Xbox To Include Censorchip 220
yesthatguy writes: "According to an MSNBC Article, Microsoft 'plans to voluntarily insert a V-chip-like control in its new video game console.' More details are to be released at E3 in May. I wonder if this will catch on, or if it is just a Microsoft move to appease the government, or if, as the article suggests, it will reduce game censorship, and allow consumers to censor the games themselves."
Re:Alright (Score:1)
Ya of course you do, every parent thinks that...so what?
In fact, i disagree with some of the points you make. My parents didn't follow your plan at all really; yet they are good parents. What makes a parent good is 1) how the kid feels about them when all is said and done and 2) how well the kid fitted into society (ie, did they become a serial killer or not).
the problem is you seem to assume that all kids that play violent video games and watch R rated movies and listen to 'explicit lyrics' turn into sex crazed killers. HOwerver that is a large body of evidence that proves otherwise. Just about every in my HS did those things, and none have become psychopaths. I suspect the same can be said for all of america (since most school kids dont go around shooting people).
V-Chips are Good! (Score:5)
Same thing for video games. The sooner all video game machines have v-chips, the sooner we can get the most extreme perverted stuff in games for everybody - no need to have the stores like Wal-Mart censor what they sell, anyone who doesn't want to see live nude girls on their x-box (or should that be their XXX-box) can set their v-chip to filter them out.
Re:Publicity stunt? (Score:1)
Re:Alright (Score:1)
"Burn Hollywood Burn"
*snicker* ;)
No comment.
Re:Alright (Score:1)
Re:V-Chips are Good! (Score:2)
One example that comes to mind is the current regulation on the display of hard pore cornography in an unscrambled form. It is currently illegal for most (probably all) cable carriers to transmit unscrambled corn over cable. The justification is just an extension of that used to regulate the air waves - the chance that someone might mistakenly receive cornography and is too feeble to change the channel.
Re:Big Deal. (Score:1)
What is a VChip if now censorship?
Re:look to the movie industry... (Score:1)
Re:I agree. (Score:1)
Just kidding, have to say something tongue-in-cheek once in awhile. I support the view that parenting is your responsibility. Ultimately Smith and Wesson isn't responsible when someone gets shot, just like Microsoft won't be responsible if your kid has violent dreams from playing games on windoze. Personally I think if you teach your children well, and you have a tight relationship with them, your kids won't go on shooting sprees and they'll know the difference between cartoon violence and how things are in the real world.
It's actually good for the sale (Score:2)
While most people would think it's bad, it's in fact the right direction a game box manufacturer must go.
Let look at the market in Japan. People have always been saying Sega technically made better box than PS, but PS still sold much more than Sega's boxes.
The major problem is that Sega actually have some x-rate games. I personally think it's kinda cool, but those parents(especailly in Japan) who made the purchase decision will frown upon these and buy PS for their kids instead.
A video game developer told me PS and Sega has sole right to decide which game should be released and which shouldn't, unlike the PC game market. Sega is responsible for the appearance of x-rate games in their series.
Microsoft knows that X-Box market would be like PC game market, where they would have problem restricting x-rated games publishing. Making censorware is a right direction for them for the market domination.
Re:Big Deal. (Score:2)
I just don't like to see methods like this used as a substitute for talking to the kids. If you've seen American Beauty, the military guy is a good example of this. He could have had a fairly normal family if he could take the time to talk to and understand his son. And his son could, if he could trust his father to listen to him, and not to beat him. But they're trapped instead, because neither one of them can make the first move towards understanding, trapped by fear of rejection or punishment.
This is what happens when you don't communicate with people enough, or don't make an effort to listen to them, or understand their point of view. If you do, then you can try to teach them morals, and convince them that something is right or wrong or even just a good idea. If you don't, then even if you can stop them from doing whatever behavior you don't like, you still aren't explaining to them why it's bad. You're fixing the symptom, but allowing the problem to spread--it's a very Western idea, but not necessarily a good one.
By the way, I like Half-Empty; I haven't been there in a while, though. It's still pretty chaotic, I take it?
Re:Alright (Score:3)
Well its nice to know that you support descrimination. Last time I checked it wasnt the law to make it so that minors couldnt watch an r rated movie without an adult. Most theaters do it so they can sell another ticket (If you want to see this movie, you have to bring an adult with you...). I worked at a movie theatre for a good amount of time and I can tell you, that its bunk. There is no reason that a 16 year old boy/girl shouldnt be able to go see an R rated movie, because the MPAA has raters with a different dogma then these kids and their parents (IF they have parents). This is a war on the youth, and if you support that, well, fuck you. Teens and children are people too, if you put this on a system, your going to find your kids becoming criminals (because of the DCMA) much sooner then before. If your kids respect your wishes (becase respect is earned) then they might not want to play, and to destroy the want (say by not playing it infront of them) is better then to make them punished for having fun like daddy. It is censorship no matter how you look at it, and the difference from this and childproof lids is that medicine can kill a stupid child, a video game wont.
Fight censors!
You are remarkably wrong. (Score:1)
Hardware vendors are not responsible for violence; the people who commit violent acts are. If the offenders are minors, the parents share in the responsibility.
If violent games do cause violent behavior (cite a scientific study, not just a news story), then maybe this is worthwhile.
This is ultimately just a way for bad parents to feel less guilty about being bad parents.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
If only our computers had this... (Score:1)
O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:
Re:Alright (Score:1)
No kidding. I hope when the knee-jerkers are adults, they have fun hovering over their kids' shoulders 24-hours a day. I'm sure their children will just love that. Oh, and don't forget to leave the gun and liquor cabinets unlocked, the Playboys on the coffee table, and don't even think about setting a root password on your computer. Telling your kids not to mess around with any of those will be perfectly sufficient.
Microsoft doing this is also a good thing because the game-makers will feel less pressure to sanitize the adult games. Or I suppose the knee-jerkers would prefer the situation where game-makers get called up before congress every time they make a game showing the rape of that chick from Diff'rent Strokes.
Cheers,
Re:What is wrong with it??? (Score:1)
Re:"Special" V chips (Score:1)
Hopefully the X-box for sale in Canada will filter out the nasty AMERICAN themes!
Re:Alright (Score:1)
But this is getting off topic, so I'll stop
Matt
bad idea (Score:1)
This is crappy because it will be yet another way to control children without actually parenting them. We rely on technology rather than responsibility, gimicky hardware rather than supervision. This technology will not solve any problems; it will be used so parents can use a TV as a babysitter with slightly less guilt.
Some parents will use this responsibily; as for the rest... Five years from now, we will be reading about a renewed uproar over violent video games, saying all console makers should be as responsible as Microsoft and stop letting kids see adult games. Never mind that it's the parents job, not Nintendo's or Sony's.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
dear god, no! (Score:2)
Thank god it's the X-Box not the Playstation 2 that has this control, since we all know that Microsoft is going to fail horribly with the X-Box anyway, seeing as Microsoft sucks, and the X-Box doesn't run Linux!
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
We already have this in our DVD players... (Score:1)
This puts the power to censor potentially offensive material in video games in the _only_ place it belongs: the home.
Any parent who doesn't want their kids playing M-Rated games on a machine can set a switch, and take that kind of responsibility away from the retailers and game makers who don't really want it and don't really do much with it.
The ESRB ratings are a massive failure when you consider that it's enforced by the teenagers and young adults who are the primary workforce at retail stores that sell games. Since the ratings were introduced some n years ago, I've honestly never seen a single child or under-17 teenager prevented from purchasing an M Rated title, which are some of the biggest selling games available (i.e. Resident Evil, Parasite Eve).
Pure Marketing? (Score:1)
No, M$ want to seduce content providers (Score:1)
IBM have seen this one coming. Read their peace-love-linux ads carefully and you will see that IBM have learnt about Microsoft since M$ upended the chessboard halfway through passionfingering OS/2. Did you know that Windows NT was originally called OS/2 NT, and the name only changed when lots of copies of Windows 3.0 were sold?
Committment to Linux and open standards is IBM's answer. ``Keep the playing field level (and the chess-board upright) and we'll do OK,'' seems to be their reasoning. A far cry from IBM of the '70s. Microsoft, OTOH, want hidden decisions, secret b*llsh*t ingredients, maximum authority, endless pain for users and tech support people.
Sorry if this sounds rantish, but that's Microsoft's basic motivation for doing the V-Chip. At least, it's the only reason which dovetails with the temperament of the beast.
Expect to see one in CE next. ``I'm sorry, your PalmPC is low on licencing. Please plug it in to a registered Microsoft licence recharging station and keep your fingers clear of your wallet until recharge is complete, in case your credit cards implode.''
Re:a wild guess (Score:2)
---
Re:Usage of V chip (Score:1)
Hopefully, you will not turn out like Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold.
Re:Publicity stunt? (Score:1)
___
Nothing new (Score:2)
It's a good marketing idea for Microsoft too, because like it or not, this will allow them to sell it to the same parents who are using their V-Chip enabled TVs and Content controlled DVD players. Of course we know that none of the software providers are actually using these features, so if it can get MS one more sale then they're going to offer it.
Re:Alright (Score:3)
Just tell your kids why they shouldn't be doing 'bad' things and give them good reasons!
The problem with a technological rather than social solution is that it only applies to one specific type of device, won't work in the long run, and it DOESN'T teach respect or self-control to kids.
If you show a kid WHY they shouldn't be doing something, they'll be less likely to want to do it than if you just say "Don't do this... because I say so!"
Technological measures can always be circumvented if the kid really wants to do something anyway!
Would you know if you restricted your child's access to this material at home but they were gaining access through a friend who didn't have these limitatons?
--
Re:Publicity stunt? (Score:1)
The question is: will it work? (Score:2)
While i agree with above statement, i feel it should be added, that it's probably a good idea to explain to the kid why you don't want him to watch some movies or play some games, especially not unsupervised. That would avoid the kid regarding this as just another stupid rule or even a challenge.
HOW? (Score:1)
HOW DOES IT KNOW?
Re:Excuse my tardiness (Score:1)
There is a difference between Escapism and Reality, and it is important to keep the distinction, as in shooting people versus playing war games. IIRC the fairy tales, aimed at very small children, can be pretty gruesome. The trick is to have the violence in the non-real world of Escapism INSTEAD OF the real world. Between such as RoadRunner-Coyote and most of Walt Disney's stuff, it seems like Walt Disney has done more to promote "moral decay", since it promotes disrespect for authority as a "real world" desirable quality. (Expressed badly, but maybe you can see the point.)
Needs one for DVD anyway... (Score:4)
What it all comes down to is making life easier for developers. By simply taking advantage of the chip, parents can block anything they do not want the kids to see. Great examples would be:
- A Soldier of Fortune port with both the no gore and normal versions.
- Giants, with the lockout turning blood green and adding underwear.
- Games could even incorporate the German style violence workaround: With the v-chip on, all life forms become robots.
This is a good thing. Really. Too bad Microsoft is doing it.
Re:Alright (Score:2)
If it is worthwhile to bring children into the world, then it is worthwhile to make the effort to raise them properly. All the V-chips in the world can't substitute for it, and they're unnecessary if you're doing it.
Oh yeah baby. (Score:4)
Anatomically correct Mario, anyone?
Misplaced Faith (Score:2)
I find your lack of lack of faith disturbing.
It is perfectly reasonable for you to want to filter content, where the qualities that you want to filter are a function of your values.
The probably that the V-Chip or a corporate-sponsored ratings board, will happen to coincide your values (or any other human being's) is vanishingly small.
When you let the corporations, or the government, or a mysterious focus group, select what is acceptable and what isn't, you are letting someone else shape your kid's mind. MPAA ratings are a great example of this. Unless you are a media expert, I bet you don't have any idea where "the line" is between PG-13 and R movies. I can tell you right now, that qualities such as sex and violence are only a minor parameters. And it's pretty sad what qualities (e.g. product placements) are left out of the function altogether, or are even selected in reverse to commond sense.
Filtering according to your own values may be good. Industry-standard filtering is slavery, brainwashing, and an asset in someone's marketing portfolio. If you love your kid, don't sell him.
---
Anatomically correct has been done (Score:2)
Bachelor Party [vgmuseum.com] and the female version Bachelorette Party [vgmuseum.com]
Beat 'em and Eat 'em [vgmuseum.com](due to the Atari's lo-res, I first thought the guy was holding a bazooka! Gameplay is like Kaboom [vgmuseum.com], but instead of losing a bucket when you miss, the ladies fart)
Burning Desire [vgmuseum.com] and the female version Jungle Fever [vgmuseum.com]
Custer's Revenge [classicgaming.com]
Knight on the Town [vgmuseum.com]
Re:V-Chips are Good! (Score:2)
I agree. (Score:3)
In a way though, they are correct. Let's say you have two kids, one who's 14 and one who's 9. It would probably be ok with you if the 14 yr. old played Half Life, but you wouldn't want the 9 year old to. What happens then when one is and the other one's in the same room? V-chips don't help this, so in that regard they're useless.
Sorry about the incoherency... it's late.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a different kind of V-Chip (Score:2)
Re:a wild guess (Score:2)
Limiting the market, as is done with consoles, gives expensive high-quality games the opportunity to become known and grow in the market. Trust me, AAA developers don't mind licensing fees that separate the wheat from the chaff at all.
And though it's true I've been talking about things that help developers, one thing it seems that MS understands is that really good blockbuster games are what sell consoles, not a "name" in the industry, and not powerful but tweaky hardware. Which is at least one thing they're getting right.
Re:Big Deal. (Score:2)
Adults can stop their kids by teaching them, not by censoring them.
Tell a 10 year old kid not to play Quake because there is blood and guts and naked girls (ok, not in my Q3, but you get point..) and he'd probably still try to sneak in a game of Quake. I wouldn't necessarily blame curiosity on bad parenting.
What is a VChip if not censorship?
It depends on where you draw the line for censorship. I consider censorship to be the restriction of speech or expression of someone by and outside source of illegitimate authority. Parents are one of the only forms of authority who should be allowed to "censor" stuff from their kids. That's what this does.. though "censor" is a rather strong word for it. Is covering their kids' eyes during the scary parts of a movie "censorship?"
Re:Alright (Score:2)
After all, *you're the parent* and so it's YOUR responsibility to keep your kids from having a meal of Codeine with a Drano chaser. You can't expect some furniture company's locking cabinet to do your parenting for you.
Good and Bad (Score:2)
The V-Chip is controled though a physical key or code key. Yes, they are breakable (in more sence than one) but most "kids" won't be able to break them. If the kid is able to break the lock, he's old enough to know right from wrong, so I guess he should be able to react alot better to the more mature content.
Alright, Game developers will want the kids to play their games as much as the adults, (More moola, the allmighty buck!) So, much like "Mortal Kombat" for the SNES, there will be sweat instead of blood. Plus, you can turn on the "Gibbed" version of your game with the proper key!
This will encurage a couple of things:
A> Game companies will have to spend time making more games appealing to more audiances, and not just us "one shot, one kill" young adults that like blood, guts, a little additude, and a lot of inside mature humor. Instead they will have to produce some of the real gems that we learned to love as youngsters: Mario, Metroid, PacMan, DigDug, SpaceInvaders, Asteriods... Those old games that make us all smile...
and B> Developers can finaly make "Mature" games without having to worry about making the press scream "This is what you're 4 year old is playing!" as they seem to like screaming nowadays.
So, How could this be bad? Bad implementation, bad desgin, bad ideas on what's "mature" or not... Not ALL of this is in the X-Box's hand, but they sure could mess this one up.
Best of luck to the X box. I won't be buying one (I'm cheap, wouldn't pay $500 for my most rescent computer!) and I bet they're going to go all the way, just like Sony did the last time around.
On a side note, I'm going to buy a Game Boy Advanced the INSTANT it comes out. No compatition, really (I've heard about something else, but do you REALLY think they'll beat Nentendo??)
Pathway
This is excellent. (Score:4)
I think this is a great idea. If games have ratings, and parents can control that, then I don't have to worry about my games being censored.
If i'm missing something, let me know.
Re:dear god, no! (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Alright (Score:2)
--
Re:Censorship? I think not. (Score:2)
However, there's the other extreme, where parents that buy these items expect them to be the only means to control their children's viewing habits and take no other active participation in this; they are then the first to complain when their children have inappropriate items. V-Chips and filterware are not placebos for taking an active role in parenting, unlike how many wish they could be.
Re:Censorship? I think not. (Score:2)
I just said that they would be less likely to want to, and if they knew that you were open about the issue, they would be more likely to want to talk to you about it rather than do it behind your back without your knowledge.
--
Re:Censorship? I think not. (Score:2)
Yes, if a person really wants to see/do something, they're going to find a way to do it. You can control things in your own house, but what about a neighbor or friend's house?
If you really did *explain* why a game is 'unacceptable' and they really understand it, then they are really unlikely to want to play it.
But don't forget that a child isn't an extention of their parents! You can't force your thought patterns and morals on another individual and expect them to follow exactly what you say. They are intelligent and searching for knowledge, good or bad. The only way to learn about something is to experience it, and just having a directive without reason behind it is just ignorance.
--
Re:Censorship? I think not. (Score:2)
Re:V-Chips are Good! (Score:3)
How about cream of wheat?
Rich
(And yes, I know it was a deliberate transliteration)
a bad guess (Score:2)
The profit of the console market is in the software. To have any hope of breaking even, let alone making a profit, they need whopping licensing fees from the game developers.
---
Re:Alright (Score:5)
I wonder what kind of parents these congressmen are...
Ok, when a kid is 0-5 there is nothing in their environment but what you have created and placed there. You don't listen to NIN in their presence, you don't watch TV with them. You don't leave it on while you get the dishes done and they sit there, numb and brainwashed. You never turn it on, ideally, and its not part of their day.
You expose them to classical music. You roll on the floor with them, you fingerpaint, you color with them. You devote more time than you ever thought you could spare to them because between 0-5 they have and should have no one else in their world but Mommy, Daddy, and close family.
Which is to say that you don't Ever send them to Day Care. You make necessary sacrifices, which in this day and age means you must often choose between having a family and having a career if you are the Wife, or having a house if you are a Husband. But once you chose kids, the mother (or father) should stay at home all day and have the child(ren) by her side at all times.
You read to them constantly, sitting on the couch, close and warm, taking time for the child to ask questions. Often the child will prefer only one book to be read over and over again. That's okay, and never to be questioned. You can marvel at how the little brain is imprinting itself through repetition of the same (frikkin') story over and over again. You read to them every night.
After 5 years old, you guide them in their development, giving them signals that it is time to start growing up a little. This means - beyond potty training - exposing them to new experiences.
Ideally, at this point, they don't know what a TV even is. And they certainly have never seen gore, violence, or rage, except as played out within the safe circle of the family. Roughhousing is a wonderful exercise!
But also, their stories become richer in texture as elements of violence enter into the nightly readings. I prefer Finn McCollough (pronounced "Finn McCool"), of Irish Myths and Legends. It is amazing how gory and grim (pun intended) and frightening some of these stories are, but they serve a good purpose: mankind is not without its Dark Side, and it is better to acknowledge it and 'take it out for a walk' than to bury it. Start with them young, let them know that it is okay to entertain some negative thoughts. Frighten them, sure, but with a strong degree of comfort and security.
Then they come to rely on your judgement heavily so that only your influence matters in their lives. Others, including the TV and video game mfrs and rock stars, are powerless to influence the child, and their access is limited and always under controlled circumstances.
Then, as they grow beyond the age where you can control their access, you try to instill them with all the wisdom you can and teach them to discern between right and wrong, good and bad.
When they hit about twelve years old, they will begin to experiment with violent games and images. Here is where all those scary stories pay off (I don't recommend you read exclusively scary stories, but they will tell you which they like and which are boring, or too scary). You have taught them that their 'dark side' (the side that is scared, in reality) is okay, and they recognize the feelings. They also turn to you to validate them. At this point they know what is and what is not good for them. This is not to say that they won't disobey your wishes! There is a tacit acceptance that they will experiment, but you have done all you can at this point.
Re:Alright (Score:2)
The issue here isn't that a 16 year old shouldn't be able to go see an R movie. I personally agree that the age for movies is a bit ridiculous. The point is that giving parents control over what video games their kids can play in their house is a good thing, not a "war on youth."
I'm a kid too for christ's sake, I'm only 19 (watch my reputability drop...)
Having a parent turn off violent content from games their 13 year old wants to play is not discrimination even though the 13 year old "is a person too." Like it or not, you ain't got no rights at 13 years of age (in the U.S., at least.) It's for your own good, most of the time, anyway. 15-16 is a grey area, its different for each person how they mature, but the line does have to be drawn somewhere. Luckily in most cases the line can be shifted around by parents (ie, the movie case.)
And, BTW, it matters not what the opinions of the "raters" are of the MPAA.. (the use of that acronym spells troll to me, but I'll continue)
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Not really. With medicine, if you lack attention for a few minutes, you risk finding your kid plain dead.
Well, the analogy was not for the consequences of the two things, but merely the notion of helping parents keep kids out of doing things they shouldn't be doing.
Not quite the same as finding him playing a violent video game and having an opportunity to teach him why you don't want him to do this, and discuss alternative video games
If you turn a video game off from letting a kid play, and he asks you why.. you can have your little talk then without him seeing the stuff and being extremely curious.
You're probably right about it not being real useful in parenting, but it really can't hurt (except if you're like that guy who doesn't want to pay for it.. Christ
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Maybe not a vital feature, but a good one (IMHO). IANAP either, but I can definately agree that while yes, you should talk to your children and tell them what is right, wrong, acceptable and not, you may not want to leave the (perverbial) playboy channel unlocked. This doesn't have to deal with violent video games either, what about pornographic (or explicit, like Duke3d (maybe a stretch, but you get what I'm talking about)) games? Yes, there is a time and place to talk to your children about sex, girls and boys and why they are different, but that doesnt' mean I want my 5 year old son/daughter accidently turning on my xbox and starting up "Hot Redhead Nurse Strip Poker" which I left in the night before.
Don't forget, this has been done in a variety of ways before, to some degree anyway. The PS2 we have at work had a code to lock out DVDs if we wanted to, and games from as far back as
Whether this feature is used or not is going to be the thing, but not I hope, whether it was a good idea.
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Flamebait, eh. I'll address it anyway. Let me tell you something about me. I know right from wrong. In fact, I'm an expert in religous morality, both past and present forms. When I was a child, morality consisted little more than "will I get spanked for this?" and "can I get away for this?". That's the reality of a 5 year old. They don't fully understand the implications of death, much less the implications of love and sex. I sure didn't. Which is why I want to expose my children to such things in a controlled enviroment, rather than let some video game writer do it for me. As they get older, and I am certain they understand right from wrong, and that games are not real, I will let them play games. But, it will be my choice. I'm not a hippocrite, I just don't want others raising my kids.
Re:Censorship? I think not. (Score:2)
Is there a magic age when a person realizes that the violence on the screen isn't real?
Some might realize this at an early age, and some might never realize this.
The parent still has to play an active role in the process, and I agree with the rest of your post.
--
Re:Alright (Score:2)
You mentioned that should sex not be satisfying that it would be hard to talk about. That's the major difference, sex is a very important part of a marrage, if you can't talk about something that's that important (i.e. explaining to each other what you like or don't like) then I think the relationship is going down anyway. I feel that I love her enough to be able to take the time and care about what she wants. Those are things that make the relationship work.
You are right that there is not a 100% perfect way to enter a relationship, but I choose to do it in a manner consistant with my belief structure. Also and I don't have a copy of this but I have read statistics that show engaged couples who have sex before they get married have a higher occurance of sexual dysfunction (especially on the part of the women) when they get married, as opposed to those who waited.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Alright (Score:2)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
You people amaze me sometimes (Score:2)
Re:Alright (Score:2)
--
Re:Alright (Score:5)
Granted, I'm not a parent, not even close, but I'm sick of seeing the idiocy of this issue.. the notion of "Microsoft being the nanny" because they're adding a feature to their video game system to allow parents to choose what can or cannot be played is absolutely ridiculous.
There's no difference between this and childproof lids on medicine and the fact that you need to be carded at movies or be with a parent. You can't very well have a person carding a kid everytime they want to use a R rated video game, can you? If the parent wants to let the kid play the R rated game, then they just turn the thing off.
It's not censorship. People on this site use the term way too loosely.
Re:Alright (Score:5)
As the other reply said, I believe that a moderate amount of daycare is good for children. They learn to play with each other, to cooperate and settle arguments. Parents should have a close relationship with their children, but at the age of 3-6 I'd say it's also important to have other social contacts (even without the parent around) and daycare is a good way to offer them.
What the hell is wrong with condoms? In my opinion, safe sex is one of the most important things you should teach teenagers. Here in Finland, for instance, in the course of general education at the age of about 15-16 every boy and girl gets two condoms (one through mail along with a leaflet explaining about veneral diseases and one from the school pediatrician). It's not supposed to encourage students to use them and have sex (and I don't believe it does), instead, to show that safe sex is not a taboo and that condoms are an easy and safe way to protect from diseases if and when the time comes.
Of course, sexuality should also be discussed at home, not just at schools. At least my parents have done their part in educating and guiding me, I hope others have too.
How much education on sexuality (and I don't mean only sex) is given in schools/at home in the US? I've lived there only third grade, but from TV etc. (including posts like this) I get the feeling that in some parts safe sex is still a subject not to be discussed. Is this really so?
Yes and no (Score:3)
Take your kids to day care. Not often, but not never. From my observations, kids are like little sponges. The kids I know that have been exposed to day care at young ages (in limited doses) are less shy (more confident) and appear better adjusted to meeting new people (whether it be toddlers or grownups) than those that socialize nearly exclusively with familiar faces. Could be wrong about this, but it's my observation that, in the very least, day care in moderation is certainly not harmful.
I'm not sure if the "classical music == smarter kids" notion is scientific or urban myth. Just to be sure, I'll let the kid listen to some of Radiohead's "OK Computer". I'll let you know if my kid becomes a drug addict.
Have to agree about the TV. Piece of shit it is. But I don't think that non-exposure is going to teach anything. Maybe let them watch a couple of hours a week. I prefer letting kids watch "older" movies. I defined old by the fact that I can't find any merchandise in the stores. They love the movies still, but you just don't have to [read: can't] buy the toys.
I agree that when they are old enough to rationalise (you decide), they need to be exposed to advertising so you can tell them what it's about and how ridiculous it is. Actually, now is the time to educate educate educate.
I could ramble on about my thoughts on parenting, but I just wanted to point out that we all have our ideas about how to be a good parent. I'd suggest that a lot of what we would consider good parenting would have to do with the way we raised. I had an argument with a neighbour who flogged his 2 month old puppy. His justification : "I had three dogs when I was a kid" (implying that this "experience" justifies his violence) !!!!????? Do you think his father taught him how to "teach" a dog? It's right to strive to be a good father. Just be open to suggestions and look for advice (books, friends, family, etc.).
And finally, teach your kids soccer :)
Re:Big Deal. (Score:2)
Covering your own eyes (or looking away) during a scary part of a movie is self-censorship. So is viewing slashdot moderation--self-censorship by a community. This isn't always a bad thing, but it should be noticed, and called what it is.
Do you remember being a kid? Did you always consider your parents to be the absolute authority on everything? I think that technological censorship tools either cause resentment in children, or teach them how to hack.
I know I spent a considerable amount of time getting around useless security measures in High School. If some of those hadn't existed in the first place, I never would have learned how to defeat them. (and believe me, they were pointless)
But in either case, I'm sure every good parent out there would rather keep their children's respect and trust by explaining things to them and trying to teach them morals than lose it by simply denying them what they want and not listening to them. That is my objection, and I think these tools often cause that; it is a form of neglect, and encourages poor communication.
Re:You are remarkably wrong. (Score:2)
Some of their conclusions include:
Their data sources:
If you're interested, it's a good read. It contradicts a lot of popular sentiment, but provides justification for its conclusions.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Needs one for DVD anyway... (Score:2)
The last thing we need is a hundred years of oppression and slavery for yet another race (because they'll slaughter us when they break their bonds, not just take over our professional sports).
-RevRigel
Re:a wild guess (Score:2)
As for the software, everything I've ready seems to indicate that there won't be any specific mechanisms to prevent users from playing their own discs in the machine.
The big thing that Microsoft has going for them is that the box runs DX8 and a windows kernel. This means that porting PC games is a no-brainer, and also means that game companies can simultaneously develop for the X-box and Windows with little impact to productivity. That is the real way Microsoft plans on winning; the same way they won the OS and browser wars.
-------
-- russ
"You want people to think logically? ACK! Turn in your UID, you traitor!"
Coincidence? (Score:3)
I really hope this was a coincidence, and they didn't 'wait' for something like this to happen. This had to be a coincidence, it's not to cash-in on the 'bad' music and video games about to be blamed for corrupting youth... is it?
Re:Publicity stunt? (Score:4)
Re:Alright (Score:2)
And unless you edit the ESRB lists yourself (Do you think you'll have this kind of access to the ratings system on the xbox?), you are letting others decide what is appropriate/inappropriate for your children.
--
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Alright (Score:5)
Big Deal. (Score:3)
Feel free to protest this, but remember to also protest Macrovision, Region coding, Censorship, and parents who don't want to take responsibility for their children. I think these are all good things to protest, but I doubt you'll get very far.
Apparently people would rather have DVDs and games than basic human rights. Bread and Circuses wins over The Constitution any day...
Re:Needs one for DVD anyway... (Score:2)
I think people forget that because Xbox does include the capability to play DVD movies (even though it is an extra-cost option), the DVD standard does require a parental lockout capability by default. What MS wants to do is extend that lockout capability to the games themselves. You know, I'm surprised that Sony didn't do this with PlayStation 2.
Re:V-Chips are Good! (Score:2)
Right now, MTV could show most porn, legally. You can't show that stuff over a broadcast station. The difference is that everyone who subscribes to cable does so voluntarily. Broadcast stuff is meant to be the "safe for everyone" medium.
MTV doesn't show porn because if they did their advertizers would dry up in a heartbeat. Cable companies wouldn't carry it either, because they'd lose their franchises. So, if MTV goes porn, it'll be a fast trip out of business.
As a supporting fact, how many mainstream companies advertize in Hustler magazine? (Playboy isn't porn, so it doesn't count).
So, the V-chip won't change anything. If we want pornographic video games, we're going to have to make them ourselves.
ACK! Maybe we shouldn't. The world isn't ready for nude geeks I think.
Take a different look at it (Score:2)
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Does your VCR check video tapes to see if the person pressing play is old enough, or even if anyone is present to enter a code to watch particular levels of films?
No, because up until this point, the technology really hasn't been there to make this a possibility. The X-Box isn't the first, either.
My guess is that it is an attempt at political control (e.g. the system will cover browsing and allow you see dubya's site but not al's) and perhaps even as a form of market research (they gather "login" results to assure the parents it isn't being hacked). I don't like MS so I can only ascribe truly evil reasons
You read WAY too much Slashdot.
15 year old wants to play third-life and you know as their parent it is ok for them but the Y-Box only allows authorised games to be used (prevent piracy) and then only by users with authorised age proofing Id
This is not what the X-Box is doing. If the Y-Box comes out next year and does what you say, then it will probably not do very well. Just because Microsoft is attached to this doesn't mean you automatically have to slap a conspiracy theory on it.
Re:Censorship? I think not. (Score:2)
What if parents don't want their kids exposed to religious programming? Granted, this is a non-issue as far as video games are concerned, but it's one of my pet peeves about V-chip technology. Sex and violence are not the only things that people may find objectionable. It seems rather arbitrary, if not discriminatory, that the only content that *can* be blocked happens to be the type of content frowned upon by right-wing Christians. It might appear that this is a coincidence, but consider that even the most restrictive anti-violence settings on the chip will often fail to block images of a certain man being crucified.
whatever... (Score:2)
and they wonder why we need technology to raise our children.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:Take a different look at it (Score:2)
At exactly 18 solar revolutions after the moment of their birth, a human aquires all the competence they will need for the rest of their life.
No sooner, no later.
Or could it be that different people develop differently (or that some people never quite develop maturity at all)?
--
OK as long as it's voluntary (Score:2)
look to the movie industry... (Score:2)
That's why all of those sophisticated nc17 movies are coming out, right? What people forget is that when you have an "nc17"-like level, merchants can say "I won't advertise games higher than x" or "I won't sell games higher than y." So it doesn't result in _more_ adult-themed entertainment, it results in adult entertainment that teases and uses euphemisms. It's the "everything but" solution that r-rated movies provide.
Linux Port to XBox (Score:2)
Actually, I like it - hacking the x-box so that it actually can do something useful.
Problem is, will anything useful run on it, or will it be obsolete by the time it is release, because even a bargain basement Compaq pizza box unit will have more power?
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Both medicine and video games can "harm" kids. It is up to the parent deciding what "harm" is. For instance, I'm sure parents don't want their children playing games with pornographic content. Sure it may not physically harm them. But it's also not something a parent wants.
And why do you think RIAA would intentionally want to deprive young customers from seeing their content? Do you really think they are such good souls that they reject a kid on some moral grounds? Maybe that's what they'd have you believe. But these are the guys that *market* to underaged kids. They *want* kids to see their movies and buy their stuff. Congress *stuffs* ratings down their throat (either that or intimidates them into regulating themselves). That some guy stops kids from seeing an R rated movie without a parent, is not some underhanded MPAA scheme to deprive themselves of customers. They have to do it because the society thinks it's a Good Thing. That said, censorship at the governmental level of *creation* of content is vile and evil. Anybody should create anything they want (except things that exploit other people illegally, like kiddie porn) without the government stepping in. It is when that content is distributed can we set up some regulations (please put the porn on a stand behind the counter, and not in public view; please card kids trying to get into skin flicks; please conform to a video game rating system; etc.)
Usage of V chip (Score:2)
a wild guess (Score:3)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark on the basis of Microsoft's acknowledged ability to create markets for its products, and suggest that in practice the X-box will become the exact opposite of a conventional console. Instead, it will become an entirely open platform, in practice.
Why do I think that this may be so? For a number of reasons:-
First, the console market is already fairly highly subscribed if not totally saturated, so the X-box will have to be pretty special to make a large proportion of gamers reach into their pockets again. All the other popular consoles are closed platforms. A way of becoming "pretty special" is ready and waiting. [The still-to-be-launched Indrema [indrema.com] is doing something similar, albeit with a certification hurdle imposed, but hopefully this will not be a substantive barrier.]
Second, it just so happens that virtually all the big players in the console arena either have or will be bringing out new mega-powerful systems within the same time frame, so high technology alone may not be enough, especially since Microsoft is a latecomer to this market. A novel angle may be required to make headway.
Third, Microsoft knows full well that the popularity of Windows stems very largely from the massive buzz that was created by several years worth of unimpeded free-for-all copying of both the O/S and its applications. The official face of Microsoft may protest about "piracy", but unofficially they must know that in reality unconstrained access is an extremely powerful popularizing mechanism, vastly cheaper yet more effective than advertising.
These three things all point in the same direction: Microsoft will either make the platform fully open, or it will create an easy and inexpensive method for all and sundry to write and install games on the X-box, or it will turn a very blind eye to the cracking systems which will appear 2 microseconds after the machine hits the streets. Nothing is gained by restricting what can run on a platform (all the talk of controlling for "quality" is unadulterated rubbish --- people like to decide for themselves, thank you very much), but everything is gained by having thousands of products run on a console rather than merely hundreds.
We'll see.
--
Re:Alright (Score:2)
The problem is that they aren't 100% effective and the only 100% is abstenence. Now before everyone looks at my nickname and says I'm just one of those stupid Christians who "just thinks that way", let me say that abstenence is intellegent. I'm a 22-year-old virgin, I plan on getting married pretty soon to a girl who is also a virgin. Neither of us will have to worry about AIDs, or other diseases, I don't have to worry about supporting some other child that I had years ago, and neither of us will have to worry about guilt of having had other partners in the past. (Which believe it or not causes stress on our relationship). All these things remove one of the biggest reasons to ever get divorced... Condoms are a bad idea.
Okay mod me down for my off-topic rant :)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Alright (Score:2)
How is this going to work? (Score:4)
"No mom, the x-box *automatically* keeps kids from being able to play violent games!"
"Oh, okay honey..."
*snicker*
Censorship is? (Score:2)
How does Microsoft's inclusion of a function allowing someone to block things that they don't want to be viewed in their own private home, a function which is also entirely optional, count as censorship?
As much as I personally don't like it, those who have not reached their majority (age 18 in the US, differs elsewhere) have (basically) no legal rights. Thus, according to the law, their parents can make the decision about what they can see (or play, in this case) entirely legally. I mean, if you are old enough to take care of yourself, you can make decisions about things like this real simply, like by not enabling such "features" on your devices. If you aren't yet old enough to make such decisions, since you are considered a minor, then if the person who is legally responsible for you doesn't let you play Quake 5 when it comes out, too bad. Again, I don't agree with the almost complete lack of rights that minors get, and we could spend a long time talking about those rights in different places (especially schools, and their twisted hypocrisy), but that doesn't change the law; moreover, there are other places than here for that discussion. If you don't like the law, there are ways to change it. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or fun, but it is possible.
I don't recall anyone griping about the fact that lots of DVD players had the ability to disable viewing of discs that were rated at a certain level, but the function necessary to do so is built into lots of DVD players, both software and hardware based.
This article comes across as either a.) Microsoft bashing, OOOID (Or One Of It's Derivatives, another new phrase for your big list of acronyms) or b.) a little too much concern about "censorship." Or course, maybe I'm not paranoid enough, and the evil corporations and in league with the government and going for all they can take from us.
Re:Alright (Score:2)
Point being that there are some things that parrents consider to be more threatening to their kids than others. Most parrents lock the liquer cabinet. Most parrents try to keep medication out of reach. This is not because they don't try to teach their kids not to get into these things, but just because it's not worth the risk NOT to lock these things down.
While it is not my personal opinion that violent video games fit into this category, it is the opinion of some people. If the extra cost is not prohibitive then by all means, this feature should be incorporated. No one says you have to use it.
I for one would put the system in place for my kids though (if I had any). I figgure, once they're smart enough to crack the code, they're mature enough to play the game. Think of it as an early geek training tool. If we're lucky they'll be trying to install Red Hat or (God be praised) Slackware on their X-box by the time they're 12
This has been another useless post from....
Re:Big Deal. (Score:2)
Anyway, this basically diverges into two opinions, that keeping kids from being subjected to violence/sex through a brute force method is bad parenting, or isn't. I personally don't think it is, if you reinforce your decision by discussing it.. not by catching the kid doing it and telling them "no!"
The question really is where you draw the line for a "brute force" method.. such a method is used on medicine, chemical caps, and gun cabinets. Is performing such a method on video games too much, or not? I don't think so, but evidentally you do. That's where our opinions differ, and there's really not much more to discuss
Censorship? I think not. (Score:3)
Many parents don't want their kids exposed to the violence and sexual content on video games, and this chip gives them a way to do that. I think that Slashdotters should recognize their right and desire to do that, even if you disagree that it's the right way to do it.
Just because the chip is there doesn't mean Microsoft or some NSA agent is going to slip into your house and randomly make it impossible for you to play certain games. Not every restriction on software is automatically an attempt by a big faceless entity to censor every aspect of people's lives. This is a legitament use of this technology.
The headline, especially, is just more Slashdot sensationalism.
Re:lots of good stuff (Score:2)
As a parent, I feel the angst, sure! "Sugar is bad!" 'yeah, right...'
There is a sense of 'Edward Scissorhands', or, Pleasant Valley Sunday', if you will... that I tend to disdain.
Maybe you'll find out if your wife leaves
you because you're making her a 50ies-style housewife.
okay, next...
think of the V-chip as a right for you as a parent.
I understand that the 'v-chip' and 'Net Nanny' are institutionalized and (for some) hopefully socially accepted and practiced forms of 'parental rights' but I suggest that there are many rights that parents aren't availing themselves of.
Are you seriously agruing that not turning on the TV - or appearing too drunk, or doing whatever you shouldn't - is somehow isolationist and that is somehow bad? I'm not saying 'don't have friends'.
I'm saying: "Don't have 'Friends'."
I'm saying 'kill your TV'. It's okay if I play Parasite Eve, but kids, don't watch me, go in the other room and play with, um, blocks or something...
Re:Alright (Score:2)