Slashdot Mirror
GameToo Much...... And Die!
A 24-year-old South Korean man died after playing computer games nonstop for 86 hours, police said yesterday. The jobless man, identified by police only by his last name Kim, was found dead at an Internet cafe in Kwangju, 260 kilometres southwest of Seoul, they said.
Quoting witnesses, police detective Oh Myong-sik in Kwangju said the man had been virtually glued to the computer since late last Friday and had no decent sleep and meals. The man collapsed in front of the counter early yesterday but soon regained consciousness. He then went to the toilet where he later was found dead, the police officer said. Initial investigation ruled out the possibility of murder, police said. An autopsy was planned.
Source Article can be found in The Sydney Morning Herald
In related gaming news: sam_handelman writes "In an article on the front page of the online edition, (free reg required) the new york times takes a rather negative look at the rise of broadband gaming in South Korea. The author, Howard W French, is a Times staff writer, with a background in staggering human tragedy, which may help to explain why he thinks my hobby is an epidemic. There was a wired article about Korean broadband (summary: they have lots), which we already discussed."
That video games are a bad habit and can kill you!
Wait, no, it's just proof that being a dumbass can kill you. Never mind, carry on.
SIGFEH
What does this have to do with gaming? If I sat infront of a TV, computer, or alone counting bumps in paint for 86 hours straight, the same thing would happen to me.
Another lame attempt to take a stab at videogames and how EVIL they are...
Not that I don't believe you but you should include some links/citations before making a statement like that (I know, crazy talk). I could only find the following:
Shanghai Cybrcafe Shut Down
Browsing at threshold +3, 37 comments into the discussion so far, and... I can't spot a single sympathetic comment. Most of us are all laughing at this guy's death in some kind of cynical Darwinistic smugness.
The games probably aren't killing anyone, but they've sure done a good job of de-sensitizing a few people...
Until recently (barring drug overdose...) 26 year olds did not have heart attacks
Two things first, why would you rule out drug overdose? 86 straight gameplaying? Can you say stimulants? I would almost bet on that being positive. And Stimulants can cause strokes, sudden arthymias, and heart attacks...
And I wouldn't rush to heart attack as cause of death, a Pulmonary embolis can kill suddenly and anyone can get one from sitting/not moving for long times. Rhabodmyolysis can cause kidney failure, and in extreme cases shock I think...
He could died of lots of things, almost no actually caused by video games...
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
Too much love can be stifling. Too much happinines can make you ungaurded and easy to hurt. too much clean air can lead to hyperventilation. too much good food can lead to obesity. too much good music can lead to deafness.
moral to the story: any positive can become a negative if you try hard enough.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
To all you liberals, grow up and start taking responsibility for your life, and make others take responsibility for theirs.
Self-responsibility is not a liberal vs. conservative issue; it is better characterized as an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue.
Liberals with an authoritarian bent would have the government outlaw "dangerous" things like offensive/hateful/politically incorrect language, games that "promote" racism, etc. Conservatives with an authoritarian bent would outlaw "dangerous" things like homosexuality, games that "promote" immorality or drug use, violence and sexuality on television, etc.
OTOH, someone with libertarian tendencies, whether they were otherwise conservative or liberal, would prefer the government stay out of people's lives. I.E., a libertarian believes people should take responsibility for themselves. They wouldn't outlaw "unsafe" games.
You bring up drugs, GHB in particular, and complain that the government prohibits "safer replacements for alcohol and antidepressants". Ignoring for the moment any debate over the merits of that particular drug, those who would prefer legalized drugs of any sort are strongly libertarian. Many are liberal, as well.
Those who "ask the government to protect them from themselves" aren't "liberal". They're authoritarian, and include just as many conservatives as liberals.
I'm actually quite surprised to see you blaming the outlawing of GHB on liberals- the most vocal proponents of harsh drug laws, generally, are conservative authoritarians.
You, it seems, do not really know who your enemies are. I consider myself quite liberal, but I agree with you that people should take more responsibility for themselves.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.