My boss is only 45 and thinks that video games are a waste of time - he is an avid soccer fan and sitting in front of it on more occasions than just world cups.

My ex-best friend said with 25, that video games are a waste of time - he often sat through the whole night pirating music in data volumes that are hard to imagine for most people and nobody has the time to listen to, if he is working which he didn't.

A female buddy of mine (27) thinks, that video games are a waste of time and loves shopping, watching soap operas and flirting on dating sites without having achieved a single hit ever after doing this for years, using whatsapp all day on her smartphone and generally waisting all of her free time without actually doing anything.

My brother thinks that video games are a waste of time since he turned 25 or so, we played a lot via LAN together when we were younger, now he seems to be part of some sect and cut the contact.

etc.. etc..

I don't know a single gamer in my whole area including my whole jam-session circle (ages 20-50), workplace, my ex choir, ex historical fencing club, etc...
Nearly all of them played video games in their youth at some point - then things went wrong and they "grew up".

If this is what it's like to "grow up", I certainly never want to.
Enjoying this form of art now and then will stay a part of my life even if there isn't as much time for it left anymore as it was 10 years ago.

Or rather they became old barking hags and geezers at their age of 25-30 with no real interest in their life :))

That's a really good point. They did a thing on TV where they brought it 16-17 year olds to play Contra, a game I again was great, and on rom still pretty good with. It took them three hours to get to the end of the 1st level and not a single one of them was able to figure out how to destroy the level one boss, which if you recall is nothing but a wall with a few guns on it.

I think you're arguing with the way to do it, not the concept. The basic idea of a lower age limit is sound. Kids don't know how to handle certain topics well, even when they think they can. As an example, I don't want my 7 year old to watch the news because she has nightmares afterwards (depends on the news, of course, but I have no control over that). It's well known that news causes people to feel bad, but adults can make their own decision about this. She's my kid, and even though she may be smart and interested, it's my judgement call that she'd be happier if she doesn't watch that. And I can and do explain to her why. If she wants, I can let her watch kids news or let her satisfy her curiosity another way.

I don't take to the idea of lying to children, inventing fantasies to help them cope. I'd rather that my kids know what I'm thinking and what's happening. But I do think that not letting them know the full details or trying to make sure they don't experience some things is part of my job.

Even if I didn't know about games, I think it's a valid thing to say to a kid: "According to the rating of this game it's not for your age. People use language in a way that I don't want you to pick up, it has graphic violence which I feel is too much, and other stuff that I'd rather that you don't experience." I imagine that a teenager won't listen to me, because they tend to think they're smarter than they are and that their parents are dumber than they are, but I still think it's a valid thing for me to decide.

Edit: A general note about the reasoning:

A parent's decisions regarding what the kids should and shouldn't do largely come from the desire to have the kids grow up into happy, contributing adults. Each parent has his or her own way to define this and deal with it, and it's certainly possible to contest a certain way, but it still comes from caring about the child.

A child's decisions largely come from the egotistical reason of "I want it". So when a parent limits what the kid can play, the kid can contest that "it's not that bad" but can't really argue that there's a good reason they'd play the game. The kid's sole argument it that he or she wants the game.

So basically, the claim that kids are smart is wrong (in this context). They're clever about getting their way, but since "their way" is an egotistical thing that they want, the end result is rather dumb.

As for the phones, it all boils down to a simple fact: the more options people have, the less they're satisfied with what they have and the more they're interested in getting something better. And if it's easy to get something better, then why not get something better? Sure, if you don't like something you won't understand why people buy it, but that doesn't mean it's illogical. (Rather more logical than building a huge backlog of games, for example.)

When the home computers were around I wanted to own all of them. They were all fascinating. I didn't, but when 3D cards came about I did buy quite a few. I knew people who kept upgrading their audio equipment. If you like a technology, getting something that you think will be better is a natural thing to do. It's not just this generation. PC technological development has slowed to a crawl, and mobile tech advances more quickly.

BTW, you've got to be kidding regarding the PS3 to PS4 upgrade. Not buying a newer console means you're cut off from a lot of new releases (in the long run, all of them). It's not about technology, it's about content.

I would disown my kid if he couldn't beat the first level of Contra.

I love it when I strike a chord - never easier than when poking a stick at the little blinking toys everyone loves to play with. Go after tech and the nerds circle the proverbial wagons.

So, a more esoteric question. Do you dream of electric sheep?

Thanks for admitting it was a troll.

(sorry for a late reply, I had to recharge my own mental battery)

It's true the Fairphone 1 wasn't as fair as it should be, but I think it was as fair as it could be. The company is working on a step-by-step approach, with each step making their product more fair, but even the Fairphone 2 has only 2 of it's 30 minerals that are fully certified as fair. Reshaping the mining sector is a slow process.

The Fairphone 1 is also less fair and durable, as Fairphone didn't design their first model from the ground up (like they are doing now) but took an existing model and started reworking it's supply lines. The Fairphone 2 on the other hand, was designed to be durable and DIY repairable. It's first production model is still to be made however, right now the factory is busy setting up it's assembly lines. If you buy a Fairphone now, it's a pre-order used to finance the production without the need to find external financing. The goal is 15.000 pre-orders by the end of this month, 4.200 to go in this last week till the goal is met (15.000 will be made, but if the goal isn't met, production will halt until extra financing has been found, if the goal is met, they'll continue producing).

The fact that the design is ready but hasn't rolled of the production line yet (I'm expecting mine in november) makes it hard to tell what the battery life will be. Surely not as much as my dumb Nokia 1100 that lasts me nearly a week. The specs tell it's a 2420 mAh battery, but I wouldn't know how long you last with that, I never had a smartphone, I have nothing to compare it with. Some people on the Fairphone forum worry it's not enough though. It seems smartphones that last several days are an exception to rule anyways.

some links:

Facebook photo's of the definitive prototype being worked on.

Fairphone forum: talk about worries about battery life