Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - The Video game issue supreme court case Transcript

Kc_spot writes: "As you all well know the Supreme Court heard arguments over weather or not California could in fact ban violent video games from sale to minors (strictly those younger than 18). Here is the transcript of the hearing. No ruling will be decided upon until June 2011(I heard..) Enjoy..."

Submission + - Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Video Game Case (itworld.com)

itwbennett writes: On Tuesday the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case that would make it illegal to sell 'ultra-violent' video games to minors in California — a law that was passed in 2005 and was immediately challenged and granted a temporary injunction. Early reports from inside the courtroom seem to indicate the Court will side with the video game industry, but obviously we won't know for certain until we hear the final ruling. Regardless of which side you're on, there's some good news to be had, says blogger Peter Smith: 'The Supreme Court Justices seemed to know what they were talking about' and 'asked questions that showed they were familiar with the medium of video games.'

Comment Re:My #1 beef with these moves is... (Score 1) 342

I need to read more... a hundred times this... also I'm in class and a got a good discussion, and we got to this... "Because of the GTA 4 mod having to need to have the user hack it, essentially you would have ban all video games." Because you can modify any game to show boobs, anyone could DL those mods and we would have a lot of rule 34 running around. Yes, I know that would mean that most of everyone would have to be DL/modding games maliciously, but the point remains that since anyone with video game programing skills could hack/distribute these mods, games are subject to general ban. (I'd LOVE to congress try it to see all the nerds rage... including me)

Comment Re:I must be a threat to public safety then! (Score 1) 342

I guess what it is then is that we all have violent tendencies to deal with... and video games/movies are how we deal with that... though I'd like to see what would happen if you allow a full-fledged gang-member watch or play something violent... would it truly push him to do more violent things? or discourage it? ...that's my thought anyway.
Google

Submission + - Google Opposes Government-Mandated Sorting 2

theodp writes: Q. How are a 2-year-old and Google alike? A. Both throw public tantrums when they don't get their way. Google has accused California of rigging the bidding process for a $60MM e-mail contract in Microsoft's favor. Google unsuccessfully asked state officials to level the playing field by changing or removing 142 of the state's contract requirements, many of which involved functions that Gmail isn't designed to perform. Among other things, Google complained about having to duplicate Microsoft Outlook's ability to sort e-mails alphabetically, insisting that government workers would be 'more effective' if they instead searched for specific messages. So, do the 'the smartest people in the industry' have a valid point, or is this another case of when you've got a (search) hammer, everything looks like a nail?
Firefox

ISP Is Bypassing Firefox's Location Bar Search 385

It was only a matter of time before ISPs began doing more than just redirecting failed DNS requests to their own pages. An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the largest ISP in Hong Kong has started bypassing search results from Firefox's location bar (which typically uses Google), forcing their own search provider (yp.com.hk) onto their users. ... Can an ISP just start re-directing search traffic at will?"
Image

Study Finds Fast-Food Logos Make You Impatient Screenshot-sm 122

A study conducted by the University of Toronto has found that exposure to fast-food logos can cause people to feel impatient and make them more likely to buy things. Subjects in the study were exposed to nearly imperceptible flashes of images (for 12 to 80 milliseconds) which included fast-food logos for some. The subjects were then asked to read about and choose between two different kinds of skin-care treatments, one of which was a three-in-one. Those who had the logos flashed before them read "significantly faster" and chose the more time-saving skin product. From the article: "The researchers concluded 'fast food, originally designed to save time, can have the unexpected consequence of inducing haste and impatience' and 'preference for time-saving products when there are potentially other important aspects upon which to choose a product.' So, basically, driving past a McDonald's on the highway has the potential to not only make you drive faster, it will make you more likely to buy two-for-one Pantene Pro-V Shampoo and Conditioner the next time you go to Duane Reade. One, it seems, is considerably less ominous than the other." I guess this explains why my nephews will chew on their seat belts and try to get out the windows just to be first into the McDonald's Playland.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...