My assumptions are that 10-year old girls back in 1993 would not likely have access to UNIX since it was almost entirely only available at universities, government offices and large businesses. Most (actually all) 10 year old kids I ever knew did not have sufficient access to such locations as to be able to become familiar with UNIX. And there was very limited net access back then so learning remotely would be difficult too.
See, your assumption is reasonable in general. Most 10-year-old kids would never have touched a UNIX system, and the chances that a 10-year-old girl would have is even more remote. However, to declare a single 10-year-old girl knowing her way around UNIX as one of the 10 most terrible portrayals of technology in film implies that the very idea that any 10-year-old girl would know anything about UNIX (in 1993, specifically) is ludicrous. Which is bullshit. I suspect that in 1993 there existed multiple 10-year-old girls in the US with some level of UNIX knowledge. Jurassic Park merely implied that the grandaughter of a bazillionaire might be one of them.
It's one thing to say that something is unlikely. Even highly unlikely. But consider the statement made in TFA (which you defend)...
Where on this planet is there a 10 year old girl who knows and can understand UNIX?!?
This moves well beyond what is reasonable and true, and into the realm of bullshit stereotyping. I bet the author of TFA also thinks all blacks are good at basketball.
I mean seriously, to place the very idea of a young girl possibly knowing UNIX at the number two position, above some of the most heinous abuses of technology ever to grace action movies (above, Swordfish, dammit!) shows a level of bias that is sickening.
If it is indeed allowed to do this, then where is the LEGAL software to do things that are "fair use" with DRM'd data? It doesn't exist.
RTFL. It does indeed make an exception for circumvention for the purposes of fair use. However, this only applies to the actual person doing doing the circumvention. The distribution of tools to circumvent copyright protection technology is still illegal. So, going back to the circumvention of Adobe's DRM in Acrobat for use by the blind, none of the blind people using it (assuming they had legally obtained the copyrighted works in question) were breaking the law...only the person who gave them the software.
By this same reasoning, there is nothing illegal about circumventing CSS to rip a DVD you own to your iPod. However, you are expected to write your own tool to do so; nobody else is allowed to distribute it to you.
Yes, it's silly. But assuming you manage to get a program such as decss in your possession (which somebody will have to break the law to make happen), you can rip DVD's you own all day long without breaking the law.
As a disclaimer, IANAL. But, unlike a majority of the people I hear talking about the DMCA, I have actually at least read the law.
They sure could have, but that's not the point. It runs counter to the entire idea of the ADA. For instance, just because Wal-Mart has wheelchair ramps, doesn't mean that suddenly the local Target doesn't have to...citizens with disabilities are supposed to have accomodations made allowing the use of all options available to those without (within reason).
Otherwise, it leaves open the opportunity for taking advantages of those with disabilities if only one option in town has wheelchair ramps (or other accomodations for various disabilities); it isn't like they can easily just go somewhere else. So unless all websites are required to make accomodations (within reason) for the blind, then two things could happen. One, almost none would bother, since the cost would greatly outweigh the benefits (I'm sure blind folks are a pretty small percentage of the overall web-based-shopping market, for instance). Two, the few specialty sites that bothered would likely charge higher prices to take advantage. Even if neither happened, it would still be unfair if certain vendors didn't make their sites accessible, as at any given time prices from site to site can vary quite a bit.
So the only real question here is what constitutes reasonable accomodations for a website. I'm guessing they'd just have to have a seperate text-only site compatible with whatever text-to-speech applications the blind use (something I know little about, to be honest). It's not like that's all that hard...I seem to remember it being pretty common back in the day, when not everybody had browsers compatible with flash and frames and everything else.
Start making space on the PVR??? How about buying the damn DVDs and in the process convincing the powers that be there's a market for good SciFi?
TPTB at SciFi already know there's a market for good SciFi. Duh. The problem is that Firefly originally aired on Fox, who will do everything can can to sink a decent SciFi show in order to prove their belief that there isn't really a market for good SciFi.
So why buy the DVD? It looks like it's put out by 20th Century Fox, so I imagine there is some chance that the money from the purchase will just go into the coffers of those that cancelled it. That'll teach 'em...that they can crap on SciFi fans and we'll still give them our money, that is.
Oops...somewhere in there I lost one of my more important points: that the reason that compact fluorescent bulbs are such a "big deal" is that while many methods of conservation require at least moderate changes in lifestyle, or some degree of effort, replacing a lightbulb is as easy as...well, replacing a lightbulb. You drop a couple extra bucks the next time one burns out (which you will recoup over the life of the bulb) and you're done.
Let's keep things in perspective here. A few million homes powered is a drop in the bucket globally. Even within the context of the US it like a percent or so. Maybe nice but no big deal really.
True, but that is only if every household only replaced one bulb. If every household replaced two or three (and major retailers like Target/Wal-Mart sell them in three-packs for under ten bucks) then the savings would be even greater.
This attitude in general is why energy conservation and alternative energy sources have such a hard time catching on; people act as though if it doesn't solve the entire energy problem then it isn't worth bothering with. You go ahead and wait for cold fusion. Personally I'd rather replace a few incandescents with flourescents, drive a Civic instead of an F-150, and vote for politicians that will actually fund alternative energy sources (such as wind).
That, and turn the light off when I'm not in the room and turn off the computer when it isn't really doing anything. Drive a few miles per hour slower. Cut the temp back by a degree or two in the winter. No one of these changes really makes that much difference, but if you could convince a majority of people to enact a majority of these changes it could actually make a significant difference.
Because after all, 10% is just 10 times 1%, right?
Say I want to watch just the final ten minutes of something, does that mean I must sit through SEVENTEEN minutes of commercials first before I'm "allowed" to view the ending?
Indeed...welcome to 1990, I guess.
Still interesting, overall. I'm more interested in the technical details of these releases, which both the article and ABC.com don't seem to want to give much info on. What format will they be in, what bitrate, what resolution, etc. If they can beat the quality of the respective BitTorrent releases, I might actually consider this (the only real reason I use torrents over iTunes is because the quality is too low for my tastes...the ability to burn to DVD doesn't mean much, because I just pump it out to TV from my laptop).
I imagine there will be DRM involved (so as to prevent commercial skipping, and to keep people from hacking the commercials out altogether and re-releasing it on torrent), so I wonder how that will work. Will it work on my Mac?
I have a feeling that once all these questions are answered, I'll be much less than satisfied. However, if a network wants to release their shows at a high quality, in a format I can pipe to my TV (which in my case just means anything that I can play full-screen on my computer), then I don't even mind watching their commercials.
Let us not forget that, under the current system, it's those commercials that pay for the show (at least for OTA networks and non-premium cable channels). If nobody watches them, the show goes away. I'm not saying this is optimal, but I don't see it changing drastically in the very near future.
Of course sales may drop and force the companies out of business. But the game developers aren't going to say "Well, you can now pay $300 to buy a copy of Windows to run on your Mac, so were going to stop making Mac games."
Where does this $300 figure I keep seeing thrown about come from? If you're just using it to play games, do you really need XP Pro? Because XP Home (full version, retail) runs $200. OEM versions can be had for more like $100...though I don't know if OEM versions work with Boot Camp.
And that's just for the "sanctioned" Windows-on-Mac solution...if you want to go unofficial, there's nothing stopping you from installing an upgrade version of XP on an Intel Mac...and as long as you also own a copy of 95/98, you're legally allowed to do so.
Regardless, this will probably kill Mac gaming. It was already half-dead; aside from the few good guys (such as Blizzard), most companies just allowed MacPlay or whoever to port their games after a year or two...at which point Mac customers had the priveledge of paying $50 for a buggy port of a game that by then sold for $20 on PC. If you were lucky, eventually the price would drop to $20...of course, by then the PC version was $10 and had a whole 'nother game bundled with it. If you were unlucky, it just went out of print, and you're lucky to even find a copy...and if it was under $50 you were extremely lucky.
Given the fleecing* of Mac customers that occurs in the game market, economically $200 or even $300 for a copy of Windows is probably a bargain in the medium to long run...if you're saving $30 or more per game, it doesn't take long for that math to work out in your favor. The already infinitesimal market for Mac games just got smaller.
* - I don't necessarily blame companies like MacPlay it takes time to port games once the PC publishers let them, and the market is small enough that you're unlikely to see "budget" pricing (because that only works with volume). There are all kinds of factors that probably make it difficult to impossible for them to offer games to Mac customers at a low price...but this doesn't change the fact that we have been getting fleeced.
Now everyone in his town probably hates him more because he ruined three families lives because the world laughed a video that he fucking made. That he fucking made. That he made. Oops.
You mean the three families' lives that were ruined because of a video that they maliciously fucking posted for the world to see? That they maliciously fucking posted. That they posted. Oops.
Or have we forgotten that the kids from those three families made a deliberate choice, out of malice, that led to this lawsuit? They had no right to post that video on the internet, and they knew it. They did it anyway, because they were assholes.
I guess this whole "taking responsibility for your actions" thing only applies to fat kids who think they are Jedi.
I see two lessons to be learned here. First, obviously, if you're going to do something that might embarass you, and record it, keep track of the recording. You might say you shouldn't record it at all, but I think that's extreme...you just need to do your best to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Raza failed to do so, so to an extent he brought this on himself.
However, should you come into such an embarassing video, and think it might be really funny if it made its way onto the internet, maybe you shouldn't do it. There is no doubt the posters had nothing but malicious intentions, and now they're paying for it. Embarrasing a classmate on a global scale doesn't seem as funny when you might lose your college fund or your family might lose their house, does it?
They were bullies. They brought this on themselves. This obviously won't undo the harm that has been done, but a little denention or a "stern talking to" wouldn't even prevent the next bullies from doing the exact same thing. This actually might.
Is it possible to think that both sides got what they deserved?
On a side note, I never thought I'd see so many people who are presumably somewhat geeky defending somebody's right to be a bully. Is it one of those "I went through it so you should have to" kind of things? I just seem to sense a severe lack of empathy here.
yeah, but the problem here is that the 3D street fighters weren't actually any GOOD. In fact, they were total ass. Put Street fighter 2 turbo up against a GREAT 3D fighter like Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Tekken 5, or Soul Calibur 2/3...and quite frankly I'd rather play those.
Personally I prefer the King of Fighters games to Street Fighter. I like Darkstalkers better, too. People forget that Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat aren't the only 2D fighters around.
Don't get me wrong...I don't hate 3D fighters in general...but the suggestion that Soul Calibur 2 is better than Garou: Mark of the Wolves just because it is 3D (which the author insinuated) seems silly to me.
Though yeah, Soul Calibur 2/3 do blow most 2D fighters out of the water. It is truly a great 3D fighter. But the author of TFA suggested that a "good" 3D fighting game is better than a "great" 2D fighting game...which I think is BS.
I think next-gen owners are going to be Revolution + one of 360/PS3. How many titles are going to be unique to a platofrm, and of those, how of those are worth a console purchase?
Sorta like the current gen, where a lot of people I know had a Gamecube + Xbox or PS2. At least those that, unlike myself, don't waste gobs of money on games.
I think it is actually part of Nintendo's strategy, especially in the US...keep prices low enough that you can afford to get their console as an "extra." This is probably also why Nintendo owners don't get mad at the overall lack of worthwhile games for the consoles (at least since the 64)...it's rarely the only console a gamer owns.
I know several of people who have a lone PS2 or a lone Xbox...I can't think of anybody I know who just owns a Cube.
3. Now there is a way to link my purchases to my identity. Hillary Clinton is claiming that video games cause violence. What happens when they start looking up to see if you purchased GTA if you want to get a pilots licence, or a licence to own a gun, or go to get your passport renewed?
Tinfoil_hat++
also, Slippery_slope++
Your other two points had some merit, however...though again, you don't see anybody complaining that ID checks for alcohol or tobacco are leading to identity theft, and calling for an end to them. For clarity, once again no comparison is meant here between tobacco/alcohol and videogames...commenting solely on ID checks in general.
Your analogy doesn't work. Alcohol is not a form of expression, and not protected by the First Amendment. But that being said, there are many countries were minors are allowed to purchase alcohol and they have a lot less problem with it than in the U.S.
Wasn't necessarily meant as an analogy...at least not concerning videogames. I wasn't intending to bring up the social issues of alcohol, or even compare alcohol to video games. You stated that the VG industry and retailers were doing a "reasonable job" of keeping adult-themed videogames out of the hands of minors (without parental permission). I was attempting to demonstrate that, statistically, based on the success rate of unaccompanied minors in attempts to purchase such games, they were not. Nothing more.
If you want to say that they shouldn't bother preventing the sale of such games to minors, I'd merely disagree. If you want to say that they are actually doing a reasonable job of such, then I'm going to argue. You can argue that a 12-year-old has a fundamental right to a copy of GTA without a parent present, or you can argue that stores are doing a reasonable job keeping 12-year-olds from buying copies of GTA without a parent present...but not both. I have a feeling you'd choose the former, and that's fair. But assuming that the restriction of such sales on a voluntary basis is a "good thing," the industry is NOT doing a good job of it on their own. Anytime somebody who shouldn't be able to buy something manages to a third to half the time, that's pitiful.
Granted, it has gotten better. But they've had the better part of a decade to make it happen, and considering that the results are crap.
As for your Bible (or Talmud, or Quran, etc.) analogy, I'd say that would be a little different. In restricting the sale of various religious books to minors, you'd not only run into freedom of expression problems, but also freedom of religion (specifically the "free excercise thereof") problems. There are many more exceptions to freedom of expression, especially as it relates to minors, than freedom of religion. You probably don't think that should be the case...regardless, it is.
So no, the restriction of the sale of Grand Theft Auto to a minor is in no way analogous to the restriction of the sale of a Bible...unless there exists somewhere a Church of the Holy M-Rating.
The video game industry and the retailers are already doing a reasonable job in making sure video games stay out of the hands of minors. We don't need a police state to make it difficult for grown adults to purchase video games, or more expensive, which is what you want to happen.
Of course, because enforcing age restrictions with legal penalties on retailers have made alcohol and tobacco so insanely expensive. Oh...wait. It's mostly taxes doing that, not age restrictions. Never mind.
And the only added difficulty you would see in getting games with legally-enforced age restrictions is having to have an ID handy to buy them. Big freakin' deal.
Also, I'd say retailers have done a pitiful job keeping adult-themed games out of the hands of minors. What, they're running about 50%? About 35% for big-name national chains, who supposedly actually give a crap? Good job.
If a store sold alcohol to minors 35% of the time they'd be fined, lose their license, and have to shut down. It does not represent a "good faith effort" on their part. Not even close. And publishers claim that their games aren't marketed to minors, or meant for minors, but complain when somebody mentions restricting their sales to minors. Smells like industrial-grade BS to me.
PA pretty much summed up my opinion on the right of minors to buy any given game here,
Question: Is a polygon Fighter in 3D with a good fighting engine better than a beautiful 2D Fighter with an excellent fighting engine? You bet it is.
I hate this person already.
Other than that, there was a little bit of interesting commentary in there. He touched on a couple big things I have to agree with, though. Human opponents or teammates (or both) will almost always trump AI. Single player games can be great, but their strength as a franchise will usually fade...eventually you are just doing the same thing with prettier polygons.
Though for some reason, doing the same thing with prettier polygons is more desireable when you are doing it with or against other human beings.
how long until there are non-"inheritance" clauses in the TOS for porn site accounts?
Hell, there probably already are. It can actually be a real pain to leave something non-tangible to somebody after your death. A car is easily transferred, but a membership or subscription often isn't.
Example: my wife's grandmother had like 10 or 11 months left on her Dish Network subsciption. My father-in-law should theoretically have inherited it (he's the one who takes care of everything not specifically mentioned in the will). However, he was informed that Dish's policy is that they would not add that 11 months to his membership...the only way they'd pass it on is if it went to a new subscriber. In other words, they weren't willing to pass along the time remaining on a pre-paid contract unless it would gain them something (another customer)...otherwise that money (hundreds of dollars) was flushed down the toilet.
The lesson: don't assume that pre-paid memberships can be passed along in the event of your death. Also, when you're chances of dying at any given time are significant, go monthly.
Honestly, if you bought your 12-year-old a copy of GTA San Andreas, it's not Rockstar's fault, it's not the US Government's fault, it's not the store's fault, it's yours, because you made a conscious decision to buy your kid that game when the title and the carton art tell the whole story.
Very true. However, there are plenty of cases where the child buys the game outside of the parent's presence. What do you suggest then? Following your kid 24/7, never letting them out of your sight? Weekly room searches?
Yeah, parents need to take an active role. But we don't allow the sale of pornography to minors. I don't see any fundamental difference between that and many of these adult-themed games, such as GTA. What is wrong with not allowing stores to sell games that even the publishers themselves claim (falsely, in my opinion) are not meant for the underage market?
If the parent wants to buy adult-themed games for their 11-year-old, I could care less. That's their problem. What most people who are for regulation suggest is simply to make it harder for the kids to get these things on their own.
Yes, technically that is true, but reducing the supply of used albums increases the demand for new albums. The person who will buy it new or used goes to buy it, doesn't find the used album because you bought it, and buys the new one instead.
Unless, of course, you buy it used, rip it, then sell it used the next day.
It's a little more expensive than p2p, and a little more of a pain...but your chances of getting caught (and sued) are absolutely zero unless the RIAA convinces the government to give them permission for random forcible entries, searches, and seizures. Not impossible, given the way things are going...but still unlikely.
And while the RIAA may have gotten money from the original sale, that's cold comfort when ten or twenty people are actually getting copies of the album...untraceably. It's p2p meets sneakernet. Plus you get the albums you want in the format/quality you want (MP3, OGG, FLAC, whatever)...so better than p2p in many ways.
That sounds like a great way to see America, Rob. As the reflected glare on your media-manacle. Ever look out the window? Even better, turn off the AC and open a window.
Depends where he was driving to Colorado from. Ever driven lengthwise across Kansas? I'd rather watch The Blair Witch Project 2 than enjoy that scenery.
In my opinion, a child in possession of X dollars, where X dollars equals the price of a desired video game, constitutes parental permission. It's not a matter of saying that parents "should" be responsible, it is a matter of stating the *fact* that parents *are* responsible. If a child cannot be trusted to make a purchase, then it should not be given responsibility to handle money.
And if the child only has X dollars in his hands because he managed to skim that money from several smaller amounts that were given to him for other purposes, which may or may not be difficult to track? (an obvious example being lunch money at school, though I can imagine others)
No, the fact that junior has somehow managed to amass $20-$50 (because not all M-rated games cost 50 dollars...GTA3 and GTA:VC, for instance, both can be had new for less than $20) does not in any way imply parental consent. It doesn't even imply that the parents, as you put it, placed $20-$50 in his little hands...at least not at one time.
And while you are correct that this system will not protect the values of all parents, it does provide a tool for the majority of parents whose values it does reflect a majority of the time. Yes, there are parents who don't want their kids watching or buying Disney cartoons. But a vast majority probably wouldn't want an 11-year-old watching Pulp Fiction. Those parents who do want their kid to watch PF just need to buy it for them. Those parents who don't want their kids to watch Disney just need to monitor their kids more closely than most, because their values are more restrictive than those of general society.
This may not be the perfect solution; but you shouldn't, in general, pass up better to wait for perfect.
"In contrast to what seems to be most of slashdot, I for one still enjoy the movie going experience. Maybe I just have really nice theaters by me and I'm really lucky to boot but i really don't have alot of the problems that are mentioned here and in the parents follow-ups. My theaters are well set up and kept up well (no sticky floors, seats are nice, sounds good, no bleed through from other theaters), I almost never have noise disruptions from other patrons and the teenagers at the front door could care less about me bringing food in. The only down side I have for movie going is the high cost of the ticket."
I agree...I've found that a majority of my local theaters don't suffer from any of the "technical" problems that are tossed around here, like bad picture, sound bleeding in from other theaters, etc. I have been to such theaters in the past (Carmike theaters are often the worst...their target market is small towns where there is zero competition). But in general the technical aspect of the experience is perfectly enjoyable for me.
The main reason I rarely go see movies nowadays is a combination of the absolute rudeness of my fellow patrons, as well as the theater's unwillingness to do anything about it.
First, you have the cell-phone talkers. They are beginning to thin out, but you still run into them on a regular basis. Having your cellphone ringer on is a no-go; would you bring an alarm clock into a theater set to go off mid-movie? It is also not acceptable to answer your cellphone in a theater. Even if you just say "Hey...I'm in a theater...give me a second" and walk out. If you are so important that you cannot just get the number off caller-id and call them back (after the 45 seconds it takes you to get to the lobby), you probably cannot afford to take time out of your evening for a movie. Stay home, or in your office, or wherever.
Second, you have the texters. Their population is booming. Hint: your bright-ass cellphone screen is very distracting inside of a darkened theater. Whatever "Like, oh my god I totally think Bobby likes me but I don't know..." conversation (as they generally seem to be teenagers) you are having can wait two hours. Trust me.
Third, you have the "Parents of the Year." These are the people who bring children who are not old enough to attend movies politely to movies that are not meant for children. I don't care that your kid is only a year old and doesn't know what is going on in the horror movie you've brought them to. They make more noise than a cellphone, and have no business being there. If you can't get a sitter, stay home. The rest of us will thank you, as will your baby's hearing.
Personally, I'm glad movie theaters are feeling the pressure...because in my opinion all of these are their own fault. I seem to remember, in my younger days, that theaters used to actually kick people out. Some wouldn't even refund ticket prices. Nowadays it's impossible to get a theater to kick rude people out, no matter how hard you try. I'm not even talking about the jerk who answers his cellphone one time...I'm talking about the woman in the back row whose kid has broken into his third crying fit of the movie. The people who, despite their assurances to the usher to the contrary, are going to continue disturbing those around them. I don't know if theaters just can't afford to refund them (or the hassle involved if they don't), or if they just don't care anymore.
Either way, I'd rather stay home. I'll pay seven or eight bucks for a ticket. I'll pay eight bucks for popcorn and a soda. I enjoy the idea of going to a theater, even if it is expensive enough that I can't do it every week. But when I give a theater twenty or more dollars to go to a movie with my wife, I expect them to enforce a certain standard of conduct. Because I don't drop twenty bucks to listen to a crying baby.
So, if theaters aren't willing to do the little bit that is necessary to keep my business, the least they can do is not complain when the studios decide to let me watch the DVD at home instead (without having the wait).
That is kind of harsh. It might not have been the best controller for everyone but it wasn't on the level of the power glove.
I was actually enjoying the article until I hit #2. The fact that they rated the The Duke as worse than the Power Glove or U-Force made all their credibility go bye-bye. Even having them in the same top 10 list was BS.
Was The Duke large? You bet it was. Was it easy to make fun of because of this? Damn straight. Is it about the only controller I've been able to go on an 8-straight-hour gaming binge without my hands aching afterwards? Indeed it is. And I don't have large hands. It may not be pretty, but it works.
You can have The Duke when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Slashdot Mirror
See, your assumption is reasonable in general. Most 10-year-old kids would never have touched a UNIX system, and the chances that a 10-year-old girl would have is even more remote. However, to declare a single 10-year-old girl knowing her way around UNIX as one of the 10 most terrible portrayals of technology in film implies that the very idea that any 10-year-old girl would know anything about UNIX (in 1993, specifically) is ludicrous. Which is bullshit. I suspect that in 1993 there existed multiple 10-year-old girls in the US with some level of UNIX knowledge. Jurassic Park merely implied that the grandaughter of a bazillionaire might be one of them.
It's one thing to say that something is unlikely. Even highly unlikely. But consider the statement made in TFA (which you defend)...
This moves well beyond what is reasonable and true, and into the realm of bullshit stereotyping. I bet the author of TFA also thinks all blacks are good at basketball.
I mean seriously, to place the very idea of a young girl possibly knowing UNIX at the number two position, above some of the most heinous abuses of technology ever to grace action movies (above, Swordfish, dammit!) shows a level of bias that is sickening.
By this same reasoning, there is nothing illegal about circumventing CSS to rip a DVD you own to your iPod. However, you are expected to write your own tool to do so; nobody else is allowed to distribute it to you.
Yes, it's silly. But assuming you manage to get a program such as decss in your possession (which somebody will have to break the law to make happen), you can rip DVD's you own all day long without breaking the law.
As a disclaimer, IANAL. But, unlike a majority of the people I hear talking about the DMCA, I have actually at least read the law.
They sure could have, but that's not the point. It runs counter to the entire idea of the ADA. For instance, just because Wal-Mart has wheelchair ramps, doesn't mean that suddenly the local Target doesn't have to...citizens with disabilities are supposed to have accomodations made allowing the use of all options available to those without (within reason).
Otherwise, it leaves open the opportunity for taking advantages of those with disabilities if only one option in town has wheelchair ramps (or other accomodations for various disabilities); it isn't like they can easily just go somewhere else. So unless all websites are required to make accomodations (within reason) for the blind, then two things could happen. One, almost none would bother, since the cost would greatly outweigh the benefits (I'm sure blind folks are a pretty small percentage of the overall web-based-shopping market, for instance). Two, the few specialty sites that bothered would likely charge higher prices to take advantage. Even if neither happened, it would still be unfair if certain vendors didn't make their sites accessible, as at any given time prices from site to site can vary quite a bit.
So the only real question here is what constitutes reasonable accomodations for a website. I'm guessing they'd just have to have a seperate text-only site compatible with whatever text-to-speech applications the blind use (something I know little about, to be honest). It's not like that's all that hard...I seem to remember it being pretty common back in the day, when not everybody had browsers compatible with flash and frames and everything else.
TPTB at SciFi already know there's a market for good SciFi. Duh. The problem is that Firefly originally aired on Fox, who will do everything can can to sink a decent SciFi show in order to prove their belief that there isn't really a market for good SciFi.
So why buy the DVD? It looks like it's put out by 20th Century Fox, so I imagine there is some chance that the money from the purchase will just go into the coffers of those that cancelled it. That'll teach 'em...that they can crap on SciFi fans and we'll still give them our money, that is.
Oops...somewhere in there I lost one of my more important points: that the reason that compact fluorescent bulbs are such a "big deal" is that while many methods of conservation require at least moderate changes in lifestyle, or some degree of effort, replacing a lightbulb is as easy as...well, replacing a lightbulb. You drop a couple extra bucks the next time one burns out (which you will recoup over the life of the bulb) and you're done.
True, but that is only if every household only replaced one bulb. If every household replaced two or three (and major retailers like Target/Wal-Mart sell them in three-packs for under ten bucks) then the savings would be even greater.
This attitude in general is why energy conservation and alternative energy sources have such a hard time catching on; people act as though if it doesn't solve the entire energy problem then it isn't worth bothering with. You go ahead and wait for cold fusion. Personally I'd rather replace a few incandescents with flourescents, drive a Civic instead of an F-150, and vote for politicians that will actually fund alternative energy sources (such as wind).
That, and turn the light off when I'm not in the room and turn off the computer when it isn't really doing anything. Drive a few miles per hour slower. Cut the temp back by a degree or two in the winter. No one of these changes really makes that much difference, but if you could convince a majority of people to enact a majority of these changes it could actually make a significant difference.
Because after all, 10% is just 10 times 1%, right?
Thanks for the info...I'll probably have to check this out.
Indeed...welcome to 1990, I guess.
Still interesting, overall. I'm more interested in the technical details of these releases, which both the article and ABC.com don't seem to want to give much info on. What format will they be in, what bitrate, what resolution, etc. If they can beat the quality of the respective BitTorrent releases, I might actually consider this (the only real reason I use torrents over iTunes is because the quality is too low for my tastes...the ability to burn to DVD doesn't mean much, because I just pump it out to TV from my laptop).
I imagine there will be DRM involved (so as to prevent commercial skipping, and to keep people from hacking the commercials out altogether and re-releasing it on torrent), so I wonder how that will work. Will it work on my Mac?
I have a feeling that once all these questions are answered, I'll be much less than satisfied. However, if a network wants to release their shows at a high quality, in a format I can pipe to my TV (which in my case just means anything that I can play full-screen on my computer), then I don't even mind watching their commercials.
Let us not forget that, under the current system, it's those commercials that pay for the show (at least for OTA networks and non-premium cable channels). If nobody watches them, the show goes away. I'm not saying this is optimal, but I don't see it changing drastically in the very near future.
Of course sales may drop and force the companies out of business. But the game developers aren't going to say "Well, you can now pay $300 to buy a copy of Windows to run on your Mac, so were going to stop making Mac games."
Where does this $300 figure I keep seeing thrown about come from? If you're just using it to play games, do you really need XP Pro? Because XP Home (full version, retail) runs $200. OEM versions can be had for more like $100...though I don't know if OEM versions work with Boot Camp.
And that's just for the "sanctioned" Windows-on-Mac solution...if you want to go unofficial, there's nothing stopping you from installing an upgrade version of XP on an Intel Mac...and as long as you also own a copy of 95/98, you're legally allowed to do so.
Regardless, this will probably kill Mac gaming. It was already half-dead; aside from the few good guys (such as Blizzard), most companies just allowed MacPlay or whoever to port their games after a year or two...at which point Mac customers had the priveledge of paying $50 for a buggy port of a game that by then sold for $20 on PC. If you were lucky, eventually the price would drop to $20...of course, by then the PC version was $10 and had a whole 'nother game bundled with it. If you were unlucky, it just went out of print, and you're lucky to even find a copy...and if it was under $50 you were extremely lucky.
Given the fleecing* of Mac customers that occurs in the game market, economically $200 or even $300 for a copy of Windows is probably a bargain in the medium to long run...if you're saving $30 or more per game, it doesn't take long for that math to work out in your favor. The already infinitesimal market for Mac games just got smaller.
* - I don't necessarily blame companies like MacPlay it takes time to port games once the PC publishers let them, and the market is small enough that you're unlikely to see "budget" pricing (because that only works with volume). There are all kinds of factors that probably make it difficult to impossible for them to offer games to Mac customers at a low price...but this doesn't change the fact that we have been getting fleeced.
You mean the three families' lives that were ruined because of a video that they maliciously fucking posted for the world to see? That they maliciously fucking posted. That they posted. Oops.
Or have we forgotten that the kids from those three families made a deliberate choice, out of malice, that led to this lawsuit? They had no right to post that video on the internet, and they knew it. They did it anyway, because they were assholes.
I guess this whole "taking responsibility for your actions" thing only applies to fat kids who think they are Jedi.
I see two lessons to be learned here. First, obviously, if you're going to do something that might embarass you, and record it, keep track of the recording. You might say you shouldn't record it at all, but I think that's extreme...you just need to do your best to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Raza failed to do so, so to an extent he brought this on himself.
However, should you come into such an embarassing video, and think it might be really funny if it made its way onto the internet, maybe you shouldn't do it. There is no doubt the posters had nothing but malicious intentions, and now they're paying for it. Embarrasing a classmate on a global scale doesn't seem as funny when you might lose your college fund or your family might lose their house, does it?
They were bullies. They brought this on themselves. This obviously won't undo the harm that has been done, but a little denention or a "stern talking to" wouldn't even prevent the next bullies from doing the exact same thing. This actually might.
Is it possible to think that both sides got what they deserved?
On a side note, I never thought I'd see so many people who are presumably somewhat geeky defending somebody's right to be a bully. Is it one of those "I went through it so you should have to" kind of things? I just seem to sense a severe lack of empathy here.
You FREAK! :P
yeah, but the problem here is that the 3D street fighters weren't actually any GOOD. In fact, they were total ass. Put Street fighter 2 turbo up against a GREAT 3D fighter like Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Tekken 5, or Soul Calibur 2/3...and quite frankly I'd rather play those.
Personally I prefer the King of Fighters games to Street Fighter. I like Darkstalkers better, too. People forget that Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat aren't the only 2D fighters around.
Don't get me wrong...I don't hate 3D fighters in general...but the suggestion that Soul Calibur 2 is better than Garou: Mark of the Wolves just because it is 3D (which the author insinuated) seems silly to me.
Though yeah, Soul Calibur 2/3 do blow most 2D fighters out of the water. It is truly a great 3D fighter. But the author of TFA suggested that a "good" 3D fighting game is better than a "great" 2D fighting game...which I think is BS.
I think next-gen owners are going to be Revolution + one of 360/PS3. How many titles are going to be unique to a platofrm, and of those, how of those are worth a console purchase?
Sorta like the current gen, where a lot of people I know had a Gamecube + Xbox or PS2. At least those that, unlike myself, don't waste gobs of money on games.
I think it is actually part of Nintendo's strategy, especially in the US...keep prices low enough that you can afford to get their console as an "extra." This is probably also why Nintendo owners don't get mad at the overall lack of worthwhile games for the consoles (at least since the 64)...it's rarely the only console a gamer owns.
I know several of people who have a lone PS2 or a lone Xbox...I can't think of anybody I know who just owns a Cube.
3. Now there is a way to link my purchases to my identity. Hillary Clinton is claiming that video games cause violence. What happens when they start looking up to see if you purchased GTA if you want to get a pilots licence, or a licence to own a gun, or go to get your passport renewed?
Tinfoil_hat++
also, Slippery_slope++
Your other two points had some merit, however...though again, you don't see anybody complaining that ID checks for alcohol or tobacco are leading to identity theft, and calling for an end to them. For clarity, once again no comparison is meant here between tobacco/alcohol and videogames...commenting solely on ID checks in general.
Your analogy doesn't work. Alcohol is not a form of expression, and not protected by the First Amendment. But that being said, there are many countries were minors are allowed to purchase alcohol and they have a lot less problem with it than in the U.S.
Wasn't necessarily meant as an analogy...at least not concerning videogames. I wasn't intending to bring up the social issues of alcohol, or even compare alcohol to video games. You stated that the VG industry and retailers were doing a "reasonable job" of keeping adult-themed videogames out of the hands of minors (without parental permission). I was attempting to demonstrate that, statistically, based on the success rate of unaccompanied minors in attempts to purchase such games, they were not. Nothing more.
If you want to say that they shouldn't bother preventing the sale of such games to minors, I'd merely disagree. If you want to say that they are actually doing a reasonable job of such, then I'm going to argue. You can argue that a 12-year-old has a fundamental right to a copy of GTA without a parent present, or you can argue that stores are doing a reasonable job keeping 12-year-olds from buying copies of GTA without a parent present...but not both. I have a feeling you'd choose the former, and that's fair. But assuming that the restriction of such sales on a voluntary basis is a "good thing," the industry is NOT doing a good job of it on their own. Anytime somebody who shouldn't be able to buy something manages to a third to half the time, that's pitiful.
Granted, it has gotten better. But they've had the better part of a decade to make it happen, and considering that the results are crap.
As for your Bible (or Talmud, or Quran, etc.) analogy, I'd say that would be a little different. In restricting the sale of various religious books to minors, you'd not only run into freedom of expression problems, but also freedom of religion (specifically the "free excercise thereof") problems. There are many more exceptions to freedom of expression, especially as it relates to minors, than freedom of religion. You probably don't think that should be the case...regardless, it is.
So no, the restriction of the sale of Grand Theft Auto to a minor is in no way analogous to the restriction of the sale of a Bible...unless there exists somewhere a Church of the Holy M-Rating.
Or was the title of the 'report' about franchises, not ONLINE GAMES, as he appears to be talking about for an entire two pages?
Interesting but for the most part, entirely irrelevant. If he was publishing a report that was 20 pages long this might have been appropriate.
I read TFA because I couldn't seem to make any real sense of what the quote in the summary was trying to say.
After reading two pages and skimming two more, I realized why. There was about one page of interesting material tightly packed into four.
He picked some pretty pictures, though.
The video game industry and the retailers are already doing a reasonable job in making sure video games stay out of the hands of minors. We don't need a police state to make it difficult for grown adults to purchase video games, or more expensive, which is what you want to happen.
Of course, because enforcing age restrictions with legal penalties on retailers have made alcohol and tobacco so insanely expensive. Oh...wait. It's mostly taxes doing that, not age restrictions. Never mind.
And the only added difficulty you would see in getting games with legally-enforced age restrictions is having to have an ID handy to buy them. Big freakin' deal.
Also, I'd say retailers have done a pitiful job keeping adult-themed games out of the hands of minors. What, they're running about 50%? About 35% for big-name national chains, who supposedly actually give a crap? Good job.
If a store sold alcohol to minors 35% of the time they'd be fined, lose their license, and have to shut down. It does not represent a "good faith effort" on their part. Not even close. And publishers claim that their games aren't marketed to minors, or meant for minors, but complain when somebody mentions restricting their sales to minors. Smells like industrial-grade BS to me.
PA pretty much summed up my opinion on the right of minors to buy any given game here,
I hate this person already.
Other than that, there was a little bit of interesting commentary in there. He touched on a couple big things I have to agree with, though. Human opponents or teammates (or both) will almost always trump AI. Single player games can be great, but their strength as a franchise will usually fade...eventually you are just doing the same thing with prettier polygons.
Though for some reason, doing the same thing with prettier polygons is more desireable when you are doing it with or against other human beings.
how long until there are non-"inheritance" clauses in the TOS for porn site accounts?
Hell, there probably already are. It can actually be a real pain to leave something non-tangible to somebody after your death. A car is easily transferred, but a membership or subscription often isn't.
Example: my wife's grandmother had like 10 or 11 months left on her Dish Network subsciption. My father-in-law should theoretically have inherited it (he's the one who takes care of everything not specifically mentioned in the will). However, he was informed that Dish's policy is that they would not add that 11 months to his membership...the only way they'd pass it on is if it went to a new subscriber. In other words, they weren't willing to pass along the time remaining on a pre-paid contract unless it would gain them something (another customer)...otherwise that money (hundreds of dollars) was flushed down the toilet.
The lesson: don't assume that pre-paid memberships can be passed along in the event of your death. Also, when you're chances of dying at any given time are significant, go monthly.
Honestly, if you bought your 12-year-old a copy of GTA San Andreas, it's not Rockstar's fault, it's not the US Government's fault, it's not the store's fault, it's yours, because you made a conscious decision to buy your kid that game when the title and the carton art tell the whole story.
Very true. However, there are plenty of cases where the child buys the game outside of the parent's presence. What do you suggest then? Following your kid 24/7, never letting them out of your sight? Weekly room searches?
Yeah, parents need to take an active role. But we don't allow the sale of pornography to minors. I don't see any fundamental difference between that and many of these adult-themed games, such as GTA. What is wrong with not allowing stores to sell games that even the publishers themselves claim (falsely, in my opinion) are not meant for the underage market?
If the parent wants to buy adult-themed games for their 11-year-old, I could care less. That's their problem. What most people who are for regulation suggest is simply to make it harder for the kids to get these things on their own.
Yes, technically that is true, but reducing the supply of used albums increases the demand for new albums. The person who will buy it new or used goes to buy it, doesn't find the used album because you bought it, and buys the new one instead.
Unless, of course, you buy it used, rip it, then sell it used the next day.
It's a little more expensive than p2p, and a little more of a pain...but your chances of getting caught (and sued) are absolutely zero unless the RIAA convinces the government to give them permission for random forcible entries, searches, and seizures. Not impossible, given the way things are going...but still unlikely.
And while the RIAA may have gotten money from the original sale, that's cold comfort when ten or twenty people are actually getting copies of the album...untraceably. It's p2p meets sneakernet. Plus you get the albums you want in the format/quality you want (MP3, OGG, FLAC, whatever)...so better than p2p in many ways.
That sounds like a great way to see America, Rob. As the reflected glare on your media-manacle. Ever look out the window? Even better, turn off the AC and open a window.
Depends where he was driving to Colorado from. Ever driven lengthwise across Kansas? I'd rather watch The Blair Witch Project 2 than enjoy that scenery.
And if the child only has X dollars in his hands because he managed to skim that money from several smaller amounts that were given to him for other purposes, which may or may not be difficult to track? (an obvious example being lunch money at school, though I can imagine others)
No, the fact that junior has somehow managed to amass $20-$50 (because not all M-rated games cost 50 dollars...GTA3 and GTA:VC, for instance, both can be had new for less than $20) does not in any way imply parental consent. It doesn't even imply that the parents, as you put it, placed $20-$50 in his little hands...at least not at one time.
And while you are correct that this system will not protect the values of all parents, it does provide a tool for the majority of parents whose values it does reflect a majority of the time. Yes, there are parents who don't want their kids watching or buying Disney cartoons. But a vast majority probably wouldn't want an 11-year-old watching Pulp Fiction. Those parents who do want their kid to watch PF just need to buy it for them. Those parents who don't want their kids to watch Disney just need to monitor their kids more closely than most, because their values are more restrictive than those of general society.
This may not be the perfect solution; but you shouldn't, in general, pass up better to wait for perfect.
I agree...I've found that a majority of my local theaters don't suffer from any of the "technical" problems that are tossed around here, like bad picture, sound bleeding in from other theaters, etc. I have been to such theaters in the past (Carmike theaters are often the worst...their target market is small towns where there is zero competition). But in general the technical aspect of the experience is perfectly enjoyable for me.
The main reason I rarely go see movies nowadays is a combination of the absolute rudeness of my fellow patrons, as well as the theater's unwillingness to do anything about it.
First, you have the cell-phone talkers. They are beginning to thin out, but you still run into them on a regular basis. Having your cellphone ringer on is a no-go; would you bring an alarm clock into a theater set to go off mid-movie? It is also not acceptable to answer your cellphone in a theater. Even if you just say "Hey...I'm in a theater...give me a second" and walk out. If you are so important that you cannot just get the number off caller-id and call them back (after the 45 seconds it takes you to get to the lobby), you probably cannot afford to take time out of your evening for a movie. Stay home, or in your office, or wherever.
Second, you have the texters. Their population is booming. Hint: your bright-ass cellphone screen is very distracting inside of a darkened theater. Whatever "Like, oh my god I totally think Bobby likes me but I don't know..." conversation (as they generally seem to be teenagers) you are having can wait two hours. Trust me.
Third, you have the "Parents of the Year." These are the people who bring children who are not old enough to attend movies politely to movies that are not meant for children. I don't care that your kid is only a year old and doesn't know what is going on in the horror movie you've brought them to. They make more noise than a cellphone, and have no business being there. If you can't get a sitter, stay home. The rest of us will thank you, as will your baby's hearing.
Personally, I'm glad movie theaters are feeling the pressure...because in my opinion all of these are their own fault. I seem to remember, in my younger days, that theaters used to actually kick people out. Some wouldn't even refund ticket prices. Nowadays it's impossible to get a theater to kick rude people out, no matter how hard you try. I'm not even talking about the jerk who answers his cellphone one time...I'm talking about the woman in the back row whose kid has broken into his third crying fit of the movie. The people who, despite their assurances to the usher to the contrary, are going to continue disturbing those around them. I don't know if theaters just can't afford to refund them (or the hassle involved if they don't), or if they just don't care anymore.
Either way, I'd rather stay home. I'll pay seven or eight bucks for a ticket. I'll pay eight bucks for popcorn and a soda. I enjoy the idea of going to a theater, even if it is expensive enough that I can't do it every week. But when I give a theater twenty or more dollars to go to a movie with my wife, I expect them to enforce a certain standard of conduct. Because I don't drop twenty bucks to listen to a crying baby.
So, if theaters aren't willing to do the little bit that is necessary to keep my business, the least they can do is not complain when the studios decide to let me watch the DVD at home instead (without having the wait).
That is kind of harsh. It might not have been the best controller for everyone but it wasn't on the level of the power glove.
I was actually enjoying the article until I hit #2. The fact that they rated the The Duke as worse than the Power Glove or U-Force made all their credibility go bye-bye. Even having them in the same top 10 list was BS.
Was The Duke large? You bet it was. Was it easy to make fun of because of this? Damn straight. Is it about the only controller I've been able to go on an 8-straight-hour gaming binge without my hands aching afterwards? Indeed it is. And I don't have large hands. It may not be pretty, but it works.
You can have The Duke when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.