Does anyone else but me think that the individual that hacked TorrentSpy for the MPAA had ulterior motives from the start?
If they asked me to do it, I'd gladly hack someone's network with the intention of logging everything and everyone I touched. Then, I'd drop all my evidence in the lap of the network's owner and watch the MPAA sweat. At the very least, they would think twice about enlisting the aid of folks like me again.
I'd have a problem with this law if I knew that children could be counted on to make good decisions for themselves. Children need parental supervision, however. The only thing that the government is saying with this bill is that mommy and daddy need to take a more active role in what their children watch and play. Considering all the uproar that occurs after a school shooting, I think this is a good thing.
Parent: "My baby killed his classmates! It's the fault of the violent video games he plays! They made him a killer!" me: "He's a minor and can't buy those for himself. Who bought those games for him?" Parent: "...I did..." me: "Well then, who's the asshole here?"
I don't see anything wrong with forcing parents to take a more active role in their children's lives. No one is saying children can't have the games and play the games. They're just saying that the child's parents must be involved in the purchase of the games. I think that's a perfectly reasonable demand. I endorse this law 100% and would like to see it adopted across the country.
Here's what it boils down to: there's no good reason why a 9 year old needs a constitutionally guaranteed right to buy graphically violent or sexual video games on his own. None. None whatsoever. At age 16, 17, and 18 it may be a different story. The kid may be mature enough to handle it. Or they may not. Regardless, they are a minor and it's their parents right and responsibility to regulate what they do and do not play.
Kids don't need more rights, they need more attentive parents.
I apologize if any of this came off as inflamatory.
The text of the bill clears up any contraversy. They're just restricting minors from viewing objectionable material until mommy and daddy say it's ok. That sounds like good parenting to me. If I had kids, it would make my job of policing them that much easier.
Ok, I think that we need the full text of this bill. No real, rational, sensible, discussion can go on until then. Too much is left for interpretation based on TFA.
From the article:
The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is "patently offensive to prevailing standards" and if it's appealing "to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves. Furthermore, someone found guilty of selling one of these games would face fines of between $100 and $2,000, and a prison term of up to one year.
Notice the bolded part above.
Carding minors has everything to do with it. If you don't sell the game to minors, the law doesn't apply and it's business as usual. If you sell the game to minors, you're putting yourself at the mercy of the law.
The article states: "The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is "patently offensive to prevailing standards" and if it's appealing "to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves. Furthermore, someone found guilty of selling one of these games would face fines of between $100 and $2,000, and a prison term of up to one year."
That sounds to me like the store selling the game is in trouble, not the game studio. Either you misread something or the part where the game maker can be sued was omitted from the article. Could you point me to a resource where it's stated that the game maker can be held liable as well? I'd love to read that for myself. If this is the case, such a law really is over the top.
So SSH is now illegal in the UK?
Let's see how long the last of their big businesses that have corporate secrets to keep hang around in the UK. Especially government contractors with military secrets.
Oh sure, they can have their database. I predict that it will be flooded and broken within a week of going online.
This doesn't burden the game companies at all. It's only an irritation to the stores that sell the games because now they have to card anyone who looks younger than 30. It's a small irritation, but an irritation none the less.
To be honest, I'd rather see parents that aren't interested in actually parenting, forced to parent.
"so you can have a real gun... just not a virtual one.. at least they have their constitutional priorities in line."
Minors can own guns? If that's the case, i'm glad I live in illinois.
They'll only be criminals if stores don't start carding minors like they do for cigarettes and booze and guns and...
I mean, if parents are complaining that games make their children violent what's wrong with forcing parents to take responsibility for what their children watch?
It just means that if you don't have a drivers license that states you're over 18, you don't get to buy the game. If you're a minor and you have the game, it's because mommy and daddy bought the game for you. What's wrong with making parent's take more of an interest in what their children experience?
What's that? Your kid brought a gun to school and executed his classmates? You say that his violent video games made him do it*? Well then, who bought him the video game?
I see consoles getting more and more expensive and decent gaming PC's getting cheaper and cheaper. When the price of one gets close to the price of the other, how can there not be a confrontation?
...is a good old fashioned witch hunt. In their zeal to restrict "predator" access to children, they are painting with a wide brush that will have the effect of giving those in power far more power than they should.
So what else is new?
What service or product does YouTube sell? I don't know but I'm too lazy to find out. I thought that the 90's taught venture capital the importance of finding a company that actually produces something saleable.
Why are Americans now allowing the government to pass legislation allowing the same things that got mccarthy labeled a communist back in the 60's?
If I'm off target here, someone please educate me. Really.
I mean, it really feels like someone's pride was wounded and now they're going to play bully.
Admittedly, leaving my back door wide open isn't implicit permission to remove items from my home. Still, if someone does, do I really have any right to get angry? I brought it upon myself by leaving the door wiiiiiide open.
Yeah. He shoulda known better. It's not like he tripped and his fingers just happened to type "telnet some.government.server[enter]".
I'm kinda torn on this one.
I'm not going to comment about european coding talent. I'm not educated on the subject. I will make a subjective assessemnt, however: europeans sure seem more self-aware than American. Like they've looked into themselves more than we have. Kudos to you Euros.
Of course, I've been wrong before.
Slashdot Mirror
...when do we start saving up for this guy's defense fund?
We work more hours than any industrialized nation on earth.
We need shorter days, we need more guaranteed vacation, we need more slack.
Does anyone else but me think that the individual that hacked TorrentSpy for the MPAA had ulterior motives from the start? If they asked me to do it, I'd gladly hack someone's network with the intention of logging everything and everyone I touched. Then, I'd drop all my evidence in the lap of the network's owner and watch the MPAA sweat. At the very least, they would think twice about enlisting the aid of folks like me again.
I mod this
(Score:65535, only person with an attention span)
...the UK plans on phasing out "computers" in favor of the more secure "monkey with abacus in a box". Details tonight at 9.
I'd have a problem with this law if I knew that children could be counted on to make good decisions for themselves. Children need parental supervision, however. The only thing that the government is saying with this bill is that mommy and daddy need to take a more active role in what their children watch and play. Considering all the uproar that occurs after a school shooting, I think this is a good thing.
Parent: "My baby killed his classmates! It's the fault of the violent video games he plays! They made him a killer!"
me: "He's a minor and can't buy those for himself. Who bought those games for him?"
Parent: "...I did..."
me: "Well then, who's the asshole here?"
I don't see anything wrong with forcing parents to take a more active role in their children's lives. No one is saying children can't have the games and play the games. They're just saying that the child's parents must be involved in the purchase of the games. I think that's a perfectly reasonable demand. I endorse this law 100% and would like to see it adopted across the country.
Here's what it boils down to: there's no good reason why a 9 year old needs a constitutionally guaranteed right to buy graphically violent or sexual video games on his own. None. None whatsoever. At age 16, 17, and 18 it may be a different story. The kid may be mature enough to handle it. Or they may not. Regardless, they are a minor and it's their parents right and responsibility to regulate what they do and do not play.
Kids don't need more rights, they need more attentive parents.
I apologize if any of this came off as inflamatory.
The text of the bill clears up any contraversy. They're just restricting minors from viewing objectionable material until mommy and daddy say it's ok. That sounds like good parenting to me. If I had kids, it would make my job of policing them that much easier.
I thank you for your post.
Ok, I think that we need the full text of this bill. No real, rational, sensible, discussion can go on until then. Too much is left for interpretation based on TFA.
From the article:
The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is "patently offensive to prevailing standards" and if it's appealing "to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves. Furthermore, someone found guilty of selling one of these games would face fines of between $100 and $2,000, and a prison term of up to one year.
Notice the bolded part above.
Carding minors has everything to do with it. If you don't sell the game to minors, the law doesn't apply and it's business as usual. If you sell the game to minors, you're putting yourself at the mercy of the law.
The article states: "The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is "patently offensive to prevailing standards" and if it's appealing "to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves. Furthermore, someone found guilty of selling one of these games would face fines of between $100 and $2,000, and a prison term of up to one year."
That sounds to me like the store selling the game is in trouble, not the game studio. Either you misread something or the part where the game maker can be sued was omitted from the article. Could you point me to a resource where it's stated that the game maker can be held liable as well? I'd love to read that for myself. If this is the case, such a law really is over the top.
So SSH is now illegal in the UK? Let's see how long the last of their big businesses that have corporate secrets to keep hang around in the UK. Especially government contractors with military secrets. Oh sure, they can have their database. I predict that it will be flooded and broken within a week of going online.
This doesn't burden the game companies at all. It's only an irritation to the stores that sell the games because now they have to card anyone who looks younger than 30. It's a small irritation, but an irritation none the less. To be honest, I'd rather see parents that aren't interested in actually parenting, forced to parent.
*hangs head in shame*
How could I be so ignorant and heartless? HOW?!?!
"so you can have a real gun... just not a virtual one.. at least they have their constitutional priorities in line." Minors can own guns? If that's the case, i'm glad I live in illinois.
They'll only be criminals if stores don't start carding minors like they do for cigarettes and booze and guns and... I mean, if parents are complaining that games make their children violent what's wrong with forcing parents to take responsibility for what their children watch?
It just means that if you don't have a drivers license that states you're over 18, you don't get to buy the game. If you're a minor and you have the game, it's because mommy and daddy bought the game for you. What's wrong with making parent's take more of an interest in what their children experience?
What's that? Your kid brought a gun to school and executed his classmates? You say that his violent video games made him do it*? Well then, who bought him the video game?
* - I find this notion laughable, by the way
When has a microsoft product not been released with a day 0 exploit? MS just made my decade.
I see consoles getting more and more expensive and decent gaming PC's getting cheaper and cheaper. When the price of one gets close to the price of the other, how can there not be a confrontation?
...is a good old fashioned witch hunt. In their zeal to restrict "predator" access to children, they are painting with a wide brush that will have the effect of giving those in power far more power than they should. So what else is new?
What service or product does YouTube sell? I don't know but I'm too lazy to find out. I thought that the 90's taught venture capital the importance of finding a company that actually produces something saleable.
Why are Americans now allowing the government to pass legislation allowing the same things that got mccarthy labeled a communist back in the 60's? If I'm off target here, someone please educate me. Really.
I mean, it really feels like someone's pride was wounded and now they're going to play bully. Admittedly, leaving my back door wide open isn't implicit permission to remove items from my home. Still, if someone does, do I really have any right to get angry? I brought it upon myself by leaving the door wiiiiiide open. Yeah. He shoulda known better. It's not like he tripped and his fingers just happened to type "telnet some.government.server[enter]". I'm kinda torn on this one.
I'm not going to comment about european coding talent. I'm not educated on the subject. I will make a subjective assessemnt, however: europeans sure seem more self-aware than American. Like they've looked into themselves more than we have. Kudos to you Euros. Of course, I've been wrong before.