Drinking age laws are, like video game legislation, not suitable as a substitute for proper parenting, although when properly handled are invaluable tools to good parents. I was more than mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed. Unfortunately, the letter of the law meant that even though I could drive and pay taxes, I couldn't watch a horror flick on the big screen.
You might have been mature enough at age 16 to watch any movie, but what about those who are not? And where is the line? 15? 14? What about 11 years old? The point is not about mature, the point is there must be some line. And even with a law denying 16 year olds access to R-rated material, they still could get access if a parent made the purchase. It is not set in stone.
I don't think it is asking too much to have laws which let the parents in on what the kids are doing. Everyone on slashdot knows that most 14 and 15 year old hide what they believe their parents will not approve of. If the 14 year old knows dad does not want violent games, that game will be hidden and played while dad is at work. By having a law which will not allow sales to minors without a parent, it gives dad the upper hand.
Video stores (at least here in Australia) have managed it for years: X and R rated videos on separate shelves, video clerks manage to not lease videos to minors because the rating is clearly marked.
I think this is what the state laws want. They don't want to stop the sale of games to adults.
It would not be a problem if a parent wanted to buy the game for their kid. The state does not want the child buying the game behind their parents back.
yea.. i can't wait for it to fail.. slowly every state will do this and then mabey just mabey they will sit back and realize.. humm mabey the parents need to watch what their kids are doing..
Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.
There is a HUGE difference between a state saying "No sales to those under 18" and a state saying "No sales". As long as those over 18 can buy it, it should be legal.
Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?
The RIAA that is suing grandmothers is the same type of lobby that wants these games sold. The big corporations want to sell you these games at 50 bucks a pop. And since they don't innovate, they turn up the shock value. At some point, it is going to twist young 9 and 10 year old minds.
Those hoping to change the situation include the Center for a Changing Workforce, a Seattle-based non-profit that was initially funded by the law firm that brought the permatemps case. The center's director, David West, said the group advocates limiting the cumulative amount of time that a contractor could work for a company, regardless of breaks in service, without becoming a direct employee -- a status that typically results in better benefits.
I knew a guy who worked for a company as a contractor. He was billing $60 an hour, and they were giving him about 50 hours of work a week. They gave him a nice office. The guy turned around and sued the company to be recognized as an employee because he wanted the benifits. I forget the details, but his argument boiled down to "they treated me like an employee, so I am an employee, now give me my benifits or severance pay".
I'm the kind of guy who likes working on projects, then moving on to something different. What is wrong with contracts? I have been very happy working on a project for 5 or 6 months, then taking two or three weeks off before starting the next project. I have more vacation time than my friends who are employees.
WTF, if the internet is in another country, the government of that country can do whatever they hell they want with it. That's how international law works. It's called respect for sovereignty.
Don't be fooled. The internet is going in the direction of uniting the world to one standard. China might not want information about topic X, Y, or Z in their nation, but it is there. Maybe the people of China can't go to www.cnn.com for their news, but I am sure there is a password protected cantguessmyurl somewhere. Somewhere, someone in China is using the computer of a loyal communist as a proxy to pro-democoracy websites.
The internet is like the 1920 speakeasies. First, you don't know where the speakeasy is; you need to know someone who tells you where to look. Second, when you knock on an door in an alley, a small little peephole opens and you have to tell them a password. But unlike a physical location, these websites can move around very easily.
The internet is it's own beast. In one sense, it takes control away from government. China can't withold news from their own people, like the USSR did in the 1960's and 1970's. On the other hand, nations like the USA will have to deal with nations like India that want to do buisness at a much lower price. Need a programmer? Don't want to pay $35 an hour? India has someone willing to work for $2 an hour.
From the article:
U.S. Government backed policy changes that have led ICANN to redeligate top level domains in such a way as to provide 'greater state-controlled censorship on the internet, reduce people's ability to use the internet to communicate freely
That is a loaded statement, and designed for a flamewar.
The USA is giving other nations control to do whatever they want. The USA is not setting policy for the other nation. I am sure Pakistan will use that control one way, and Canada another. Is it censorship, for example, if Canada passes a law saying any website with a.ca domain must have a French language version?
No, this means that companies like Sony can trample your rights (i.e. sell you a rootkit you didn't know about) and get away with it if they pay enough. How many retards out there won't get the incremental-cost-to-sony "free" downloads or rebates? How many people will stop buying their stuff? None. Its a trial balloon - and Sony now knows what the market will bear. Like MS continuing to violate monopoly laws
A couple of comments-
I would not call people retards. That is mean, you are attacking the victim a second time, Sony did it the first. It is like a mechanic telling me I am retarded for buying a car with throttle body injection for the carb instead of tuned port injection. I am not a mechanic, I don't understand mechanical jargon. Most people don't understand DRM. They just know if they put the CD in the player, it plays music. They could care less about making a copy. That does not make them retarded. By using that word choice, retarded, you are treating people with the same respect that Sony is.
Second, the way to attack Sony is with letting people know what they are buying. Will the EULA be nothing more than the Surgeon Generals Warning on the side of cigarette packs? Do we need a deeper social movement to tell people how bad DRM is?
I don't like DRM. I have purchased CD's because the music companies said in the 90's that CD's will last forever with clear sound, and that tapes will not last forever. I have CD's that won't play anymore, they call it CD rot. It sucks. I felt cheated. But what can I do?
Maybe what we should do is hold the companies accountable to the promises they make to people. Lets increase the warent period, and make it mandatory. If a company says lifetime gaurentee, lets hold them to it with the weight of law.
I don't think it will cost Sony anything to give out some music downloads. If the court wanted to punish Sony, they would have asked for cash, to be given to the victims.
Sony will pay cash compensation and give away free downloads from a choice of music download services including Apple iTunes as part of the deal.
Thanks for the great customer service Sony.
Isn't this the same thing that happened before? I forget the specifics, but a music company lost in court for keeping CD costs inflated, and they were ordered to give away free CD's to libraries. They ended up giving a library 50 copies of the same CD- "christmas songs" or "western songs". Not popular songs that are in demand.
Will Sony give choice to those who won the lawsuit. Will people be able to pick their music download, or will Sony select what music people get in the settlement?
But seriously. Why is Intelligent Design such a big deal? I don't get it. Is it possible that God did make everything, and that science is our way of understanding how and what? Do scientists need to say a prayer before measuring how many millilitres is in the graduated cylinder- "Oh dead God, give me the wisdom to tell where the meniscus rests"?
I like to think God made gravity, and he gave use the eyes, ears, hands, and ability to figure out his gigantic crossword puzzle.
"Approximately 50 people have been indicted in relation to a scheme that drained almost $200,000 from a Red Cross fund designed to put money into the hands of Hurricane Katrina victims. From the article: 'Seventeen of the accused worked at the Red Cross claim center in Bakersfield, Calif., which handled calls from storm victims across the country and authorized cash payments to them. The others were the workers' relatives and friends, prosecutors said last week.'"
News stories like this make me sad. I am sad for the people of New Orleans who are suffering. They have lost so much, many have lost loved ones. Many have lost homes. But I am also sad that there is a small number of people who could take advantage of others and steal funds which should have helped the people of New Orleans. What kind of deprived life can a person have where they think it is okay to steal from the less fortunate?
And what is worse is these kinds of actions will make people less likely to donate. They will be wondering "Is my gift really going to help people, or will it be sucked up by greedy people taking advantage of a situation". What can a person do? Give and hope for the best??
Slashdot Mirror
You might have been mature enough at age 16 to watch any movie, but what about those who are not? And where is the line? 15? 14? What about 11 years old? The point is not about mature, the point is there must be some line. And even with a law denying 16 year olds access to R-rated material, they still could get access if a parent made the purchase. It is not set in stone.
I don't think it is asking too much to have laws which let the parents in on what the kids are doing. Everyone on slashdot knows that most 14 and 15 year old hide what they believe their parents will not approve of. If the 14 year old knows dad does not want violent games, that game will be hidden and played while dad is at work. By having a law which will not allow sales to minors without a parent, it gives dad the upper hand.
I think this is what the state laws want. They don't want to stop the sale of games to adults.
It would not be a problem if a parent wanted to buy the game for their kid. The state does not want the child buying the game behind their parents back.
Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.
There is a HUGE difference between a state saying "No sales to those under 18" and a state saying "No sales". As long as those over 18 can buy it, it should be legal.
Some places won't sell R movie tickets to those under 18, without a parent there. How is a game different?
The RIAA that is suing grandmothers is the same type of lobby that wants these games sold. The big corporations want to sell you these games at 50 bucks a pop. And since they don't innovate, they turn up the shock value. At some point, it is going to twist young 9 and 10 year old minds.
I knew a guy who worked for a company as a contractor. He was billing $60 an hour, and they were giving him about 50 hours of work a week. They gave him a nice office. The guy turned around and sued the company to be recognized as an employee because he wanted the benifits. I forget the details, but his argument boiled down to "they treated me like an employee, so I am an employee, now give me my benifits or severance pay".
I'm the kind of guy who likes working on projects, then moving on to something different. What is wrong with contracts? I have been very happy working on a project for 5 or 6 months, then taking two or three weeks off before starting the next project. I have more vacation time than my friends who are employees.
WTF, if the internet is in another country, the government of that country can do whatever they hell they want with it. That's how international law works. It's called respect for sovereignty.
Don't be fooled. The internet is going in the direction of uniting the world to one standard. China might not want information about topic X, Y, or Z in their nation, but it is there. Maybe the people of China can't go to www.cnn.com for their news, but I am sure there is a password protected cantguessmyurl somewhere. Somewhere, someone in China is using the computer of a loyal communist as a proxy to pro-democoracy websites.
The internet is like the 1920 speakeasies. First, you don't know where the speakeasy is; you need to know someone who tells you where to look. Second, when you knock on an door in an alley, a small little peephole opens and you have to tell them a password. But unlike a physical location, these websites can move around very easily.
The internet is it's own beast. In one sense, it takes control away from government. China can't withold news from their own people, like the USSR did in the 1960's and 1970's. On the other hand, nations like the USA will have to deal with nations like India that want to do buisness at a much lower price. Need a programmer? Don't want to pay $35 an hour? India has someone willing to work for $2 an hour.
From the article:
That is a loaded statement, and designed for a flamewar.
The USA is giving other nations control to do whatever they want. The USA is not setting policy for the other nation. I am sure Pakistan will use that control one way, and Canada another. Is it censorship, for example, if Canada passes a law saying any website with a .ca domain must have a French language version?
A couple of comments-
I would not call people retards. That is mean, you are attacking the victim a second time, Sony did it the first. It is like a mechanic telling me I am retarded for buying a car with throttle body injection for the carb instead of tuned port injection. I am not a mechanic, I don't understand mechanical jargon. Most people don't understand DRM. They just know if they put the CD in the player, it plays music. They could care less about making a copy. That does not make them retarded. By using that word choice, retarded, you are treating people with the same respect that Sony is.
Second, the way to attack Sony is with letting people know what they are buying. Will the EULA be nothing more than the Surgeon Generals Warning on the side of cigarette packs? Do we need a deeper social movement to tell people how bad DRM is?
I don't like DRM. I have purchased CD's because the music companies said in the 90's that CD's will last forever with clear sound, and that tapes will not last forever. I have CD's that won't play anymore, they call it CD rot. It sucks. I felt cheated. But what can I do?
Maybe what we should do is hold the companies accountable to the promises they make to people. Lets increase the warent period, and make it mandatory. If a company says lifetime gaurentee, lets hold them to it with the weight of law.
I don't think it will cost Sony anything to give out some music downloads. If the court wanted to punish Sony, they would have asked for cash, to be given to the victims.
Isn't this the same thing that happened before? I forget the specifics, but a music company lost in court for keeping CD costs inflated, and they were ordered to give away free CD's to libraries. They ended up giving a library 50 copies of the same CD- "christmas songs" or "western songs". Not popular songs that are in demand.
Will Sony give choice to those who won the lawsuit. Will people be able to pick their music download, or will Sony select what music people get in the settlement?
"Little Red Hoax" -- 2 comments
Firefly post-mortem -- 8 comments
EU's Galileo project -- 7 comments
Google/AOL 2purchase -- 9 comments
Blackberry patent case -- 8 comments
Intelligent Design -- 1436 comments
I need lotto numbers. Lotto!!!
But seriously. Why is Intelligent Design such a big deal? I don't get it. Is it possible that God did make everything, and that science is our way of understanding how and what? Do scientists need to say a prayer before measuring how many millilitres is in the graduated cylinder- "Oh dead God, give me the wisdom to tell where the meniscus rests"?
I like to think God made gravity, and he gave use the eyes, ears, hands, and ability to figure out his gigantic crossword puzzle.
News stories like this make me sad. I am sad for the people of New Orleans who are suffering. They have lost so much, many have lost loved ones. Many have lost homes. But I am also sad that there is a small number of people who could take advantage of others and steal funds which should have helped the people of New Orleans. What kind of deprived life can a person have where they think it is okay to steal from the less fortunate?
And what is worse is these kinds of actions will make people less likely to donate. They will be wondering "Is my gift really going to help people, or will it be sucked up by greedy people taking advantage of a situation". What can a person do? Give and hope for the best??