Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Congress Sets Sights on Videogames 354

Posted by Zonk
from the cheap-election-tricks dept.
boarder8925 writes "According to CNET, Congress has set its sights on 'the purported problem of violent and sexually explicit video games.... A U.S. House of Representatives committee on consumer protection says it will hold a hearing on the topic later this month, with a focus on 'informing parents and protecting children' from the alleged dangers of those types of games.' " The article goes on to describe seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children, or study "the effect of electronic media on youths." Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Sets Sights on Videogames

Comments Filter:
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:40PM (#15463829) Homepage
    The article goes on to describe seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children, or study "the effect of electronic media on youths." Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.

    I love how our political system works. You can either vote for the party that pisses all over the middle of the bill of rights... or you vote for the party that pisses all over the top of the bill of rights.

    AWESOME!
    • It's an election year. There's really not much else to say; the President is posturing for an anti gay marriage amendment (again) even though there's no chance it will ever pass. He's doing so in order to appeal to the radical right. Democrats are posturing to the moderate center by trying not to look like "the godless party." It's all a bunch of he said she said ape-style beating on your chest.

      God, sometimes I hate this town.
    • by moe.ron (953702)
      study "the effect of electronic media on youths."

      What does this even mean? Electronic media is SO broad! They intend to study the effects of television, motion pictures, music, video games, and the interweb on children? What meaningful research could possibly come from this? That kids like electronic media more than the anolog alternatives?
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:50PM (#15463868)
      This is where you find out that the Democrats are the other political party and not "liberal" by definition.

      They're just following the most basic of political teachings: It's easier to get people to vote if they're "protecting" their "children" from the "bad people".

      You don't hate the children, do you?
      You don't support the bad people, do you?

      The only way to prevent this from happening is by writing letter to your Congress Critters and telling them exactly how you feel about the issues and that they will lose your vote (and the votes of anyone you can convince) if they do not vote against those bills.

      Then you just have to convince enough of your friends/family to become an active voting bloc with you.

      Freedom is not free. At the minimum, it takes time and effort.
    • Once again proving that democracy doesn't work. But then again, nothing works. Life sucks and then you die.
    • Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.

      This is why, even though I'm liberal, I never call myself democrat. Sometimes they sound sane, but that's only because they are being compared to the republicans.
    • No, you can vote for plenty of other parties, too! You just don't want to.
    • I'd rather see a study of the effect corporate "sponsorship" has on policies.
    • Mind explaining to me why is restricting sales of material NOT appropriate for minors, pissing over the bill of rights?
    • This is why 75% of my vote is conservative.

      With the right to bear arms, I can, individually or as a part of a group (known as all the gun owners in america), defend every other right on the list.

      I know it sounds crazy but if the police started spraying innocent protestors with tear gas, as long as they had the right to bear arms, they could fire back and defend their right to peaceable assemble. Granted they would probably be killed or imprisoned for years, it still ethically qualifies as self-defense.
    • Somethings faulty (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aussie_a (778472)
      The fact you seem unaware of there being more then 2 parties suggests a fault in your information gathering tools or methods. I'd suggest investing in new tools and/or methods to gather information with.
  • According to this [macworld.com] article, parents already seem to oversee game purchases.

    And anyways, isn't this what the ESRB was started for?
    • Wait a minute ... you're quoting a Mac magazine about games?

      Are you insane?
    • Dear government,

      Please include all media in this law, not just media playable by certain pieces of hardware using certain wired or wireless devices.

      Movies, music, and books should also be banned due to this law. Most especially, the Bible, which contains many scenes of both debauchery and violence: hedonistic practices, fathers killing sons because of voices in their heads, entire cities being leveled due to a bet ("for the usual amount") between two make-believe parties, etc.

      As to your sig, I starte

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:44PM (#15463844)
    It's my, and only my, responsibility to raise my kids. Not that of government, not that of special interest groups, not that of any political party. Mine!

    I, and I alone, decide which values to give my kids.
    • I, and I alone, decide which values to give my kids.

      So that they can grow up and rebel against them, of course! ;-)

      -stormin
    • Geez no, kidding; all this pirate bay, allofmp3, video game crap makes me want to say one thing:

      DUDES! Get up out of my jock and get back to word. For God's sake. Literally: for God's sake. God is going to die if you don't do this.

    • So you're not sending them to a state school then?

      I assume you also don't let them play with any other kids, right?

    • In the government's defense, here... talk to an average teenager today (or visit myspace) and you'll see that a good percentage of parents are not, in fact, doing JACK SHIT to uphold their responsibility.

      Maybe we should put RFID chips in peoples' genitals, and gather DNA samples to determine who is predetermined to be an irresponsible fuckwit. We could even program the chips to shock the hell out of those gonads to prevent procreation when the chips detect a match that's likely to produce a whiney emo douc
    • And that is one of the main reasons that the United States has such problems with fundamentalist Christianity at the moment. You let people raise their kids however they want, and a large number of them will be raised to be crazy. Which I wouldn't have a problem with, but crazy people vote, and, well, look what happens.

      And to take it a step further, what about the David Koresh types whose idea of raising children includes teenage sex with elders? Most (sane) people would say that clearly requires interv

    • I, and I alone, decide which values to give my kids.

      No, you don't. The government has to be able to stop in and intervene when you "choose" to just teach them crap. Such as, oh, that having sex with their parents is OK. Or that there's nothing wrong at all with polygamy. Or that you can go ahead and eat human flesh. Or that it's OK to kill black people.

      Do we as a society embrace a wide variety of civil disagreements? Yes. And among those disgareements, you can teach your kids whatever you want. But
    • why don't you think about all the twisted ways people behave.
      Should there be no intervention between a child and abuseive parents?
      You may raise your kids, but you don't raise the other thousand they go to school with.

      All they want is a way to let parents know what some games have in them. This is good so people have an opportunity to make INFORMED decsions when allowing there kid to do something. This is a GOOD thing.

    • It's my, and only my, responsibility to raise my kids. Not that of government, not that of special interest groups, not that of any political party. Mine!

      Sorry, but that's not what Hillary Clinton thinks. After all, "it takes a village to raise a child." [amazon.com]. And what is that village? The good-old United States Federal Government, that's it. In order for that to happen, she's "going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." You, as an individual and a parent, don't matter to her. Don'

    • So then why don't you buy the game? I don't see why we have to let kids buy games like Grand Theft Auto. If the parents know their kids can handle it, then let them buy it and give it to their kid. I don't see the big deal here. If you want to see/rent an R movie and you're too young, you have to have a consenting adult with you. What's the diff?
  • by paulthomas (685756) * on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:45PM (#15463849) Journal
    ... the republicans and the democrats are two sides of the same coin.

    It makes no sense to differentiate between the two anymore. Sure there are "polarizing issues" -- like them god damn queers and whatever else is on the docket today -- but for the most part it is fairly certain that regardless of a given particular cause, the cause itself seems to be a restriction on individual liberty.
  • by chrisxkelley (879631) <chrisxkelley.gmail@com> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:46PM (#15463852) Journal
    Ridiculous. Cant we let the parents do the parenting? It's really their responsibility for watching what their kids are doing, not the governments.
    • I think the current idea with government is to see how big we can get it until it either a) implodes, or b) somehow becomes self-aware.

      On-topic: I agree wholeheartedly. This type of policy only makes parents less and less accountable for their childrens' actions. It reminds me of the novel Brave New World: the concept of "family" and "parent" is becoming erased.
    • by Trogre (513942)
      So you'd have no objections to hard-core porn and Iraqi executions being broadcast on free-to-air TV and printed in newspapers then?

      After all, you can always turn it off, right?

    • by Keebler71 (520908) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @10:33PM (#15464393) Journal
      Ridiculous. Cant we let the parents do the parenting? It's really their responsibility for watching what their kids are doing, not the governments.

      Odd,... I thought that was exactly what this bill does... it lets parents choose what video games they can play instead of letting the kids or government choose. Kids still have the right to play games under every piece of legislation mentioned. I am curious, should kids be allowed to purchase fireworks, firearms, cigarettes and alcohol too? (note: I am not equating the effect of video games with the others... simply the legality of sales)

    • You sort of need parents to actually parent in order for your plan to work. Sadly, parents (yes, a gross stereotype but bear with me) are more than happy to let the government parent for them. Lawyers and politicians are better parents anyway, according to some.

      Your point is more insightful than many will give you credit for. Where exactly ARE there parents?

      My wife is pregnant with our first child and I'm scared that by the time (s)he grows up, I won't even be given a say. I hope this trend doesn't cont
  • by Pendersempai (625351) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:48PM (#15463861)
    I think the fines and restrictions are totally unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional, but I'm 100% in favor of the studies. We've heard enough about violent and sexual video games warping children and turning them into serial killers; let's shine some light on it. Ultimately it's an empirical question with an accessible truth value. I suspect we'll find that video games do not damage children in any statistically significant way, and I think that'll go a long way to deflating this particular political football. If I'm wrong, and it turns out that video games do damage children, then I'd be first in line to regulate their sale. Either way, we're better off knowing for sure.
    • by NetSettler (460623) <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:01PM (#15463907) Homepage Journal

      If I'm wrong, and it turns out that video games do damage children, then I'd be first in line to regulate their sale.

      The problem is you won't turn out to be right or wrong. You'll be both alleged right and alleged wrong because each side will pay for biased studies. It's not that good science is not done, it's that bad science is done, too.

      See Ron Rivest's very interesting paper on chaffing [mit.edu] and compare his theory of security through what amounts to a formalized and theoretically sound notion of smokescreen with the way the market is going.

      I think in the end it will be something where people make up their minds and we just have to vote and hope. But I would hope we vote for freedom if we're unsure because freedoms lost are hard to get back. There probably is some occasional effect of violence in movies against weak minds, but the effect of lost freedom is not without tangible cost and I weigh the latter more heavily in my own book of public accounting. No scientific survey will ever sort that out.

      For most of us, though, video games still come down to choice. Does letting someone pull a trigger not also let them not pull it? Rather than removing violence, maybe we should focus more on seeing the consequence of violence. In the studies I've chosen to believe (heh), the idea of consequence-free violence is closer to the root of problems than the mere choice of violence.

      The Sims, for example, is full of ways to torture people to death with no consequence to the player. I might argue that practice, bloodless as it is, was worse than a game with guns that lets you rescue a princess or save a hostage or a nation, which some might argue instills basic values.

      And what about movies, which offer no choice but force you to just ride the course. How is this better than sitting in a movie where you want the violence to stop but can't make it stop without leaving the people you came with. At least a video game gives you a choice at each moment.

      It might be kinda cool, actually, if some movies were more videogame-like and you could press a button saying "no more of this kind of scene please" and it would dynamically tone things down for either just you or for the whole of an audience if everyone voted likewise... Then seeing the movie multiple times would give you a different experience every time, too, which would be great for the movie houses...

      • You raise good points. However, the training button (tho theorhetical) might have the effect of stripping the audience of challenge. We are an echo of experience, and without changing and growing thru exposure tend to stagnate. The statis of mire can be seen more an more in mass culture, with the challenging (be it offensive or supporting) becoming more rare, and when it does occur, it is seen as exceptional. Another parrallel can be seen in western cleanliness... where sterile environments do not provi
    • Studies into this kind of thing are a bad idea. Such a thing as "violent tendencies" tends to be fairly subjectivly measured. For example, what might be considered normal in a male, might constitute "violent tendencies" in a female.

      When it comes to video game violence, no doubt increased adrenaline levels will be seen as justification for an outright ban. Despite the fact that such levels could probably be seen after watching a football game.

      What we are seeing here is a classic moral panic. Irrational fears
    • And while we're at it, we should study the effects in countries in like Japan and South Korea, where lots of violent video games are also played, yet they seem to have lower rates of violent crimes than the US. Could it be that we're simply a violent culture and kids pick up on that? Well, let's see, how often are we at war compared to other countries? Maybe our kids wouldn't be so inclined to violence if we weren't so violent ourselves.
  • Consistency (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NetSettler (460623) <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:48PM (#15463862) Homepage Journal

    Recently, watching the Da Vinci Code movie, I marveled at how we have movies that allow PG-13 to contain "disturbing violent images" but only mild sex. There's a lot of sex not in that movie that's in the book. But the violence that was only passing in the book is really graphic in the movie. My conclusion was that the government cares only about limiting sex and not violence. p>

    Now I read here that the government cares about violence in video games. Why not in movies?

    It's the random way in which the government incoherently stabs us with little points of pain rather than ever creating any notion of consistent policy that troubles me way more than just whether they want ratings on video games or not.

    I wouldn't care if they rated all video games heavily for sex and violence, and then left it to the market what to buy. But when they rate some but not all, regulate some but not all, what's the point? The only obvious result I see is the eventual strangulation of all US business by litigation.

    • Why not in movies?

      Because in the movies, you aren't partaking in the violence. So you aren't being encouraged to kill, or maim, and not face consequences. You aren't enjoying killing in movies.

      Not that I agree with this stance. I think it's bull shit. I've played violent video games of all sorts since Wolfenstein 3D came out*, including Doom and the Grand Theft Auto games, and I've yet to kill someone. I haven't even been in a fight in ten years, and I was like thirteen then.

      Of course, I have also consumed
      • Because in the movies, you aren't partaking in the violence. So you aren't being encouraged to kill, or maim, and not face consequences. You aren't enjoying killing in movies.

        A Clockwork Orange [imdb.com]

        Not that I agree with this stance.

        Phew. :)

        I think they should with movies, too. But I think it should be broken into catagories.

        FWIW, I tried this experiment [anotherwayout.com] and it's not all it's cracked up to be. My personal conclusion was that ratings work only because they are vague. The more specific they are

        • I don't know how "This movie has breasts" really gives away the plot. Movies have breasts completely unrelated. "This movie has sex." I wouldn't advocate "The lead in this movie has sex with three women, one man, and a dog" detailed ratings, just a vague "Graphic Violence." "Graphic nudity." I don't know if they still do this, but HBO used to list what each movie contained with letters in their pritned program guide. SSC was Strong Sexual Content. That's about as much as I recall.
    • Did you draw any conclusions based upon it being PG-13 rather than R, PG or G? I think it is a somewhat curious example you chose.

      The MPAA isn't run by the government. It's a volunteer thing. You don't have to rate a movie. Should a movie recieve certain ratings I think there are laws in some places about letting minors in without a parent but that's about the extent of it. The feds don't rate the movies. It happens to be a cartel that is pretty powerful and you'll never get your non-rated movie show

    • Recently, watching the Da Vinci Code movie, I marveled at how we have movies that allow PG-13 to contain "disturbing violent images" but only mild sex. There's a lot of sex not in that movie that's in the book. But the violence that was only passing in the book is really graphic in the movie. My conclusion was that the government cares only about limiting sex and not violence.

      This would be a great point, if your example were based on fact. Neither the book nor the movie are sexual or terribly violent. The
  • by creimer (824291) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @07:49PM (#15463865) Homepage
    Does any of the bills address the Pentagon's usage of video games [americasarmy.com] as a recruitment tool? Last I heard, the military can't even wait for students to get out of middle school before signing them up.
    • Last I heard, the military can't even wait for students to get out of middle school before signing them up.

      That would be because the USA has a massive shortfall in the proportion of its population who can be considered *fit* for military service.

      See if you can get a copy of the CIA world fact book pre-2001, find the section on military manpower and population and do some math.

      It would appear that the USA has *less* than 1% of its total gross population fit for service.

      The worst that any other nation has is
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Oh, whoops, I guess it is.

    Well, I guess the Democrats have to find something to do with their time this year. After all, if they couldn't find something to keep themselves busy, they might have to start taking on the Republicans on things like systematic corruption-- or the process whereby the management of federal departments like FEMA or NASA have now been bungled to the point where they might as well not exist at all-- or the handling of a "War on Terror" that's long since stopped being about any actual
    • The reason congress isn't seriously investigating activities that the press has called "illegal" is because they approved of all of those activities in the first place. Not only that, but the still do approve of them. And not only the republicans support it, so do the democrats. Why would they want to draw attention to the fact that the approved of some politically unpopular programs? You'd be better off if you'd just look at the facts and realize that the democratic party is not now, nor has it ever be
    • I guess I must have missed the press conference where the President admitted he has been breaking the law too. Seems to me he says that it is legal everytime.
  • by DeusExMalex (776652) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:01PM (#15463906)
    Does it seem odd to anyone else that additional laws are typically enacted to make previously criminal offenses even more criminal-y instead of enforcing those laws already enacted (or perhaps punishing the non-enforcement of said laws)? For instance: killing someone is already a crime - does it really need to be extra crime-y if the victim is somehow different from the perp?
  • by sulli (195030) * on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:07PM (#15463922) Journal
    make sure to drink a cup of hot coffee
  • by Stalli0n (921471) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:10PM (#15463933)
    The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emporer has dissolved the council permanently.
  • So the MPAA can "self regulate" movies, but the game industry cant? What a double standard!

    Untill they start jailing parents who take their 7 year olds to an -R- rated movie, they should leave games alone!

    What is the opposite of progress? Congress!

  • Seven coin flips. 128 possible outcomes. 42 of those split five and two and 58 are at *least* that lopsided with toss-up odds. That who-did-more count will mislead the ignorant and irk the rest.
  • Agreement popup (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gary Destruction (683101) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:17PM (#15463953) Journal
    Game makers should just cover their asses and make an agreement/disclaimer that pops up before the game can be played that says,"By pressing the button, you agree that you are playing a game and understand that any violence in the game is for entertainment purposes only. You also agree that the author is not liable for anything detrimental you do in real life as a result of playing this game." Even if people don't read it, at least the game makers won't get in trouble for it.
  • I propose the tag "breadandcircuses" for articles like this.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:23PM (#15463968)
    I've been waving my shotgun around at the slightest noise while cowering behind this upturned dining table for years! For a long time I've been expecting video games to smash my doors down or climb through my windows and anally rape me, but now that the Guvmint is going to spend many hundreds of millions of tax dollars to banish this terror once and for all I can finally take this old blanket off my head at last.
  • If they fine stores for selling 'M' or higher games to minors then kids will just get their older siblings or else their parents to buy them for them.

    In other words, exactly what happens with fines for selling cigarretes to minors right now... it doesn't stop dick.

  • Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, 2006 @08:25PM (#15463973)
    Normally when a blurb like this comes up about 95% of slashdot freaks out and starts screaming "It's the bible beating republicans". Now that the blurb actually points out it's the democrats the posts are suddenly "the problem is both parties!"

    This kind of double standards piss me off. Come on fuckers! Vote em out! Vote em all out! or was the rest of that just bullshit talk because you keep your fucking blinders on when it comes to the democrats? Do you vote on ideals or do you vote on the party line? I think the answer is apparent.
    • Come on fuckers! Vote em out! Vote em all out! or was the rest of that just bullshit talk because you keep your fucking blinders on when it comes to the democrats? Do you vote on ideals or do you vote on the party line? I think the answer is apparent.

      Incredible. So sneeringly condescending, yet so naïve...

      So many of us would love to vote them out. We would gladly cast votes for candidates who don't propose legislation based entirely on the bleatings of focus groups, and who doesn't put popularity a

  • not from the us.

    my question is that when in movies, if it is rated r-18 (restricted as far as it goes for me,) then people watching below the age of 18 are prohibited from doing so. reasons for the restriction may include violence and sex.

    for the video game side, people are saying that there should be no rating (or if there is, mature ratings can be sold to young people.)

    i'm just baffled as why it is ok for the movies and not ok for the games. it can either be the movies and games both ban sale depending
    • In the United States, movie ratings are not law.

      For movies, there is a rating system that theaters and retailers use voluntarily. In other words, at this very moment movies and games are treated exactly the same way in the U.S. Studies have shown that they even have about the same level of enforcement: 65%.

      Yet congress is trying to make a law specifically for video games where none exists for any other media. There are already general content laws (specifically obscenity laws) that apply to all media equ
  • More Grandstanding. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by plasmacutter (901737)
    This stuff never worries me.

    the wedge issues:
    abortion
    race
    gay marriage
    sex and violence on tv
    etc..

    they will never go anywhere because there are always large numbers of people representing each side, but theyre nice little red herrings to drag up and grandstand upon during elections.

    meanwhile, the real issues get swept under the rug so the incompetent can remain in office.
  • Is the parents. Television has long been an electronic babysitter, and video games brought interactivity to the mix. Parents saw it as a blessing.

    Then they went out and bought games for their kids. They had no idea what the games were, nor did they bother to look at the packages, etc. They just saw the green case and did a double-take at the mocha colored images on the package but then thought that little Johnny was worth it. But they missed the rating that's ALREADY on the box. In the case of GTA: San A
  • Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jason1729 (561790) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @09:20PM (#15464139)
    focus on 'informing parents and protecting children' from the alleged dangers of those types of games.

    It would be better to protect children from a knowledge-phobic society first.
  • Who cares? Except for the kids, who don't yet have souls and aren't yet human beings according to the law, these laws don't affect anyone who wants to play their games in peace...
  • Then congress can get down to implimenting the largest LAN party in the DC area during filibusters.

    Live on CSPAN:

    John Gilshore: Colorado (D):"To The senator from Maine - YOU'RE SO PWNED! Noob BIATCH - Boom! Headhshot!"

    George Crawshank: Maine (R):"I move to censure the camping rocket whore from Colorado"
  • Coming soon GTA Washington:
    In a virtual simulation of real world politics, you enter the federal capital of the USA as a blogger/reporter to uncover the corruption taking place in all the three great houses of the federal government.
  • Ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @10:38PM (#15464412)

    As far as I know the video games that include violence and sex are rated for not so young people. People that could find the same stuff on tv without any problem anyways.

    This witch hunt against video games is as stupid as it can get. I for one do not think that violence in video games causes violence in the real world (else I would be a serial killer) I actually think that it is the opposite, violence in the real world is the cause of violence in video games

    • The reason video games are targeted is not because Congress is ignorant. It is also not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing [slashdot.org].

      Video games are targeted because their proponents are mainly young people who are politically ignorant, non-voting wage-slaves who pay taxes and can only cry like babies when the law singles them out. In WoW, you may be a god, but IRL you are a COPPER-TOP like that slur in The Matrix...

  • Eat the fucking children.

    I have some spices and a large grill ready! We don't want their juicy and tender little souls corrupted by video games. Tut tut, pass the tarter sauce. And don't skimp on the baby back ribs.
  • This is a joke. They think it is a way to beat up on a straw man, and look tough. It is also a red herring for the war, which IS SPONSORING MANY CAMPAIGNS [opensecrets.org].

    You should all go join the ACM and support a credible movement for digital freedoms. Also, you [Americans] should all go join a local DFA [dfa-link.com] group so you can pick one of the as**oles closest to you and chip in to get him un-elected. If you sit back and whine, you will force the video game companies to start paying for legislators' political campaigns (to g

  • by m874t232 (973431) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @02:09AM (#15465074)
    While only a small fraction of violent criminals are even familiar with video games, nearly all of them have been exposed to the Bible, a book containing and glorifying torture, genocide, incest, and many other despicable acts. Furthermore, many murderers have explicitly stated that they were motivated by the Bible.

    (I'm only semi-kidding; I think the Bible cannot be banned, and most criminals would be criminal with or without it. But the Bible really is a horrific document and it really has been used to justify more killing that any other single document. And while the Bible contains some parts that promote moral behavior, large parts of it can only be described as abhorrent and reprehensible.)

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...