Conference back40::soapbox

 I prefer tortilla chips.

    A good idea?  In a society where probably half of the VCR owners can't
    even set their VCRs' clocks?
    
    A good idea?  So parents can make sure their kids will be over at some
    other kid's house watching Hard Copy?
    
    A good idea?  So parents can abdicate even more of their parental
    responsibility by blaming "violence" on a ratings system like the one
    that hasn't worked to keep children out of R-rated movies?
    
    A good idea?  So other people can tell you what is objectionable to
    you by rating it obscene or violent?
    
    A good idea?  Another governmental camel's nose under the tent wall?
    
    A good idea?  I don't think so.  Or couldn't you tell?

    
    
    It should be the other way around...
    
    It should be some sort of "A-Chip" (for adult) that THEY have to
    purchase at their own expense to see what they want to see... not
    charge everyone else for the privilege of NOT being able to watch.
    

    Excessive Rhetorical Question Alert.

    
      The technology isn't sophisticated enough.  You need real
     pattern recognition, to see and garble ugliness in real time.
    
      bb

    Glad my mirror isn't so equipped.......

    
    
    	Did I miss something?  Could someone please 'splain
    	what this V-Chips thing is?
    
    	Merci.
    

    
    	I must confess that I went to see "Risky Business" at the movies
    	a week before I turned 17.
    
    	And you all know how I turned out.  Don't let this happen to
    	your kids.
    

They're a new health food snack.  They're like potato chips except they're
made from eight different vegetables.  "I coulda had a V-chip!"

    It is another attempt by doo gooders of no particular political stripe
    to try to enforce their morals upon you.  It is a bad idea.  

    
    	If Brian's against it then so am I!!
    
    	But if Battis is against it I might have to change my mind.
    

NYPD Blue  

Currently gets a pg-13 rating. Hopefully with the V-chip it goes to R.

    
    	Dennis Franz showed his butt on national TV, right?  Does this
    	mean you're hoping to see more of him once it gets an "R" rat-
    	ing?
    

    
    
    Oy!!!! Doesn't that belong in the "GAK" topic???
    

    How does one enable or disable a "vchip" ?   Is this kid proof too?

    
    	A V-chip would appear to be a lockout for questionable material.
    
    	Default is "off", IE, no lockout.
    

    
    	And kid-proof?  Hah.
    
    	Parents will be asking their kids to help them with the
    	things, much like they do with their VCR clocks and aspirin
    	bottles now.
    

    >	Dennis Franz showed his butt on national TV, right?  Does this
    >	mean you're hoping to see more of him once it gets an "R" rat-
    >	ing?
    


No, Smits. 


The language is not realistic with a pg 13 rating


PG-13 -  ... You pencil pushin hump...



you can figure the more realistic R version.

    
      Nothing is lockproof.  For example, back when I had 900-number
     phone misuse from resident teenagers, I found out that 900-lockout
     (which I had) was meaningless.  The sleazebags are 800, but can
     talk a teenager through switching to 900 and then charge by the
     minute.  Apparently, the phone company can do nothing about it.
    
      No doubt, the kids will quickly learn to disable V-chips, as they
     all can do today with childproof bottles, lighters, etc.  It's a
     standard part of American growing up to subvert all adult control.
    
      bb

V-chip -

Dumb idea. I'm sick and tired of assisted parenting, whether from
technology, or your government who's here to help.

    
    	Speaking of NYPD Blue, what was this High Incident
    	show that was on last night in it's place?  TV Guide
    	had NYPD Blue but it wasn't on........
    

    
    
    
    It's a good idea...  Its less government!
    
    I predict the future we will have a greater variety of shows and instead
    of the Network Broadcasters editing the shows for violence and adult
    language.
    
    It will be up to homeowner to censor his TV, not the government.
    
    	 

    Stupid idea! I hate it.  Big brother steps in again. 
    
      The people who make 'em claim they cost about $5 to manufacture.
    No doubts they have a juicy contract. 
      I would imagine this is right up Tipper Gore's alley. Gee, she's one
    of my favorite people.  Yeh right-
    Excuse me, I have to be careful, the Central Scrutinizer might be watching.
    Careful out there- somebody's watching you, or telling you what is
    right for you.
    
    z-wolf

	What are the general V-Chip specs?  Does it just blank out the picture
when a program that contains the code comes on or does it give you another
channel?  Can the chips be read back over the cable to see what we are watching?
Does it keep track of what has been watched so that the parents can review it 
later?

	Personally I wouldn't buy it.  On/Off works pretty good.  If children
are watching, watch the children.

	 I get the feeling I'm missin' something here (as usual).  
	 Is this something that people will be forced to use?
	 If not, what's all the stuff about "Big Brother"?
	 It's not just a tool for people who want to review ratings
	 ahead of time?  Sorry I'm not up on this.

Believe it or not, there is precendent for how this will go once V-chip
becomes reality.

When cellphones came to be, cellphone companies realized that many commonly
available receivers, including old TV sets with UHF channels up into the 80s,
could easily eavesdrop on cellphone conversations. Their solution? Get
Congress to make it illegal to listen to radio frequencies broadcast in the
clear, without encryption. This had never happened in peacetime before, at
least that I'm aware of. All previous laws had made only divulging
information so obtained illegal.

The FCC implemented the law in various "type-acceptance" rules. In other
words, for your new scanner to be granted type-acceptance for sale in the US,
it had to block out the cellphone bands. Manufacturers used clever little
tricks to get around the law - open the radio, snip the green wire, all bands
restored. The FCC cracked down, no such tricks allowed after some date.
Scanner buffs started buying from Canadian outlets, where there were no such
laws and the radios weren't blocked. I haven't followed this closely for a
couple years, so I don't know if any further crackdowns occured.

So V-chip will be easily defeatable, maybe through software. Some
Congresscritter will become outraged, a new law will pass, V-chip will become
hardware defeatable. Repeat, V-chip will become undefeatable - remove it,
trash the TV. Canada will make a fortune selling TVs.

    
    It's a printed-circuit board stuffed into every new TV, which was
    mandated by law because Uncle Sam knows how best to control violence
    and things your kiddies shouldn't see.
    
     And it the kiddies find a way to get around it, you can just whack
    them with the wooden spoon...
    

================================================================================
Note 679.24                          V-Chips                            24 of 24
NICOLA::STACY                                         9 lines  13-MAR-1996 16:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>	What are the general V-Chip specs?  Does it just blank out the picture
>when a program that contains the code comes on or does it give you another
>channel? Can the chips be read back over the cable to see what we are watching?
>Does it keep track of what has been watched so that the parents can review it 
>later?

------------> I believe that it acts only as  a "block". Kind of like 
parental control on a cable box.  To my knowledge, there is no way to
'read back- or review'.

>	Personally I wouldn't buy it.  On/Off works pretty good.  If children
>are watching, watch the children.

-----------> Ditto.  Amazing.  Parents have to be parents and discuss 
things with their children?  8^)

z-wolf

    
    It will be interesting to see the price-jump for new TVs with this new
    "feature"...
    

    Now, if we could only buy guns here.
    
    Freedom counts.
    
    8^)

   .27  but nobody _has_ to use it, do they?  i still don't see what
	the problem is.  help.

    

    I don't see what the problem is either.

    
    I'm against it, just to tick shawn off, if nothing else.

    
    	Part of the problem is that the government is mandating that the
    chip be part of the TV. And you pay for it. Won't do a thing to solve
    whatever problem the government thinks there is. And I'll be ther
    paraniod here, its a first step.
    
    ed

Didn't the government mandate that all TVs receive UHF way back when?
What terrible repercussions followed?

    
    
    Re .35
    
    Crappy programs?
    
    ed

	if it can be used by parents to review show ratings, then why
	would it necessarily be a bad thing?  i mean, assuming that 
	_some_ percentage of kids actually do what they're told, like
	my siblings and i did.  there were shows we weren't allowed
	to watch and we didn't watch 'em.  what's the problem with having
	the additional info available to parents?

        Di wasn't allowed to watch Laugh In, I'll bet.

>        Di wasn't allowed to watch Laugh In, I'll bet.

	aagagagag.  actually, my father was skeptical, but he
	liked the Artie Johnson German character, so we got to
	watch it. ;>

    .22
    
    > I predict the future we will have a greater variety of shows and instead
    > of the Network Broadcasters editing the shows...
    
    Your prediction is directly counter to the predictions of people in the
    broadcast and advertising industries, who say that advertisers are
    already making noises about not wanting to buy time during shows that
    are rated as "bad."  These people are saying that we will see less NYPD
    Blue and more Brady Bunch because the latter are not "offensive."

>	aagagagag.  actually, my father was skeptical, but he
>	liked the Artie Johnson German character, so we got to
>	watch it. ;>



 Arte is the correct spelling, I believe.




Jim

> Arte is the correct spelling, I believe.

	you're probably right.  thanks.

    Veery interethting.

    I joined late:
    
    I think that every TV ever built has a V chip built in. 
    
    It's called the "off switch".
    
    works pretty good.

    <-- But stoopid.
    
    
    Mike
    

    
    	RE: .33
    
    	Well, now I'm ticked off!!
    

    Well I don't have kids, but I guess that if it helps people govern
    their Children's viewing habits...then who am I to argue.   I think
    it's probably better that kids obtain that type of information the
    proper way (Playboy, Penthouse, insert your fav here), while havin a
    smoke hangin out with the Mall crowd.  Less chance of them developing
    any social problems that way.
    
    Want a real scary thought.  This chip was invented by us
    Canadians...now were exporting the technology to the US, to govern your
    way of life.  Just think V chips today...guns tomorrow...then were
    gonna help legislate all the fast food off the markets, then were gonna
    make everyone paint there houses the same color, and wear the same
    hair styles...then were gonna make everyone take vacations at
    home..then were gonna take away your newspapers..then were gonna...
    
    
    Just imagine one day you can be just like us...introverted, hen-pecked,
    guarded, guided, pasty looking... 
    
    Rod (I just know the governments gonna read this...it's a joke really!)

>     way of life.  Just think V chips today...guns tomorrow...then were
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, some of the most evyl, hi-capacity .45's ARE made in Canada (Para
Ordinance) - definitely not for sale there tho.

    more technology to substitute for effective parenting...
    
    that's all i have to say on the subject.

    Fighting off the knee jerk "the federal government is trying to be
    mommy" response, I guess it's no more of a big deal than the mandate to
    add closed captioned decoders to all new TV sets. Don't want to use it,
    don't turn it on. As long as it doesn't add significantly to the cost,
    WTFC?

    personally, i really don't GAS if they add a flash card option to my
    set, as you said, i'm not paying for something i don't need or won't
    use. i do use lots of things i don't need, however :-)

    WGAS?  I do.  More of my money to spend on unwanted, unnecessary 
    gadgetry and regulations.  

    How much more is it going to cost you? How much more did the compulsory
    CC decoder cost you? Did you even notice the cost?

    People who object to the V-chip because they will not use it,
    but still pay for it as part of all new TV sets, have a point.
    (They are being made to pay for a parenting aid).
    
    However, people who object because the V-chip is not a good
    parenting aid or because of big brother concerns are barking
    up the wrong tree. NOTHING forces you to use the v-chip, and
    NO INFORMATION leaves your TV set to parts unknown...
    
    As I understand it, the V-chip simply filters programs based
    on a broadcast Violence and Pornography rating... Parents
    can set the level to whatever they think best for their
    children. Kids are affected by TV violence, it can give them
    nightmares, etc...
    
    Personally I see nothing wrong with parenting aids, I didn't
    reject plastic diapers, baby monitors, artificial milk, etc
    because they make parenting easy. On the contrary I was happy
    to have these aids to help me out (life is hard enough, no 
    need to make it harder then it has to be).
    
    Just because my parents and grand-parents had to do it the
    hard way is no reason for me to do the same. They used all
    the parenting aids of their time, now I am doing the same).
                                                           
    Gil
       

    Government should stay out of this one.  A v-chip as an OPTION for a TV
    is just fine.  Since it isn't going to be an option, it will add to the
    cost of ALL TV sets (and we know that when something is MANDATORY, the
    price can be artificially inflated- unless government is going to
    regulate this, too).  Being single with no kids, I have no use for a
    v-chip and don't care to pay for it.
    
    I wonder if they are going to force these things in front projection
    TV's too?  That will be my next step up in size, though not anytime
    soon.
    
    I agree with Binder on this one.   He summed it up pretty well in .1
    (or was it .2?).
    
    
    -steve

  i'm prolly paying more for child-proof caps, even though i'm
  relatively certain Molly dogger couldn't open the old kind either.
  big deal.

    Nothing, yet.  I am not in the market for one with either feature. 
    BTW, the CC option I can agree with as it allows a segment of the
    population greater access to the medium.  The V chip is superfluous.

re .56:

You can get non-childproof caps on prescriptions by asking.  Lots of OTC
stuff has one size bottle that has a non-childproof cap (makes it easier
for people with arthritis, etc.).

  i meant on regular stuff.  i rarely need prescriptions.
  but that's good to know.

  some of my tax money prolly goes towards educating other people's
  kids, but i don't mind that either.  i just wish they'd start teaching
  'em English again.  that was kind of a nice tradition. ;>

    re: .50
    
    My TV has closed captioned decoding, and I find it very handy,
    actually.  It allows me to listen to the stereo and keep up with
    whatever program is on.  This works especially well when watching
    hoops. 
    
    To be honest, though, I don't like that this is a mandatory thing that
    everyone has to pay for.  It should be an option, just like the v-chip
    should be an option.  Not everyone is a parent, and not everyone is
    deaf or hard of hearing.  
    
    
    -steve

    Making it an option makes it cost a lot more. When it was an option, it
    cost something like $600 for a CC decoder which was a separate box. Now 
    that it's built in it costs everybody a couple bucks whenever they buy a 
    TV. The problem with leaving it as an option is that it makes the option 
    very expensive. The TV isn't ready for a "plug in" chip solution
    because it isn't mandatory, so you have to buy a separate box. Even if
    a particular manufacturer provides the user with a socket, the chip 
    itself is more expensive due to drastically reduced volumes. With
    multiple vendors of V chips and huge volumes, the chips are going to
    cheap. Consumers aren't going to feel any increased costs associated
    with this, because television prices are going down anyway. This will
    just slow the rate of reduction for a short time, same as the CC
    decoder. The cost of this chip is "in the noise" of the cost of a TV
    set.
    
     I'm as knee jerk anti-regulation as the next guy, but I find this to
    be much ado about nothing.

    
    
    i would agree with the sentiments by others that the v-chip should
    be optional, provided that the option is less costly than no option.
    sometimes these things are so cheap that it is easier to sell them
    with the device always installed.
    
    it is indeed a parenting aid.  the arguement about parents monitoring
    children only goes so far.  even when you are home with your kids,
    once they get old enough to be in a room by themselves they are
    potentially vulnerable to being introduced to subjects that the
    parent deems inappropriate for their age.  being home with kids
    all of the time is unrealistic.  there are lots of keylatch kids
    who have parents working full time.  sure, at some age kids will
    figure out how to work around the chip, but every little bit helps
    with the onslaught of garbage and adult topics that are discussed
    in the middle of the day.  i don't frequently watch network television 
    except for maybe some sports stuff and can't keep up with what shows
    are on at what time and what is the nature of their content.  thirty
    years ago when there were three networks, one had a fighting chance.
    nowadays with thiry or forty channels, who can keep up with this stuff?
    who wants to?  
    
        
    
    
    
    

    I hear Bob Dole wants to have V-chips installed in movie theaters and
    video stores.
    
    

    
    
    
    .40 Yes, I've heard that but I think they are wrong.
        After the knee-jerk response is gone, there will be more
        violence and sex on T.V. than ever before because it will
    	all be up to the homeowner to decide what enters the home.
    
    
    
    

    
    	Actually, if my set had a V-chip, I'd use it for myself.
    
    	Then when we channel surf, we won't waste time starting to
    	watch a movie, only to find it's full of garbage we'd rather
    	not see.
    
    	Karen
    

        What if the Frugal Gourmet decides to cook up a batch of boob cakes?

Glenn, it's V for violence.  Now if he decided to slice an eye...

    
    	re .66
    
    	Then I'd get to miss that show.
    
    	re .67
    
    	Are you saying that even with the V-chip, I'd still have to see
    	Dennis Franz' naked derriere ?
    

    
    Do they sell a chip that only displays the channels with sex and
    violence on them?  If so, where do I sign?
    
    
    
    :^)

   eeuw.  i don't like seeing _any_ part of Dennis Franz.

    
    	I like the characters he plays, though.
    

    Wasnt there a tv show called 'V' where these aliens were lizards with
    human masks on? Perhaps slick is an alien?:) Oh John! John Birch where
    are you?:)

    .66 or make a 'slippery nipple' drink.;)

More grandstanding in response to the latest poll by Clinton. 

He hears some noise about violence and sex on TV (Dole...)
and he jumps on the V-chip. 

....Publicity stunt along the lines of his Medicare/Budget stance.  

    I believe the real issue isn't the chip itself, but rather the
    abdicating of the decision making process to the government.

    Parents, by and large, will NOT review what programs do and
    do not have the V-tag (the tag the signals the chip to block
    this particular program); they will say "If the gov't doesn't
    think this is good, then I don't either" and will simply
    enable the chip.

    So instead of our children existing on a diet of programs of
    varied content and quality (without parental intervention),
    they will exist on a strick diet of government "approved" shows.
    Moreover, there will be the illusion of parental involvement where
    none in fact exists.

    One simple for instance: Will shows on Waco or other horrible
    government mistakes be shown?  Or will they be blocked?  You guess.

    One simple addition: Do you really think this will stop at "V"?
    Knowing the people behind this, a SEX chip will be next.

    One simple next step: Will certain books be blocked from child
    access in the library?  Who will choose what books are on that
    list?

    This is another feel-good piece of legislation that will not
    accomplish its goal, but will make everybody feel like "at
    least we're DOING something."  What a sad commentary.

    \john

    Who in the world is this Dennis Franz character?

>    Who in the world is this Dennis Franz character?

     Dennis Franz is not the character.  He is the actor who portrays a
     character on NYPD Blue.  I've never seen the show so I don't know 
     who he portrays.



 Jim

    .64
    
    > I think they are wrong.
    
    You think the advertisers who are saying that they won't sponsor
    objectionable programs are lying?  I don't.

The advertisers don't realize that the programs are objectionable now?

    
    	They don't care.
    
    	If enough people watch those programs, they will be interested
    	in sponsoring them.  If some of those shows have the capability
    	of being blocked, they might change their minds due to the pos-
    	sibility of a reduced viewing audience.
    

    
    
    
    .78
    
    Like I said it's a knee jerk response.
    
    Advertisers will go where ever the ratings are.
    
    If the show is good, the ratings will be there.
    
    Every T.V. in America isn't going to switch over in one night.
    
    Even if every T.V was on G rating, and people stopped watching the
    shows they had been watching for months, it would take years to affect
    programing.
    
    

    
    
    | I believe the real issue isn't the chip itself, but rather the
    | abdicating of the decision making process to the government.
    
    explain the decision making process?
    

re: .82 (Parts)

>>    I believe the real issue isn't the chip itself, but rather the
>>    abdicating of the decision making process to the government.
>    explain the decision making process?
    
"I don't have to worry about what Billy's watching; the government
will make sure he doesn't see anything bad if I just push this
button."

Not that many worry about what Billy's watching now.  Like I said,
this is worse, since it actually gives the illusion that there is
some parenting going on.

\john

    That sounds like a contrived argument to me.

    
    
    
    
    .83
    
    
    If that was true, Pg-13 would never have been created.
    People don't sleep.

    If the V-chip really is not government censorship, then it should allow
    the user to use it whatever way they wish -- such as blocking programs
    with whatever ratings the user selects.  That way, I could, for
    example, leave the television "on" with the chip selected to block out
    all the "child-safe" programs.  My television would really only come on
    for the good stuff.
    
    If the V-chip does not do this, if it only has the function of blocking
    certain programs, then it is government censorship, is illegal under
    the First Amendment, and the government mandate to put it in
    televisions should be forbidden by the courts.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Whoever does the classification, if it isn't the user him or herself,
    the thing is useless, unless you want to allow the government or some
    industry association to determine what's suitable for your kids.  
    
    -Stephen

    
    To the small extent that I followed this story, it seemed to me
    that the proposal to return to family viewing hours had merit, and
    might have solved most of the problem.
    
    

   .86  agreed.

    I think they should install V-chips in bathroom stalls so people won't
    have to be subjected to offensive sounds and smells.

    Mr Cathode ray problem?
    
    

    >If the V-chip does not do this, if it only has the function of blocking
    >certain programs, then it is government censorship, 
    
     It is no more government censorship than the government issuing a list
    of books which are not recommended reading for children. As long as
    the books can still be checked out of the library, it is not
    censorship. The parent still has the discretion to use or not use the
    chip. Regardless of whether the chip's feature set is as rich as you
    want it to be, it is not censorship.

    
    
    
    .86 >    If the V-chip really is not government censorship, then it
    should allow
    
    
    	As compared to what, Today?
    
    	Are you argueing that there is no censorship on T.V. Today?
    
        
    
    

Spicer orders V-ratings in place by September
                           
OTTAWA -- Canada's broadcast regulator wants a V-chip-based rating system 
in place by September to eliminate excessive violence from TV screens.  
Broadcasters will be required to encode programs so the V-chip can be 
activated and cable companies will be expected to offer the technology at 
"low monthly cost," the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications 
Commission said Thursday.

Program distributors and cable companies will have to ensure that foreign 
shows they distribute, mainly American program, will also be encoded.  The 
Canadian-developed V-chip allows parents to block TV programs with 
violence, sexual content or coarse language.  The technology will be 
mandatory in U.S.-built TV sets starting in 1997.

Commission chairman Keith Spicer has made blockage of TV violence a 
centrepiece of his term as commission chairman.  He leaves the job in June.  
"Like drunk driving and pollution, gratuitous TV violence targeted at 
children deserves to be thought of, and rejected, as socially 
unacceptable," Spicer said Thursday.

    
   | "I don't have to worry about what Billy's watching; the government
   | will make sure he doesn't see anything bad if I just push this
   | button."
    
    no one would seriously make this case.  the case i would make is:
    
    "i do worry about what billy could inadvertantly watch and
     i'll monitor the time he spends in front of the tv as well
     as its content.  i will also enable the g rating on the v chip
     that will help filter stuff out since i'm not  and
     can't always know the nature of some new program.  the chip
     may be a hit or miss proposition, but at least i get some
     assistance"
    
    

I like having the v-chip available. I don't like the government forcing it 
on everyone. I think placing a v-chip on every TV produced will have the 
opposite affect they expect. The shows will become more and more to their
disliking because the argument can be made that anything goes since it can be
voluntarily blocked anyway.

    Well then, bring it on!
    
    I won't pay a blessed dime for any V-chip service.

    GENRAL::RALSTON
    
    >>anything goes since it can be voluntarily blocked anyway.
    
     I would expect the reverse. Why pay top dollar for an ad placement if
    viewers will block the show ? The only shows that will get top dollar
    are the ones no one would block. Money talks and in TV land that
    translates to the number of people who see an ad.
    
    
    							Derek.

 I guess we will have to wait and see.

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| V-SNARFs and cow chips! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

   
>    no one would seriously make this case.

You apparently don't know some of the people I do, then. Trust me, it will
be a very common viewpoint among many.

I also feel that the V-chip is likely to foster censorship by a few levels
of indirection. If shows lose ratings or sponsors due to the chip, and thus
are forced off the air by economic forces, the effect is virtually the same
as being forcibly removed for moral reasons. That they stay on the air
now without the chip is clear evidence that the rating boards will have the
power to sway the public's reaction to them.

    
    | You apparently don't know some of the people I do, then. Trust me, it
    | will be a very common viewpoint among many.
     
    so how many people do you know who assert that they trust the
    government to make decisions regarding what they should and
    should not view on t.v.?  
    

>    so how many people do you know who assert that they trust the
>    government to make decisions regarding what they should and
>    should not view on t.v.?  

That ain't the point, though, Pvt. The fact is that for each and every one
of these people that I'm thinking of, if asked the question as you did above
they'd say, "HELL NO! I don't want the government doin' that!" Which does
not in the least deny the fact that they will in actuality take every 
advantage of the opportunity to let the V-chip control what their kids see 
as it's a no-brainer, no-effort "out" for them.

We can kid ourselves all we like about people being rational, but when it
comes to being lazy, lazy will win every time in many cases.

    re: how easily can this system be defeated?
    
    As I understand it, V-chips are being installed in television sets
    only, not VCRs. 
    
    If this is the case, would it not be possible to TAPE programs which
    would otherwise be censored by an activated V-chip and view them 
    later with no interference? 
    
    Your cable runs to the VCR first, so it would not be affected 
    by the V-chip codes. If the taping was done in EP format, the 
    signal to the V-chip could possibly be distorted enough to view 
    "censored" material at a later time on a TV equipped with a V-chip.
    
    I have no idea if this would work, but it is a theory. 
    
    
     
    

        You don't even have to tape it I'll bet. Just pump the tv signal
    through the VCR and into a video input. I'll bet that would be enough.
    Unless that the V-chips are also filtering those inputs. If the V-chip
    signal is actually part of the broadcast, then it will get on the tape.

    Well, yes and no.  If the V-chip signal is part of the Vertical
    Blanking Interval, the VCR probably would *not* record it, but
    probably *would* pass it thru to the TV during broadcast.  So,
    most likely you could play back tapes of blocked broadcasts.

    I believe that you could use the VCR to defeat the system because the
    output of the VCR is created from video. So using the A/V outputs to
    the TV could fix the problem unless the use the scrambled channel game
    of reducing the horizontal sync pulsed to less than blacker then black.
    Then you would see what you do on some scrambled stations w/o a
    descrambler, i.e; wavy picture
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    Re .92:
    
    > It is no more government censorship than the government issuing a
    > list of books which are not recommended reading for children.
    
    You ignored the difference I pointed out.  A government-issued-list can
    be used to go to the library and SELECT those books instead of avoiding
    them.  The list is just information and can be used however the citizen
    wants -- to "protect" their children or to investigate interesting
    material or to keep an eye on what the government is doing.
    
    The V-chip is different (probably).  It can ONLY be used to PREVENT
    viewing -- not to select what is being listed.  That makes it
    significantly different from a list.
    
    Furthermore, a list is subject to public review and comment.  Who will
    be able to follow what the V-chip bans and raise an alarm when the ban
    becomes excessive?  Or when it serves the motives of a select group
    rather than parents generally?  There are unstudied implications in the
    government mandating of V-chips that should receive public review.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >You ignored the difference I pointed out.  A government-issued-list can
    >be used to go to the library and SELECT those books instead of avoiding
    >them.  The list is just information and can be used however the citizen
    >wants -- to "protect" their children or to investigate interesting
    >material or to keep an eye on what the government is doing.
    
     Sounds like an exact analog of the way the V-chip will work. TV Guide
    et al will indicate the programs which can be censored using the
    V-chip, so if it wiggles your worm to watch such shows then it will be
    trivial to find them. All that the V-chip will do is allow parents to
    prevent their children from watching such shows when they are not
    around to monitor them. 
    
    >Furthermore, a list is subject to public review and comment.  Who will
    >be able to follow what the V-chip bans and raise an alarm when the ban
    >becomes excessive?  
    
     Anyone who cares. It's not difficult, even in the absence of aids such
    as TV Guide. You turn on the TV with the V-chip disabled, and see
    what's on. Then you enable the V-chip, and see what programs you can no
    longer access. A-B=C.
    
     You are acting as if there were no means of disabling the V-chip. In
    such a case, I'd agree with you. As it can be trivially turned off,
    your argument has no legs.

    Re .109:
    
    > All that the V-chip will do is allow parents to prevent . . .
    
    Exactly -- all it does is prevent.  That makes it a one-sided device. 
    Technologically, there is NO reason for it to serve ONLY that function;
    it would be just as easy to make it to the reverse.  Since it does not,
    it is a censorship device.
    
    > TV Guide et al will indicate the programs which can be censored using
    > the V-chip, . . .
    
    That's news.  But it is still not as easy as turning the TV on with the
    chip set to "find" rather than "conceal".
    
    > You turn on the TV with the V-chip disabled, and see what's on. Then
    > you enable the V-chip, and see what programs you can no longer access.
    
    That's a labor-intensive method.  How do you even know the chip will be
    program-by-program?  They could block out only certain portions. 
    Unless you test the chip every few seconds, you could miss a lot.  It
    would be a lot simpler just to leave the TV on in the reverse mode.  If
    the government is not censoring, the it should be just as easy to find
    shows on the warning list as it is to avoid them.
    
    > You are acting as if there were no means of disabling the V-chip.
    
    That is a lie.  My argument specifically and explicitly deals with the
    inability to REVERSE the chip's operation; it does not in any way
    mention or use any ability or inability to disable the chip.  
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >it is a censorship device.
    
     You are throwing around terms with reckless abandon; when a parent
    prevents a child from watching an inappropriate television program it
    is not censorship in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Take up
    a taxonomic debate with someone else; I'm uninterested.
    
    >That's news.  But it is still not as easy as turning the TV on with the
    >chip set to "find" rather than "conceal".
    
     So what? That is a non sequitur.
    
    >That's a labor-intensive method.
    
     Poor baby. You claimed it was not possible. I showed it was trivial.
    You complain anyway. SSDD.
    
    >If the government is not censoring, the it should be just as easy to find
    >shows on the warning list as it is to avoid them.
    
     That's faulty logic. There is nothing incumbent on the government to
    make it "just as easy" to find "objectionable" shows as to avoid them
    to avoid censorship. All that is required is that the government
    provide a means to bypass the chip and thus have full access to the
    scope of programming available. Since that is the case, your howls of
    protest regarding censorship are not based in fact, but rather,
    emotion.
    
    >> You are acting as if there were no means of disabling the V-chip.
    
    >That is a lie.  
    
     Wrong again. That is how you are behaving, since you are crying about
    censorship where none exists. 
    
    >My argument specifically and explicitly deals with the
    >inability to REVERSE the chip's operation; 
    
     Which is why your "argument," such as it is, remains a non sequitur.
    
     The Doctah

    I really don't see what the brouhaha is all about. My stuff isn't
    equipped with the chip and even if it was I would not pay for the
    service.

    Why are people so paranoid?

    
    	Isn't the proposed method much better than the alternative, which
    	is to force people to buy the chip to ENABLE the viewing of what
    	someone considers objectionable?
    

    .113
    
    The chip's purchase is not at issue, because whichever way it worked,
    it would still be in every set.  The issue is then which way it works. 
    
    It's better from a technological censorship standpoint that the chip
    require you to actively disable things you don't want to see than that
    it work in the other direction - it's too easy to sit and just do
    nothing and thereby not see things that perhaps you should see.  I
    think we all need a dose of reality every now and then, and I think it
    likely that some serious shows, shows that have value perhaps in that
    they show graphically what happens in death camps (Rwanda) and razed
    villages (Chechnya) and clinics (USA) and others, would not pass the
    test for being permitted through the V-chip's robot circuits.

    Re .111:

    > Take up a taxonomic debate with someone else; I'm uninterested.

    Yes, I can tell you are uninterested from your repeated responses and
    YOUR introduction (not mine) of definitions and taxonomy.  Perhaps if
    you actually gave a compelling demonstration of your uninterest, such
    as not responding, then I might be convinced.

    > So what? That is a non sequitur.

    If it appears to be a non sequitur to you, it is because you missed the
    link:  The device much more greatly facilitates concealing than
    finding.

    > That's faulty logic. There is nothing incumbent on the government ...
    
    Nobody said it was incumbent on the government.  Merely that the
    government's actions demonstrate its intent and actual effect.
    
    > All that is required is that the government provide a means to bypass
    > the chip and thus have full access to the scope of programming
    > available.
    
    Ah, yes, I remember that.  It's in the First Amendment, isn't it? 
    Let's see, how does it go, hmm, "Congress shall make no law abridging
    the freedom of speech, unless it also provides a means to bypass the
    abridgement and have full access to the speech."  Yes, that's exactly
    what the Constitution says and the authors intended.
    
    >>> You are acting as if there were no means of disabling the V-chip.
    
    >>That is a lie.  
    
    > Wrong again.
    
    You lied about what I wrote.  But that is understandable; having run
    out of logical reasons, lies are the only way you can support your
    position.  If your position had any merit, you could accept that my
    words mean what I say they mean and yet show them to be wrong by logic. 
    Since you cannot do that, you have to fabricate a position I did not
    put forth and attack it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .112:
    
    > My stuff isn't equipped with the chip and even if it was I would not
    > pay for the service.
    
    The government has mandated the chip be put in all future equipment,
    and you will pay for it.  The United States is NOT a free country.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    More guns will be required to accomplish that I reckon.

    Re .113:
    
    >  	Isn't the proposed method much better than the alternative, which
    >	is to force people to buy the chip to ENABLE the viewing of what
    >	someone considers objectionable?

    The alternative is exactly what we had before:  No mandate of any sort,
    period.  And there are other alternatives:  There's no reason there has
    to be one rating agency, one chip, one code for "unacceptable".  The
    Motion Picture Association of America loves this chip; the government
    is essentially compelling people to give the MPAA orders of magnitude
    more business -- there are MANY MANY more hours of television than
    movies, so the MPAA will get incredible amounts of money and power out
    of this.
    
    Today's technology would easily have supported ranges of codes for
    levels of violence, sex, religious proscriptions, humor, culture, et
    cetera, along with codes for ratings given by the MPAA, the Christian
    Coalition, DARE, the PTA, Siskel and Ebert, the American Civil
    Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party, MIT, Ben and
    Jerry's, Rush Limbaugh, and others.
    
    Instead the government mandates a single on-off switch.  It's
    censorship with a candy coating.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: .117
    
    >More guns will be required to accomplish that I reckon.
    
    
    Naaahhhh... I figure we can just use rubber batons like they're doing
    up in Canada vs. the strikers...
    

    
    	edp, I agree with you.  Not that it affects me, personally, but I
    	don't like censorship in any form.  But my point was that if we're
    	going to be stuck with this chip, I'd rather that the default were
    	"off" [IE, no blocking] than "on" [IE, blocking].
    

    >The device much more greatly facilitates concealing than finding
    
    This is not evidence of censorship. When you take a television eqipped
    with the V-chip out of the box and plug it in, you can watch every show 
    that you can watch on a TV that is not V-chip equipped. In order to
    activate the suppression of channels/programs, you have to purposely
    enable the chip. Since the user must take an action to suppress
    material, the user is then in control of whether he or she takes that
    action and shrieks of "CENSORSHIP!!!!" are wholly inappropriate. The
    user who does nothing has no idea whether the V-chip was actually
    installed or not, and in point of fact, the televisions are
    indistinguishable until such time as the user activates the chip.
    
    > Merely that the government's actions demonstrate its intent and 
    >actual effect.
    
     The intent is clear; the government intends to give parents control
    over the sort of programming their children watch. Currently, new TV sets
    already have this capability, only on a much grosser scale. TV
    channels which are not individually enabled to be received cannot be
    viewed except by specifically entering the channel number. Since most
    new TVs only allow for specific channel number entering via the remote,
    failure to enable the reception of a particular channel coupled with
    removal of the remote can prevent the reception of certain channels.
    Yet there are no howls of protest to this. The V-chip simply makes parental
    control easier.
    
    >Let's see, how does it go, hmm, "Congress shall make no law abridging
    >the freedom of speech, unless it also provides a means to bypass the
    >abridgement and have full access to the speech."  Yes, that's exactly
    >what the Constitution says and the authors intended.
    
     You're a fountain of non sequiturs today.
    
    >But that is understandable; having run
    >out of logical reasons, lies are the only way you can support your
    >position.  If your position had any merit, you could accept that my
    >words mean what I say they mean and yet show them to be wrong by logic. 
    
     Been there, done that. Your response amounts to "nuh-uh!" You have
    utterly failed to provide any basis whatsoever to justify your
    accusations of censorship.
    
     Without actively engaging the system, you cannot distinguish between a
    V-chip equipped television and another which is not so equipped. It is
    not censorship to actively avoid "speech" you don't want to hear. It is
    censorship when an external party prevents you from hearing speech they
    don't want you to hear. When you can prove that the latter case is
    applicable, then and only then will your accusaion hold water. Until
    such time, it is nothing more than jaw flapping.

    Re .121:
    
    > When you take a television eqipped with the V-chip out of the box and
    > plug it in, you can watch every show  that you can watch on a TV that
    > is not V-chip equipped.
    
    As a publisher, the material I publish might not be seen by people who
    want to see it because they have the censorship turned on in the
    mistaken belief that only certain things are being censored, when the
    truth is that the MPAA is suppressing more than the viewer wants
    censored, and the MPAA has been handed this power by force of law.
    
    > . . . in point of fact, the televisions are indistinguishable until
    > such time as the user activates the chip.
    
    No, the television are not indistinguishable.  There will be a price
    difference.  The chips are not free; they have to be paid for.  This is
    a government-mandated program forcing all television consumers to pay
    to prevent some people from seeing certain material.
    
    > The intent is clear; the government intends to give parents control
    > over the sort of programming their children watch.
    
    If that were the government intent, they would make the "off" buttons
    bigger.  If that were the government intent, they would make the
    ratings scales, not just on/off switches.  If that were the government
    intent, they would make the ratings categories, not just one on/off. 
    If that were the government intent, they would provide for different
    agencies to do the ratings or accreditations, not just one.
    
    This device does not give the parents control; it just makes it easy
    for them to surrender control to another party, a monopoly that has
    been given a big financial and power boost by the government.
    
    > You're a fountain of non sequiturs today.
     
    You said it was okay to block programs with the chip provided a way
    around it was provided.  I demonstrated that is NOT what the
    Constitution says.  Try to follow along.
    
    > Without actively engaging the system, you cannot distinguish between a
    > V-chip equipped television and another which is not so equipped.
    
    Yes, I can.
    
    > It is censorship when an external party prevents you from hearing
    > speech they don't want you to hear.
    
    The V-chip meets that definition.  Some people will be prevented from
    hearing speech the government (and the MPAA) doesn't want them to hear. 
    Oh, they may have a way around it -- but some people will not use that
    way.  They will have been prevented from hearing.
    
    Perhaps you want to change your definition -- maybe you didn't mean the
    external party just prevents you from hearing speech, maybe you meant
    instead that the external party prevents you from being able to hear
    the speech via any method.  But I don't really care about your taxonomy
    games.  By the definition you gave, the V-chip is censorship.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >As a publisher, the material I publish might not be seen by people who
    >want to see it because they have the censorship turned on in the
    >mistaken belief that only certain things are being censored, 
    
     Bummer for you, but it's their right to choose to turn your
    "material" off, even if they're only doing it based on someone else's
    say so.
    
    >No, the television are not indistinguishable.  There will be a price
    >difference.  
    
     TVs are on a downward cost spiral; they have been for some time. How
    much more did it cost when the government mandated the addition of
    closed caption decoders? Nobody noticed a price difference. The cost of
    such a chip is such a small fragment of the total cost that it is not
    felt by consumers.
    
    >If that were the government intent, they would make the "off" buttons
    >bigger.  
    
     They did. They made it a selective off button.
    
    >This device does not give the parents control; it just makes it easy
    >for them to surrender control to another party, 
    
     That's a form of control. It must be chosen by the parents, else there
    is no <additional> control.
    
    >You said it was okay to block programs with the chip provided a way
    >around it was provided.  I demonstrated that is NOT what the
    >Constitution says.
    
     That's a non sequitur. It's not a Constitutional issue, regardless of
    the lengths you go to frame the debate that way. Even if you continue
    to say "IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!" I'm expecting you to claim your uncle
    can beat up my uncle any second now.
    
    >Yes, I can.
    
     Prove it.
    
    >The V-chip meets that definition.  Some people will be prevented from
    >hearing speech the government (and the MPAA) doesn't want them to hear. 
    
     Nobody will be prevented from hearing anything without first taking an
    active role in said ostensible suppression of speech. It's no different
    than changing the station when something you don't want to watch comes
    on. Thus it fails the definition of censorship.
    
    >Oh, they may have a way around it -- but some people will not use that
    >way.  They will have been prevented from hearing.
    
     The way around it is to do nothing, which is identical to the current 
    situation .
    
    >maybe you didn't mean the external party just prevents you from 
    >hearing speech, 
    
     It is not censorship to give someone else the power to regulate what
    you hear if you can change your mind and take that power back. So long
    as it remains your choice, no censorship is taking place. 
    
    >By the definition you gave, the V-chip is censorship.
    
     False. You seem to be incapable of grasping the difference between
    censorship and choice. More's the pity.

    .123
    
    >> Yes, I can.
    
    > Prove it.
    
    A V-chip-equipped TV will require some additional controls.  They may
    be buttons on the panel (and probably will be, for low-end TVs with no
    remote controls), or they may be buttons on a remote control, or they
    may be menu options accessible with the remote control.
    
    In all three cases, the presence of the V-chip can be detected without
    the V-chip's being activated.  In the first two cases, it can be
    detected without the TV's being turned on.

    >>The
    >>user who does nothing has no idea whether the V-chip was actually
    >>installed or not, and in point of fact, the televisions are
    >>indistinguishable until such time as the user activates the chip.
    
    >A V-chip-equipped TV will require some additional controls.  They may
    >be buttons on the panel (and probably will be, for low-end TVs with no
    >remote controls), or they may be buttons on a remote control, or they
    >may be menu options accessible with the remote control.
    
     That tells you that the TV _MAY_ have a V-chip, but it doesn't tell
    you whether the chip has been installed. That cannot be ascertained
    without engaging the system.
    

    Re .123:
    
    > . . . it's their right to choose to turn your "material" off, . . .
    
    You missed the point.  Read it again:  They did not choose to turn the
    material off.
    
    > . . .  if they're only doing it based on someone else's say so.
    
    > TVs are on a downward cost spiral; they have been for some time.
    
    That's irrelevant; the chips still have to be paid for, and there would
    still be a price difference between television with chips and those
    without.
    
    >  How much more did it cost when the government mandated the addition
    > of closed caption decoders?
    
    Only millions of dollars, nothing to worry about.
    
    > Nobody noticed a price difference.
    
    Maybe nobody mentioned it to you, but you can be pretty sure several
    accountants noticed it.
    
    > The cost of such a chip is such a small fragment of the total cost
    > that it is not felt by consumers.
    
    Sure, and it's okay to shoplift if the merchant does not notice or feel
    it.
    
    > That's a form of control.
    
    That's like saying drinking alcohol to the point where you cannot
    control your actions is a form of control.  It's not; it's a surrender
    of control.
    
    > Prove it.
     
    Okay, bring me a television with the chip and one without, along with
    the receipts for their purchase and other documentation.
    
    > Nobody will be prevented from hearing anything without first taking an
    > active role in said ostensible suppression of speech.
    
    So people will be prevented from hearing something with first taking an
    active role.  You've just admitted there are conditions under which
    hearing will be prevented.
    
    > It is not censorship to give someone else the power to regulate what
    > you hear if you can change your mind and take that power back.
    
    That's nonsense.  The definition of censorship doesn't include anything
    about being able to stop it or take it back.  Even if a majority of the
    people vote for censorship to the extent of blacking out sections of
    newspapers, it is still censorship even if they can vote to reverse it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    .125
    
    > That tells you that the TV _MAY_ have a V-chip, but it doesn't tell
    > you whether the chip has been installed. That cannot be ascertained
    > without engaging the system.
    
    I didn't realize you were so naive.  Extra buttons cost money.  TV
    makers are into saving tenths of a cent per unit, because each 1/10
    cent you save on 10 million units adds a tidy $10,000 to your bottom
    line.  If the TV has buttons, it has a V-chip.  If the remote control
    has buttons, and if that remote control is the one sold with that TV,
    the TV has a V-chip.  If there's no V-chip, then there are blanks in
    the panel where the buttons would be.

    >I didn't realize you were so naive.  
    
     I guess that makes me one up on ya, as I knew from the get go that you
    were prone to this sort of strutting. I was talking about the operation
    of the television, not its appearance, in case that escaped you. (In
    which case you'd be joining EDP in missing the obvious.) /hth bidciid

    Re .123:
    
    >> You said it was okay to block programs with the chip provided a way
    >> around it was provided.  I demonstrated that is NOT what the
    >> Constitution says.
    
    > That's a non sequitur. It's not a Constitutional issue, . . .
    
    Let's review your words in this matter:
    
    .111> There is nothing incumbent on the government . . . . All that is
    .111> required is that the government provide a means to bypass the
    .111> chip and thus have full access to the scope of programming available.
    
    It was you who said what was not incumbent on the government and what
    is required.  Tell us, required by what?  The laws of physics?  The
    rules to Monopoly?  If it is not the Constitution, where does this
    requirement on the government that you introduced come from?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                                

    
    	edp does have a very good point there, you know.
    

    
      SCOTUS permits regulation of broadcast indecency, but not printed
     indecency - see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978).  The Court said
     broadcast indecency such as repetitious use of so-called dirty words
     could be regulated (as it CANNOT be in print) because broadcasters
     can invade your privacy and print media cannot.
    
      In a related manner, SCOTUS ruled in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
     (1969) that no person can have a constitutional right to communicate
     through broadcasting since the electromagnetic spectrum cannot
     accomodate everyone.
    
      The Court has yet to extend this to Cable, which MAY be different.
    
      bb

    .128
    
    > I was talking about the operation
    > of the television, not its appearance, in case that escaped you.
    
    Well, it certainly did.  You said, and I quote:
    
    121> The
    121> user who does nothing has no idea whether the V-chip was actually
    121> installed or not, and in point of fact, the televisions are
    121> indistinguishable until such time as the user activates the chip.
    ...
    121> Without actively engaging the system, you cannot distinguish between a
    121> V-chip equipped television and another which is not so equipped.
    
    You also said:
    
    125> whether the chip has been installed ... cannot be ascertained
    125> without engaging the system.
    
    I see nothing here that limits your meaning to the operation of the
    chip.
    
    However, since you are now obviously reduced to snatching at straws to
    bolster your fallacy-riddled argument, I will point out (gently, of
    course) that as soon as a menu is activated that has an entry relating
    to the V-chip, the TV's operation immediately and unarguably identifies
    the equipment as having the chip installed.  Without the activation of
    the chip, I might add.
    
    You may apologize now.

    
    	Why can't print media invade your privacy like broadcast media
    	can?
    
    	Who forces someone to listen to radio/TV?
    

    
    
    That Binder... such a kinder and gentler sort since his conversion by
    lunchie...
    

    
    | The definition of censorship doesn't include anything
    | about being able to stop it or take it back
    
    censorship n.  The act or process of censoring.
    
    censor n. A person authorized to examine printed or other 
              materials or suppress what he considers objectionable.
    
    
    Clearly with the v-chip, it is the owner who is empowered to
    be the censor based on his or her judgement as to the values
    and merits of the screening mechanisms encoded in the device.
    
    

    >It was you who said what was not incumbent on the government and what
    >is required.  Tell us, required by what?  The laws of physics?  The
    >rules to Monopoly?  If it is not the Constitution, where does this
    >requirement on the government that you introduced come from?
    
     The definition of censorship.

    >I see nothing here that limits your meaning to the operation of the
    >chip.
    
     Oh, come on, Binder. Why not just claim you can tell the difference by
    taking off the chassis and examining the chip set? It's about as
    meaningful.
    
    >as soon as a menu is activated that has an entry relating
    >to the V-chip, the TV's operation immediately and unarguably identifies
    >the equipment as having the chip installed.  
    
     Since you are going to be anal-retentive, I'll join you. The presence
    of a menu item says nothing about its actual availability. The fact
    that the firmware includes a menu item does not _necessarily_ mean the
    hardware related to that item is installed. I could take two TVs
    equipped with V-chips and pull the V-chip out of one (with an
    appropriate kludge to fool the TV into thinking the chip is there) and
    you'd not be able to tell the difference between the two sets until you
    tried to set the second one to filter mode and nothing happened. Which
    doesn't prove a damned thing except I am just as adept at conjuring
    irrelevant scenarios to prove a useless point as you. What an
    accomplishment, eh?
    
     I suppose it would be too much to expect you to return to substantive
    points instead of quibbling over irrelevancies? Nevermind. This has
    long since ceased being a fruitful discussion. 

    
    
    what is interesting in this discussion are the priorities of
    folks.  it seems that some are arguing that if the v-chip is
    inadvertantly enabled they might miss some life threatening piece
    of information that would alter the course of western civilization,
    or (even worse) miss out on seeing someone's fanny dart across the
    screen.  somehow these arguments don't seem to merit equal weight
    to the concerns of parents of young children who are struggling with
    the need to control what is seen on television.
    
    

>    somehow these arguments don't seem to merit equal weight
>    to the concerns of parents of young children who are struggling with
>    the need to control what is seen on television.

Probably because those of us who have already raised our kids are sick and
tired of putting up with "programs" designed to help you do what we already
did on our own.

    .138
    
    Every TV set has a PERFECT device for controlling what its owner's
    children may see on the screen.  That device is called a power switch. 
    If your children are so intractable that you cannot instill your values
    in them in re what's good to watch, you can even purchase a device that
    will lock the TV's power plug so that it can't be inserted in a wall
    outlet.

    .137
    
    Mister Doctah, my point is not irrelevant.  You said, in defense of
    your contentions, that the presence of the V-chip was irrelevant and
    could not be ascertained without activating the chip.  Now you wind
    yourself into a knot with your risible little "I could take the chip
    out of a set that had it and fool the set into thinking it was still
    there, so you can't tell the difference" silliness.  Get real.
    
    Face it.  You said the casual user would be unable to identify a
    V-chip-equipped set without activating the chip.  I demonstrated that
    you were wrong.  Is it so hard for you to admit that you, yes, the
    Great and Wonderful Doctah Behind the Curtain, actually goofed?  Or
    are you still in Suzanne mode?
    
    The casual user CAN tell, and the casual user may resent having the
    V-vhip forced on him.  I, who have two married adult children, neither
    of whom lives with me, do not care to have Uncle Slick Willie, such a
    paragon of virtue that he is, force me to pay the price of a piece of
    hardware that I do not want and will not use, and of which I actively
    disapprove.  The companies that will make the chip say the thing will
    add about $5.00 to the price of every TV set - this is not pocket
    change, I'll have you know.  (Yes, I know you're contemplating the
    purchase of a land yacht and have plenty of money to squander, but
    that's you, not me.)

    
    	Realtive to the cost of a new TV, $5 IS pockect change, but
    	it's $5 more than we should be required to spend.
    

    >Face it.  You said the casual user would be unable to identify a
    >V-chip-equipped set without activating the chip.  I demonstrated that
    >you were wrong.
    
     Look, I meant that you wouldn't see any difference in the operation of
    a TV set so equipped with one that was not so equipped unless you
    activated the sucker. I thought that was clear, but apparently I failed
    to sufficiently lawyer my words to prevent being challenged on such
    minutiae. Ok, no matter what, a sufficiently determined and
    knowledgeable person can tell the difference between a TV set with the
    chip and one without. You happy now? And you don't even have to turn it
    on. You can take the TV apart.
    
    >The casual user CAN tell, and the casual user may resent having the
    >V-vhip forced on him.  
    
     Poor baby. The casual user may be equally distressed at having a
    closed caption decoder "forced" upon him. Big effing deal. If that's
    your biggest problem, you've got life made.
    
    >I, who have two married adult children, neither
    >of whom lives with me, do not care to have Uncle Slick Willie, such a
    >paragon of virtue that he is, force me to pay the price of a piece of
    >hardware that I do not want and will not use, and of which I actively
    >disapprove.  
    
     Dem's de berries.
    
>(Yes, I know you're contemplating the
>    purchase of a land yacht and have plenty of money to squander,
    
     Your ignorance regarding my personal finances would be hysterically
    funny, were  not so painful a subject.
    
     Getting back to the point: while a case may be made against this on
    the grounds of whether it is appropriate for the government to be
    mandating this sort of thing or not, a case cannot be made that this is
    censorship. That's the only point I've been making. Frankly, I'm in no
    more of a hurry to see this happen than you. I'm just not sulking about
    it.

    .143
    
    > I meant that you wouldn't see any difference in the operation of
    > a TV set so equipped with one that was not so equipped unless you
    > activated the sucker.
    
    And I demonstrated the error of that contention, too.
    
    As for a CC decoder, I believe our resident Founding Father mentioned
    using it to keep tabs on the teevee whilst listening to the steereo.  I
    have similarly used the one in my set.  I've no problem with a piece of
    hardware that serves a useful purpose.  The V-chip serves no such
    worthy purpose; quite to the contrary, as a surrogate parent it will
    serve to diminish the quality of family life generally through reducing
    the amount of time parents spend with their children.  Censorship be
    damned, the thing is an abomination, and I am astonished that a
    thinking Christian could consider it a good idea.

    >As for a CC decoder, I believe our resident Founding Father mentioned
    >using it to keep tabs on the teevee whilst listening to the steereo.  I
    
     I don't use it. Why should I be required to pay for a piece of
    hardware that I don't use?
    
    >I've no problem with a piece of hardware that serves a useful purpose.  
    
     To you. You don't mind that others are forced to pay for hardware that
    they don't want and don't need, just because you find a useful purpose
    for it. Others feel exactly the same way about the V-chip.
    
    >The V-chip serves no such worthy purpose
    
     To you it may not, but that is a point of contention. Others feel that
    it offers a more useful service.
    
    >quite to the contrary, as a surrogate parent it will
    >serve to diminish the quality of family life generally through reducing
    >the amount of time parents spend with their children.  
    
     That's a philosophical argument with nothing to prove the claimed
    effect beyond your conjecture. In my opinion, the people who are likely
    to use it are those that at least care enough about what their children
    are watching to bother to engage the system. The people who don't give
    a crap about what their children are watching aren't going to be
    bothered; I find it unlikely that such people spend much time watching
    TV with their kids now.
    
    >the thing is an abomination, and I am astonished that a
    >thinking Christian could consider it a good idea.
    
     I don't understand what bearing being Christian would have on the
    merit of mandating such a chip.

    
    okay.
    
    first, the "what was good for us as parents is good for you" arguement:
    
    my kids are 9 and 10 years old respectively.  the marginal value
    of the v-chip for our household is limited.  i wish i had the
    technology ten years ago and i am glad that parents will be 
    empowered to choose to use it in the future.
    
    second.  the specious "power switch" arguement":
    
    my kids are growing up, but time has not erased my memory of having
    to cope with them as young kids when my wife was working weekends.
    there are countless situations where you need to get things done
    and are not monitoring children on a minute by minute basis.  don't 
    take my word for it, just go ask any young mother.  
    
    my kids are not intractable but i can tell you values are not 
    instilled overnight.  it takes many years, this process is often
    referred to as growing up.  what am i supposed to do, lecture
    my five year old child that she/he shouldn't have inadvertantly
    switched the station carrrying jerry springer (is that the correct
    name?) who is doing a show on fathers raping their sons?  am i
    supposed to be omniscient and know when the network is going to
    do a thiry second promo using excerpts from some tastesless dialogue
    of an adult sitcom.  this is not to mention the voluminous task
    of tracking shows, times, and contents.  i liked the movie rating
    system because it helped raise flags as a parent.  it was not the 
    final arbitor but it was a very useful tool.  if i don't have time 
    to watch siskel and ebert i certainly don't have time to be be current
    on the t.v. programming.  lots of parents are going to find this 
    tool useful.
    
    

    .145
    
    > I don't understand what bearing being Christian would have on the
    > merit of mandating such a chip.
    
    Most of the PRO arguments I've seen are coming from the Religious
    Right.