sale of cigarettes to a minor?"
They shouldn't.
"Shouldn't it be the parents job to make sure their child doesn't smoke?"
Yes, it should.
"Same for alcohol, pornography, and tatoos. The goverment is giving parents the control."
No it's not. It is taking control away from the parents. Parents would have full control if there was no act on behalf of the government at all.
"The government is not saying that the industry can not make these games. It is not saying that minors can not play these games. It is saying that if a minor wants to purchase these games they need a parent or guardian."
Why should the government even be involved in this? Your smoking/alcohol example is much less appropriate than comparing video games to movies and music - which are an entertainment medium. The government does not say that a minor cannot buy an R-rated movie. Why should the government say that a minor cannot buy an M-rated game? There is no difference.
"Are you positive on that? This would mean a blue-ray (sic)/HDDVD player will handle DVDs of all formats, CDRs of all formats. This stack is getting rather huge."
Time will tell but you should be able to get an indication from current DVD players and their wide range of support for varying formats. Would you like to make a wager on whether the first Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player can play a standard DVD?
You wouldn't have to re-buy all your DVDs. Just as there are VCR/DVD combo units, any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player would play normal DVDs. So what's the problem?
That type of response is why people who don't understand basic logic and set theory shouldn't be allowed to have conversations. I did not say that all liberals listen to Michael Moore. I said that the people who are listening to Michael Moore are liberals. If you understand that point, you will see that the above comment is completely unneeded and irrelevant.
"Of course, I imagine that poor, pathetic, insane Jack Thompson probably imagines that he's the noble martyr in some epic battle against the hordes of evildoers who want nothing more than to poison the minds of children, and will not, for a second, ponder the possibility that maybe he's wrong."
To be fair, that's the way most people operate. Look at the whole media-produced Red State vs. Blue State nonsense. A staunch Red Stater (as if 100% of the population of a Red State is a Bush supporter) doesn't ponder whether his fellow Americans might have a point. Nor does a Blue stater consider whether those in the Red States have valid concerns as well. Everyone just wants to be told their opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees is stupid. Most of the people who listen to Liambaugh are conservatives because they want to be told they are right. Likewise, the people that listen to Michael Moore are liberals. How often do you take a step back and try to really consider an issue from someone else's point of view? If you're like most people, very rarely. If you do examine issues from all sides and take time out after your opinion is formed to reevaluate, bravo. (Well, bravo or you're a liar.)
"Oh, that, and they should be shot for being so insanely stupid to be so defensive and obsessed with something that just doesn't mean that much, and to companies that certainly don't give a shit about them."
What should be done with the people who take Internet message boards so seriously that they believe people should receive bodily harm for simply posting? What should we do with those people? [CLUE BRICK: THIS IS YOU. Calm down and stop deciding who needs to be shot. No one needs to be shot.]
No, it's not investigative journalism at all. But you say, "Seems if you live in a thrid world country than 18 hours a day. seven days a week is perfectly ok from his point of view." when in fact, he never said he believed that those hours are being worked. So you put words into his mouth and then made a claim about his moral judgement of the situation.
A more accurate description would be that he believes it is acceptable and moral to buy from workers who have 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week with paid leave and sick time.
If you were criticizing his research techniques, you should have come out and said so.
" I have no problems whatsoever if people want to sit around and play with cheat codes all day. I really don't."
In your previous post you said, "Don't you hate that guy?" rhetorically. So what you're saying is that you have no problem with someone using cheat codes except for the fact that you hate him; is that right?
Huh? The advantage that cartridges had over CDs back when this was an issue was the lack of load times. A PC has a hard drive so everything on the CD/DVD can be copied to the hard drive...
And it's not as though small time developers are going to be saving money using your scheme. DVDs are much cheaper to produce than USB drives.
He specifically mentioned his "home documents" so he must be using an office suite at home. I am curious how he got a license for home use without being charged for it.
So you get paid to be at work but expecting others not to get paid is okay with you?
Either use a program that is free or buy software - piracy hurts people that work for a living. It's not funny or cute as you seem to think. It's criminal and immoral.
"POP access is free for all Gmail users and we have no plans to charge for it in the future."
What in that statement suggests that they might do away with it in the future? Or were you just spreading FUD based on something you read a long time ago?
Slashdot Mirror
Any other thoughts you have?
Hmmm, what's that similar to? Oh! I know! It's the ESRB ratings system! Same thing.
Get some facts before you spew this garbage.
Why do you believe government intervention is needed here? Any laws preventing minors from accessing games or movies would be state-wide - hardly representative of community standards. There is no reason for government involvement here. Raising children is not easy but it is much more valuable to raise a child who can make decisions on his own rather than having the government preventing the child from making "the wrong decision" on his own.
You sound like you're very needy and expect everyone else to take care of you. I feel sorry for you, Rick.
OpenOffice isn't even written in Java!
Less government is more government.
Just because a company sells something does not mean people "have to" buy it. My statement stands.
You wouldn't have to re-buy all your DVDs. Just as there are VCR/DVD combo units, any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player would play normal DVDs. So what's the problem?
You're easy to please.
And just for fun: Java servlets > anything PHP produces
That type of response is why people who don't understand basic logic and set theory shouldn't be allowed to have conversations. I did not say that all liberals listen to Michael Moore. I said that the people who are listening to Michael Moore are liberals. If you understand that point, you will see that the above comment is completely unneeded and irrelevant.
Germany killed 6 million Jews - slightly larger problem than the one you referenced.
A more accurate description would be that he believes it is acceptable and moral to buy from workers who have 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week with paid leave and sick time.
If you were criticizing his research techniques, you should have come out and said so.
Did you even read the article?
Humans are so inconsistent.
Congrats on your great work!
And it's not as though small time developers are going to be saving money using your scheme. DVDs are much cheaper to produce than USB drives.
He specifically mentioned his "home documents" so he must be using an office suite at home. I am curious how he got a license for home use without being charged for it.
So how is it that you have gotten all of your licenses for [and since you didn't specify I am assuming] MS Office without paying anything?
You implied you pirated it.
Either use a program that is free or buy software - piracy hurts people that work for a living. It's not funny or cute as you seem to think. It's criminal and immoral.
From http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe r=10350&topic=194
"POP access is free for all Gmail users and we have no plans to charge for it in the future."
What in that statement suggests that they might do away with it in the future? Or were you just spreading FUD based on something you read a long time ago?