Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial Entertainment Games

Parents Need To Be Informed 85

Posted by Zonk from the from-the-mouths-of-the-sane dept.
GamerDad writes "Dave Long looks at the recent gaming controversy and lays the blame squarely on the parents. 'If you didn't talk to them about this game before buying it for your child, then you chose to be uninformed and there's nothing myself, the game maker, the retailer or the government can do to help you. The information is out there. In fact, it's right here on GamerDad. Be smarter next time and take a couple minutes to check it out.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parents Need To Be Informed More

Parents Need To Be Informed

Comments Filter:

  • Use common sense and TALK to our kids? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @02:29PM (#13196914)
    Where's the fantastic lawsuit opportunities in THAT? It'll never fly.

  • Right on! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by negative3 ( 836451 )
    Abso-fucking-lutely! I love GTA:SA but would have to be brain damaged to let little kids play it. Whatever happened to parental responsibility?

    • Re:Right on! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @02:44PM (#13197042) Homepage
      Heheh, I actually saw GTA:Vice City sold to a parent once. The clerk quietly explained to her that the game contained violence, picking up prostitutes, shooting cops, etc. She walked over to her 11ish-year-old boy, discussed the matter with him briefly, and bought the game.

      Nice, eh?

      Also, the ESRB needs to establish a firm guideline on disabled content (which is different from "hidden" content that can be enabled through cheats, etc.) Many games have forgotten or ignored content. For example, there were several clean titles based on the classic Doom and Wolf3d engines (Chex Quest, Noah's Ark) etc. These games were very childish, but the horrible Doom monsters - complete with gory deaths - were still packed into the wadfiles. They just never made an appearance in-game. Likewise, games may have localization data or similar left in that may be controversial in different areas.

      The ESRB needs to make a firm policy on the game _data_ as distinct from the game _content_ (content is stuff in the game - data is stuff in the files). Hot Coffee was not physically in the game anywhere - it was physically on the media, but there was no way to access it in-game. The ESRB needs clear guidelines on this.

      The future considerations of the medium may make this more complicated. After all, in the future, technological solutions to problems may involve throwing clothes over nude models (a-la Maya cloth). This may go so far as to include nipples for the purpose of providing headlights. Therefore, a trivial hack would be to remove the clothes.

    • Re:Right on! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sykjoke ( 899173 )
      I used to go hunting when I was a child and haven't killed anyone I know about. Compair that the the unreality of GTA's which is only slightly more interesting movie. What did you do when you were young? stay indoors all day and get mollycoddled by you parents. Gees, most people I went to school with saw no end of horror movies and porn, and I don't believe any of them have ever been arrested for violent behavior or sexual assault.

  • Misplaced critcism... (Score:3, Informative)

    by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Friday July 29, 2005 @02:35PM (#13196967) Journal
    If you bought this game for your son or daughter under the age of seventeen, then you should have known this.

    Yes, but the original rating was M for Mature, meaning anyone under 17 had to have a parent or guardian's permission to have the game. This means it was legal for Rockstar Games to sell the game to minors with permission. However, for explicit sexual content you must be 18 or older. By the description (I haven't seen it myself) it would probably be classified as pornography, making it illegal to sell to minors (it would no longer be up to a permissive guardian). Originally selling the game with an M rating when in fact it could be classified as pornography could actually be a rather serious issue for Rockstar Games.

    • By the description (I haven't seen it myself) it would probably be classified as pornography, making it illegal to sell to minors (it would no longer be up to a permissive guardian).

      Perhaps you should actually see [elliottback.com] it before you pass judgement...

      I think you'll agree that calling this bit-mapped mess 'pornography' is a serious stretch of the term.
      • Those are screenshots of the Hot Coffee unlock, AND a texture mod. Without a texture mod which ADDS the nude skins it's just 2 people dry humping, which last time I checked doesn't count as porno.
        • Does the texture mod actually ADD the nude skins? I was under the impression that they were in a state similar to the minigame. Specifically that they were already included in the game, but wern't used by anything, and that they were simply activated by a 2nd mod.
      • The movie "Sliver" was more pornography than this mod. "Sliver" is rated R not NC-17. The game was effectively rated R and even with the mod(s) still does not have worse content than a R-rated movie.
    • The content was **not accessable** through normal gameplay - it was only accessable via modding.

      Classifying this as pornography is like saying that Pocahontas should be classified as pornography, because some clever video editing can remove that leather dress. The modded game is not the same as the game as sold, it is a different game.

      The whole charade is ridiculous.

      • The modded game is not the same as the game as sold, it is a different game.

        I think that's a valid point, but it has nothing to with Dave Long's complaining that parents should have somehow deduced the presence of the unlockable content from the box labels.

    • ... it would probably be classified as pornography...

      Having seen the original mini-game as unlocked from the original media (NOT the modified textures that are also being distributed), only the most Puritanical of local laws could deem this pornographic. It's fully clothed dry humping. That's all.

      By movie standards, it'd be PG-13 using actual actors.
    • Yeah, I have zero sympathy for the politicians who are blowing this way, way, way out of proportion, but a patronizing dismissal of parents as lazy and uninformed is equally stupid.

      The issue is content that is not acknowledged as being in the game! Whether or not you think Rockstar should be criticized over it, it's difficult to see how any parent should reasonably have known it was there.

    • RTFA. Your point is valid, but is addressed in the article. You should be angry at Rockstar for breaking the rules. By making the ESRB look like a bunch of bumbling fools, it has completely undermined the entire ratings system and the good will that it had generated up to now...If you undermine the ratings though, how will I ever be able to make a decision whether that game is suitable for me or my family? How can I possibly be informed? I think you and the author agree more than you think.

      My additional
    • Actually, it is quite legal to sell the game to minors, of any age. Please do not mistake the ESRB "recommendation" for a binding legal requirement.

      The ESRB ratings are there to aid guardians in deciding whether a game is appropriate for their ward.

      But you are right, if it was in fact pornography, R* could be in some deep doo-doo. Not likely though, since there are far worse (or better depending on perspective ;) depictions of nudity in R-rated movies.

  • More like "ObviousDad". (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) * on Friday July 29, 2005 @02:42PM (#13197022)
    So parents should assume responsibility for the entertainment their kids consume? Duh.

    Really, worrying about videogames should be the bottom of your list. Your kids will encounter far worse influences and situations and threats just going to school every day. Kids aren't stupid. I remember being a kid and tits never warped me or turned me into a sadistic sex fiend (something else is to blame for that). Violent games and television didn't turn me into Manson or a highway sniper. Have some common sense and realize that your kids understand media far better than you ever will and your fears are baseless and stupid.

    Seriously, what videogame out there has or could turn any normal kid into a sadistic killer or something, unless he's a fucking deranged ass from a totally dysfunctional and useless family in the first place? Getting a divorce or smacking your spouse around does a million times the damage to a kid that every ounce of television and videogame violence and sex combined could ever do.
    • Easy. The younger you are, the more you will be affected by the game. Younger children have a harder time distinguishing reality from fantasy. Some people are ahead of the maturity curve, others are behind.

      I am not calling for banning of any game. But saying these kind of things "should be at the bottom of my worry list" isn't true. As will all media, I screen what is appropriate for the age group. I am also careful not to oversanitize... when the kids are 18, they can do whatever they want. If I haven't al
      • Younger children have a harder time distinguishing reality from fantasy.

        Are you like... 80 years old or something?! Unless you're letting your two year old play Singles, nobody is going to be confused about what is reality. Do you seriously know any kids who are old enough to speak full sentences who can't distringuish a cartoon from a movie from the news from reality?!

        I mean, really - before we start going around talking about how it's so impossible for kids to differentiate what is real and what isn't, ho
        • When I speak of reality v fantasy, I am not talking just "Grover is not a real person", I am talking about realizing that certain behaviors that are exhibited on TV are not appropriate to the "real world". Whether you like it or not, young people have a harder time with impulse control, and many of these impulses are influenced through the media they watch. Seeing Jackie Chan beat up "the bad guy" is cool on TV. Not cool in real life. And have you NEVER tried something stupid you saw on TV when you were a k
          • I don't know . . . As a still 20-something who remembers being a little kid, I don't think kids have the difficulty of grasping things that we think they do. Sure, when you're ten years old, you might not realize the lack of reality with regard to certain elements - but children know right from wrong. They know know when something is obviously dangerous or deadly or flat-out wrong. We're not talking about kids misunderstanding rocket-science or astronomy here.

            If kids were really that stupid and impressionab
            • I think, like a lot of other things, it can be described by a bell curve. There are a small percentage of people who will turn out bad no matter how good of an environment they come from. There are a small percentage of people who will shine no matter what circmstances they come from.

              As you mentioned in the original post, violent parents, divorce etc do a lot more to shift the curve than simulated violence on TV. One thing I really wonder... as entertainment becomes more immersive, does its influence increa
        • I know of a few that hve trouble distinguishing reality to a point.

          ex 1: wrestling real vs fake. I had arguments into highschool about that one (in fact I be tthe person still thinks it is real)

          ex 2: own strength vs professionals. I have an uncle that in a fund raiser paid $20.00 to fight a boxer for a minute (one of the big namesforget who). He said he was getting beet up but thought he was holding his own and very proud. 5 seconds fromt eh end of the time he hears "bite hard" and the next thing he reme
  • Look, I agree that the parents need to do a better job of protecting their children from extreme imagery, but, lets face it, there's plenty of blame to go around.

    Maybe the game developers can make thier games a little less, oh I don't know, in-your-face about the violence and stuff? I mean, GTA was okay with that, but Manhunt? Manhunt, rockstar? Do we really need a game who's basis is to sneak up behind people and kill them in hideously ghastly ways?

    The government could get involved in helping to make s

    • man this takes me back..

      My parents were worried about Simons quest because it contained undead and vampires.

      They worried about D&D. They worried about might and magic.

      but they had no problem with hockey or football games, even mutant league games where you could kill people.

      I'm making it my new mission to make nude sex hacks for every game out there. I want to stop the gaming industry in its tracks.
    • Maybe the game developers can make thier games a little less, oh I don't know, in-your-face about the violence and stuff? I mean, GTA was okay with that, but Manhunt? Manhunt, rockstar? Do we really need a game who's basis is to sneak up behind people and kill them in hideously ghastly ways?

      You mean like say any other first person shooter out there that gets T or M ratings, where you run around and shoot people in the face with shotguns? Also keep in mind, Manhunt was rated and released to stores. If s
    • Game developers should be free to make whatever game they want. Regulating creation of games is stupid and probably unconstitutional.

      Re: Manhunt. Yeah, Rockstar needed to make a game who's basis is to sneak up and kill people. People bought it, played, and enjoyed it. It was a game, people had fun.

      Fines: sure, fine people for selling video games to people underage for the rating. Just be sure to do the same damn thing with movies, cds, books and magazines. I can't wait to get carded every time I buy a new g
      • 1: Not talking about regulation. Talking about good taste. Its this little thing that every company except for Rockstar seems to have.

        2: Yes, all industries should be treated the same. And I'll gladly whip out my ID if it keeps some twelve year old kid from watching someone's head get torn off in front of their eyes.

        Especially if it'll ease off political pressure.

        3: Are you a 60 year old woman? No? Then I'm not talking about you. If it seems like the purchase is not for the buyer, then maybe the emplo

        • 1: Good taste is very subjective. Pushing the limit usually results in new and exciting games. No one forces people to buy and play these games. People buy and play these games because they are fun and entertaining.

          2: Your tolerance for annoyance must be much higher than mine. I don't think it would be so bad to do this in reality. As long as the fines and fees are more inline with selling cigs or beer to minors.

          3: The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 9.5 years. The average
          • Additonally:
            Ninety-two percent of parents surveyed who have children under the age of 18 said they monitor the content of the computer and video games their children play.

            You're talking about annoying 92% of parents who already monitor the content of games for their children to cover the responsibility of the 8% who don't. And quite frankly, game-selling-retail-person is not going to make much of a difference to the 8% of parents who don't monitor what 'little johnny' is playing.
    • Do we really need a game who's basis is to sneak up behind people and kill them in hideously ghastly ways?

      Yes, because I am an adult and enjoy such entertainment. However, I also enjoy Bomberman DS and Puyo Pop Fever which I like more than most violent games and would recommend for the kids.

      • However, I also enjoy Bomberman DS and Puyo Pop Fever which I like more than most violent games and would recommend for the kids.

        Bomberman? Not violent? Am I missing something here?

        Don't get me wrong, I love Bomberman, I've been playing Bomberman games since I was a kid, and I'm a peaceful young man. It's not going to turn anyone into the Unabomber [somethingawful.com]. But seeing as the basic premise of the game is to run around blowing shit up with bombs, I'm thinking "nonviolent" is not the best description.

    • Show of hands: How many people here have convinced mommy and daddy to pick up an M rated game for them when they were under 17?

      Not me. Never asked my parents to buy me games, I always got them from friends or the net :-P

      The difference is that my parents taught me the difference between REALITY and FANTASY and knowing i'm mature enough to handle the games i'm playing. Hell, my dad finished Doom1 on nightmare (and he was over 45 at time).
      Want to protect your child from getting hurt? Expose them to the dangers
    • I've never gotten upset at a post before but this time I risk the bad karam because the parent poster is a fucking retard.

      It's not the job of the government or any corporation to raise your children. Corporations jobs are to make money, and if people will buy violent sexual games then let them. Kids can't just go into any store and buy an M rated video game, regardless of the fact that a store might be willing to sell it to them. See you miss the point that the child has to get the money for the purc
      • All you idiots that think you can have a child and let it raise it self should fucking be shot by children with guns. Why? Because you are the fucking idiots that allow children to get ahold of firearms. And stop blaming your stupid mistakes in raising children on your parents mistakes. Take some responsibility people.

        I couldn't agree more. Most of the people who have the capacity to make babies shouldn't be making them, because they haven't grown up themselves. I'm not talking about teenage pregnancy
      • "It's not the job of the government or any corporation to raise your children."

        "If the goverment has to get involved it should be through Child Protective Services by taking the child away from these unfit parents that facilitate the purchasing of unfit material for thier children."

        Blatant contradiction. If you require the children to raise their kids without help, then deal with the consequences.

        Plus, it is the guardians who are responsible for raising their children. Is it too much to ask for

        • "It's not the job of the government or any corporation to raise

          your children."

          "If the goverment has to get involved it should be through Child Protective Services by taking the child away from these unfit parents that facilitate the purchasing of unfit material for thier children."

          "Blatant contradiction. If you require the children to raise their kids without help, then deal with the consequences. "

          Actually there is no contridiction. If you read carefully you will relize that in the second once t

          • So, the state can go in and take children away from their parents if they disagree with the way the children are raised? How is that not forcing moral standards upon people? Where do you draw the line on acceptable parenting? What if I think it's totally fine for my kids to see nudity and sexual content when they are 14?

            Second, it's not any companies and/or goverments job to decide what is or is not moraly appropriate for someone elses children.

            Reread your parent post, you don't even have to read
            • This will clear it things up. What I am saying is the government should stay out of how children are raised (with the obvious exception being if the parents are causing actual physical harm or commiting illegal acts, and yes I realize there are laws that govern some moral issues but that's outside this topic). But if a parent up and tries to blam a company for supplying thier children with material the parents consider unfit for thier children then the children should be taken away because the parents are
              • Good luck with that.

                Seriously, I agree that parents are responsible and should not expect companies or the government to control the content their child see.

                However, I think disclosure of contents would be very helpful, without being intrusive. I know several single parents working two jobs, who simply do not have the time to preview everything their children see.

                • "I think disclosure of contents would be very helpful, without being intrusive."

                  My point is, how much do the companies have to disclose. Seriously I could claim I am offended by the color Red and the game I bought for my child contains that color but it was not disclosed in the warning. To be fair the GTA:SA warning would have to say. "Contains digital images of interacial, clothed, dry humping." Because seriously some people may be more offended by the interacial part than anything else. Where does it
                  • Obviously, there need to be some standards for disclosure. Which is why we have the ESRB. All I ask is that companies are honest and give full disclosure of media they publish.

                    What happens when one parent of a child dies, as is the case for two of my friends? Again, you are making assumptions without thinking through the ramifications. Does the state then come in, seize the child, and sterilize the living parent?

                    I believe people who post inanely should have their hands amputated and their eyes poked
                    • Don't worry I have a lot more statements that you will consider incendiar, I mean Mandatory Sterilization is a pretty mild comment. So while I'm on a roll allow me to continue.

                      I had a long retort to your comment but then I realized you obviously think it is ok to neglect your children so there really is now way of explaining the importance or parental guidance and involvment. Yes I beleive a neglected child (which includes one that can play things like GTA with out the parents knowing the content) shoul
                    • I did not say that it is OK to neglect your children. But, given limited time in which to raise your children, I think society could help a parent not neglect their children by making sure content is appropriately labeled. Then parents could dedicate more time to interacting with their children, teaching them, and preparing them to be good people.

                      And yes it is true I beleive it is our societies job (AKA The Government) to protect current and future children from abusive (neglect is abuse) parents.

                      On
                    • If you find this disturbing then certianly check out one of my other contriversal post here:
                      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139334&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=155&mode=thread&cid=1166406 0/ [slashdot.org]
                      Follow the whole thread from there down, I left some people speachless.

                      Then parents could dedicate more time to interacting with their children, teaching them, and preparing them to be good people.

                      Thanks for making my argument for me, I appriciate it. I was saying in the very begining t

    • The parents have to do a lot of things. Maybe the other people involved could, *gasp*, make their jobs a bit easier! Some fault does lie with them, but not all of it...

      So to make their lives easier, you're suggesting that some products that you have decided are inappropriate (like Manhunt) be removed from shelves, despite the fact that some adults want the game and are mature enough to handle it? To make parent's lives easier you want to increase government meddling in free speech issues? To make parent

    • "Maybe the game developers can make thier games a little less, oh I don't know, in-your-face about the violence and stuff? I mean, GTA was okay with that, but Manhunt? Manhunt, rockstar? Do we really need a game who's basis is to sneak up behind people and kill them in hideously ghastly ways?"

      Did you even play the game?

      Manhunt was a game where instead of a knight in shining armor, you are a anti-hero. For a film example of an anti-hero see the film Payback or even I suppose Kill Bill.

      In Manhunt you are a co

  • There is no way any parent has anyone to blame but themselves if they purchase questionable content for their kids. I mean, the game is freaking called Grand Theft Auto! You know? As in, the crime of grand theft auto?!? What the hell did you think it was going to be about? Puppies and sunshine?! And then these people have the gall to bring the publishers to court over their stupid purchase?

    I don't know what's worse: that parents expect someone else to do their job for them in this day and age, or that

    • I mean, the game is freaking called Grand Theft Auto! You know? As in, the crime of grand theft auto?!?

      Actually, for a long time (all the up til Vice City) I thought the game mostly involved having to find creative ways to steal cars. Little did I know that only cop cars are equipped with locks in GTA, and all you need do is walk up, yank anyone out, and drive around for a little bit before the Alzheimers-afflicted police forget about you.

  • The statement was: have each parent go to Gamer Dad and check things out. Why would the average non-techie know of the existence of Gamer Dad? Not exactly as well known as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or Consumer Reports. No, if there was porno on the disk, no matter that it had to be unlocked with a publicly available key, it was mislabled and parents wouldn't know. There should be consequences since parents should have the ability to guide their children and that wasn't possible in this cas
  • I had a sitdown with GamerDad a little while back, covering parents, gamers and ESRB:

    http://cathodetan.blogspot.com/2005/07/interview-w ith-gamerdad.html [blogspot.com]
  • I think we have found the first sign of intelligence on the Internet! How long before it takes over?
  • from http://ncnewsonline.com/story.asp?id=11722 [ncnewsonline.com] (reg. required):

    Editor, The News:

    Recently, a modification known as "Hot Coffee" was released on the Internet that allowed a user to access illicit material in the video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

    The developer, Rockstar Games, had left this material in the game but had made it totally inaccessible to the player in any way through the game. The modification permits the player to access a brief sex scene (using in-game player models, not a movie) that
  • There is plenty of blame to go around, and you can't just throw it at one group. Yes, the parents are to blame for letting their kids get the game. But so what, the store still sold it to the kids. And the company is to blame for marketing the games to the kids.

    This isn't as clear cut as you people want it to be.
    • The only way that any parent has even close to a valid claim of blamelessness:

      1) The store sold the game directly to a kid, with no adult present. Or, another adult stood in and provided the "adult supervision" the store required.

      2) The parent regularly monitors the movies/games/music/etc. that the child consumes, and never once witnessed them playing this game. I.e., the kid hid it from the parent.

      If one of those is not satisfied, then the parent must take some blame. They weren't involved enough. But
  • If this were the great firewall of china everyone would be up in arms, this smacks of one rule for the rest of the world and one for the children. I remember being a child, I used to go out shooting with friends (and no adults), I saw my fair share of porn and violent and horrific movies. Has it turned me into a violent oppressive adult, or and adult who can see the oppression of the freedom of out youth. If you can't take it, then go to Church, but don't force you discriminatory opinions on everyone else

  • parents are informed (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Parents ARE informed, there was a uk study to that ponit a few weeks ago. They know the ratings and what they mean, but they largely do not care.
  • I agree that parents should be the custodians of their own children. The fact is that "concerned" men of influence in times past have noted that, due to the effects of corporate massified America, parents are no longer suitable guardians for their children. Hence the rise of parens patriae in the United States; the government now owns and is responsible for children (this is why kids can be forced to go to school, can be taken from incompentent parents and placed with others, and also why children will sh
    • Thank you! Thank you for outing one of the key underlying causes of this sort of circular logic and the politics that perpetuate it. This is just another symptom of the lack of self-ownership that is forced upon us (taken from us?) by the state. Personally I believe many of our societal problems and litiguous nature trace back directly to the concept of the state as the owner of its citizens. If we are more or less constantly bombarded with the concept that we do not own ourselves and control our personal l

  • There's no need to argue (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Parents just don't understand.
  • Game makers, don't say on the boxes or on the commericals what the content is.

    To say it's all the parents or the makers fault isn't the complete story, both sides are at fault here. Why can't a game maker say what is in the frickin' game? Saying it's on a review at a website isn't good enough, they need to publish on the game whats in the game. Parents need to have access to the content so they can say yea or nay.
    • Mod Parent down. The TV Commerical shows a guy walking with a rocket launcher, stripers, a fight, cops chasing someone and a car being blown up. I think that's a pretty good representation of whats in GTA:SA.
      • "The TV Commerical shows a guy walking with a rocket launcher, stripers, a fight, cops chasing someone and a car being blown up."

        Yea, because TV commericals are a good representation of whats in a game and the parents had to see them right?

        BS, game should have on the box whats in it, if HBO or Showtime have TV MA Adult Language, Rape, Violence, Strong Sexual Content, then game publishers need to as well, on the box. My PS/2 copy of GTA SA doesn't.

    • Re:The Problem... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The back of the box has a giant "M" on it. It also says:

      STRONG VIOLENCE,GORE
      STRONG LANGUAGE
      STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT
      (it might also say DRUG USE)

      (not verbatum, but thats the gist)

      What more should parents need? What part of STRONG SEXTUAL CONTENT dosnt someone understand?

      It IS the parents fault. Period.
  • In otherwords, this is a way of telling the soccer moms of the world to fsck off and die.
  • Information on these games should be more readily available than it is. They should understand what they are buying before they do so. Many times I have seen parents buying games for the children when in reality they have no ideas what it is that they are purchasing. These people should be shot. By not using a little intelligence and looking at what they are buying they are causing a large amount of pain for those of us that are old enough/mature enough to play these games. On the other hand, some things
  • An acquaintance of mine wrote a more colorful version [livejournal.com] of Long's article. I heartily agree with both.
  • I always tell parents that the game they're buying for their kid is rated M for Mature due to [blood, gore, violence, sexual themes, drug use, etc]. Nine times out of ten, they tell me they don't like it, but their kid already played it. What the hell kind of excuse is that? I've told parents flat-out that GTA: SA is quite possibly the worst game that they could be buying for their kids, yet they still use that excuse. I blame the parents as well, because they are ultimately the ones who can control wha
  • To many parents are relying on Video Nanny (TV, Video Games, etc.) to keep there children occupied and out of there hair. This is a problem that needs to be addressed at the parents and not at the TV, Movie, and Video Game companines. Not everything can be Barny and Sememe Street friendly. Just becase its sold at Wal-Mart does not mean its safe for kids.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close