Slashdot Mirror
Violent Games Good for Kids
fjordboy writes "Scholars from MIT, the University of California in LA, and the University of London have worked together to oppose laws restricting children from playing violent video games. The battle is currently taking place in the US Court of Appeals and the case seems to hold a decent amount of merit. From Vnunet:"Experts on childhood and adolescence have long recognised the importance of violent fantasy play in overcoming anxieties, processing anger, and providing outlets for aggression." Similar article from Reuters as well."
I knew I should have spent more time playing video games and less time studying.
I'm sure the folks over at The Army are glad to hear this one!
Repeated beatings of the gaming industry can't be rescued by a single validation. What really needs to be done is that society must realize that not all disasterous things int he world can be blamed on the gaming industry. When that happens, then it will be a true validation of pc/console gaming.
------
Amadaeus
The last bastion of Mathie-ism
They havn't warped me.
--Inmate # 1268358 Walla Walla State Pen., WA
Feeling better aren't you?
Good for kids and adults!
Conclusion: If you don't let Timmy get rid of excess agression by playing Street Fighter Epsilon 7, his chances of dragon punching his sister in the throat increases exponentially. Capcom and Tecmo should really use quotes from this report in their upcoming advertising. ;)
Awsome news!
*loads up the shotgun*
When I was a kid I released my agression by chopping wood and mowing lawns. Nothing like violently chopping the heads off of 1 million blades of grass to relieve stress.
This space intentionally left blank.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
maybe he meant to write "forgot" - as in, "i forgot to think before writing"
Even though you can argue this both ways and this arguement is far from over....
SCORE ONE FOR SANITY!!
Ultimately, however, what will protect video games from censorship will be free speech issues, not arguments about level of or lack of harm. The fact the more and more video game players are adults will help build consensus for thinking of them as a full-fledged media, and not just a children's toy.
Have these researchers for a moment stopped to consider that hours spent glued to some machine instead of interacting with ones peers is the cause of "anxieties", "anger", and "aggression"? While there may exist a threshold for healthy computer gaming, I am certain that I have met many young men who have exceeded it.
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
Not even in my wildest imaginings did I ever think up running around chainsawing people; good thing we have computers around to help augment our violent fantasy capabilities. Not to mention a verion of DOOM where you hire lawyers to sue the baddys into prison instead of blasting them with a shotgun probably wouldn't sell as well.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most studies have found that most normal kids can handle mildly violent content in video games ok, but when it comes to extreme realistic gore, it pushes borderline kids off the deep end. They've also found that video games primarily excite the kids and small issues (conflict) can become bigger conflict just because of the already heightened emotional state. The cited "experts" in this blurb are just wrong. Fantasy is good but no studies I've ever read have shown evidence of catharsis. That's old freudian stuff which was disproven long ago. Check out Bandura's social learning theory for details about how kids most likely learn from video games.
Does this mean that kiddie porn should be allowed because it allows pedophiles to act out their fantasies in "safe" ways.
TIGER! TIGEr!
Ahhhh, I feel better already!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Kids have always played aggressive games. I don't think that it matters whether it's a video game or sports.
Games don't create psychopaths and cause a kid to bring a gun to school. Parents (or lack of) do that.
When I used to play chess, I would often find myself getting very angry. I'm generally a fairly passive person, but when playing chess, I would just plain get mad. In fact, I would sometimes get so mad that I felt like hitting someone, but I never did.
Anyway, that's somewhat beside the point. "Violent" implies that you are doing something to someone. Nobody gets hurt when I sit down and play "Return to Wolfenstein" on my computer. No real Nazis die. My health doesn't deteriorate, and I generally don't even eat any real chicken dinners while playing. When I play a videogame that simulates violence, I often find myself relieved of lots of stress built up over the workday. When I play chess, I get really stressed and want to hurt people.
Obviously, chess is bad, and games with simulated violence are good.
*sigh*
I just want to be of presidential timber...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This has very little to do about games, even though that's the slant that's being put on it. It also applies to books, movies, television, music, and theater. It also applies to non-fiction as well. I mean, how would world history look if we cut out all the bloody parts?
Still, I am glad that at least one more group has validated my addiction to GTA3 and Crimsonland.
you have stumbled onto the secret plan and must now be eliminated
thank you for understanding
Parents making a decision, you just need to know one thing:
Does your child easily descriminate between fantasy and reality?
If he/she can, then games aren't going to have a detrimental effect.
If he/she can't, start the conselling early. Maybe you can make a difference if you start now.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Personally, I see some games making people more angry and edgy. Take, for example, Counter-Strike. I've been at lan parties where people have gotten seriously pissed off while playing this game, even to the point of violence more than once. And almost everytime it's the same thing: Someone says the way in which they died doesn't count because of any number of complete bullshit reasons(awp shot, camping, even accusations of cheating).
Even I'm guilty of this. I get midly pissed off if I own someone and they go "luck" or "won't happen again". I've seen people that shout "BS" after every single death, it's pretty fucking sad.
Not every game is going to relieve stress. If you're serious about the game, and you're not playing up to your usual standard for whatever reason, you're very quick to anger. It's not very theraputic if cs is giving you a pissed-off anxiety attack.
P.S. Camping with the awp=sniping(fair, and expected). Camping with the mp5=camping(cheap).
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
I haven't read the briefs but normally any form of content based regulation would fall afoul of the 1st amendment. There is however one loophole that allows for some regulation of speech when the welfare of children is directly involved. Basically the Supreme Court has said that kiddy porn does not fall under the first amendment. On the other hand more normal porn does not fall under this exemption. What it seems that the government is trying to do is make a good of the children case over violent video games. I wish them luck, last year the supreme court made it quite clear that they welfare of the child only applied to actually kiddie porn (as opposed to simulated), I doubt the court will expand the exception to violent video games.
Actually the lions share of the market is over 18.
RTCW and GTA3 arent designed for little kids. If they were targetting my 9 year old, they'd be doing a piss-poor job.
He couldn't care less about the titles I enjoy.
I mean, how much money does the average 5-10 year old have in his/her pocket? Richie-Rich aside, its not enough to buy a new game every week.
New as in full MSRP on release day, they dont make money when you pick up Warcraft II BattleChest for 4.99 at babbages.
The video game industry didn't surpass the movie industry in gross sales on little Billy's allowance.
That's the reason there are so many 'Mature' games.
All this "good/bad for your kids" debate does is misdirect the public.
Video games aren't "kids entertainment", any more than all movies are "kids entertainment".
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
don'tchathink?
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
While I doubt the laws will be tremendously effective considering my childhood access to R rated movies despite parental disapproval, I don't see the basis for the legal challenge here.
It seems silly to argue that a video game company or retail store's right to sell a product to a child is greater than that child's parent's right to not allow their child to buy that product.
This isn't to say I think restricting access to video games is going to have any positive affects whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that decision should be taken away from parents.
paintball
This sounds like 'catharsis theory' rehashed. The theory went like this: supposedly watching violent entertainment would provide catharsis for the viewer and reduce violent tendencies.
Seems logical, but too bad it was disproven when research showed the opposite
Other research has shown the link between violent forms of entertainment and violent thoughts and tendencies. For example, target shooters were studied and found to have violent tendencies increased after they engaged in target practice.
Regulate or don't regulate, but let's be honest: violent games have an effect on kids and it isn't likely to be positive.
...I'm 16, which means (fortunately) i cant drive yet. Because when i'm going through one of my "lets play GTA for 10 hours a day" phases, while i'm walking around town all i can think about is "hey there's an unattended cop car", "Omg its a Beast GTS!". And even when i'm in the car with my parents, i really want them to drive up on the pavement and mow some peds for extra cash...Now this doesn't mean i'm actually goin to start stealing cars, but maybe someone who had thought about joy riding, but would never really do it, could be tipped over the edge by games like GTA and Carmageddon.
Everything sucks except musicandstuff
This is also a great way to train our youngsters for the impending international cybernetic wars of the 2030's.
The "Army of One" slogan for this year's Armed Forces recruiting campaign will be consumated by a competition between the greatest FPS gamers in the world... Of course, the North Koreans will win.
On a more serious note. This may be a reality. I can't wait to see. (Hope I live that long)
I'm sorry folks, but this is utter crap. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to a good round of quake, but if a kid has a stress issue that they need to deal with, retreating into a fantasy world where's its ok to pelt someone with rockets is not the way to do it. When my kids squabble, I take them both in hand and say "settle this", then I usually leave the room. As a result, they have remarkably few serious problems.
If violent games don't produce a mentality more able to accept and justify killing then why is the Army using one to get people to join?
The military is the closest legal enviorment where you can regulate like in a FPS... maybe a capture the flag game would be a closer approximation but still.
To quench some of the flames, i have been playing FPS type games for a long time and am definately not a violent person. So i know they affect people differently.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
After the High School shootings in where the kids involved said they had been playing 'Doom' there was a backlash against such video games. Now the studies say it didn't matter. Well I have to believe that those kids were screwed up to begin with and the video games had nothing to do with it. They also claimed that playing doom sharpened their killing skills. Since when does a keyboard, mouse, or joystick handle like a shotgun?
We all need a way to vent anger, and computer games provide a good way of doing it. However, you wouldn't want to allow young children to play 18 rated games (e.g. 8 year old playing Soldier of Fortune 2), that wouldn't be good at all (That game is seriously fucked up).
Theres nothing wrong with a bit of cartoon violence, or the old shoot em ups you see in arcades, though. These things were part of my staple diet when I had an Atari ST in the early 90s. [nostalgia] I miss those games. [/nostalgia]
I grew up with condemned shows like the A-Team, and Airwolf. Shows that people said were too violent for kids. Were kids in the 80's as violent as ones now? Hell no, and it's because the kids growing up just after I did had crap like Captain Planet and other spoon-fed pablum created to make everyone love and respect eachother.
I've got -nothing- wrong with love and respect, great things to have. But those aren't taught by TV, they're taught be experience. When I watched action-oriented TV, I got the adrenaline rush -and- the easy comedown before the credits rolled. Great way to get rid of tension.
Hell, consider those old shows the violence version of masturbation. Probably fits.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Why? I don't see any need. I agree completely with Slashdolt - except it is Monopoly that gets me ticked off (those dumb dicce never roll my way)
- Driving over an innocent in GTA III, score: 30, extra 15 for ending the victim's pain with shotgun.
- Creating you own game to plan and execute the murder of your teacher, score 99, extra 1 for doing it with a chainsaw.
Is that what they wanted say?
I find GTA3 an excellent vent for agression... you can beat people up, fire a rocket launcher at them, etc. But I know the difference from right and wrong (at least I should). I wonder if younger kids still might get the wrong idea. In any case, I wouldn't let my 6-year-old play a game like Grand Theft Auto 3.
In general, the longer kids spend playing video games inside, the less they're out getting into fights and robbing stores (I met a 17-year-old on the bus who just got out of juvenile detention for attempted robbery of a gas station). Why go out and beat someone up when you just did it for the past four hours with your favorite fighting game? Just don't set the skill level too high...
Now, are you going to tell me that the experience of playing cops and robbers or football is similiar to playing GTA3? Obviously, the kinds of images imprinted in the minds of those who play very violent video games is very different than that of making a gun with your finger and shooting someone.
Why is it that those who love violent video games will prop up any study that supports their cause and ignore or discredit any that goes against it? Obviously, it's a tactic that all sorts of groups like but I would hope that "nerds" could be a bit more scientific than that. It seems a bit obvious to me that engaging in agressive behavior, whether it is in the form of a video game or not, will result in a more agressive personality.
Most don't say that games create psycopaths or cause people to kill other people. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved. But as a parent, I don't want my children playing games that glorify violence. Of course, the typical response of people is that it is entirely upon my shoulders to make that happen. The ultimate responsability of my children's welfare is in my hands, but people have grown so used to the automatic response that it's up to the parents to control every aspect of their children's lives, that I'm getting sick of it. I guess I'm going to have to completely remove the television from our home (which I probably will do anyway), make sure he never goes over to anyone's house without me, because who knows what games he may play over their, and generally lock up my children in basements to protect them.
Whoa, now I'm on a completely different subject. What were we talking about?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
"Crying and mowing the lawn at the same time! How's that for therapy? 'Geez, the Leary kid is in therapy again -- their lawn looks great!'"
They all do.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
>...I'm 16, which means (fortunately) i cant drive yet.
To which I have to ask, at what age can you drive in the UK? (I am assuming from your email address)
Over here in canada you can get a full drivers license at 16.
Later
Such general statements as "violent games" good/bad for people are absurd.
It depends on the person.
Some people will use it as a stress reliever. Its good for those people.
Others will get too into it and become hyper-competitive; it'll make them stressed, and they'll get up tight. Probably bad for those people.
Point is, it depends on the person.
One person derives please from that which causes pain in another. For example, while some people may love cottage cheese and it brings them pleasure, it makes me sick.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
This will make everyone happy. Dancing rocket toting virtual killers. Good for the heart, good for the brain, good for the kids, good for the USofA! I'm all for it.
Perhaps that's a valid positive aspect of violence in video games. But what about the negatives: that it desensitizes us to violence, and we even grow to enjoy it? Take television as an example. When I look around in the U.S., I see a nation of television addicts, whose priorities, interests, and cultural views are largely influenced by what they absorb watching television. One inevitable aspect of watching a lot of TV is witnessing violence. This might provide a cathartic outlet for some of us, but I think it also trains us to accept, expect, and even enjoy such violence... after all, if people didn't enjoy it, it wouldn't sell, so it wouldn't be on TV. Now, maybe adults can separate reality from fantasy (I personally don't believe this, but it is arguable), but can kids? From my experience, they are *drastically* less adept at this than adults, and I think adults forget this (until they have kids of their own, and then begin to take a conservative viewpoint on it - for a reason). Video games are in the same boat. Violent video games also desensitize people to what real-life acts of violence - such as murder and war - mean. Violence becomes glorified; it gets associated with fun, recreation, pleasure, endorfins. I'm not saying that what this study says is wrong; I'm sure that video-game violence is a cathartic outlet and can sometimes play a positive role. But that's only one aspect of it; we have to look at the big picture. Now, I know a lot of you slashdotters love video games, and I expect to get ripped for this one... but please, you don't have to dismember me - let's keep the discussion fair and mature, ok? Ryan Geiss
People ARE violent. Games are not going to mitigate or ameliorate that. You know why we are violent? Because for 2 million years we've killed, eaten and dominated all comers.
Our ONLY evolutionary advantage is not big brains or stereoscopic vision or opposable thumbs. It's aggression. It's our unquenchable lust to be the last one standing, dripping with someone else's blood.
... he gets cranky when his schedule is disrupted.
You idiot, check your video game statistics before you blabber non-sense.
This is a pretty classic example of people trying to pass the buck on who is responsible for their children and what they do. Regardless of whether violent images in video games harm, help or do nothing at all to children, the responsibility for deciding what is appropriate for each child and the consequences of that choice lies with the parents. If your kid has no friends and spends 12 hours a day in front of the tv, IT IS YOUR FAULT not the broadcasters who provide the shows. YOU should be monitoring what your child watches, just like YOU should be monitoring what your child does online. Passing the buck by enacting more useless and unenforceable legislation merely provides additional opportunity for lawsuits and does nothing at all for the children who are so easily used as examples of what is "wrong" with each industry. Those kids need involved parents, not more laws that regulate what they can do/see/say/think.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
Computer games don't affect kids.
If Pac Man affected us as kids, we would all be running around in
darkened rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive music.
Probably not exactly on topic, but since when did I give a shit about my karma :P.
I have found myself getting mad at multiplayer video games. Quake, UT, Tribes, AA.
My current video game outlet is Battlefield 1942. It seems to require quite a bit more skill than most "twitch" games, and the deaths can be pretty damn funny sometimes. When I die, I usually find myself congratulating the person who killed me, and/or laughing at the way I died. You still have the occasional CS kiddie on the games, but for the most part, the crowd seems to be a bit more cordial.
I think the main draw of the game for me is the challenge of coming up with new and funny ways of killing people. Usually when I turn the game off it's because I've stayed up way too late, and not because I am frustrated. It's somewhat violent, but its not overly gory (has a 'T' rating). This game is a perfect example of a game that doesnt need shock value to be appealing and fun.
If there turns out to be a medical benefit to playing violent video games then we might have to worry about them being regulated by the FDA :(
yes some children probably shouldn't be playing quake, it depends on the personality type I guess. that's what parenting is for anyway.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Trust me, I am not a troll...
I've always thought that cursing was a cathartic release. Get a little built up rage, let out a good string of 4 letter words, and you feel much better. You don't kick the dog as often.
It might not be proven that these games are good for kids, but it seems to be an intuitive conclusion. Doing violent things in fantasy is always preferable to doing violent things in real life.
A lot of things that uppity people label as "bad" are made worse if you ban them! Now we can tie this entire thread into everything from porn to alcohol and drugs. Quit banning things! There's a REASON people seek an escape from real life! Sometimes that reason is to deflect seriously unsocial behaviors into a harmless fantasy world.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
My eight year old nephew has been playing lan games of Unreal Tourney and Q-III at my sisters house for the last couple years, and he kicks ass, knows all the maps all the good camping spots etc etc.. He also plays all the Pokemon games. Does good in school and is generally well rounded.
Through his playing these games on a PC he also knows more about networking, and has more general computer knowledge than probably 60% of the population. I can only see this leading to positive things.
A.C.
what the hell is a foggot?
...So to answer your question, I don't know.
Well, it's not quite a fog, it's not quite a puppet, but man...WAHAHAHA!
Ha. It's humor. Laugh.
I let my kids (10 and 6) play violent games. I recently purchased Turok: Evolution for the GameCube. I had no problems letting my kids play it, even though is was rated Mature. Both of my children know that it's not real because I've explained to them how games work, and more importantly, why you can't go around killing people for real. Hell, I've had a similiar conversation with them regarding TV and movies. My point, it's up to the parents to raise their children knowing wrong from right, virtual from real, etc.. I think we might just play some deathmatch tonight ...
Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash slash dot dot org slash
NO!
One should only supress emotions such as anger and hatred, so they can stoke a fire inside you, rather than making you look angry, until you destroy the world in a fit of rage! DEATH TO INFIDELS!!! DEATH TO NON INFIDELS!!! Oh. I feel better now. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Supression, not control, is the answer!
Ask me, three time serial-killer killcount award winner SJ Zero!
It's been a long time.
I would really like to know who these "experts" are. This notion of "playing out fantasies" or "venting of aggression" in the psychological literature is known as catharsis. Any first year psychology student SINCE the time of Freud is taught that the notion of catharsis is false.
Note: I am not saying that the group is wrong in what it is doing; only that the reporter is claiming results that have been demonstrated to be false for quite some time.
Yeah, it's from The Simpsons. I didn't think I needed to explain that.
You mean like this?
o me tech.html
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/1999/h
I wont bother you with actually reading it, here's the opening paragraph.
NEW YORK, MAY 13, 1999 - Young teens are the biggest users of video game systems - right? Not according to a new survey of home technology from Nielsen Media Research which shows nearly 75% of the 63 million people using video game systems in the U.S. are 18 years old or older (18+). The most recent data show that 25% of video game system users - 15.6 million persons - are teens (persons 12-17), 40% of users - 25.2 million persons - are in the 18 - 34 age bracket, and 34% - 21.4 million persons - are 35+.
Of course NIELSEN wouldnt know anything about entertainment demographics, would they?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
agreed,
i think that parents these days spend alot less time with their children then they should. if there is no role model figure around, video games make take the place of one.
17 ratings are a bit too high. children learn a lot more in the first few years of their life then at the age of 17. i think if there were to be a game rating system, that it should be more like 7 or 8. (for games like resident evil, unreal)
there is far more danger on influencing a child at a younger age. this is where voilent games should be "banned" (allowing only older kids to buy the game)
The idea is that venting provides a sort of release so that people will not have to take out their rage on others. However, recent evidence by Bushman (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2002; not available on-line for free) suggests that venting actually increases anger. He ran an experiment in which he angered subjects, then distracted them to think about something else or allowed them to hit a punching bag to "vent" their anger. The punching bag group became more, not less, angry.
Having them punch a bag may have kept the focus of their anger more fully in mind. It may have also raised their physical arousal level (a correlate of anger) allowing them to better maintain their anger level.
AMEN
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
Otherwise you would have kids running around with rocket launchers all the time. Where they would get them from, I don't know.
Jonahweb.com has stuff.
Get used to it. Seems playing violent video games does nothing for one's sense of haha.
Try kissing some ass instead.
-- Karma whore? You betcha. --
James Morrow wrote a beautiful novel called The Wine of Violence partly about the cathartic effects of violent fantasy. Morrow is probably the best satirical writer in English, and one of the best since Jonathan Swift.
:)
Briefly, a spaceship returning to Earth stumbles upon a planet where people live in harmony inside a walled city. There's no violence, physical or psychological, at all. Periodically these people go to special temples and live out their most violent fantasies in virtual reality; the ecto-plasmic by-product of this fantasy is called "noctus" and it pours out to surround the walls of the city.
See, the wastelands around the city are populated by the brain-eaters, humanoids who indulge their violent tendancies to the extreme. Problematically, the crew of the ship must convince the peaceful city-folk to wage war on the brain-eaters so they can return to their ship and escape.
This plot is mostly a hanger for Morrow's explorations of the nature of humanity and violence. Morrow's other writings are also fascinating. He's one of three or four SF authors I'll buy in hardback 'cause I can't wait for paper.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Thank goodness video games are helpful to development and what not.
I was afraid that all of my raving and pill popping had something to do with all of the Pacman I played as a child.
That is not violent games causing that, its competition. Competition is at fault there and it happens in non-violent games too. Example is chess; did you ever see those grand champions that lost to a computer? I swear I thought they were going to pick up a chair and start swinging. It's the same in any game some people are graceful losers and some resort to using violence or calling people cheaters or what not.
(I'm sure I'll get a bunch of flames, but here goes) ...sure games are important, and I've spent many hours on 'em, but these realistic aggression games are harmful for young children. Why were the nazis able to watch thousands die a horrid death? Why were prison guards able to do unimaginable things through the ages...were they warped? (maybe), but the truth is they were DESENITIZED to the inhuman acts they were performing. How do you do that? Expose them to this stuff over and over. Who are the 'darkest' criminals? The ones that have seen the worst acts and it doesn't faze them anymore. Children cannot differentiate between reality and fantasy like we can. Let a child play hours of doom and he won't care that he just ran over your dog.
by an unknown author:
I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is alot more dangerous than a Playstation.
'Nuff Said.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I played hundreds of hours of violent games all through my youth, sat through thousands of hours of violent television and movies, and read dozens, nay, hundreds of books involving violence, death, and bloodshed.
Yet I haven't been in anything resembling a fight since I was in eighth grade, 11 years ago; I'm opposed to war, using violence to solve societal problems, and so on. Have I ever had the urge to run some asshole off the road, or punch some jerk in the face? Sure. But I'm able to restrain myself.
This doesn't prove that violent games are harmless to everyone; but it does prove that it's at least possible for someone to be exposed to large amounts of violent content without becoming some kind of... whatever it is that the anti-violence lobby thinks you turn into. A Columbine killer, I suppose. Given that the overwhelming majority of kids who play violent games do not themselves become violent adults, if a kid plays violent games and becomes violent himself, it's because he's either stupid, or insane, or was never taught that actual violence is wrong.
We don't ban hammers because some sociopath kills someone with a hammer now and then; and we shouldn't ban video games because some asshole who played them kills someone now and then.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
This is getting annoying...it seems like every odd day there is a study showing something is good for you, and every even day there is one saying exactly the opposite. I have gotten to the point of not trusting any study and going on common sense. Eight hours of simulated killing a day is not good for you, just as eight hours a day of talking about peace, the environment, world good, etc would make you want to kill someone (even if yourself).
Give it up already.
Yes, there are too many poo poo heads on Slashdot, that use their mod for evil, instead of good.
I'd rather see the off colour humor, with the articles, then have to click more to look at all of the writing below my threshold.
Even if you DO police your kids, you're not going to keep these things (violence, sex, nudity, drugs, fighting, curse words, etc...) a secret for very long. No amount of legislation is going to mitigate your responsibility as a parent to explain to your kids what it all means when they stumble on it.
My basic problem with violent games legislation is that it has the potential to be carried to its logical extreme -- NO games may contain anything bad or controversial! If this happens, I'll be playing some very old games. I already do this, playing games that're 20yr old or more, but without the piss-poor attitude that goes along with being treated like a 7-year-old.
Parents should definitely decide if their kids can play these games, but I don't want them telling a 32-year-old man who knows fake from real what he can and cannot play.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
When will this end....
Some slashdotter finds an article that justifies his hobby and then we get 500 comments saying "look, I played games and I'm not screwed up."
The real question is "How many of the people trying to justify violent games actually have kids?" I know I'll be keeping my son from these types of games until High School. When he gets older and can actually get a girl friend because he knows how to relate to people he'll thank me.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
If my kid Tommy needs to take his aggression out, I don't want him taking it out on video games. It's far better for him to take it out on his classmates, friends and neighbors dog. Actually the neighbors dog isn't around any longer since Tommy got his last test back, so it will have to be his friends and classmates.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Violent games are bad for you!
No, they're good for you!
Make up your mind or i'm going to HURT someone!
remind me of wild declarative statements made by pothead friends saying that study X shows conclusively, without doubt, that pot is good for you. There's something inherently defensive about skewing one little report that much. These kinds of arguments are made by people desperate for validation. Yes, violence is perhaps blamed too much on video games by the media and others. But prescribing violent video games to children without conclusive evidence of its benefits (which will never exist) is just as awful as the legislators who seek to remove violent games completely.
There's no doubt that violent fantasy is a good release. But generations of kids (including myself) were able to do just fine with our imaginations.
...AFTER playing GTA3, to the point where I can't trust myself to drive because I get urges to run over pedestrians and pull cops out of their cars and shoot them...I'm not the only person who gets these urges, my normally very peaceful and spiritual acupuncturist got the same urges after playing it...but I CAN say it's never given me the urge to pick up a prostitute with the notion that I will get healthier...
Course, I can't say that the violence is what is compelling me, since when I play SSX I get the urge to drive my Jeep up hills on the side of the highway and try to do flips...I just can't find where Jeep hid the buttons to cause the flips...
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
There's no link to the actual law, so without having read it, I can only think it probably follows the same path of many ill-written laws in regards to software/technology. They are usually just too extreme.
Define 'violence' in video games. If a law is too generally written, it could end up including Mario Kart because you can shoot bombs at the other players. Or how about the new Harry Potter (pretty cool game) where he goes around with a magic wand bopping bad monsters to make them disappear.
I have a serious problem with 15 year-old boys playing Grand Theft Auto (the whole prostitute/murder thing) and I do think storeowners need to be more responsible about selling 'Mature' games to young kids. But therein lies the problem, the Mature rating is so vague, it leaves a parent, who will probably never even glance at the game (or know to look for the rating in the first place), to decide whether their 8, 12, or 15 year-old is 'mature' enough to handle the game.
With that in mind its easy to see why those in control think there is a need for such a law. Parents really need to wake up and pay attention and be responsible for their own children. It's too much to keep passing bad laws because people refuse to watch their own turf.
have you stopped for a moment to consider that the hours/days spent being tormented by your peers in early school may have actually attributed to these "anxieties"? a machine has never done anything mean to me, but childhood was hell for many people. any anxiety i've ever had (that i'm aware of) has come from the childhood/adolescent abuse that is ""normal"" (another load bs - the normal bit)
Sports also do this quite well, without condoning anything immoral (ie. murder). Sure you could say some are a little "violent", but not in a way that promotes hatred. You're always taught to physically beat your opponent, but not to hate him. Plus this mode of violence promotes something else that was quite important last time I checked: health.
You know, the same MIT that got $51 million in grant bucks for ripping off a comic book artist? Bet he's playing some violent video games right now.
While it is entirely interesting debating the psychological impact of violent video games, this misses the point entirely. I agree personally with everything that the acedemic types are saying in this article. I disagree that this is a reason to get rid of a law that is not banning violent video games for children, but rather only making parental consent required. I think this is entirely can be reasonable.
I say "can be" because this could get to the point where it truely does turn into a censoreship type issue, but if all the children need to do is have their parents enable them as members of the account that can rent MA video games then this law is fine.
This is the same guy (different account) that posted the BS about Ogg Vorbis yesterday and got shot down by Monty. Moderators should mod accordingly.
May we never see th
let's see, when angry, you can hurt the person you are mad at.. mm, no, bad idea.
Punch a pillow till you are exhausted (reccomended by some counselers).. er, not really satisfying.
Or you can go blow stuff up on the computer! Vent anger, and is fun and saisfying. Optionally, grab yor bag of dice and rulebooks, and go play a quick hack and slash session of DnD. Not as immediately gratifying, but still fun!
"It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'
I can see a 6 year old say it now... "Let's get it on!!" Of course this quote is from Duke Nukem, which the quotes were ripped of Army of Darkness (I & II).
Mod- Funny +2, Interesting +2
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Now somebody go tell my wife that me coming out of the man room covered in sweat and after swearing constantly for an hour straight doesn't always mean my p0rn download was crap.
If you ever want to prove a great point about nothing, just commission a study about it.
I think more deaths have been caused by people's interaction with soccer, than with every video game on the market.
"Have these researchers for a moment stopped to consider that hours spent glued to some machine instead of interacting with ones peers is the cause of "anxieties", "anger", and "aggression"?"
Most of my peers are the cause of my anxiety, anger, and aggression. It's very hard to not be anxious about a future with "peers" who vote for the person they think is going to win, just so they won't somehow be a loser. Or the next best thing, those other "peers" who vote for the guy who they think is a less incompetent jerk off and try to get you to vote for the same. It's very hard not to feel anger towards "peers" who complain about "the system", all while their mouthes are wrapped tightly around its teets. It's very hard not to feel aggression towards those who want to take away your right to vent your anger at the complete and total lack of respect for the sovereignty of the individual in an allegedly free society. Indeed, they want to make it so I can't vent my rage in a video game, because they are worried that I might become even angrier.
Maybe people like me can make people like you happy if we start going to NRA meetings and gun shows, interacting with THOSE peers. We can share our common frustrations with people who think they can look at someone on the outside and know what the problem is on the inside and legislate answers to fix them. Then, when we feel really aggressive, we can take our weapons and go interact with the other peers that cause our anxiety, anger, and aggression...
Or maybe people like you would be happier after all if we just stayed at our computers and kept releasing that aggression on people other than our peers. Worth a thought, ain't it?
This is not a threat of violence, I believe ONLY in peace. My point is to underscore that the vast majority of people who play video games, are not out there beating the crap or shooting other people when they are frustrated, but are killing off other people with vengeful glee in pretend for video games.
Too bad GW and the rest of the war mongering lunatics in this nation don't spend more time playing video games. Maybe they wouldn't need to play games with the lives of real people.
The video game industry didn't surpass the movie industry in gross sales on little Billy's allowance.
That is an interesting contrast. Many video games are targeted at 18+ "mature" users, but I've noticed that there are many more PG and PG-13 movies than R movies in the past few years. The movie industry is trying to take away our sex and violence to make a quick buck from teenagers.
cpeterso
I think that we just need to look at the reasons WHY violent games are popular if we want to understand this question. Violent games sell well because many people think they are good entertainment. And the reason for this is that people are inherently aggressive.
Now, most people know when it's acceptable to be aggressive and when it's not. And playing violent games is a socially acceptable way of being aggressive, and a way that allows people who are usually at the receiving end of agression in real life to act out their agressive fantasies without any lasting effects.
In my opinion, violent games are simply a natural thing for humans to create given human nature. I don't think that they are going to change our nature one way or the other, because they are a reflection of the nature we already have.
An interview with Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) argues that the notion that the symbolic representation of violence causes real world violence is strictly analogous to voodoo.
Remember the study on hand to eye coordination?
You and the article are interpreting the meaning of the Nielsen figures incorrectly, because the cited age categories are of different sizes. They can't be compared head to head the way you've tried to do. Let's see - 15.6M in a group spanning 6 years yields about 2.6M in each year, assuming the population of teens is fairly stable. 25.2M persons in a group spanning 17 years is about 1.5M in each year, again assuming stability. We can't say anything definite about the older adults, since the category is open ended and the assumption of year-to-year population stability fails badly when you get into the older adults. However, based on the first two categories, I'd be willing to bet that the probability of being a video gamer given you're a teen is substantially higher than the probability of being a video gamer given you're an adult. In other words, the proportion of gamers is higher amongst teens than adults. Of course, the actual proportion depends on how big the baseline populations are. But in order for the proportion of teens to be lower than that of adults the number of 12 year olds would have to be more than 40% larger than the number of 34 year olds (to pick the two years farthest apart and therefore likely to have the largest difference in population) to account for the difference in the numerators.
Why do people accept that most video games, even Mario and Pokemon, require the player to beat other characters to death or unconsciousness, but get bothered by sex appeal? DOAVB and BMXXX don't even let the player have consentual sex, they only have skimpy clothing and some stripping, and in real life stripping is nothing compared to killing. Why does everybody ignore that?
Parents, would you prefer your kid to murder someone or play doctor?
But companies aren't going to care about proportions of populations, they're going to care about the raw numbers. If I produce a game that will guarantee me 100% of the 3 memeber 5 - 6 year old janitor population as opposed to one that will give me about 10% of the 100 million member "young adult" catagory, I wouldn't conclude that the 100% is better. These companies want to move as many titles as possible, so in terms of number of potential buyers it's better to target the 18+ crowd.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
"operant conditioning"?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Just after I became 17 as well...
sighs...
Hmmm... Pie...
Say anything nasty against the islamic and it will butcher your children. ANY islamic. Even the ones that preach peace, when inside their black twisted hearts yearn for destruction.
Think about it, if muslim filth didn't want the world to plunge into global devastation, then Saddam would have let the weapons inspectors back in a LONG time ago.
Video Games may not cause cancer, but anything to excess is bad. Most gaming time can easily be spent doing something else, something better for you than the games are.
I know of several young children that have picked up the finer aspects of violent video games such as cursing, bad hand gestures, rude comments. Yes it is true that there are other sources to obtain these skills, but why add to the list?
Get a free ipod.
Children throughout history have fantasized about violence.
Back in the day, kids would play cowboys and indians. Others would play soldiers.
I, of course, ran around pretending to decapitate people with swords. While my sanity is still quite in question, I fit the bill into 'kids who played games involving not-real-killing who haven't exactly caused any mass murders'.
Turn to video games. If anything, these can only heighten the benefits of pretend violence. Look at not-roleplaying games like Square's Final Fantasy series. I know people who wouldn't cry at someone's funeral, but sobbed pitifully when one of their favorite characters was offed through violence.
Of course, the argument goes something along the lines of, "In Quake, everyone respawns." Yeah, well, in real life, I can't jump off a ledge, take five damage, and then mow down a building of people with my BFG 10k.
So how is it, then, that we can grasp the fact that there are no BFG's or Quad Damage in real life, but we can't grasp the fact that when you shoot someone in real life, they don't respawn?*
Could it be that we shouldn't be looking at fantasy vs. reality, since it's quite a known fact that children over the age of five tend to be able to discern that difference? That we should look instead at the real causes, such as those wonderful parents who think the TV or computer is a babysitter? The ones who think their kids will be fine even though they spend no time with them because their all-holy careers are more important?
Kull wahad.
* Unless your religion, of course, believes in reincarnation. I guess that kinda qualifies as respawning.
I play everquest and I have seen people that play more than what I consider a reasonable amount. I also know some of these people personally. From my experience the persons anxieties and social problems are not a result of the exccessive gaming, but rather their social problems are what drives them to seek social interaction in a medium that they find more comfortable. The problems were already there, gaming might not help them develop social skills or get over their anxieties, but it didn't start them either.
We have to remember that the primary reason children have a difficult time distinguishing reality from fiction is so many are taught to suppress this innate human instinct in order to properly conform with their parent's religious dogma of choice.
Nevermind the fact the world's bibles contain material far more sadistic than the average video game, is it any wonder people have problems accepting reality for what it is? Remember, little Johnny is taught video games are bad, but it is ok for God to flood the entire world and kill everyone save a few because a couple folks didn't show him enough deference. Genocide is ok, simulated violence is not.
Until children are taught rational empiricism from the very beginning, we will have crazy violent people. 9/11 was a direct result of some poor folks thinking some fictional being wanted them to act as they did.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Those that demonstrate they cannot use even the simplest power granted to them will find themselves as fodder for those that can
Two words, man...
;)
SMASH TV
That game relieved a lot of stress for my friends and I in high school at the arcade. Also lightened the load of the change in my pocket pretty quickly, too.
hah! (for those who don't know, senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is one of the most active people in proposing legislation to censor computer software/video games)
People ARE violent
There's a degree of nature in it, but violence has a lot of cultural.
Compare the Japanese before and after Second World War. Same about the Jews. There is a sharp difference in acceptance of violence, and it's not caused by a change in their brains or DNA.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I mean, how much money does the average 5-10 year old have in his/her pocket? Richie-Rich aside, its not enough to buy a new game every week.
Point a) They're targetting teens. Not 10-year-olds, but still kids.
b) Piracy costs little money. Many teens have no problem with downloading or copying games
c) In an aside, I've watched violent movies and played violent games since I was about 9. I never developed any real-life violent tendencies...or than smacking my old monitor whenever it used to make odd high-pitch noises (it worked, loose circuit?).
But yes, a little online slaying does tend to loosen one up a bit, unless you suck and die too much - phorm
It's not necessarily true that companies will prefer to focus on young adults. Its a question of how much bang you get for your advertising buck, how much payoff there is for the effort invested. For instance, if you're a video games sales person working on commission and you've got a mix of people in the store, you'll have a higher hit rate if you target the teens. You'd never know that if you took the raw figures at face value.
I felt more anger and violence rising in me playing chess against an oponent than playing a shooter. I actually feel really tired after playing a shooter, not what you would call violent :).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Dude you didn't read the article did you. "In mid-April, a federal court in Missouri upheld a St. Louis County ordinance requiring parental consent for minors to purchase video games that depict graphic violence." This law ensures that "...the responsibility for deciding what is appropriate for each child and the consequences of that choice lies with the parents". The idea is that the parents have more control when "monitoring what your child watches". I don't agree with the bill entirely but it certainly isn't "Passing the buck" because the resposibility is still the parents.
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
Not a lot of hard data here, just my own experiences:
It sounds to me like you are talking about social interactions surrounding games or in the "LAN party" atmosphere. I think this should be handled quite differently since it is likely to be a side effect of these same people in any competition.
In my experience people sitting around playing a board game can become just as violent if we are talking about people that are "very into" the game.
I've personally felt good levels of stress relief playing the computer, or against players not in the room. When I do get too anxious in those settings it usually goes away when I step away from the game.
RudeDude
Perl/Linux/PHP hacker
Violence is bad m'kay?
Fear the Gord. Love the Gord.
For anyone who doesn't believe this: Sit through a two-hour long meeting with a manager and then go play twenty minutes of GTA3.
Feeling better aren't you?
Play Mario Sunshine or Tetris for 20 minutes and you'd feel even better. Anything that takes your mind off of your frustration will relive it.
Actual scientific research into the so-called 'cathartic' effect has shown that it simply doesn't exist. The reason you feel better after playing GTA3 is because it's fun, not because you get to 'work out' your aggression.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm a big fan of the game Jet Grind Radio and it's sequel Jet Set Radio Future. It's basically a game where you skate around and tag buildings with graffiti. It's a lot of fun, and in the game you can "grind" on railings, power lines, etc. Basically you jump onto them and slide. You can do that in games like Tony Hawk as well.
:P
:P
Anyway, after playing for a while I noticed that when I would see a railing or corner I would get the urge to jump on it and 'grind', even though I wasn't wearing skates.
(it has also given me latent urges to start tagging things, but that's more of a constant nag rather then an instantaneous thing like with grinding)
After playing Gran Tourismo 3 I get the urge to drive way to fast
Running over pedestrians in GTA3 gets kind of old for me, so I never really did it much when playing
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Humans are just different in that somehow, some of us just seem to "snap" and totally lose perspective and rationality. Animals fight each other over territory or mates, but they usually don't kill each other; one will give up at some point.
Seriously, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Animals kill eachother all the time over various disputes. You are, just, totaly wrong...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
RPG bad !
No, RPG good !
videogames bad !
No, videogames good !
Napster bad !
No, Napster good !
HEY, TEACHERS, LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE !
I think you failed to detect a hint of sarcasm in my voice with regards to my comments about other preditors. The sad fact is that our little town once had bears, mountain lions, et all, but that humans destroyed them all. No amount of aggression could do that without the aid of the tools and ideas that the origional auther tries to downplay... Additionally, these creatures were destroyed due to fear, rather than aggression, again, going back to my point.
Look at forgin policy... Look at the war on 'terror.' Look at the US tendency to poke our noses into other people's business... Look at our LACK of expansionary movement.
We fight for oil, we fight for 'security.' Greed and fear; both in their very primal forms, but with rather advanced technology. Dude, all off this supports my point that aggression is a means to an end, rather than a goal. Deer don't fight for the sake of fighting, they do it for mating and survival. Most (if not all) animals (including humans) will *NOT* attack each other just for the hell of it.
The problem is that he (and you it seems,) believe that people will kill each other for the sake of doing so. He's wrong.
Sadism is the exception rather than the norm.
This all says to me that he has a lot of pent up anger at the world.
If people are so deeply agressive, why the vocal support for conservation from the slashdot community? Have slashdotters really lost some basic human instinct? Do you think humanity has fundimentally changed over the past million years?
*sighs*
so the kid will be smooth, happy, calm and relaxed when it pulls the trigger on me.
It would probably be more reassuring to me if the kid got into the habit of relieving aggression by climbing.
I'd rather be hugged like a tree by default than butchered like a bug-eyed slobbering spawn from hell.
Lol, guess I'm an "Anonymous Coward" until I finish setting up my account. It will be "tibike77" afterwards.
You DO have a point, but you're slightly wrong.
A child DOES differentiate better between fantasy and reality, the only problem is that fantasy is equally important to him as reality.
The problem is parent's education and time spent with their children...
Tell you what: have an angry/upset kid play with other kids a couple of hours of Doom, THEN, after a 5 minute break, ask him something that he would normally NOT tell you because he was angry or upset. Then, ask him if he would want to kill the person who was the reason of his anger or sadness...
You will be surprised what answer you will get.
Maybe I need to play it in God mode.. :)
Well, maybe...
http://www.jumpbump.mine.nu/
Windoze not found: (C)heer, (P)arty or (D)ance
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
DUDE! the mp5 is mad accurate! I snipe with it!
So violence and indistiguishing between fantasy and reality is religions fault?
Absurd!
If one assumes that only gamers enter the store, then most of the people in the store will be adults. However, a recent trip to EB to browse the shelves suggests that more teens frequent retail shops. I suspect that this is because adults, with easier access to a credit card, are more likely to buy online. But this gives the image-conscious media the false impression that most of the market is what they can see standing at the shelves.
As much as I'd like to believe this applies to video games, I have mixed feelings about it. When I play a violent game offline, just killing "monsters" I find it relieves tension very well.
But going online in Quake and fighting real people can be a very different experience. The way I play seems to really piss people off. I like to go straight for the big weapons, and if that works well for me I stick with it. I also tend to "camp" which means staying in one spot and defending it. This really pisses people off. When you don't play the way people expect you to play they really direct a lot of hostility towards you. I think this indicates these people have a real problem coping with anger, channelling it into verbal hostility instead of dealing with the real problem by trying to keep me away from my favorite weapon.
Words like "nigger" and "gay" are often used. This of course, demonstrates much more general hostility not just towards another player, but towards certain ethnic groups and homosexuals and perhaps even the world as a whole.
Then again, maybe these are the very people who need to vent this hostility the most. Perhaps this is the only thing that prevents them from going on a real shooting spree.
Give me a moment to switch my brain to your way of thinking.... *CLICK*
Interesting that the world is always black and white on Slashdot.
Can *you* cite any studies on this?
It says a lot about the ability of most of the Slashdot crowd to grasp the complexity of any problem that isn't hard science that this comment was modded up.
Why do you find *that* so obvious? Maybe people who don't like some posts dont bother to mod them down... Could be, could not be... prove it.
Ha! Hm....
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Shadows are as important as the light" - Jane Eyre
"Shows that people said were too violent for kids. Were kids in the 80's as violent as ones now? "
No, they were more violent. The incidence of violent crime has been steadily dropping for 20 years.
However, the reporting and awareness of violent crime has increased. Think what it would've been like if Kennedy were shot today. CNN would cover it for weeks, we'd still be hearing Dallas citizens telling us about it a year later on national TV. Media is the bigger problem, overstimulating this violence-counter response in a vicious cycle.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The relationship between media violence and behaviour is a complex question which is very difficult to research. For ethical reasons you can't do longitudinal exposure studies with young people randomly assigned which provide sound proof. Therefore the area is hotly contested. Wherever you get strong business interests you always can round up a group of scholars to argue your case. Take the effect of tobacco and global warming as two cases in point. In any scientific area anyone with half a clue can trawl through the literature and mount an argument by the way they spin the rhetoric. People reading it from outside the discipline have no way of judging the credibility of the argument. If I wanted to get some sense about how to write complex code for designing computer games I would not expect to find it from a group which consisted of thirty one psychologists and assorted types and only one trainee games programmer and one professional programmer. What would a group like that know about writing code?
In this case you are expecting me to believe a group pontificating about media violence which consists of 31 people whose job it is to sell and comment on the media and one trainee psychologist and one professional. Interestingly the spin in the media falsely hams up the weight of the psychology input - the Free Expression Project describes the academics as "scholars in the fields of media, psychology, and culture" - psychology should come a pathetic last in this list. The Reuters story describes them as "...the group of scholars, who included social psychologists, and media experts.." milking the tiny contribution from a couple of psychologists.
The Free Expression Policy Project is part funded by the Andy Warhol Foundation, these guys are getting their fifteen minutes of fame, while we get little enlightenment.
If I want to know about writing game code I would talk to the experts. If I want to know about the effect of media violence on children I would go to the American Psychological Association, they are worried, very worried, and so should we all be. There comment on television violence is below.
Here are the disciplines of the "experts group" providing advice on child psychology and media violence.
- Communications
- Film and Television studies
- Education in culture
- History and American studies
- English
- Psychology (still doing their doctorate)
- Media psychology
- Communications
- Author
- Communications
- Humanities
- Author
- Radio television and film studies
- Film and interdisciplinary humanities
- English
- Sociology
- Humanities and screen studies
- Hypermedia
- Gender studies and critical studies
- Film television and school, documentary maker
- Language literature and communications
- Multimedia designer, artist and games
- researcher
- Film studies
- Sociology and communications
- Editor of Cineaste magazine
- Journalist
- Communications
- Film and television studies
- Media studies
- Film studies
- Film studies
- Editor of Children's Software Review
Finaly, a quote from a comment from American Psychological Association On TV Violence* In anticipation of 2.10.02 release, updated to patchlevelm it.glibc.motdcache2.trace.whois1-2.config8-9.stats w.sprintf2-3.msgtree2.memleak1-2+.msgtree2-3.gline 8-9.gline9-10.invite2.rbr.stats.numclients.whisper .whisper1-2.stats1-2.nokick1-2.chroot.config9-11.s nomask7-8.limi+t1-3.userip1-3.userip3-4.config11-1 2.config12-13.umode2-3.akillsbt.who4-5.kn.kn1-2.fr eebsdcore2.msgtree3-5.y2k.glibc1-2.rmfunc.msgf+lag s2.who5-6.nickchange2.glibc2-3.modeless3
+ircu2.10.01+.config6-7.config7-8.lgline3.iwho.li
-- From the annoucement of ircd 2.10.01-3 for Debian GNU/Linux
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...