I don't think a blanket statement can be made that there is no connection between acts of violence and violent video games. My argument is that advertisers are projected to spend 500 billion dollars this year worldwide. About 170 billion in the U.S. alone. This money would not be spent if advertising did not affect the behavior of some of the people that are exposed to it. The argument "I played Mortal Combat and I've never killed anyone" doesn't sway me. Millions of people see advertisements for cigarettes but have never smoked. But there is a subset of the population that does smoke due to the influence of the ads. Regarding violence, I venture to say that violent video games influence a subset of the game playing population to commit acts of violence. It is likely a miniscule number, but a "number" nonetheless.
I am the Treasurer of a small library in Indiana. I've wondered for some time now if our internet service is a boondoggle.
We have about 40 computers between staff and public use. Our peak internet usage is usually after school when students use our WiFi with their school issued iPads. We contract with ENA Services of Knoxville, TN for "10mb Egress" internet service. The cost is $2215 per month. The federal government, through the E-Rate program, covers 80% of the cost. In addition, we get a state grant that covers about 70% of the remainder. The bottom line is that our library pays $125 per month for a service that costs $2215 per month.
The $2215 per month sounds outrageous to me. Is this a fair rate? Is the federal government being gouged? Are there sweetheart deals involved? Verizon, ATT and others provide 10-15mb service to small businesses in our area for $100-$200 per month. Am I comparing oranges to oranges? Am I missing something? I would appreciate advice and thoughts from anyone on this board that has expertise in this area.
I'm an occasional visitor to TechDirt. Even so I've noticed that you are quite vociferous. Maybe you were neglected as a child and crave attention. Anyway, do you think that there should be any limits to government intrusion into individual's lives?
With internet access we are seldom speaking of a competitive market. The consumer is lucky to have two providers to choose from. Seriously, how hard are these companies competing? You can see a similar situation with cell phones. For example, rates for text messaging are completely out of whack with their actual cost to the phone companies. If there was real competition the rates would drop closer to cost. The same thing is happening with internet access. Monopoly conditions are no more efficient than government regulated ones for the consumer. Usually they are worse.
I have my doubts
I don't think a blanket statement can be made that there is no connection between acts of violence and violent video games. My argument is that advertisers are projected to spend 500 billion dollars this year worldwide. About 170 billion in the U.S. alone. This money would not be spent if advertising did not affect the behavior of some of the people that are exposed to it. The argument "I played Mortal Combat and I've never killed anyone" doesn't sway me. Millions of people see advertisements for cigarettes but have never smoked. But there is a subset of the population that does smoke due to the influence of the ads. Regarding violence, I venture to say that violent video games influence a subset of the game playing population to commit acts of violence. It is likely a miniscule number, but a "number" nonetheless.
Public Library Internet Costs
I am the Treasurer of a small library in Indiana. I've wondered for some time now if our internet service is a boondoggle.
We have about 40 computers between staff and public use. Our peak internet usage is usually after school when students use our WiFi with their school issued iPads. We contract with ENA Services of Knoxville, TN for "10mb Egress" internet service. The cost is $2215 per month. The federal government, through the E-Rate program, covers 80% of the cost. In addition, we get a state grant that covers about 70% of the remainder. The bottom line is that our library pays $125 per month for a service that costs $2215 per month.
The $2215 per month sounds outrageous to me. Is this a fair rate? Is the federal government being gouged? Are there sweetheart deals involved? Verizon, ATT and others provide 10-15mb service to small businesses in our area for $100-$200 per month. Am I comparing oranges to oranges? Am I missing something? I would appreciate advice and thoughts from anyone on this board that has expertise in this area.
Specifics?
What limits do you favor? Are you OK with government reading of private communications without judicial oversight?
Re:
I'm an occasional visitor to TechDirt. Even so I've noticed that you are quite vociferous. Maybe you were neglected as a child and crave attention. Anyway, do you think that there should be any limits to government intrusion into individual's lives?
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
Sounds like the stock and commodity markets to me.
With internet access we are seldom speaking of a competitive market. The consumer is lucky to have two providers to choose from. Seriously, how hard are these companies competing? You can see a similar situation with cell phones. For example, rates for text messaging are completely out of whack with their actual cost to the phone companies. If there was real competition the rates would drop closer to cost. The same thing is happening with internet access. Monopoly conditions are no more efficient than government regulated ones for the consumer. Usually they are worse.
Ron & Fez .......... by far
... by the way, Howard Stern sounds more like he's a guest on his own show. He lets Robin dominate and she says very little that I care to hear.