Jul 30th 2009 7:44PM Sure they can, if it's part of the agreement under which you bought the device. I don't know the particulars about the Kindle, but if part of the conditions of the seller (i.e. Amazon) selling the device to you is that they will have the ability to remotely access your device to perform certain actions then by purchasing the device you are agreeing to these terms; your alternative is to buy a different product.
Unless there's already some existing regulation that is applicable in this instance, which may be (there are countless regulations), in which case taking it to court is reasonable.
Jul 20th 2009 12:25AM That is a very good question. I'm curious about that myself now.
Jul 20th 2009 12:23AM I believe the graphics have been "stylized" intentionally to be a little more on the cartoony side than photorealistic. If I remember correctly Bioware said this was done to create a certain feel, but more than likely the decision was mostly driven by a need to lower the hardware requirements so as to be playable by a larger audience. I'm all for that if it means the game has a greater chance of being successful in the long run, even though I'd personally prefer it to look less cartoony and more realistic.
Jun 2nd 2009 9:45AM I don't understand how you can fear that someone will manage to "hack" this and introduce behaviors that don't already exist in code, or add anatomy to a model that doesn't already exist (you don't think game characters have genitalia, do you?). That's one pretty massive hack - practically to the point of being a full blown mod. It's not as easy as you might think, especially on the very much closed ecosystem that is a game console. It's not impossible, but it's certainly not inevitable.
No amount of "training" any child molester can attempt will override the single most important factor in preventing abuse - an attentive guardian. Nor would it likely even aid in overcoming the second most important factor - teaching a child to avoid strangers (even though more than 99% of all people that would be a stranger to one's child poses no danger).
It's fears like yours that have little-to-no basis in reality but extremely dire consequences that cause nations to ban games because of violence in the wake of school shootings and people like Jack Thompson to have a soapbox from which to sputter nonsensical rhetoric. Obviously posting on this website means you enjoy and appreciate games and (likely) gaming culture, but you gotta keep things in perspective lest you let outrageous, unfounded fears blow them out of proportion.
Speaking of Jack Thompson, I think we should create a pool on when he starts making the claims that this is a "child predator trainer" because I wouldn't put it past him.
Jun 1st 2009 7:30PM Wolfmother!! They alone made the video excellent!
May 30th 2009 3:53AM @kitrine
If you're brand new to the game it'll auto patch before you even get that far, so if you're the type that's inclined to read that stuff it'd all be new to you. I imagine it's easier to keep it that way than track what version a person has (in case they've been away for multiple patches), patching, then figuring out what all has changed between their previous version of the EULA and the newest one.
Also, I think it changes less often than the game is patched and agreeing to it again is only necessary because the software itself has changed.
May 30th 2009 3:35AM Wes,
How about this: if a kid is growing up cursing every other word, then perhaps their parents should tell them to be more respectful? Or if you're one of those people who don't think parents bear the brunt of responsibility for their development of their child, how about next time you hear someone talking like that you tell them they sound unintelligent and speaking that way hurts the overall representation of their nation's people across the globe?
If you truly think those are valid arguments, try doing something about it yourself rather than asking dear Daddy Government to pass a law to force your misguided beliefs on everyone else.
There's no good argument in support of censorship. Controlling how people talk, which is an extension of trying to control how people think and behave, goes against everything that being human is all about. Free will doesn't always grant us the means, but it does always grant us the ability to think and--in the absence of someone trying to take exercise control over us--speak for ourselves.
If you want a good reason why people should put more thought into how they speak, reference George Carlin. He said, "People think in words." If you want to improve your quality of thought, improve your quality of language. Whether or not someone wants to improve their quality of thought, however, is, and should always, be up to them and not some government agency.
May 30th 2009 12:39AM Hey now, I disagree with him as vehemently as most (sane) people, but that's just going too far. [ - ] for you.
May 30th 2009 12:38AM @blakecr
That's idiotic. Despite the claims of the video poster, that does not at all represent the ideals of the majority of Libertarians. We don't want *no* federal government (note the word *federal*, I'm assuming you know the different between state and federal government), just one operating within its constitutional bounds. There is a world of difference. If you truly think that's what Libertarianism represents, you're very poorly informed.
May 30th 2009 12:31AM @blakecr
Maybe you need to get off the college campuses and talk to real Libertarians. You'd have to have no idea what Libertarianism is truly about if you believe that's who we really are. I won't deny there are people like that out there, but they represent the minority of Libertarians.
Libertarianism is about self-governance. It's about promoting individual liberties to their fullest extent. Legalization of marijuana is important because the act of smoking pot in the privacy of one's own home is almost never, ever harmful to anyone except the person doing the smoking.
Oh sure, it makes people lazy and parents who get high all the time might not take care of their kids. Well, under Libertarianism neglect would still be a crime since your actions would be directly impacting the life, and therefore the liberties, of another.
People will get high and start driving around on the roads like a maniac! Well, we already have DUI laws (some of which are extreme). Driving while under the influence of marijuana would be no different than driving under the influence of alcohol; the reason being that if your driving is impaired, under any substance, you pose a risk to others. No real Libertarian would want to be rid of (all) DUI laws.
And there's not a single Libertarian I've ever read who supports pirating entertainment. Anyone you know who claims to be a Libertarian and supports piracy is a liar, an idiot, or both. Piracy is digital theft; it's not exactly akin to physical theft like some commercials would like to make you believe, but it is theft all the same. No real Libertarian supports theft, whether physical or digital (though they may support changes in software licensing...but that's not the same thing).
If you want to learn more about Libertarianism, check out www.Reason.org, or www.cato.org. Both of those sites are really good.