German Minister Seeks Jail Time For FPS Players

It's all the games' fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 10:34 · Score: 5, Funny

After all, everyone knows Germany has had absolutely *no* history of violence before video games appeared on the scene.

*ducks*

Re:It's all the games' fault! by Gertlex · 2006-12-07 10:38 · Score: 2, Funny

After all, everyone knows Germany has had absolutely *no* history of violence before video games appeared on the scene.

*ducks* World's fastest invocation of Godwin's Law? :D
Re:It's all the games' fault! by WilliamSChips · 2006-12-07 10:49 · Score: 1

I've seen faster. Much faster.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 10:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Referring to the world wars generally isn't Godwinning something, you have to invoke Hitler directly. And I've seen it done in headlines a number of times, this is plodding by comparison.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 10:55 · Score: 5, Funny

It's a proven fact that Adolf Hitler played Wolfenstein 0.0001 on his Volksrechner 0.4 * 10^(-4) MHz.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Drooling+Iguana · 2006-12-07 11:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Germany didn't start WWI. It began as a war between Austria and Serbia.

They got involved pretty damn quickly, though.

--
... I'm addicted to placebos
Re:It's all the games' fault! by revery · 2006-12-07 11:36 · Score: 1

There's no need to duck as I think your point is quite valid. The reason people will say it's not valid is because we're better now. We've learned from our mistakes. We as a world are wiser. We've made advancements both scientific and social. We'll never be fooled by elitist propaganda again. We've seen the light. Democracy is our savior. We are all of us, free...
Re:It's all the games' fault! by hey! · 2006-12-07 11:52 · Score: 5, Funny

No, the fastest possible application of Godwin's law is for the origingal post in a thread to invoke the Nazis preemptively. Let's call that a G0 post.

The fastest possible meta Godwin would be in a child response to a G0 post. Let's call that an M1 post. You can't pull a meta-Godwin in a G0 post without triggering the self-referential (wank) exception.

Sadly, you post is a respectable but undistinguished M2 (grand child) meta-godwin. But then again this post is an H3 hyper-meta-godwin so I can't say anthing. H2 would the fastest theoretically possible hyper-meta. Of course you can't do an H1 because that triggers the meta-self-referential (wank wank) rule.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by rolyatknarf · 2006-12-07 11:52 · Score: 1

"We are all of us, free..."

except for all of us, who aren't.............
Re:It's all the games' fault! by triffid_98 · 2006-12-07 12:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Baldrick: I've heard what these Germans will do, Sir. They'll have their wicked way with anything of woman-born.

Edmund: Well, in that case, Baldrick, you're quite safe. However, the Teutonic reputation for brutality is well-founded: their operas last three or four days; and they have no word for `fluffy'.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-07 13:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
World's fastest invocation of Godwin's Law? :D
~~=====> - Godwin's Law

0 - You
_|_
|
/ \

It's not a rule that can be invoked like "Whoever finishes the TP must install the new roll.", it's a law in the sense of "E=MC^2".

Let me introduce you to Kano's Law.
- The odds of someone using Godwin's Law to shield an idea from criticism is proportional to how much that idea resebles those of the Nazis.
LK
--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:It's all the games' fault! by UberMongoose · 2006-12-07 13:56 · Score: 1

Germany didn't start WWI. It began as a war between Austria and Serbia. Yeah :). Like America didn't start Iraq. It began with Saddam and those dang weapons of mass destruction.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Afrosheen · 2006-12-07 14:22 · Score: 1

Rome kinda did to. Although...it's not really a world war when you just cruise through each country, pwning them and building nice new roads to each one.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by incom · 2006-12-07 14:27 · Score: 1

Yep, too much german pride results in violence, AS DOES too much german self-hate, like the cause of that shooting.

--
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by mjhacker · 2006-12-07 14:47 · Score: 1

Well, the flaw with your statement, although it may be in jest, is that America -did- begin the invasion of Iraq. In WWI, Germany had to go to war because their allies went to war... Germany was aligned with Austria, and our allies (England et al) were allied with Serbia. Why Germany was punished the hardest (Treaty of Versailles) for a war they didn't start is beyond me...

Think about it like this: if some country was dumb enough to go to war with America, you can bet that our European friends would join the fight, for no other reason than being our allies - because they'd expect us to do the same for them.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Gryle · 2006-12-07 15:27 · Score: 1

Could you tell me where you found that or is it an original creation? It's going on my quoteboard.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:It's all the games' fault! by KORfan · 2006-12-07 15:52 · Score: 1

if some country was dumb enough to go to war with America, you can bet that our European friends would join the fight, for no other reason than being our allies - because they'd expect us to do the same for them.
It would be because we have a treaty that created an organization called NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the treaty says that an attack against one member is an attack against all members.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Puff+of+Logic · 2006-12-07 15:53 · Score: 1

Could you tell me where you found that or is it an original creation? It's going on my quoteboard. You, sir, must immediately watch Blackadder II through Forth, skipping the reprehensible blot on the series that was the first.

--
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by icecoldkilla · 2006-12-07 16:40 · Score: 1

No WW2 have already started with Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1937.The European Theater of the war stated by the German invasion of Poland in 1939.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by supermank17 · 2006-12-07 16:47 · Score: 1

One point about WWI, the Germans heavily encouraged the Austrians to go to war. It wasn't exactly a case of "Oh no, our ally got into a war, we're forced to help". It was more along the lines of "Push back hard Austria, we've got your back". The Germans of course didn't forsee the scope and consequences of the coming war of course, and I don't think they expected Britain to jump in either (If I remember correctly, Kaiser Wilhelm greatly admired the British and wanted to avoid conflict with them). As for the punishment at the end, that came about due to the winning side (especially France) wanting to see someone pay for all the destruction and Germany was a convenient target.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Dabido · 2006-12-07 16:51 · Score: 1

'...skipping the reprehensible blot on the series that was the first.'

How dare you, sir!!!! Yes, the first series was not as funny as the next three, but it is still worth watching. Of course, the next three series were written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, while [if my memory serves me correctly], Rowan Atkinsons and two others {and I believe one of them might have still been Richard Curtis) wrote the first series. I particularly like the Witch Hunter episode of the first series.

Let's face it, thought series one is not as funny as series two through four, it is still funnier than a lot of the dribble produced on TV.
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to spend thousands of pounds on the worlds biggest turnip, and to feed my cat Milk, Bloody Milk!

--
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Re:It's all the games' fault! by mrchaotica · 2006-12-07 17:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not to mention that he didn't even say anything about the world wars; for all we know he could have been referring to Germanic barbarians fighting with the Roman legions 2000 years ago!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Kelson · 2006-12-07 17:19 · Score: 1

It's not a rule that can be invoked like "Whoever finishes the TP must install the new roll.", it's a law in the sense of "E=MC^2".

Thank you! Ever since I found the original phrasing, I've wondered how it mutated to the point that people say that a post invokes Godwin's law rather than demonstrates it. It's sort of like saying that a falling apple invokes the law of gravity, or that the observer invokes it by describing the falling apple.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by empaler · 2006-12-07 18:05 · Score: 1

(..) for all we know he could have been referring to Germanic barbarians fighting with the Roman legions 2000 years ago!
Honestly, when defending yourself against an outside aggressor who obviously is out on a tour of conquest, then it doesn't really count as the same thing as "the Polaks invaded, so we'd better attack (almost) all of our neighbours to protect our borders!".
Anyway, the Germans weren't really a people per se until recently; there were just a bunch of fiefdoms with a semi-common language.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-07 18:21 · Score: 1

I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke Godwin's law. It's not really like E=mc2 OR the TP thing. It's more like a state secret or national security law. For example: discussion proceeds (the information is free) until someone invokes Godwin's law (invokes the state secret law) and then you can't talk about whatever it is anymore.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by empaler · 2006-12-07 18:22 · Score: 1

Actually, if you try re-reading the GP, you will notice that he refers to two world wars being started by the Germans, so... "Drooling Iguana"? Damn. Well, DI was right to point out that the Germans were not directly to blame for WWI. As I recall from History lessons, Europe was a powder keg at the time though.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-07 18:25 · Score: 1

Plus Germany was big and powerful with lots of important resources and France really didn't like sharing a border with a superpower. This was demonstrated by how quickly Germany bounced back and put themselves in a position to once again take on the world.

The solution after WWII was to break Germany into two countries. Which had a lot of history to recommend it -- pretty much every time in history Germany was unified a big war broke out.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by empaler · 2006-12-07 18:40 · Score: 1

Could you tell me where you found that or is it an original creation? It's going on my quoteboard. As Puff of Logic mentions, it is from Black Adder, a classic BBC comedy.

Since you haven't seen Black Adder yet, I recommend renting *cough* *cough* down *cough* loading *cough*... it.
Too bad the quote generator is defective and only shows a few quotes.
Blackadder: They do say, Mrs M, that verbal insults hurt more than physical pain. They are, of course, wrong, as you will soon discover when I stick this toasting fork into your head.

Anyway, for more info, BBC is your friend.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by empaler · 2006-12-07 18:42 · Score: 1

Prior to Reichskansler Adolf Hitler, Germany was one of the leading scientific nations in the world.
Then came... *spit* German Science.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by dangitman · 2006-12-07 19:54 · Score: 3, Informative

For example: discussion proceeds (the information is free) until someone invokes Godwin's law (invokes the state secret law) and then you can't talk about whatever it is anymore.
You don't seem to have any idea of what Godwin's Law is. It does not prevent further discussion, or stop information from being "free." It is simply a statement of probability. This is what Godwin's Law says:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It says nothing about such comparisons being valid or invalid. It says nothing about discontinuing the discussion, or winning an argument - as so many people mistakenly argue. It just says that lengthy online discussions are more likely to contain comparisons to Nazis than brief discussions.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by dangitman · 2006-12-07 19:59 · Score: 1

Of course, the next three series were written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton,
That's Sir Ben Elton, you whoreson of a weasel-eating leprosy-ridden harlot!

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by KDR_11k · 2006-12-07 20:31 · Score: 1

I think you mean on his Z3 and you're greatly overestimating its clock frequency.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by KDR_11k · 2006-12-07 20:38 · Score: 1

I didn't see people returning fire at Colubine. Schools don't let pupils take weapons onto their premises so only the guy who smuggles them in has them.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by neuro_guy · 2006-12-07 22:07 · Score: 1

"just a bunch of fiefdoms with a semi-common language" and in large parts of the country, this hasn't changed a bit. Hello "neue Bundesländer" :-)
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Dr.+Hok · 2006-12-07 22:16 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, Kaiser Wilhelm greatly admired the British and wanted to avoid conflict with them
AFAIK this is not entirely true. Wilhelm II did admire the British (Queen Victoria being his granny), but more than that he wanted to show that his navy is better than the British, so he eventually seeked conflict with Britain. The word 'his' is to be taken literally: It is known that he loved playing with ships since he was a toddler and never quit.
Furthermore, he had a crippled arm and his (British born) mother despised him for that. A while ago, I read an article in the 'SPIEGEL' claiming that this was the principal reason for going to war with Britain.

--
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Ihlosi · 2006-12-07 22:30 · Score: 2, Informative

The solution after WWII was to break Germany into two countries.

Crap, man, pick up a history book, please.

Germany ended up divided because the western Allies didn't like the Soviet plan for making a unified Germany out of the four occupation zones (which would have been "neutral" at best, or more likely ended up a Commie satellite state, like the GDR), and the Soviets of course didn't like any of the plans the western Allies had (which all involved Germany not becoming a satellite state of the Soviet Union).

There were plans for breaking up Germany, but they were all discarded. The final result wasn't a solution someone came up with, it was the end result of the winners not being able to agree on one solution.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Vintermann · 2006-12-07 22:39 · Score: 1

What I'm not sure everyone knows is how reviled millitarism is in popular culture down there. Look at the great german boardgames, you can hardly find a single one with a violent theme (which half the american ones have). GI Joes probably don't sell very well in Germany, if they sell at all.
I think it's great that not every country is alike on that, and I think they are fully in the right to say that glorification of violence in public isn't acceptable. I hope they do it in a different way than putting gamers and developers in jail, though...

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by -brazil- · 2006-12-08 00:30 · Score: 1

Which had a lot of history to recommend it -- pretty much every time in history Germany was unified a big war broke out.

That's about as idiotic a statement as is possible to make. Germany was unified for the first time in 1870, AFTER Prussia won a war against France and thereby gained enough clout to make it happen. It stayed unified for 75 years, through the two world wars. It was unified the second time in 1990, with no war to follow.

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:It's all the games' fault! by TheRaven64 · 2006-12-08 00:34 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, Kaiser Wilhelm greatly admired the British and wanted to avoid conflict with them Actually, I believe this is more true of Hitler in the second world war. He admired the British for their ability to build an empire (something he wanted to do). This led him to permit the British troops to evacuate from Dunkirk, rather than moving in and destroying them. His hope was that Britain would then sue for peace (after all, Neville Chamberlain was a big fan of Peace in Our Time). Unfortunately for him, Chamberlain resigned immediately after the invasion of France, and Churchill wasn't so keen on compromise.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:It's all the games' fault! by -brazil- · 2006-12-08 00:46 · Score: 1

Yeah, the best possible world is one where everyone is armed and knows everyone else to be armed so that anyone having a bad day or misjudging a situation turns into a major bloodbath.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/ind ex.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/25/nyc.shooting.ap/i ndex.html

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:It's all the games' fault! by KnuthKonrad · 2006-12-08 00:54 · Score: 1

It would be because...

Not "it would", "it is". It was done after 9/11 when NATO decided to declare the treaty to become active after the attacks and before going to Afghanistan. It's still in place today.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Hognoxious · 2006-12-08 01:07 · Score: 1

I liked the first series, but then I like that period in history. For me, the one set during the regency was the weakest. All "Mr X winner of the best X competition" where X = anything, ad nauseam.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Hognoxious · 2006-12-08 01:09 · Score: 1

And the baths. Hot baths. But apart from that...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:It's all the games' fault! by TheRaven64 · 2006-12-08 01:13 · Score: 1

They didn't exactly pwn Britain. They got England, but the Scots kicked them out, and so did the Celts in North Wales. As someone living in South Wales, this is obvious to me whenever I try to go North; the roads get really bad as soon as you leave the coast. In the South, we have the nice wide, straight, Via Fabia coming in to Swansea. Up north, there are just winding tracks that have gradually been upgraded.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:It's all the games' fault! by itschy · 2006-12-08 01:18 · Score: 1

It's "flauschig". The word for "fluffy" I mean...
And the operas he meant are chinese ;-)
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Bastard+of+Subhumani · 2006-12-08 01:27 · Score: 1

I heard he only invaded Poland because he got tired of waiting for HL2 to come out.

--
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Shaper_pmp · 2006-12-08 01:36 · Score: 1

See, posts like this are why I love /.

Intelligent people with far too much time on their hands debating the fastest possible application of an online in-joke, and even going so far as to introduce notation for the problem in order to discuss it more easily.

Wonderful.

--
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Shaper_pmp · 2006-12-08 01:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Of course, even the Jargon File goes on to say:

"'As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.' There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups..."

Technically Godwin's Law does no such thing, but the codicil of application of Godwin's Law ending/losing a thread is now so firmly attached to the original that it's pretty pointlessly pedantic to argue against the idea.

"Godwin's Law" in popular usage therefore indicates both Godwin's Law and the associated tradition of it ending threads.

You can argue about the "meaning" of words or phrases all you like, but words have no intrinsic meaning - they're just collections of sounds we've arbitrarily drawn a ring around and decided to call "a word". If the majority of people use a word to mean X, the word now means X, irrespective of what it meant before. C.F. "gay/cheerful", "gay/homosexual", "gay/bad".

"Godwin's Law" now includes the codicil about ending threads. We can now call a halt to pedantic dick-waving competitions the world over. :-D

--
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Re:It's all the games' fault! by kalirion · 2006-12-08 02:45 · Score: 1

No one who speaks German can be an evil man.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Rycross · 2006-12-08 03:17 · Score: 4, Funny

You know who else were pedantic dick-wavers? Nazis.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Puff+of+Logic · 2006-12-08 03:26 · Score: 1

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to spend thousands of pounds on the worlds biggest turnip, and to feed my cat Milk, Bloody Milk! Well, based on his appreciation for that particular bit of humour, I thought he'd get more of a kick out of the latter three series. It was just a wild stab in the dark. Which, incidentally, is what you'll be getting if you don't start being more helpful!

--
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by dorzak · 2006-12-08 03:58 · Score: 1

Or the Teutonic Knights who invaded Poland in the 13th century.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by nschubach · 2006-12-08 04:19 · Score: 1

Chutes and Ladders: Where you drive over your enemy in a Sherman tank to slide down the chute first.
Scrabble: Put your true feelings in writing using our nifty square letters.
Trivial Pursuit: Strike down thine enemy with extremely insightful information!
Candyland: Don't make me beat you with this candy cane boy!
The Game of Life: Just like real life, you will be killed in a drive-by shooting by a college dropout.

I admit, Risk/Axis & Allies being based on war could come off as a violent game, but you can't win by attacking alone. Aggravation could cause you to want to kill your brother. Clue pretty much avoids violence and makes you want to solve the crime and find out who did it. Monopoly could be violent if you bankrupt your abusive parent. Battleship I can see. Your out to sink your friends ships. I guess that's not all that nice.

I guess I never thought of board games being violent. What kind of boardgames do the Germans have? (Don't mind me stereotyping here).
Beerfest 1402: Find the ingredients for the best beer!
Carbuilder: Build your car and race it around the board to see who's cardboard cutout handles better.
Castlebuilder: Castles weren't made for war! They were made to protect the trees. Build up your castle to keep the tree from it's mighty enemy, the wind.
Sourkraught: Draw cards until you find all the tools and ingrediants needed to turn your cabbage into fermented food. If you draw the same card as your neighbor, you must hug each other and hide sausages down the back of their shirt.

I've already spent way too much time on this...

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 04:43 · Score: 1

I was pointing out how Godwin's law is used in practice.

It is very much invoked, and very much with the purpose of ending reasonable discussion.

The "law" itself is a good example of one of the silly statements it's become fashionable to call laws. Since the original has nothing to recommend it there's no particular reason to value it over the common use.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 05:09 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should pick up a history book. Maybe some manners too. Germany was not divided into "Allies" and "Soviets" (the very idea is silly since the Soviets were PART of the allies). It was divided into four occupation zones, French, British, American and Soviet. All four participated in a governing council. Only later did the western powers merge their sections into West Germany. So yes, the PLAN was to split Germany into four parts. It ended up degenerating into two parts that hated each other. What was the long term plan? Who knows exactly, but both the plan before Germany surrendered and the Morgenthau plan, which was proposed after surrender included partitioning Germany into north and south and taking the western portion and making it an International zone. The Morgenthau plan was later discredited, but mostly because it proposed destroying Germany's industrial capability and Britain didn't want to be "chained to a dead animal." Though the Morgenthau itself wasn't implemented, it had considerable influence on policy.

Germany certainly wasn't going to be left as an intact country, no matter how things went. Many people vigorously opposed reunification in the 80's on the basis that a unified Germany had always destabilized the balance of power in Europe.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 05:25 · Score: 1

Come back when you've had your coffee and you're not quite so needlessly offensive.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Sj0 · 2006-12-08 06:00 · Score: 1

Japan had been continuously increasing its powers since before the beginning of WWI. It was an axis power, but its actions were so on par with what they'd been doing already, I'd be very reluctant to call any military action from that Japan in that time period the instagator of WWII.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Ihlosi · 2006-12-08 06:01 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should pick up a history book. Maybe some manners too.

I'll do that after you brush up your reading comprehension. Thank you.

Germany was not divided into "Allies" and "Soviets" (the very idea is silly since the Soviets were PART of the allies).

And that's why I clearly distinguished between "Soviets" and "western Allies". Anyone with the most basic knowledge about WWII knows that the latter means "France, Britain and the US". I didn't think this was worth mentioning.

It was divided into four occupation zones, French, British, American and Soviet.

Are you sure you're referring to my post and not some that only exists in your fantasy ? I clearly wrote "... out of the four occupation zones ...".

I also wrote "There were plans for breaking up Germany, but they were all discarded.". I know about the plans, I just didn't feel it was relevant to mention all of them.

The Soviets were all for a "unified", "neutral" Germany which would have ended up as becoming a Soviet satellite state (through propaganda, subversion, or less subtle tactics). The western Allies (yep, that means France, Britain and the US) at least partially smelled a rat and declined, and later on merged their occupation zones into what became the FRG.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Sj0 · 2006-12-08 06:07 · Score: 1

And the laws, you know, I haven't been robbed for weeks!

--
It's been a long time.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 06:58 · Score: 1

Hey, you started it. Yes, I repeated a couple parts of your post. That's called agreeing with you, on certain facts.

If you look back at my original post, we were discussing France's wishes for Germany following WWII. So what exactly does the Soviet Union's desires have to do with it?

Meanwhile, both pre-surrender plans, plans immediately after surrender, AND what actually happened, involved partitioning Germany.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Arcane_Rhino · 2006-12-08 08:52 · Score: 1

Well, yeah, this is the straw man that the many on the left, at least in the US, puts forth every chance they get. Of course, where people are authorized to carry concealed these blood baths never seem to materialize. But the select few keeps up the fear mongering.

By the way, are you arguing that only the State should be armed? You may want to read your own posts. It wasn't out of control armed citizens who were the problem.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by WilliamSChips · 2006-12-08 09:45 · Score: 1

This is Slashdot, not Gateworld. You don't need to censor out "download" here.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by empaler · 2006-12-09 01:08 · Score: 1

I was mostly just kidding...
Re:It's all the games' fault! by soft_guy · 2006-12-09 03:26 · Score: 1

Given the articles he cited, I think he means we should disarm the police because they are irresponsible with their weapons. And I think he has a point.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:It's all the games' fault! by smek2 · 2006-12-10 06:42 · Score: 1

So what are you trying to say? Has it ever occurred to you that germany is strict on this topic *because* of its violent past? Speaking of violent past, the United States' foundation are based upon genocide. So much for "violent past". Besides, i am thrilled to see that this post is tagged with "games, germany" AND "nazis". Way to go slashdot. Politics for nerds indeed.
Re:It's all the games' fault! by Vintermann · 2006-12-10 23:13 · Score: 1

When I spoke of american games... look at the "hot games" column on boardgamegeek, you have BattleLore, Marvel Heroes, World of Warcraft the Boardgame, Star Wars miniatures Starship Battles.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.

WOW, more of the same by zappepcs · 2006-12-07 10:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

More clueless people trying to make rules for systems that they have no idea how it works....

First, Didn't the neo-nazi youths have this title all wrapped up before there were violent games?
Kidding aside, this is just another stupid knee jerk reaction to social problems that nobody wants to take the blame for.

When I was a kid, we played with toy guns, king of the hill, kill-the-guy-with-the-ball, and other VIOLENT games...
It wasn't until they banned 'red rover' that this sort of bad finger pointing started to happen...

FerChrisSakes - lets blame everyone and everything but the parents and families of violent kids...

Sheesh

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People

Re:WOW, more of the same by RingDev · 2006-12-07 10:54 · Score: 1

kill-the-guy-with-the-ball

When I was a kid we called it "Smear the queer" and it had nothing to do with gay people.

You would think a nation like Germany would have learned the lesson better than any other. Limiting access to media and knowledge in order to 'purify' thoughts never ends well. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/boo kburn.htm

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Re:WOW, more of the same by thhamm · 2006-12-07 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

FerChrisSakes - lets blame everyone and everything but the parents and families of violent kids...

true, and beckstein is an idiot. he's got real paranoia and nobody is taking him really seriously here. er. i hope.
Re:WOW, more of the same by Wilson_6500 · 2006-12-07 12:39 · Score: 1

kill-the-guy-with-the-ball

Wow. I don't think I played anything half that violent when I was a kid--and I had a Nintendo.

OK, well, I did have Super Dodgeball, and you did kill little computer men using balls--but then the guy came back two rounds later with brown skin and suddenly he was from India instead of Iceland. Nobody went home with cuts or bruises, either.
Re:WOW, more of the same by mdarksbane · 2006-12-07 15:25 · Score: 1

To be fair - I almost cracked someone's ribs playing red rover once. Guy didn't want to move, so I moved him.

But I can't see that kind of violent outcome in a game of Halo2.
Re:WOW, more of the same by cold+fjord · 2006-12-07 16:43 · Score: 1

First, Didn't the neo-nazi youths have this title all wrapped up before there were violent games?

Back then, they weren't "neo-nazi", they were actual Nazis, or Hitler Youth.

There is some interesting original footage of various fascist (German, Italian, Japanese) youth activities in Capra's Prelude to War. It's eye opening stuff.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:WOW, more of the same by empaler · 2006-12-07 18:45 · Score: 1

You would think a nation like Germany would have learned the lesson better than any other. Limiting access to media and knowledge in order to 'purify' thoughts never ends well. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/boo kburn.htm That, Sir, was the most valid point and most relevant reference to WW2 in this entire discussion. Kudos.
Re:WOW, more of the same by Saint+Fnordius · 2006-12-07 19:11 · Score: 3, Informative

It's also important to remember that Beckstein is the Innenminister for Bavaria, not Germany. It's akin to the attorney general of Texas, not the AG of the USA.

And yes, Beckstein's a git. It's taking him far too long to realise that he is one of the most unpopular politicians in Bavaria, now that Monica ("my daddy used to OWN this state!") Hohlmeier has been run out of town in disgrace.
Re:WOW, more of the same by dangitman · 2006-12-07 20:04 · Score: 1

It wasn't until they banned 'red rover' that this sort of bad finger pointing started to happen...
Fellating the family's dog is not a particularly wholesome thing to do. I'm not surprised there was finger-pointing involved. If you'd been sticking the finger in other unseemly parts of the dog, I'm also not surprised that the finger was "bad."

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:WOW, more of the same by KDR_11k · 2006-12-07 20:40 · Score: 1

You would think a nation like Germany would have learned the lesson better than any other.

The nation does but you're demanding reasonable thoughts from a politician, especially one trying to get voters on his side.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:WOW, more of the same by Vintermann · 2006-12-07 22:43 · Score: 1

In most cultures, it's not acceptable to dress up an eight year old in a top that says "porn star", for understandable reasons. In Germany, they have much less tolerance for glorification of violence, violent games and toys etc, also for very understanable reasons.

They probably should be careful about which means they use to supress it, but they are fully in their right to say that so-and-so behaviour isn't acceptable in public.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:WOW, more of the same by TheRaven64 · 2006-12-08 01:16 · Score: 1

In The Last Continent, one of the characters says that they put politicians in prison as soon as they are elected, because it saves time later. I've often wondered why we don't put this idea into practice...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:WOW, more of the same by TheRaven64 · 2006-12-08 01:27 · Score: 1

We used to play a version of British Bulldog called 'Decker.' In order for the person (or, later in the game, people) in the middle to catch someone, they had to deck them. We would start playing it around the start of the summer term, and keep playing it until someone broke their collar bone playing it (which happened every year I was at school), at which point it would be banned. The next year, we would all 'forget' the ban.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:WOW, more of the same by High+Hat · 2006-12-08 02:19 · Score: 1

In most cultures, it's not acceptable to dress up an eight year old in a top that says "porn star", for understandable reasons.
I could actually imagine that happening here... in Germany.
"Oh, hübsches Oberteil! Was heißt das was da drauf steht?" O_o
Re:WOW, more of the same by Lars+T. · 2006-12-08 05:40 · Score: 1

In most cultures, it's not acceptable to dress up an eight year old in a top that says "porn star", for understandable reasons.
I could actually imagine that happening here... in Germany.

"Oh, hübsches Oberteil! Was heißt das was da drauf steht?" O_o
Translated to German it means Porno Star. Yeah, that would be hard to figure.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:WOW, more of the same by RingDev · 2006-12-08 08:13 · Score: 1

I think someone missed the sarcasm in that post. Point being, they are almost always NOT in their right to say that so-and-so behavior isn't acceptable in public. Public decency is a very touchy subject, and any legal limitations on non-endangering public activity needs to be scrutinized with extreme care.

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs

Reason? by PieSquared · 2006-12-07 10:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Can you say publicity stunt? Seriously, gaming in Germany is massive, and nearly every video game is violent in some way. Why don't they ban "tag" while they're at it, a game which encourages *actual* attacking of another human being in the game. I'm not familiar with German law, but I get the feeling this guy isn't elected. Why? Because so many germans play games and would be against it. This would probably be political suicide even in America, a country that seems more inclined to take away people's rights. Now, however, whoever the interior minister works for can point to this (probably) failed bill whenever a school shooting comes up, but then point at someone else whenever the bill is criticised. Some day people are going to realize that the people in school shootings got the plan on *how* to go about doing their crime from a video game *at worst.* The idea *to* do it came from themselves, from deep mental issues probably stemming from their parents or not having enough ways of releasing their anger safely (ever try video games for that?). If they hadn't gotten the plan from a game, they'd get it from a movie, or a book, or even (gasp) come up with their own.

--
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?

Re:Reason? by Red+Jesus · 2006-12-07 10:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Says PiSquared:
This would probably be political suicide even in America, a country that seems more inclined to take away people's rights.

Says the summary:
'We have among the most drastic censorship rules for games,' said Frank Sliwka, head of the Deutsche E-Sport Bund, an umbrella federation for German online gaming teams.

While it's true that Americans raise the greatest fuss when folks try to take away our rights, are you sure your allegations are correct? Are we really more inclined to take away people's rights? Gay marriage aside, America is actually pretty good about censorship compared to some places. Especially Europe.
Re:Reason? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

The U.S. beat them to the banning of tag
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15316912/
Re:Reason? by mikeasu · 2006-12-07 11:16 · Score: 2, Informative

"Why don't they ban "tag" while they're at it, a game which encourages *actual* attacking of another human being in the game." We're one step ahead of you... http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-rec ess-bans_x.htm http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061018-114713- 2243r.htm http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art icles/2006/10/18/attleboro_elementary_school_bans_ tag/
Re:Reason? by PingSpike · 2006-12-07 11:32 · Score: 1

This is true. For all my bitching and complaining about some of the current legislation in our country, there seem to be plenty of european examples of much worse.

That doesn't mean I'm happy with where the US seems to be going these days, it just means other places are futher along.
Re:Reason? by hey! · 2006-12-07 12:04 · Score: 1

I think this argument is an elaboration of the old standby: "nobody would be stupid enough to..." Unfortunately, stupidity is the one commodity of which we can be assured an unlimited supply.

If you've watched enough quality American entertainment, you'll know that nothing is so hilariously inevitable as somebody saying "Nobody would stupid enought to..." being followed by the precisely act in question.

See also: "Things couldn't possibly get worse.", and "Mayhem ensues."

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Reason? by Original+Replica · 2006-12-07 12:56 · Score: 1

"The idea *to* do it came from themselves, from deep mental issues probably stemming from their parents or not having enough ways of releasing their anger safely"
And let's not even think to look at why they have so much anger towards their fellow students in the first place. They probably got the idea of hurting other students from being hurt themselves. Maybe we should look into why these kids feel that they have to go to such extremes. What is the right outlet for the socially ostricized and quitely bullied?

--
We are all just people.
Re:Reason? by AxelBoldt · 2006-12-07 13:46 · Score: 1

Are we really more inclined to take away people's rights?
I think Americans are indeed more inclined to take away people's rights, but the Supreme Court won't let them. Without the Court, they would have all forms of abortion illegal, they would have striptease and pornography outlawed, they would have mandatory school prayer, and they would still put 16-year old killers in gas chambers.
Re:Reason? by mjhacker · 2006-12-07 15:12 · Score: 1

Are we really more inclined to take away people's rights?
I think Americans are indeed more inclined to take away people's rights, but the Supreme Court won't let them. Without the Court, they would have all forms of abortion illegal, they would have striptease and pornography outlawed, they would have mandatory school prayer, and they would still put 16-year old killers in gas chambers. Why would they have mandatory school prayer, when we have a separation of Church and State, instead of allowing silent, personal prayer in school, which no one can stop anyway? You're making sweeping generalizations about Americans, based on some views that sound a little too reactionary even for most conservatives.
Re:Reason? by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-07 18:45 · Score: 1

School prayer was just short of mandatory in most US public schools until a certain atheist crusader took the issue to the supreme court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale
Re:Reason? by Vintermann · 2006-12-07 22:50 · Score: 1

Germans play less computer games than expected, which even the Economist has complained about. What the Economist failed to realise is that computer games in Germany compete with board games, which is a huge market there. The creativity of german (board) game designers to avoid violent themes is impressive.

I think the Germans aren't just worried that some kid will go on a killing spree. They are worried that the kids will grow up to be kind, well adjusted good citizens who just happen to have a lot of faith that violence is a workable way to solve most problems.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Reason? by Hubbell · 2006-12-08 00:25 · Score: 1

I'm not seeing the problem with murderers being executed. Once you take someone's life for any means other than a true accident or self defense, you've forfeited all rights you have including the right to life as you've proven that you are utterly worthless to society and nothing more than a rabid dog that needs to be put down.
Re:Reason? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · 2006-12-08 00:29 · Score: 1

atheist crusader
Nice one!

--
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Re:Reason? by Ihlosi · 2006-12-08 00:53 · Score: 1

I'm not seeing the problem with murderers being executed.

Are you also seeing no problem with the inevitable collateral damage of capital punishment - i.e. executed people who are later proven to be innocent ?

There doesn't seem to be too much outcry about that. Putting someone in prison mistakenly is bad enough, but at least that someone can get an apology and some compensation. Executing an innocent is one of the worst mistakes authority can make, and there is no way to prevent all of these mistakes.
Re:Reason? by Hubbell · 2006-12-08 01:21 · Score: 1

My belief is that if there are 2 eyewitnesses minimum, or if the evidence is overwhelming, or if the person confesses, ie, there is little to no possibility of them being innocent, they should be taken out back and shot. Saves the taxpayers time and money. Now this also would require better conduct in the judicial system, so for now I'd say just the 2+ eyewitnesses or a confession.
Re:Reason? by Ihlosi · 2006-12-08 01:42 · Score: 1

My belief is that if there are 2 eyewitnesses minimum,
Eyewitnesses can be horrendously unreliable. And that doesn't even include the possibility of someone intentionally trying to frame someone else by using a disguise.
or if the evidence is overwhelming,
Evidence in a quite a few cases of rape was really overwhelming in the 80s and 90s (including eyewitnesses and blood type matching, no less). Nonetheless, quite a number of convicts turned out innocent after DNA analysis was used. Their lives are pretty much fscked up because of what was considered rock-solid evidence back then.
or if the person confesses,
Confessions can be bogus, if the accused is an utter nutcase (but innocent), or bought, or coerced.
ie, there is little to no possibility of them being innocent,
Define "little". How many executed innocents per million murderers are you going to accept in your quest for what is essentially revenge ?
Re:Reason? by Hubbell · 2006-12-08 02:00 · Score: 1

Revenge? No, it's logical removal of a threat from society or from ever harming another again. And as I said, with the current state of the judicial system multiple eyewitnesses or a confession (coerced into saying you murdered someone? maybe if you did it but were tricked into saying that you did, but noone is going to admit to murdering someone they didn't, and if they did, they know the consequences of their actions and therefore such a 'liability' is meaningless) would be the only ways I'd see fit for an immediate execution, otherwise the current system is sadly the one that must be used.
Re:Reason? by Ihlosi · 2006-12-08 02:15 · Score: 1

No, it's logical removal of a threat from society or from ever harming another again.
LWOP plus solitary confinement does that, and is not a permanent condition should circumstances no longer support it.
(coerced into saying you murdered someone? maybe if you did it but were tricked into saying that you did, but noone is going to admit to murdering someone they didn't,
Oh ... you mention another good argument - being tricked.
How coerce someone into confessing about anything ? It's all just a matter of leverage. Ask any member of organized crime. And if threats of doing nasty things to the person in question aren't enough, how about threatening their extended family ? There's lots of offers many people could't refuse. Especially if they have a wife and kids.
and if they did, they know the consequences of their actions and therefore such a 'liability' is meaningless
That's not how justice is supposed to work. At least in any society that wants to have any claims to being civilized.
Re:Reason? by Kelbear · 2006-12-08 04:26 · Score: 1

It's pretty hard to say. Even if we assume that it's for revenge rather than avoiding the drag on the jailing budget by keeping them alive(perhaps we can put them into work camps to pay for their stay and send any surplus profits to the victim's family?) revenge is highly desired.

Is revenge more desirable than say, entertainment? I'm not suggesting that we play with the convicted for entertainment purposes, but I'm referring to the cost of entertainment.

For example, the computer I'm typing this on is worth at least a couple hundred dollars. Those couple hundred dollars can save a couple kids from starving but I don't really care. They die because I prefer having a computer over saving their lives. Human lives aren't priceless, they're just hard to define.

I don't think I have an answer for "How many executed innocents per million murderers are you going to accept in your quest for what is essentially revenge ?" but I can say for sure that my answer won't be zero.
Re:Reason? by AxelBoldt · 2006-12-08 05:41 · Score: 1

I'm not seeing the problem with murderers being executed.
Yes, and presumably you don't even see a problem with executing children. That's exactly my point: Americans are happy to take away rights that are accepted in every other civilized society, but the Court keeps them from doing so. The only hope for an end to capital punishment in the US is the Court recognizing it as cruel and unusual punishment; lawmakers will never reach that conclusion.
Re:Reason? by Lars+T. · 2006-12-08 05:48 · Score: 1

My belief is that if there are 2 eyewitnesses minimum, or if the evidence is overwhelming, or if the person confesses, ie, there is little to no possibility of them being innocent, they should be taken out back and shot. Saves the taxpayers time and money. Now this also would require better conduct in the judicial system, so for now I'd say just the 2+ eyewitnesses or a confession. 123 - and that's just those where the DA and judge couldn't cover the evidence up.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Reason? by Slithe · 2006-12-08 11:58 · Score: 1

Without the Court, they would have all forms of abortion illegal, they would have striptease and pornography outlawed, they would have mandatory school prayer, and they would still put 16-year old killers in gas chambers. I have two words for you: Kelo decision.

--
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."

"Logic" by Daemonstar · 2006-12-07 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

"It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect," Mr Beckstein said on Monday.

Although true, I don't see how banning a game is going to prevent future violence. You can't apply that "logic" to other areas:

1) Pretty females can have a stimulating effect on sex offenders (known and unknown), so will you ban women from walking in public?

2) Good tasting food can have a stimulating effect on people with eating disorders, so will you ban good tasting food?

How about doing something constructive and helping people recognize problems in their kids, providing free help to families with issues, and promiting good family relationships, instead? :P

--
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.

Re:"Logic" by Quiet_Desperation · 2006-12-07 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Pretty females can have a stimulating effect on sex offenders (known and unknown), so will you ban women from walking in public?
Or make them wear burkas. Might as well. That's where the EU will be in 10 years time anyway. The lovely streetwalkers of Paris will become a thing of the past. :-(
Re:"Logic" by RobertB-DC · 2006-12-07 10:56 · Score: 1

Although true, I don't see how banning a game is going to prevent future violence. You can't apply that "logic" to other areas:

1) Pretty females can have a stimulating effect on sex offenders (known and unknown), so will you ban women from walking in public?

You might be on to something. I'll have to see what our friends in Afghanistan -- oh, sorry, I mean Somalia -- think about that idea.

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Re:"Logic" by jschul · 2006-12-07 11:00 · Score: 1

New York just did #2 in a way by banning trans fats. #1 is practiced by over a billion people around the world. Not that I think either of these is a good solution.
Re:"Logic" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 11:08 · Score: 3, Funny

This is Germany, there aren't any pretty women and the food isn't good. That's why they've evolved such great beer, to drink away their sorrows. ;) I kid, I kid...
Re:"Logic" by Control+Group · 2006-12-07 11:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

2) Good tasting food can have a stimulating effect on people with eating disorders, so will you ban good tasting food?

Yeah - luckily, that couldn't possibly happen, since that would be ridiculous.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:"Logic" by Knuckles · 2006-12-07 11:21 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Only in the US can someone believe that trans fats are well-tasting food.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:"Logic" by terrymr · 2006-12-07 11:41 · Score: 1

Where did people get this idea from ?

Trans-fats don't make food taste better.

They offer no positive nutritional value.

There's no reason to want to eat them.
Re:"Logic" by ClamIAm · 2006-12-07 11:52 · Score: 1

It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect

You state this is true. What this means is that you are stating, for a fact, that any "character" who is "unstable" and plays a violent video game automatically and without exception becomes "desensitized". Even ignoring the fact that you fail to define the meaning of "unstable", or what constitutes a "killer" game, your logic here is flawed beyond repair. You make a broad generalization that can in no way be proven, as it is impossible to test your statement on every person applicable.
Re:"Logic" by HeavenlyBankAcct · 2006-12-07 11:56 · Score: 1

Unless of course, you happened to enjoy a food item that had trans-fats in it and didn't really want the government deciding whether or not it was okay to purchase and consume it. Is our government now in the business of deciding whether or not our opinions are valid? If that's the case, I can think of several places I would start chipping away at long before I turned to dietary concerns.
Re:"Logic" by grammar+fascist · 2006-12-07 12:08 · Score: 2, Funny

The lovely streetwalkers of Paris will become a thing of the past. :-(

If you had wanted to drive your point home, you might have picked a consequence that was actually bad.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:"Logic" by terrymr · 2006-12-07 12:11 · Score: 1

There's nothing that can be made with trans fats that can't be made without them. Don't drink the food industry cool-aid.
Re:"Logic" by terrymr · 2006-12-07 12:14 · Score: 1

To really answer your question.

The government gets involved in a lot of things where they don't belong. There are many things I wish they'd keep out of. But they don't. On the other hand .. do you think the food industry cares about your best interests ?
Re:"Logic" by HeavenlyBankAcct · 2006-12-07 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, honestly, I doubt that any industry is looking after my personal well-being. And I do agree with you on the general principle of the issue. However, I can't help the fact that I'd vastly prefer the situation if "looking after my own best interests" was a job left to me and me alone.
Re:"Logic" by Wilson_6500 · 2006-12-07 12:45 · Score: 1

Oh, come on. I'm no epidemiologist, but I'm sure there's stronger evidence for trans fats increasing risk of cardiovascular problems versus the risk of video games causing people to become more violent and possibly hurt another person. If we suddenly discovered that only violent video games were (somehow) causing the incidence of brain cancer to skyrocket, you'd probably see a lot of motions to get them banned. The OP clearly meant to ask if one would ban food that tastes good simply because it might induce susceptible people to overeat.
Re:"Logic" by Hektor_Troy · 2006-12-07 12:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

And just what does banning trans-fat acids in food have to do with banning good tasting food?

Such a ban has been in effect in Denmark since 2004, and I'm yet to see any restaurants close over it or any chefs complain that now they can't make their favorite dishes.

Hell, even McDonalds got on board very quickly. And they've even announced their intentions of extending the restrictions on transfatty acids to all of their European restaurents - all 6,300 of them. Even Kentucky Fried Chicken announced similar goals (they have restaurents in Denmark as well).

And all that without changing the way food tastes.

Oh, wait. You were being obtuse, weren't you?

What next? Going to complain that we don't allow odd things like, say, tar and mercury in your food due to health issues? I mean, people could just steer clear of the foods that contained that kind of stuff, right?

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Re:"Logic" by terrymr · 2006-12-07 12:52 · Score: 1

Labelling trans fats would have been a start ... had the regulations not been so easy to get around. In many cases manufacturers simply reduced the portion size of a product in order to bring the trans fat level below the amount that required labelling.

Here's a good labelling one I've been having fun with lately though ... try and find store bought Wasabi preparations that actually include Wasabi. I found one last night that included "Made with real wasabi" ... and a "What is wasabi ?" section on the label ...yet checking the ingredients list found it was plan old horseradish with green coloring. How do they get away with this ?
Re:"Logic" by terrymr · 2006-12-07 12:57 · Score: 1

Don't you hate people who reply to their own posts ? I came to the conclusion that "made with" in the case of this label means "made within 50 yards of" or something like that.
Re:"Logic" by Original+Replica · 2006-12-07 13:03 · Score: 1

So everyone who likes their brownies with marijuana...

--
We are all just people.
Re:"Logic" by AxelBoldt · 2006-12-07 13:17 · Score: 1

He did.
Re:"Logic" by Spikeles · 2006-12-07 13:47 · Score: 1

1) Pretty females can have a stimulating effect on sex offenders (known and unknown), so will you ban women from walking in public?
Of course, don't you know in Australia, women who do that are "likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals." http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867 ,20646437-601,00.html

--
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
Re:"Logic" by CthulhuDreamer · 2006-12-07 13:51 · Score: 1

Horseradish is also called "Western wasabi". To a marketing drone, that's close enough.
Re:"Logic" by russotto · 2006-12-07 13:56 · Score: 1

I've been to Denmark. Your food is nothing to write home about.
Re:"Logic" by Dan+Farina · 2006-12-07 14:04 · Score: 1

...I don't know where to begin. Trans-fats don't, as far as anyone can really tell, contribute to flavor in any way. They are simply a more hurtful type of fat. More of the question comes into how does one process oils in a way that will not contain or allow removal of trans fats.

Here is a snippet from the wikipedia article:

"Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2]"

I'm sure you know how to get there yourself.
Re:"Logic" by Quiet_Desperation · 2006-12-07 14:07 · Score: 4, Funny

You just have no quick, paid for romance in your heart, sir.
Re:"Logic" by moerty · 2006-12-07 17:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or make them wear burkas. Might as well. That's where the EU will be in 10 years time anyway. The lovely streetwalkers of Paris will become a thing of the past. :-( that's just an ignorant statement, in order for any religion in europe to ever get to the point where they control people's daily lives they'd have to survive multiple bloodbaths. europe isn't all peace and flowers you know, the past 70 years of peace are an anomaly and there have been longer peaces in europe which have degenerated into bloody darkness, america is as likely as europe to becoming islamist. the real danger is fundamentalism prevalent in mainstream religion, europe has fought many bloody wars to reach a point where religion is almost completely excluded from the body politic, in this sense america is more likely to turn into a christian theocracy than europe.
Re:"Logic" by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-07 18:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Silly, trans fats come about because we decided animal fat was bad for us. So we all decided we should eat fats from plants instead. Problem is, plant fats are mostly liquids at room temperature, and we like our butter to spread. So Crisco invented hydrogenation and instead of being a trace component trans fat became the norm.

By the way -- they're saying butter is better for you than margarine now.
Re:"Logic" by GMOZ · 2006-12-07 18:45 · Score: 1

"Or make them wear burkas. Might as well. That's where the EU will be in 10 years time anyway. The lovely streetwalkers of Paris will become a thing of the past."

Seems you haven't been in Paris for the last 10 years... the change has already happened.
Re:"Logic" by cold+fjord · 2006-12-07 19:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Or make them wear burkas. Might as well. That's where the EU will be in 10 years time anyway. The lovely streetwalkers of Paris will become a thing of the past. :-(

The Veil Controversy

For Islamists, the imperative to veil women justifies almost any means. Sometimes they try to buy off resistance. Some French Muslim families, for instance, are paid 500 euros (around $600) per quarter by extremist Muslim organizations just to have their daughters wear the hijab. This has also happened in the United States. Indeed, the famous and brave Syrian-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan recently told the Jerusalem Post that after she moved to the United States in 1991, Saudis offered her $1,500 a month to cover her head and attend a mosque.

But what Islamists use most is intimidation. A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77 percent of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups. A series in the newspaper Libération in 2003 documented how Muslim women and girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab are insulted, rejected, and often physically threatened by Muslim males. One of the teenage girls interviewed said, "Every day, bearded men come to me and advise me strongly on wearing the veil. It is a war. For now, there are no dead, but there are looks and words that do kill."
France's Toll of Destruction

Last night probably another hundred cars were set ablaze - as will be the case tonight, tomorrow night, and the following ones. Before large-scale rioting started on 27 October the police had already registered 30,000 car-becues this year - an average of, indeed, 100 a day. What a boost this must be to the French automobile industry. In the same period there were 3,800 attacks on police officers - a "normal" non-riot average of almost 13 a day.
The 751 No-Go Zones of France

They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are convienently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.

Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule. (November 14, 2006)

Nov. 28, 2006 update: For an insight into how bad things are, the police in Lyons demonstrated on Nov. 9, denouncing "violence against the forces of order." Things have reached a pretty sad state when the police have to demonstrate in the streets against the criminals.
The New French Revolution

They rule gangland style, combined with the male-dominated traditions of the Arab countries they came from. It's gotten so bad that, today, most of the young women only feel safe if they are covered up, or if they stay at home. Girls who want to look just like other French girls are considered provocative, asking for trouble......

"I was gang raped by three people I knew, and I couldn't say anything, because in my culture, your family is dishonored if you lose your virginity," says Bellil. "So I kept quiet, and the rapes continued. The next time, I was pulled off a commuter train and no one lifted a finger to help me. ...Everybody turned their head awa

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:"Logic" by The_Mr_Flibble · 2006-12-07 19:31 · Score: 1

Have you eaten german food ?
I'm pretty sure they already have outlawed it.
Re:"Logic" by Lars+T. · 2006-12-07 20:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

"It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect," Mr Beckstein said on Monday.
Although true, I don't see how banning a game is going to prevent future violence. You can't apply that "logic" to other areas:

1) Pretty females can have a stimulating effect on sex offenders (known and unknown), so will you ban women from walking in public?

2) Good tasting food can have a stimulating effect on people with eating disorders, so will you ban good tasting food?

How about doing something constructive and helping people recognize problems in their kids, providing free help to families with issues, and promiting good family relationships, instead? :P Your counter-logic fails because it ignores "desensitise unstable characters".

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:"Logic" by BackwardHatClub · 2006-12-07 20:53 · Score: 1

Yep, food without trans-fats taste just as good as those with them. And Coke tasted just the same after they replaced cane sugar with high-fructose corn syrup. Just the same.
Re:"Logic" by TheJasper · 2006-12-08 00:30 · Score: 1

And just what does banning trans-fat acids in food have to do with banning good tasting food? Because fat is tasty. hmmmm, fat.
Such a ban has been in effect in Denmark since 2004, and I'm yet to see any restaurants close over it or any chefs complain that now they can't make their favorite dishes. But have you looked? Have you talked to chefs? Not that reastaurant would have to close for this, as everyone has the same restrictions, so it doesn't unfairly change the playing field for competition, it just makes food taste different.
Hell, even McDonalds got on board very quickly. And they've even announced their intentions of extending the restrictions on transfatty acids to all of their European restaurents - all 6,300 of them. Even Kentucky Fried Chicken announced similar goals (they have restaurents in Denmark as well).

And all that without changing the way food tastes. wait, I get it now. You only eat at fast food restaurants. Considering that fast food has the least amount of taste possible, it's no wonder you don't notice the difference. This issue goes beyond the fast food industry however. It effects gourmet restaurants, bakeries, ice cream vendors... Playing the McD/KFC card only weakens your case. It adds nothing and thus dilutes your argument.

Try substituting anything at all for real butter, and I guarantee I can tell the difference. Due to dietary restrictions that some people I know have, I have experimented with various soya substitutes for dairy products. It tastes different. I like the real dairy taste better. I don't care that it is bad for me. Don't protect me against myself.
Re:"Logic" by ThePhilips · 2006-12-08 00:52 · Score: 1

As somebody living in Germany for five years, I'd rather rated the parent as "informative" ;-)
The thing is, that for 0.001% of violence related to video games, there is 99.99% of violence which has nothing to do with it.
If estimated gaming community is 2Mln people, that one shooting idiot make up about 1/2mln*100 = 0,00005% of gamers.
No, they do not want to invest in poor regions of Germany where neo-nazis go on rampages literally killing black people on streets (and go unpunished after that!). But the bayerns see a reason to ban all violent video games. One word: Bayern. Check one the Edmund Stoiber (head of state Bayern): with the pearls he is making up he easily beats your best of bread Republicans.

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Re:"Logic" by KnuthKonrad · 2006-12-08 01:11 · Score: 1

If estimated gaming community is 2Mln people, that one shooting idiot make up about 1/2mln*100 = 0,00005% of gamers.

You didn't specify if you meant those 2 million to be "Hardcore gamers". Numbers I've read, that came up in articles surrounding that silly suggestion from Beckstein, where from 10 to 20 million gamers in Germany. Those figures seem fairly plausible to me, looking around my friends (most of them are not geeks) and workmates. Heck, even my father is addicted by Anno 1502 ;-)

So it's even less than what you came up with.
Re:"Logic" by Ender+Ryan · 2006-12-08 02:57 · Score: 1

What the fuck are you on about man? Trans fat has absolutely nothing to do with taste. Restaurants use hydrogenated vegetable oil for frying because it lasts longer at high temperatures, not for taste. Real butter has no trans fat naturally. Some margarines are hydrogenated to keep them solid at room temperature, and some have already removed all trans fat from their product without anyone noticing.

Many restaurants have already done the same, ie. switched to fry oil without trans fats, without anyone noticing. It's zero to do with taste, and everything to do with penny pinching, at the expense of anyone who eats that shit.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Re:"Logic" by TheJasper · 2006-12-08 03:24 · Score: 1

What the fuck are you on about man? Trans fat has absolutely nothing to do with taste. Restaurants use hydrogenated vegetable oil for frying because it lasts longer at high temperatures, not for taste. Real butter has no trans fat naturally. Some margarines are hydrogenated to keep them solid at room temperature, and some have already removed all trans fat from their product without anyone noticing. While most transfat consumed comes from hydrogenated oils, naturally occuring transfat is found only in animal fats, such as are found in milk (at least afaik, maybe it occurs in vegetable fats but I've never heard of it). Butter, a product which one could describe as the concentrated fat of (cow's) milk, almost certainly contains transfats.
Many restaurants have already done the same, ie. switched to fry oil without trans fats, without anyone noticing. It's zero to do with taste, and everything to do with penny pinching, at the expense of anyone who eats that shit. What are your sources? Restaurants (most notably the fast food industry) switched from animal fats to (partially) hydrogenated vegetable fats because that was cheaper. The switch to oils without transfats is not a cost saving measure but public health and/or company image factor. Ok, there was also a health issue with regards to saturated and unsaturated fats, but now we know transfats are much worse then saturated fats.

Checking Wikipedia we find:

Plant-based hydrogenated vegetable oils are much less expensive than the animal fats traditionally favored by bakers, such as butter or lard, and may be more readily available or less expensive than semi-solid plant fats such as palm oil.

So taste appears to a factor.

now, I am tempted to say something rude in response to the tone of your message, but instead I will take the moral high ground in an arrogantly explicit fashion until a new king comes to push me off the hill.
Re:"Logic" by sydres · 2006-12-08 03:32 · Score: 1

well until people get it through their damn thick heads that the muslims involved should be deported back to that hell that spawned them the west is in deep shit, australia gets it. why are the Europeans and to a lesser extent us Americans not willing to stand up to this real threat. the French could solve this problem quickly, send in the millitary round up every muslim in these areas and put their asses on a boat to saudi arabia or some other sharia law nation where they will feel comfortable
Re:"Logic" by Ihlosi · 2006-12-08 03:56 · Score: 1

So taste appears to a factor.

Yes. But (saturated) animal fats usually taste better than (unsaturated) trans fats.

So, for great taste, go for the natural unhealthy fat, not for the chemically altered, really unhealth fat.
Re:"Logic" by TheJasper · 2006-12-08 04:03 · Score: 1

Yes. But (saturated) animal fats usually taste better than (unsaturated) trans fats.

So, for great taste, go for the natural unhealthy fat, not for the chemically altered, really unhealth fat. Yes, that's what I was trying to say. The healthy nontransfatty oils are also less tasty.

Basically, if its good for you, it tastes bad. Except apples. I like apples.
Re:"Logic" by drinkypoo · 2006-12-08 05:04 · Score: 1

I think if you have not already you should read what if it's all been a big fat lie, a NYT article by Gary Taubes. The following paragraph is the choicest bit but the whole thing is important:

These researchers point out that there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time. In particular, that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic that started around the early 1980's, and that this was coincident with the rise of the low-fat dogma. (Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of the disease, also rose significantly through this period.) They say that low-fat weight-loss diets have proved in clinical trials and real life to be dismal failures, and that on top of it all, the percentage of fat in the American diet has been decreasing for two decades. Our cholesterol levels have been declining, and we have been smoking less, and yet the incidence of heart disease has not declined as would be expected. ''That is very disconcerting,'' Willett says. ''It suggests that something else bad is happening.''

And this is the other choice piece:

In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.''

Basically, the government did some studies trying to prove that eating fat causes heart disease and couldn't do it. Then they had a study that said taking drugs to reduce cholesterol reduced your risk of heart disease and on the basis of that, they issued a food pyramid with carbohydrates at the base and the cap of the pyramid, and fat is relegated off to a minor compartment.

It makes you wonder just what they have against fat. Lobbying, anyone? I haven't found any evidence of that yet... but it is highly suspicious, because this was a time when the packaged food industry was gaining significant steam. After that time, they really took off.

I wrote an article for everything2 after reading the NYT article, entitled How the Government Fattened America. It's kind of an encapsulation of that article and brings in material from few other sources, so you may not feel a need to read it after reading Taubes' piece.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:"Logic" by kmac06 · 2006-12-08 05:24 · Score: 1

Many of them are first-generation citizens, so deportation is not an option.
Re:"Logic" by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 05:34 · Score: 1

I was watching a documentary on elite athletes the other day. Many of them are starting to go to sports nutritionists to improve their performance. The recommendation? Eat more fat.

As a society we seem to have this unhealthy urge to look for single causes of our problems and then try to eliminate them completely. Eating straight sugar is bad? Don't eat any! Eating lots of fat is bad? Eliminate it from your diet! Eating lots of carbs is bad? Atkins!

Balance and moderation seem to be concepts society seems to have trouble getting a handle on.
Re:"Logic" by drinkypoo · 2006-12-08 05:46 · Score: 1

I'd argue that Atkins is the least wacky of what we consider fringe diets simply because it reflects what we evolved to eat. Thus it makes the most sense. Mostly I think you have to look at a human diet from that standpoint. Granted, this is different for different populations. I think there's a lot to be said for eating for your blood type, too - but then I would say that, since I'm a Type O and I love to eat meat.

The ideal diet would seem to be one with a low glycemic index and in which you don't eat more than you need.

Man evolved both the ability to store food when it is plentiful, and to life off of fat reserves when it is not... not that we're the only ones. When food is plentiful - literally growing on trees, and other plants - we sequester the unused calories away as fat. When food is scarce, and we cannot get much food and especially not plants due to the weather, we go into a state called ketosis in which we live on fat reserves. The brain (and heart!) are actually more efficient running on ketones than on glucose. Also, the rate of lean muscle loss is slowed during ketosis, which is a serious benefit of the Atkins diet as opposed to others. On other diets, you lose about 1 part muscle for every 3 parts of fat you lose. This effect is far less pronounced during ketosis.

If you want to put the minimum strain on your body, you have to control your food input... If you're not going to live off reserves, then you shouldn't be putting them on. We weren't meant to get fat and stay that way.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:"Logic" by Lars+T. · 2006-12-08 06:03 · Score: 1

If estimated gaming community is 2Mln people, that one shooting idiot make up about 1/2mln*100 = 0,00005% of gamers.

You didn't specify if you meant those 2 million to be "Hardcore gamers". Numbers I've read, that came up in articles surrounding that silly suggestion from Beckstein, where from 10 to 20 million gamers in Germany. Those figures seem fairly plausible to me, looking around my friends (most of them are not geeks) and workmates. Heck, even my father is addicted by Anno 1502 ;-)

So it's even less than what you came up with.
Yeah, I'm sure that 25% of Germans are avid fraggers. Point is, even Beckstein didn't ask for a ban on Anno 1502 (err, 1503? 1701?).

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:"Logic" by Sj0 · 2006-12-08 06:14 · Score: 1

Back to the womb with all of them! That'll learn them!

--
It's been a long time.
Re:"Logic" by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 06:53 · Score: 1

Non-meat has always been an important part of our diets. Your brain evolved to require at least about 30% of it's energy from glucose. Various plants, fruits, berries... it is called hunting and gathering. We definitely didn't evolve to eat all the meat you want -- you're supposed to have to chase after it!

Eating for your blood type?! I hadn't heard about that one, but it looks pretty crazy. Why your blood type? Why not your hair colour?
Re:"Logic" by drinkypoo · 2006-12-08 07:09 · Score: 1

Non-meat has always been an important part of our diets. Your brain evolved to require at least about 30% of it's energy from glucose.

The argument is not that non-meat is not an important part of our diets. It's that ketosis is a natural state of being. (So is packing on fat, though.)

Eating for your blood type?! I hadn't heard about that one, but it looks pretty crazy. Why your blood type? Why not your hair colour?

The blood types did not evolve all at once. My blood type, O (Actually O+ but not important now) is the oldest and most common. This is a hunter-gatherer blood type, because that's the oldest means of food production. The theory of eating for your blood type is that depending on where your bloodlines come from, the food those people evolved to eat is different, and therefore your genetics as relate to food are different.

Naturally I'm only inclined toward this theory because it seems to apply to me; I'm a Type O, and I flourish on a so-called "ideal" diet for my type, and I am intolerant (even allergic) to most of the things Type Os are theoretically supposed to avoid, like dairy and wheat - but the Atkins diet in particular works better for me than many people; I lost ten pounds in my first month in spite of consuming about 2500 calories per day, maybe more - Big huge steaks fried in butter, salads with gobs of bleu cheese dressing... My cholesterol while I was on the diet was fantastic (It's not bad now but it is higher) and I lost about ten pounds each month pretty reliably, while having plenty of energy (after the first week - it takes two or more for most people.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:"Logic" by Ender+Ryan · 2006-12-08 07:56 · Score: 1

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. The healthy nontransfatty oils are also less tasty.

Yes, but the "healthy" (they're really not, of course) veggy oils taste, by all reasonable accounts, the same as their trans fatty counterparts. So trans fat isn't an issue with taste. It's the, also unhealthy, but much less so than trans fat filled vegetable oil, animal fat that has the prized taste.

So, if you're baking me something, and say you're concerned about the taste, you better use animal fat, not some trans fat laced vegetable shit.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Re:"Logic" by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 16:57 · Score: 1

Whatever works for you. The theory of blood types and diet is pretty firmly in the pseudoscience category, especially when the original publication on it also attributed particular personality traits to the different blood types (sounds even more like astrology). A, B and O antigens are also known in the great apes so they couldn't have arisen 20,000 years ago, never mind six thousand years ago when agrarian societies were getting started. Blood types appear to be much more likely a result of disease outbreaks in particular populations than diet.

The fact that you can lose weight on the Atkins diet indicates that it is not normal. There is no evolutionary advantage for your body to lose weight on a normal diet containing a sufficient number of calories. Having to eat more to maintain yourself is a definite evolutionary disadvantage.
Re:"Logic" by KnuthKonrad · 2006-12-08 23:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, but he's a gamer, who are all - in Beckstein's weird mind - doomed to run amok sooner or later. And about Anno 15xx, 17xx (whatever ;-)): You do kill "human like beings" as well. Not through a first person perspective, though. But you kill nonetheless.
Re:"Logic" by soft_guy · 2006-12-09 03:41 · Score: 1

Many of them are first-generation citizens, so deportation is not an option. The law can be changed. Citizenship can be stripped from them. It has been done before. Being citizens didn't stop the japanese from being interned during WW II.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:"Logic" by Quiet_Desperation · 2006-12-10 07:13 · Score: 1

Not for 15 years. They're gone, huh? Too bad.
Re:"Logic" by drinkypoo · 2006-12-11 05:28 · Score: 1

Whatever works for you. The theory of blood types and diet is pretty firmly in the pseudoscience category, especially when the original publication on it also attributed particular personality traits to the different blood types (sounds even more like astrology).

The same document can contain sound science and quackery.

The fact that you can lose weight on the Atkins diet indicates that it is not normal. There is no evolutionary advantage for your body to lose weight on a normal diet containing a sufficient number of calories. Having to eat more to maintain yourself is a definite evolutionary disadvantage.

Congratulations on displaying your profound lack of understanding.

Let me pick this bullshit paragraph apart a sentence at a time...

The fact that you can lose weight on the Atkins diet indicates that it is not normal. What? You can lose weight no matter what you're eating if you burn more calories than you take in. That's not what's happening here, although you COULD eat fewer calories, too - and some people do.

There is no evolutionary advantage for your body to lose weight on a normal diet containing a sufficient number of calories. See, when we first evolved into humans, we hadn't invented agriculture. That means we couldn't necessarily get a "sufficient number of calories" all the time. Instead we had a time when food was plentiful, and a time when it was scarce. We packed fat on during the plentiful time, and then we starved when we couldn't find food. Ketosis is what got us through the lean times. See, during normal weight loss, when you're simply eating less, you lose [approximately] one part of muscle for every three parts of fat. This doesn't happen during ketosis. In addition, you don't need as much energy to operate in ketosis, because your body operates more efficiently on ketones than on glucose. You do need SOME glucose for your brain to function properly, but in general ketones are a more efficient fuel. Both the brain and the heart have been shown to function more efficiently on ketones than on glucose.

Having to eat more to maintain yourself is a definite evolutionary disadvantage. It's not about having to eat more. It's about being able to live on stored fat reserves. We can simply use this feature of the human body (and perhaps other species, but I know fuck-all about ketosis in other animals) which is there to help us to survive in conditions where we otherwise would waste away and perish, to instead lose weight. It's an absolutely normal state for a human to be in, despite your desire to prove otherwise. Food was simply not available in large quantities year-round.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:"Logic" by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-11 08:06 · Score: 1

I hit a nerve hey? Challenged a dearly held preconception?

Let me put it this way. You mentioned eating a large number of calories and still losing weight! Yay! So where is this efficiency? Apparently our bodies do not utilize all the calories in meat very effectively. Most of them are wasted, which is why people on an Atkins diet can eat as much as they want and still lose weight. They are effectively on a low calorie diet -- most of what they're putting in their mouths and swallowing is passing straight through.

Sure, our bodies run more efficiently on such a diet -- they think they're starving! In fact, they are. Ever heard of rabbit starvation? You can starve if you just eat rabbit. I'm not talking about dying of vitamin deficiency, I'm talking about dying of lack of absorbed calories.

Eating an almost exclusively meat diet all the time is not natural, since you effectively starve on it. Meat is highly prized by all omnivores because it's hard to get. The natural diet is more balanced -- whatever's available, plus the luxury of meat, when you can get it. The Atkins diet is effective for weight loss precisely because it's not what our digestive system evolved to be most efficient at utilizing.
Re:"Logic" by drinkypoo · 2006-12-11 08:35 · Score: 1

I hit a nerve hey? Challenged a dearly held preconception?

Uh, I think you have that backwards, me laddo. Atkins is the challenger. Your way of thinking is the incumbent. Your attempt to paint us as being in opposite corners from our actual positions is amusing, but not compelling.

Let me put it this way. You mentioned eating a large number of calories and still losing weight! Yay! So where is this efficiency? Apparently our bodies do not utilize all the calories in meat very effectively. Most of them are wasted, which is why people on an Atkins diet can eat as much as they want and still lose weight. They are effectively on a low calorie diet -- most of what they're putting in their mouths and swallowing is passing straight through.

No. This is not why people on an Atkins diet can eat as much as they want and still lose weight. This, too, is tied to ketosis.

Aside from the other traits of this particular state of being, when in ketosis your body does not store unused fat - it passes out of the body as waste. Fat stored on the body comes from two sources; it comes from unused carbohydrates, and it comes from unused fat. Unused protein is always passed out of the body as waste.

When in ketosis, you derive the majority of your energy from fat. When you've eaten recently, that's coming from your food; otherwise it's coming from your fat reserves.

The rate of lean muscle loss is slowed - perhaps the rate at which we break down proteins is also decelerated. THAT I don't know. If it is, then yes, ketosis is probably inhibiting our ability to derive energy from meat. However, it's an incredibly common diet amongst bodybuilders, having become so mostly in the recent few years. Bodybuilders have been using similar diets for a long time, of course. Certainly the diet does not [substantially] inhibit your ability to build muscle. (The qualifying word is in there because there could be some effect. I doubt it, but there you are.)

Eating an almost exclusively meat diet all the time is not natural, since you effectively starve on it.

Maybe you missed this the last time around, but the natural state of man is to gorge himself when food is easy to hunt/gather, and to starve when it is not.

If you would like to live naturally, give up all your possessions and fuck off into the countryside. I don't think you'll enjoy it.

Meat is highly prized by all omnivores because it's hard to get. The natural diet is more balanced -- whatever's available, plus the luxury of meat, when you can get it. The Atkins diet is effective for weight loss precisely because it's not what our digestive system evolved to be most efficient at utilizing.

The Atkins diet has four stages but I only need to talk about two of them to debunk your comment.

The first stage is induction. This is the stage in which you start off. In the induction phase you consume only 60g carbs maximum per day. This number was chosen because pretty much anyone will enter ketosis consuming so few carbs.

The last stage is lifetime maintenance. In this stage, you add carbs steadily until you experience weight gain, then you cut them back. This stage recognizes that all of us are different and that you should not life your whole life without them - you should simply have a greatly reduced amount, and you should find the amount that works for your body and your lifestyle.

Talking about what is natural is only useful insofar as it tells us about what the human body is "designed" to handle. Few of us are all that interested in a "natural" existence. Certainly, no one here on slashdot is interested in it, or we would have given up our computers long since. I use it only to show that Ketosis is a natural state of man. It's unnatural to life your life always in ketosis, but even the atkins diet doesn't suggest that. It actually suggests that you float along at the edge. Arguably this is closest to our natural state of being, which does not include gorging yourself on masses of carbohydrates year-round.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Crytek is about... by Dr.+Eggman · 2006-12-07 10:42 · Score: 1

...to have an identity Crysis...

--
Demented But Determined.

Why the First Amendment is Important by Kelson · 2006-12-07 10:44 · Score: 1

AFAIK, Germany has no codified freedom of speech clause. Certainly there's quite a bit of censorship -- bans on nazi propaganda, for instance.

In Germany, if a bill like this passes, it's probably enforceable. Whereas here in the US, it would be challenged on first amendment grounds.

Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 11:09 · Score: 1, Informative

AFAIK, Germany has no codified freedom of speech clause. Certainly there's quite a bit of censorship -- bans on nazi propaganda, for instance. In Germany, if a bill like this passes, it's probably enforceable. Whereas here in the US, it would be challenged on first amendment grounds.

From article 5 of the german constitution aka Basic Law:
"Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."

Read it sometime, especially the first 20 articles, it's actually quite good:
http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_22672/Webs/Breg/E N/Federal-Government/FunctionAndConstitutionalBasi s/BasicLaw/ContentofBasicLaw/content-of-basic-law. html/cen//
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by laughingcoyote · 2006-12-07 11:13 · Score: 1

From article 5 of the german constitution aka Basic Law: "Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."

Apparently they ignore it just as nicely as we do on this side of the Atlantic too, given the ban on all kinds of things having to do with Nazis, Holocaust denial, and the like. And of course now this.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by Knuckles · 2006-12-07 11:25 · Score: 1

When Germany came out of nazism and WWII, with millions of nazis still around, there was no way around banning it. And nowadays there are still many survivors alive who should not have to be harassed by neonazis. We can start talking about lifting the ban in 20 years or so.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by AxelBoldt · 2006-12-07 13:54 · Score: 1

From article 5 of the german constitution aka Basic Law: "Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."
Why not quote the following paragraph too? "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor." In other words, a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression does not exist in Germany. Every general law can curtail it at will.
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by smurfsurf · 2006-12-07 14:28 · Score: 1

No, they do not ignore it. The cited passage is just paragraph 1 of article 5 of the constitution. paragraph 2 reads:

These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by erck · 2006-12-07 15:49 · Score: 1

What TFA doesn't mention is that there already is a law against representation of violence, which argueably covers video games already. Beckstein is just trying to make it stricter and waterproof against video games.

An unofficial translation of the current law:
"Section 131 Representation of Violence

(1) Whoever, in relation to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which describe cruel or otherwise inhuman acts of violence against human beings in a manner which expresses a glorification or rendering harmless of such acts of violence or which represents the cruel or inhuman aspects of the event in a manner which injures human dignity:

1. disseminates them;
2. publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
3. offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
4. produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers 1 through 3 or facilitate such use by another,

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine.

(2) Whoever disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in subsection (1) by radio, shall be similarly punished.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply if the act serves as reporting about current or historical events.
(4) Subsection (1), number 3 shall not be applicable if the person authorized to care for the person acts. "

(Note: "Writings" already covers digital media.)

What Beckstein wants to change is to include violence agains 'human-like beings' (because many localized version of video games already made blood look green or black and argued that it wasn't humans but robots/aliens that were being killed)
and to explicitely include interactive video games because some law experts claim that because it requires the players interaction, it's not a 'description' of violence as specified by the law.

Personally, I'm against it and think it's a publicity stunt, I just thought I'd add this info to clarify the situation.
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by Ihlosi · 2006-12-07 22:08 · Score: 1

AFAIK, Germany has no codified freedom of speech clause.

Actually, this is codified in several parts of the Grundgesetz (Constitution), most notably in Article 5.

Certainly there's quite a bit of censorship -- bans on nazi propaganda, for instance.

There's a very narrow-spectrum ban on certain applications of certain symbols. I could come up with similar laws in the US. How quickly do you thinkg someone would end up in jail who voiced his opinion publicly that the prez oughta die ?

In Germany, if a bill like this passes, it's probably enforceable. Whereas here in the US, it would be challenged on first amendment grounds.

In Germany, luckily we have a Federal Constitutional Court with judges that are is all too happy to slap overly enthusiastic lawmakers and members of the executive left and right if they think that the Grundgesetz is just a godd4mn piece of paper. Whereas in the US, the Supreme Court seems to think that executive branch is right by default.
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by CrimsonAvenger · 2006-12-08 01:41 · Score: 1

How quickly do you thinkg someone would end up in jail who voiced his opinion publicly that the prez oughta die ?
I've heard it said in public quite a lot. None of the people who said it (qualifier: that subset of the people who said it that I knew well enough to notice if they were jailed) have been jailed.
Now, actually trying to do it is another thing entirely. On the other hand, trying to kill ME is a crime too.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by CrimsonAvenger · 2006-12-08 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does the phrase "I hate Illinois Nazis" have any meaning for you?
We have Nazis in the USA too. They have even, on occasion, paraded in the streets (through Black or Jewish neighborhoods, in fact), protected by police from hecklers.
For the most part, they are laughed at. It doesn't take a legal ban to render them harmless - letting them spout their doctrine on TV seems to make them objects of ridicule in and of itself.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by Knuckles · 2006-12-08 05:22 · Score: 1

You don't see a difference between a few dozen/hundreds nutcases and a country full of millions of nazis (in 1945) that a short time ago had the state under control and partly still functioning organizations?

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by AxelBoldt · 2006-12-08 05:50 · Score: 1

To say that you have a right to free expression unless another value takes priority is completely meaningless and hollow; it is redundant unless those values are explicitly listed. You have a right to anything unless another value takes priority. If they want to outlaw a particular opinion (say, that the Holocaust didn't happen), they just have to invent some value taking priority. I'm sure China is also pretty good at inventing communal values that take priority over the expression of certain opinions.
Re:Why the First Amendment is Important by CrimsonAvenger · 2006-12-08 07:08 · Score: 1

You don't see a difference between a few dozen/hundreds nutcases and a country full of millions of nazis (in 1945) that a short time ago had the state under control and partly still functioning organizations?
Of course, the West German national government has only been sovereign since 1955, so the conditions in 1945 are less than relevant. In 1945, the Nazis had the US, UK, French, and Soviet Armies making sure things were under control.
Even more importantly, we're talking about NOW. Two generations later than WW2. Isn't it about time to quit worrying about a resurgence of Nazism? Or do you really believe the German people today are just biding their time until they can start a new Reich, only to be held in check by laws prohibiting them from talking about certain subjects?
If the laws are sufficient to save you from a return to Nazism, then a simple change should suffice: make it legal to talk about Nazism, but make it expressly illegal for Nazis to overthrow the government. See, Freedom of Speech and freedom from the Nazis at the same time.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

The first reaction by government... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

...is invariably an over-reaction.

Surprised? Nope.

Sounds silly but ... by terrymr · 2006-12-07 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

The USA did ban playing cards online.

Re:Sounds silly but ... by Mad+Marlin · 2006-12-07 11:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Playing cards online is perfectly legal. Gambling, on the other had, is not.

--
Best Slashdot comment ever
Re:Sounds silly but ... by terrymr · 2006-12-07 11:34 · Score: 1

Ever tried to play poker without the rounds of betting ... it becomes pointless very rapidly, the skill in poker is in the betting.
Re:Sounds silly but ... by AxelBoldt · 2006-12-07 14:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Gambling, on the other had, is not.
Gambling in games of skill, like poker or backgammon, is indeed illegal. Gambling in games of chance, like the stock market, remains legal however.
Re:Sounds silly but ... by MMaestro · 2006-12-07 16:12 · Score: 1

No, it becomes pointless because theres no incentive to play seriously in the first place. The game becomes even more boring when you can't actually look at a person's face and look for their "tell".

Re:Germany of all places. by daniel_mcl · 2006-12-07 10:53 · Score: 1

"Minister of the Interior" is equivalent to the American "Secretary of the Interior." It's not a religious position, any more than Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

--
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.

What the State Really Wants by jazman_777 · 2006-12-07 10:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is a throughly docile democratized (herd mentality) society. No one must be able to imagine or visualize "solving problems" by using violence, by himself. No one must be able to imagine that there even is a problem. I love this State! More soma, please!

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.

Re:What the State Really Wants by borg007 · 2006-12-08 01:41 · Score: 1

I know why he's REALLY mad. Every FPS that involves Germans and/or Nazis, ends with all the members of the master race dead. Start rewriting history and have a couple FPS where the Germans win and Germany will sponsor tournaments. No Russian or NATO countries need apply though!

Not "German Minister of the Interior" by mseeger · 2006-12-07 10:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Hi,

he (Beckstein) is not the "German Minister of the Interior" but the one of Bavaria (german: Bayern). Bavaria is the most conservative state in germany, ruled for nearly 60 years by the same party. He has been joined in his attempt by the minister of interior of lower saxony.

The core of the prolem is the definition of "killer games". Since nearly all major politicians are 60 or older, they have nearly no understanding of the topic. They believe e.g. that Counterstrike is played with a joystick and the goal of the game to be "killing hostages". Usually, hearing them, i'm torn between laughing and crying.

Regards, Martin

Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by adpe · 2006-12-07 11:19 · Score: 1

Especially Beckstein is one of the conservative hardliners, who disgusts about everyone, everytime he opens his mouth. He's more or less *the* guy who is not-yet-nazi but sometimes gets very close. Don't take anything seriously he's saying.
Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 11:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

They believe e.g. that Counterstrike is played with a joystick and the goal of the game to be "killing hostages". What difference would it make if that were actually true?

It's safe to say they have the correct basic idea of what a game is, though on specific games clearly don't know what they are talking about. But it's not an issue of the specific game content or why they are against game x or game y. Even if CS were all about killing hostages, should it be censored? We would of course say "no", but they say "yes".

That's the issue that needs to be addressed, because their ignorance of specific games still doesn't excuse their calling for them to be banned, whether they actually exist in that form or not.
Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by ista · 2006-12-07 18:37 · Score: 1

Sidenote: Bavaria is the state who (back in the 1970s, when there were only publicly operated TV stations in Germany) forbid broadcasting of the first "Sesame Street" episodes, as it also talked about "less privileged children" and the state of Bavaria stated that there were no such thing like "less privileged children" in Bavaria and this would only confuse children.

Günther Beckstein has several "controversal" opinions, not commonly shared among germans (most often even not his own political party). He wants to introduce more CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, deport foreigners simply upon the first suspect of terrorism and has just been quoted with "'Killer-games ' should be classified like children pornography, so that there are more noticable penalties". Günther Beckstein also strongly votes for higher penalties on shoplifting and grafitti sprayers. Luckily for civil rights, most of his thoughts actually never made it to reality.

The "killer games" term references to first-person shooters and has just been a hot issue during the last few weeks, when someone has been running amok at his former school (at least, he didn't kill anybody but himself). But even that student has been depicted as much introverted, openly aggressive wearing military-style clothing, he has been much into weapons, listened to recordings and glorified the columbine high school shooter, announced his amok run on a website, built a CS-map of his school and the next day, he would've faced a charge for owning a fire weapon without a valid license.
"Of course", that guy has also been playing counter strike and so there have been much politicians into thinking that playing FPS games is a clear sign for such behaviour, although many psychologists have stated that "playing FPS" is merely a side symptom and many gamer's communities have said that most of their game play focusses on team work and communication, so it is rather unusual symptom for an experienced player.
Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by mseeger · 2006-12-07 19:10 · Score: 1

Hi,
What difference would it make if that were actually true?
If an illiterate asks a book to be censored and someone who has read it, i would take the later one more serious.
Regards, Martin
Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by dangitman · 2006-12-07 20:12 · Score: 1

Why couldn't you play Counterstrike with a joystick?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by Denial93 · 2006-12-07 21:41 · Score: 1

Beckstein also currently has to draw attention away from a scandal around overspending for the country's faulty new police managment software. The sociopathic half-human breed known colloquially as "gamers" are being a useful distraction.

--
blow your mind already
Re:Not "German Minister of the Interior" by Ihlosi · 2006-12-07 22:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bavaria is the most conservative state in germany, ruled for nearly 60 years by the same party.
To you Americans: Think Texas. That's about how Bavaria is compared to Germany.

Re:Going a little overboard by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-12-07 11:02 · Score: 5, Funny

No... But WWII is responsible for all the WWII video games of the last few years. If I see one more WWII video game, I'm going to jump into my Sherman tank and take a tour through town!

someone throw him in jail by scoot80 · 2006-12-07 11:23 · Score: 1

Someone throw him in Jail for being an idiot!

you got it all wrong by Scrameustache · 2006-12-07 11:24 · Score: 1

I get the feeling this guy isn't elected. Why? Because so many germans play games and would be against it. This would probably be political suicide This guy is elected...
By old people.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:you got it all wrong by paeanblack · 2006-12-07 12:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

This guy is elected...By old people.

More aptly, this guy is elected by people who bother to vote
Re:you got it all wrong by CAIMLAS · 2006-12-08 01:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not entirely. He's more correct than he probably knew he was. Germany has a terminal population problem; the only think keeping their country afloat long-term is immigration. So it's entirely plauseable that "old" people are a statistically larger percentage of the population than the younger - just as it would be the other way around in a healthy civilization.

At least one good thing can be said about such things: if the trend isn't reversed, at least their society will experience a short age of guaranteed non-agression before its departure from the face of the earth as a cultural entity.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:you got it all wrong by Bastard+of+Subhumani · 2006-12-08 01:30 · Score: 1

Germany has a terminal population problem; the only think keeping their country afloat long-term is immigration.
Immigration is a short-term fix.

--
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Re:you got it all wrong by CAIMLAS · 2006-12-08 14:39 · Score: 1

Immigration isn't even a short-term fix; it's a perceived fix, a placebo - or even a slow poison. The problem is still there in its entirety, and in all likelyhood, is being amplified by the immigration by introducing society-destroying cultural rifts.

This is only the case where immigration outpaces domestic population growth, and the immigrants are not assimilating.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Re:Going a little overboard by ravenshrike · 2006-12-07 11:26 · Score: 1

I'll provide air cover in my Mustang.

Re:compulsory military service ? by ravenshrike · 2006-12-07 11:33 · Score: 1

Arguably it's mandatory social service, with part of the service being military. Almost owrse really, if it were truly military one can argue that everyone should chip in to the physical defense of a country given that that's the main reason for government at all, but forced to act directly as a drudge for the same machine is the nanny state a it's finest.

Violence by Bragador · 2006-12-07 11:34 · Score: 1

I'd like to see the scientific studies pointing to the causality studies. Oh right, all the studies are only CORRELATIONS! See who's to say that violent people wouldn't prefer violent games ? So blaming the industry is something completely stupid. Also if they plan to ban violent games I suppose they'll ban violent entertainment. So no more horror movies I suppose ? When is the ban on paintball ? I dare the government to define "violent" because most cartoons are full of violent acts. Also, does it mean they'll sue people making firstperson shooters like deerhunter? Come on...

What, again? by DimGeo · 2006-12-07 11:36 · Score: 1

What happened to the law in Greece banning video games as a form of gambling? Gee... Just ignore the ignorant and move on.

An once of prevention by hey! · 2006-12-07 11:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

is worth a pound of cure. We all know that.

But what is seldom appreciated is how often that a pound of prevention turns out to be worth only an ounce of cure. Or less.

The reason that the "ounce of prevention" strategy works is that it focuses you on simple, reasonable actions that accurately target the concern and produce few side effects. Like putting a lock on your door to prevent burglary. Now you could sit on your front porch and shoot at everybody who comes near your house that you think "looks shifty". There is no doubt a more vigorous preventive measure than locking your doors and widnows, but it isn't more effective.

It really doesn't matter whether something is done before or after the fact, so much that the action be chosen to produce the results desired, and not much if anything else.

And seeing as we've already triggered Godwin's law, I may as well raise the example of the Final Solution as an instance of the pound of prevention phenomonon. If people thought that the Jews where using their control of money to ruin the country, why didn't they simply pass a few banking regulation laws? Then nobody could ruin the country that way, Jew or otherwise. The answer is that the pound of prevention phenomon, like road rage, is driven by highly emotionally charged thinking. The kind that makes you act so stupidly that the only way not to die from embarassment is to do something even stupider.

If you're so concerned with pathologically violent people, why not simply screen for them at various reasonable points? You provide mental health services at school to disturbed kids and training for teachers on how to recognize and deal with them. You screen people who have violent run-ins with other people before they go onto bigger and badder things. You run a public education campaign so people can recognize when their associates and familiy members need help -- maybe a few people will recognize they need help themselves.

Will this get rid of all violence by disturbed people? No. But it will do a hell of a lot more than banning video games.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:An once of prevention by lupine_stalker · 2006-12-07 12:29 · Score: 1

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, you say? Well, I'm off to buy some Nicorette patches, so I don't start smoking!

--
Ninjas use italics.
Re:An once of prevention by smilingman · 2006-12-07 12:35 · Score: 1

I never thought I'd post saying this, but... mod parent up. That's the closest thing to genuine insightfulness that I've seen in a long time.
Re:An once of prevention by Rockinsockindune · 2006-12-07 12:51 · Score: 1

If you're so concerned with pathologically violent people, why not simply screen for them at various reasonable points? You provide mental health services at school to disturbed kids and training for teachers on how to recognize and deal with them. You screen people who have violent run-ins with other people before they go onto bigger and badder things. You run a public education campaign so people can recognize when their associates and familiy members need help -- maybe a few people will recognize they need help themselves.

The problem with screening for these kids that do these types of things is that they are very intelligent, but emotionally underdeveloped.
They are smart enough to say the things that they need to in front of teachers and parents. The parents would have to be very smart
and be able to monitor their child's activities without the child's knowledge. The only thing is that most of these children that do go crazy
and shoot up their school seemed to be normal to their parents, so the parents didn't see a need to invade their child's privacy.

--
I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.

Gunther "JT" Beckstein? by pla · 2006-12-07 11:37 · Score: 1

Gunther Beckstein is seeking jail time for violent game developers, publishers, and players.

Jack? Jack Thompson? Did you finally piss off and leave us alone, only to change your name and harass another country?

Sad, really, seeing these pathetic little old men who don't understand the modern world. At least "tubes" sounds harmless enough, but twits with passion about their delusions really need to step down and limit their ranting to yelling at kids to get off their lawns.

Re:Euh by Cheapy · 2006-12-07 11:39 · Score: 1

You could almost say "poo-tee-weet?"

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?

Re:Where do you draw the line by R3d+M3rcury · 2006-12-07 11:48 · Score: 4, Funny

I just got Suzuki Superbikes for PS2. In this game, the riders occasionally kick at each other. Since kicking someone on a motorcycle at race speeds could certainally result in injuries as bad as or worse than a bullet wound, am I playing a violent game?

Yes, it is a violent game if it allows you to do that. Thus, they would have to change the game so that players do not kick at each other. In fact, at the end of the game, all players will be shown joining the winner for a large group hug to show that there is no animosity.

What if I try to take out other drivers in GT4?

Well, then, your car will immediately be stopped by the police and you automatically lose the race. In fact, in order to keep anyone's feelings from being hurt, GT4 will be rewritten so that all races always end in a tie between all drivers.

Oh, and what if I develop a FPS app in Java? The folks at Sun aided and abetted me. Do they go to jail?

Yes they do. In fact, the makers of personal computers will be liable if someone uses their personal computer to virtually harm another being--including making them feel bad. Of course, makers of personal computers will then sue all of their component suppliers and so on down the line.

searching for an answer down the wrong hole by xshader · 2006-12-07 11:49 · Score: 1, Troll

Those that think the problem was violent video games are looking down the wrong hole and denying their violent cultural heritage.

Re:searching for an answer down the wrong hole by Alise · 2006-12-07 12:58 · Score: 1

While it wouldn't be pleasant for the gamers affected, I think eventually somebody is going get away with a stupid law like the one he proposes. In the end though, it'll be a sacrifice for the greater good. We could finally have definitive proof that taking violent video games out of the equation does absolutely nothing and it might become a precedent for dealing with this kind of stupidity in the future.

sounds like the salem witch trials by pgookii · 2006-12-07 12:20 · Score: 1

ssia...

The crickets sure are loud in here... by WgT2 · 2006-12-07 12:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

It sure is quiet here.

Flamebait me if you will, but: Where are the cries? Where are the cries of fascism!?

Here is real fascism, all you Bush haters, and you've all but gone silent. You need to stand up for what you believe where it really matters instead of merely in your self-righteous murmurings of posts past.

Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 12:56 · Score: 1, Funny

Fascism? In Germany? Ha, it'll never happen here!
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by Mr.+Hankey · 2006-12-07 13:01 · Score: 1

You're right, this is fascism. So is a lot of what's happened here in the past several years however. What you're really seeing is apathy for problems that do not affect people directly.

--
GPL: Free as in will
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by WgT2 · 2006-12-07 15:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was going to bring that up... but it wouldn't have been as dramatic.
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-07 18:55 · Score: 1

I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · 2006-12-07 18:57 · Score: 1

This isn't fascism. This is I-want-attention-ism.
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by WgT2 · 2006-12-07 23:16 · Score: 1

Which word? I already know what "is" is!
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 05:16 · Score: 1

Facism. As in: "this is real fascism!"

The definition of fascism isn't exactly firm, mostly because of people misusing it in place of phrases like "that's mean!" and "I disagree!" but here's a fairly representative definition from Webster's:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

So, taking the first definition, in this story we don't have exaltation of nation and/or race, no centralized autocratic government headed by a dictator, no severe economic or social regimentation and no forcible suppression of opposition.

In the second definition, banning some violent games doesn't qualify as strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

So no, this isn't "real fascism." It's a semi-obscure (elected) German official spouting off.
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by WgT2 · 2006-12-08 08:15 · Score: 1

no severe economic or social regimentation and no forcible suppression of opposition.

True, there is no severe any thing, to me at least, going on here. But, the request is quite a social regimentation and suppression of a percieved opposition... or it's just really so far out there it seems to fall toward that catagory.

You make a technically correct, let's say, 'correction'. But, the point was the lack of fervor for condeming this 'radical' idea.

'Mr. Hankey' made the point clear as to why things are so quiet:
...What you're really seeing is apathy for problems that do not affect people directly.
Re:The crickets sure are loud in here... by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-08 17:14 · Score: 1

Actually, I think Slashdot does extra whining, including in the discussion for this story, when games are at stake.

Half the laws people here get outraged over involve making it illegal to sell M rated games to minors -- something we already do with movies, magazines, live theatre and probably lots of other things.

As others have pointed out, this is an obscure German official who's not even from the federal government who's been spouting off after a school shooting. Even if Germany DID ban some games, I fail to see how it would be any different than banning books -- which happens, including in the US, all the time.

You know what causes the most school shootings... by Tokerat · 2006-12-07 12:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

...is all the media glamor and shock that is the result of school shootings. These kids want to "make a statement". They're so hurt or outcast and they shoot up their school to lash back and to make the world notice, as if to say "It's that bad here." It's essentially an act of terrorism.

I'm pretty sure Islamic extremist groups didn't become violent from video games, but because they felt a need to lash out. The behavior is, plain and simple, unchecked immaturity combined with a little knowledge.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Re:Euh by fbjon · 2006-12-07 12:43 · Score: 1

It's The Police, not R2-D2.

--
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.

back to wholesome games... by misterv · 2006-12-07 12:45 · Score: 1

Now maybe German youths can return to playing wholesome, interactive, and physically engaging games like Smear the Queer...

FPS Doug by StarvingSE · 2006-12-07 12:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Does this mean that FPS Doug would be made an international criminal???

--
I got nothin'

Beckstein NOT germanys Minister of the Interior by euice · 2006-12-07 13:35 · Score: 5, Informative

He is the Minister of Interior of Bavaria, and Bavaria is just one of 16 states (Bundesland) in germany. That's like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger president of the united states.

And besides that, he isn't even very popular in germany (at least outside bavaria).

To give you a picture of his political position: The conservatives (CDU) are the largest party in germany at the moment, althouth they are only supported by about 35% across germany.

In bavaria, things are a lot different. Bavaria is so conservative, that the more moderate CDU is split into two partys. The party in bavaria is called CSU, so the rest of germany does not link the radical positions of the CSU to the conservatives outside bavaria.

That works incredible well: the CSU dominates bavaria around 60% for decades, with political statements like the above. And Mr. Beckstein is often the one saying the radical statements.

Shall I mention that Mr. Beckstein is a huge fan of the Bush administration whereas most germans are not?

Re:Beckstein NOT germanys Minister of the Interior by euice · 2006-12-07 14:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Maybe I should add, that these these statements are not new.

After the school shoot-out in erfurt 2002 the government introduced an age-rating on video games, although Mr. Beckstein and his political friends demanded the full ban of violent computer games.

If you want a balanced report on this, read this article
Re:Beckstein NOT germanys Minister of the Interior by Bloke+down+the+pub · 2006-12-08 00:44 · Score: 1

He is the Minister of Interior of Bavaria, and Bavaria is just one of 16 states (Bundesland) in germany.
The English make Jokes about the Irish. The French make Jokes about the Belgians. In the US, it's Polacks who get laughed at for being stupid.

In Germany, they tell Bavarian jokes[1]. He'll probably want to ban those next.

[1] I think - obviously it's based on a very small sample.

--
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.

No, the cat does not "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-12-07 13:57 · Score: 1

> through the 2m-strong German online gaming community.

You know how to deal with this, right? Death sentence at the next election. I assure you it works. It finally got Bush and the Republican's attention in the US.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Reply: Ditto: WOW, more of the same by OldHawk777 · 2006-12-07 13:59 · Score: 1

Reactionary politicians are vain, always trying for news headlines and personal power, never solutions to problems or citizen welfare.

I wish USA politicians and the public would learn that war is never the right thing to do, but it may be necessary, and then should be ended as quickly and definitively as possible by attacking the politicians (dogmatist, religious, corporatist, ...) first, then cleaning up the devastating mess they made. IOW: Finish them and Finish it, because politicians can always be replaced, but family, friends, and good citizens are lost forever to US.

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?

Re:Going a little overboard by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-12-07 14:02 · Score: 1

You must mean the German Tiger tank that can be taken out with a shot in the ass (if the info in Kelly's Heroes can be believed).

Someone pull the America alarm! by It's+a+thing · 2006-12-07 14:05 · Score: 1

I'll get the extinguisher!

--
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox

Article 5 - Freedom of Expression by NoSuchGuy · 2006-12-07 14:05 · Score: 1

Article 5 Freedom of Expression

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

English translation of the german constitution

--
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/

Re:Article 5 - Freedom of Expression by adam.dorsey · 2006-12-07 15:09 · Score: 1

That's really interesting. The German constitution explicitly says "There shall be no censorship." However, laws exist in Germany that prohibit the use of Nazi-related symbolism and the accompanying phrases. How do they reconcile that seeming cognitive dissonance?

Note: IANANN (I Am Not A Neo-Nazi, just a dirty hippie), I just believe that holding certain words and phrases as "taboo" because they were associated with certain unsavory people or activities is stupid. The word/symbol isn't the problem, the activity and intent behind the word/symbol is.

--
You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
Re:Article 5 - Freedom of Expression by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-07 18:48 · Score: 1

Note the next line, which states that free speech has limits. The situation is much the same in Canada. You can say anything you want, unless it's likely to do something like cause someone to be attacked.

I believe the expression is something like "your right to wave your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins."
Re:Article 5 - Freedom of Expression by neuro_guy · 2006-12-07 22:23 · Score: 1

let me quote something from my activism days: "because fasicm is not an opinion but a crime" and laws are there to prohibit crime. period.
Re:Article 5 - Freedom of Expression by neuro_guy · 2006-12-07 22:28 · Score: 1

I have to add: and we didn't care about orthography those days, you know!
Re:Article 5 - Freedom of Expression by Ihlosi · 2006-12-07 22:35 · Score: 1

How do they reconcile that seeming cognitive dissonance?
You may display as many swastikas as you like, as long as the context is educational or artistic (get advice from a lawyer if you plan the latter).

Playstation Generation by UberMongoose · 2006-12-07 14:09 · Score: 1

The problem is that the current generation of politicians have little or no idea about video games at all. Very few (if at all any) of them would have played when they were kids. It's the typical "Fear of the unknown" scenario. I think that this would end when the video game generation actually begins to take part in the system, which will eventually happen.

Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by euice · 2006-12-07 14:40 · Score: 1

Although I don't think that FPS Shooters turn nice kids into killers and have played plenty of FPS myself, I do not like the violence in games.

I'm always wondering why the game industry is spending billions in development, and all they come up with is "go in and kill". I for one would love to play games where it is more like "go in and be smart" or "go in and be quick".

Sports and racing games prove that there is no need for a (simulated) life and death situation to motivate players.

I refuse to believe that games have to involve violence to be accepted by the masses. This looks like a bad feedback between the game industry trying to sell games while not taking any risks on one side and the consumer getting experienced in that type of games on the other side.

If a consumer is experienced in a particular type of game, he more likely buys another game of the same type. So the gaming industry develops the next title of that genre and the stupidity continues.

Another reason why game companies seldom develop a completely new game-concept is that they fear no one is actually willing to invest the training required to have fun with the game.

In the end, a ban of violence in games could lead to much better quality games. But the freedom of choice is more important to me.

Re:Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by brumby · 2006-12-07 16:04 · Score: 1

I'm always wondering why the game industry is spending billions in development, and all they come up with is "go in and kill". I for one would love to play games where it is more like "go in and be smart" or "go in and be quick". Sports and racing games prove that there is no need for a (simulated) life and death situation to motivate players.

Conflict is one of the easier ways to engage your audience. Have a look at all the more popular movies and tv series. They all involve some method of conflict, whether it's the action thriller "We're all going to die" or the soap opera "She's mine!".

In a game, it's harder to carry an emotional context when the player is setting the pacing, rather than the designer. A threat hanging over the players virtual life is easier to manage. Sports games involve a different conflict, win or lose rather than live or die. The conflict is still there.

I refuse to believe that games have to involve violence to be accepted by the masses. This looks like a bad feedback between the game industry trying to sell games while not taking any risks on one side and the consumer getting experienced in that type of games on the other side. If a consumer is experienced in a particular type of game, he more likely buys another game of the same type. So the gaming industry develops the next title of that genre and the stupidity continues.

The gaming industry is here for the money. Yes, I like my work, but if you cut off my salary I'd be off like a shot to feed my children another way. Violence sells. (I suspect sex would sell too, but if you think the reaction to violent games is bad, you should see what happens when you suggest sex as a serious concept.)

Because of that, yes, we do go for the known quantity. Those of us doing the work at the bottom would like to take more risks, but we don't set the budgets. He who pays the piper calls the tune and all that. So we are locked into repeating the previous generation of games with minor enhancements.

On the other hand, games like The Sims or Tetris do come out occasionally. But for every one of those that succeeds, many more fail, and scare the money people away from that type of game for good.

Another reason why game companies seldom develop a completely new game-concept is that they fear no one is actually willing to invest the training required to have fun with the game.

It's not a fear, it's a known fact. :-( You really have to draw someone into a game quickly or they'll put it down and declare this sucks. Game reviewers can be the worst at that, too. Your brilliant and engaging game never gets looked at because most of your players put it down within 5 minutes because you were still in the tutorial section trying to teach them and they wanted to play now dammit!. (I confess, I gave up on Black & White far too early because I had other things taking up my time, and it was just taking me too long to learn to play.) If you bite a reviewer with the "You need to play for a while to appreciate this game" approach, then you've just cost yourself a huge number of sales because of the 3/10 they just gave you.
Re:Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by euice · 2006-12-07 22:39 · Score: 1

*sigh* you're right.

Maybe there will be more non-violent games in the future as the consumers grow older.
Re:Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-12-08 00:59 · Score: 1

I'd just like to comment that the one thing I want the most in a simulation racing game is the fear of death. Often when I'm playing a multiplayer racing game, everyone knows that the only risk in taking a corner dangerously is spinning out and possibly damaging his/her car. The benefit of taking that corner dangerously is often worth the risk associated, so as a result you'll see other drivers unrealistically driving in a supposed racing simulator. If there were a risk of crashing into a wall and killing your character then I imagine the simulation would be closer to real life.

--
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
Re:Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by euice · 2006-12-08 01:21 · Score: 1

If there were a risk of crashing into a wall and killing your character then I imagine the simulation would be closer to real life.

Well, I think that's a matter of taste. I prefer indestructible or at least very robust cars for a racing simulation, so a mistake is not the end of the game and there is still a change to catch up.

In racing games my motivation comes from competing with friends. That's why we still play NFS3, the best racing game with split-screen mode on pc.
Re:Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-12-08 03:21 · Score: 1

but then you aren't playing a racing simulation, you're playing an arcade racer. My motivation in racing games is the same, competition with friends. My problem though, is when people intentionally buffer car you into a wall, or take an impossibly tight corner knowing that they're just going to hit your car and cause you to spin out. If the risk of death were there then I imagine they'd instead try to win by out accelerating me out of the turn, or taking the turn better than I do, not by chinsing me out of the race. . .

To be fair though, the idea of risk of death is more for multiplayer with stats tracking or something than it is for single player. . . especially since games like Gran Turismo take like 300 hours to get to the end :(

--
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
Re:Why is violence so dominant in computer games? by euice · 2006-12-08 09:33 · Score: 1

My problem though, is when people intentionally buffer car you into a wall, or take an impossibly tight corner knowing that they're just going to hit your car and cause you to spin out

But when someone does this, it's still better to have a fair chance to return the favor ;-)

He's not a Federal minister by smittyoneeach · 2006-12-07 15:06 · Score: 1

He's actually the Interior Minister of the Free State of Bavaria
That's like saying he's the Attorney General of Texas, or something.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Oh man, this pisses me off! by earthbound+kid · 2006-12-07 15:15 · Score: 1

They're banning violent games eh!? Well, I'll show them! Just wait until one of those politicians shows their face in public. I'll put the reticule over their face and just keep clicking until their head explodes! Fear my clicking finger of death!

But, first what's the command to bring up a reticule IRL? Mine's busted, I think. The graphics are decent, but the server must have wicked lag, 'cos I move really slow. Does anyone know the spawn point for ammo packs? I think I need to walk over one first before I can implement my plan. Right now I click and nothing happens. :/

Re:What about "My Battle" ? by kuldan · 2006-12-07 15:15 · Score: 1

Just to clarify..that Book was written by Hitler, long before he even rose to power in 1924 while he was imprisoned, and .. well. "funny" lecture. And on that remark - The GDR (German Depublic Republic), DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) in German did'nt even come into existance up until 1949, and Hitler was long dead when it was founded. "Leaders" of the GDR were people like Pieck, Ulbricht, Honecker and Krenz. .. I got what your intention was, just wanted to clarify about the history. Oh and for the facist commentary: Beckstein is only a local Political Power in one of the 16 Federal States of Germany, Bavaria, and notably the most Conservative one around. This is not an unusual proposal for him and well.. most people (at least those who care) regard him with a little catchphrase.. "Beckstein, Beckstein, dein Kleinhirn muss versteckt sein" (Beckstein, Beckstein, your Cerebellum must be hidden) )

back in the days... by sponga · 2006-12-07 15:22 · Score: 1

we used to do it with the good old musket ball and black powder.

Kids these days are so spoiled with Miniguns and rocket launchers.

Re:Euh by Cheapy · 2006-12-07 15:33 · Score: 1

It's Slaughterhouse Five, not R2-D2.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?

Heh by pissedoffamerican · 2006-12-07 15:57 · Score: 1

I find it a little ironic that German companies produces some of the finest firearms in the world.

Re:Heh by KnuthKonrad · 2006-12-08 02:51 · Score: 1

Why is that ironic? We're not allowed to have fun with them and use them. Now, what's left? Keep tuning and twekaing 'em. ;-)
Re:Heh by pissedoffamerican · 2006-12-08 05:38 · Score: 1

That's what's ironic. You make some of the greatest death-dealing machines in the world, but you can't use them. Your government seems to be very anti-violence. I wonder why they don't go after the evil gun manufacturers, too. :P

Absolutely Undeniable? Try The Plain Facts by nick_davison · 2006-12-07 16:17 · Score: 1

It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect.

You want the single most compelling argument that this guy, and every other politician like him, are talking out of their asses?

Try the U.S. government's own Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics graph for Serious violent crime by perceived age of offender.

Consider that the serious violent crime rate (and murder if you check those numbers too) has dropped pretty much year on year since 1993 - the year Doom, arguably the first "murder simulator," was released.

About the one connection you can draw is the murder rate went up rapidly under Reagan and Bush I, down rapidly under Clinton and is slowly going up again under Bush II. Now whether conservatives cause murders or vice-versa and conservative voting is simply a sign of a homicidal society, I'm not even going to venture a guess. But, compared to the "absolutely beyond any doubt" connection that's falsely drawn by conservative politicians to video games and violent crime, it is curious that there's a vastly stronger and far more demonstrably connection between the politicians themselves and violent crime.

Re:Absolutely Undeniable? Try The Plain Facts by Lars+T. · 2006-12-08 06:50 · Score: 1

Try the U.S. government's own Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics graph for Serious violent crime by perceived age of offender.

Consider that the serious violent crime rate (and murder if you check those numbers too) has dropped pretty much year on year since 1993 - the year Doom, arguably the first "murder simulator," was released.
Well, the problem with your argument is this little statistic: Number of school shootings in Germany before Doom: 0, after Doom: >0. Statistics over relation between violent crime and gaming in the US aren't going to matter much when a German politician can easily quote that.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

It's true!! by rlp · 2006-12-07 16:41 · Score: 2, Funny

I've been playing a video game all evening. And I still have a desire to violently knock down ten defenseless pins with a large heavy ball. Sometimes even as many as 91. Though I've successfully managed to restrain the urge to destroy video screens with small flying white objects.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]

Re:It's true!! by meringuoid · 2006-12-07 17:08 · Score: 2, Funny

I've been playing a video game all evening. And I still have a desire to violently knock down ten defenseless pins with a large heavy ball. Sometimes even as many as 91. Though I've successfully managed to restrain the urge to destroy video screens with small flying white objects.
Me, I just have this uncontrollable urge to find a bunch of bunnies and start disco dancing...

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.

I have an even better idea than this guy! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 17:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Let's just shoot everyone in the world! that will stop them from shooting each other!

Re:You know what causes the most school shootings. by theLOUDroom · 2006-12-07 17:50 · Score: 1

It also doesn't hurt that school beatings are pretty much ignored.

It seems to be pretty much the accepted order in American high schools for the jocks to physically threaten and intimidate the other students. It never seems to make the news until one of the smaller guys gets a weapon and starts shooting.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

formal mistake by mokrates · 2006-12-07 18:12 · Score: 1

Guenther Beckstein is _NOT_ the Minister of the Interior of Germany. He is the Minister of the Interior of Bavaria, which is a state of germany. Minister of The Interior of Germany is Wolfgang Schaeuble. (See Wikipedia.de - Innenminister)

Re:Kinda funny because... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · 2006-12-07 18:47 · Score: 1

I fired up Wolfenstein 3-D this morning...

Sir, you are under arrest for the murder of 145 animated sprites...

the scary thing is by idlake · 2006-12-07 19:43 · Score: 1

You might say "people have been writing violent literature for a long time, so how can this be illegal". Well, what the guy is actually proposing is generalizing a law that applies to violent literature to gaming.

The irony is that the original law was probably a reaction to Germany's violent Nazi past. But the problem with the Nazis was not violence (everybody is capable of violence), it was totalitarianism, group think, and conformism. People seem to forget, but in their political campaigns, the Nazis became popular because they preached "family values", "clean living", and "Christian values", and they then proceeded to implement those by going after everybody who didn't conform: Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, anarchists, socialists, intellectuals, "decadent artists", etc.

In different words, laws like these and people like Beckstein are basically continuing a weakened form of Nazi ideology.

"pro gamers" by dangitman · 2006-12-07 19:43 · Score: 1

If these are professional gamers, that implies that they game for a living. Who pays them? What service do they pay them for, exactly?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

Re:"pro gamers" by xororand · 2006-12-07 20:33 · Score: 1

Some information about how and how much one of the first professional gamers earned can be found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal1ty
Re:"pro gamers" by l0cust · 2006-12-07 22:42 · Score: 1

I understand you have a dislike towards 'gamers' being put in the same category as other professionals but I will bite.

Who pays them? Um.. mainly folks from gaming and hardware industry but essentially the the same type of people who sponsor professional Bowling championships, professional Snooker tournaments, World Cup Soccer, Olympics etc. You know, the ones who get to advertise their goodies. The masses get entertainment after(sometimes) paying to watch. Regular stuff you know.

--
Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
Re:"pro gamers" by Bloke+down+the+pub · 2006-12-08 00:51 · Score: 1

You could ask the same question about men who kick|throw|hit a ball round a field. And it would still be a stupid question.

--
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Re:"pro gamers" by dangitman · 2006-12-09 16:47 · Score: 1

But it's not clear that all the German "pro gamers" mentioned in the article are actually paid professional gamers. That seems unlikely. It is more likely that the article is using this term to refer to "gaming enthusiasts" or "hardcore gamers" or whatever.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

I'm surprised we don't see one every single day by Scudsucker · 2006-12-07 19:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

And not because kids want notoriety, but do to this simple formula: a kid is bullied and ostracized until he or she decides that life is simply not worth living anymore, and before they go, they might as well take the fucking assholes with them that are responsible for making them feel that way.

Stupid people shouldnt be able to get elected by unity100 · 2006-12-07 20:50 · Score: 1

IQ tests, eq tests, general culture test should be conducted before someone can even put candidacy in any electable position.

--
Read radical news here

Re:Stupid people shouldnt be able to get elected by gfreeman · 2006-12-12 01:58 · Score: 1

The root of the problem isn't that the politicians are stupid.

The main problem is that stupid people get voted into positions of power.

Blame the lazy electorate.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Stupid people shouldnt be able to get elected by unity100 · 2006-12-12 16:15 · Score: 1

even in places theres no electorate system, people vote greedy people into positions of power.

--
Read radical news here

And Arnie is President... by gnasher719 · 2006-12-07 20:59 · Score: 1

Gunther Beckstein is _not_ the German minister of interior. He is the Bavarian minister of interior, which is not quite the same. Just as Arnold Schwarzenegger is not President of the USA.

And, as the article says, this is not suggestion a law, it is meant as a "basis for discussion".

Ban Wolfenstein! by bronney · 2006-12-07 21:15 · Score: 1

Wolfenstein is evil. Those who don't believe violent video games makes us 4 corners are evil and stupid! Wolfenstein caused this shooting in Germany. Automobile accidents are caused by Destruction Derby(TM). If you fail to see this, you're educated stupid and should be castrated. Hill fires are caused by fire spells in all RPG games. Homicide from PvP in MMORPG's. All digitally generated blood have corners. Even with antialiasing, no corners = infinite corners. Hugo House of Horrors is evil and stupid. Bio-hazard, aka Resident Evil as the name suggests, is evil and stupid. Tony Hawk series causes teenage infinite grinds on youtube resulting in deep hurts. However kick flips are peace.

Duke Nuken Forever is also peace.

Some clarification by Fefe · 2006-12-07 21:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The guy is not the German minister of the interior, he is the Bavarian minister of the interior, and he is well known for this stupid publicity stunts. He is always at the forefront of demanding new databases, new surveillance, longer jail time for everything, more police and using the military to do police work. In short: the guy is a nutcase.

He is doing it to make sure people don't notice all the scandals his administration is involved in, for example they just completely botched a police IT spending bill, wasted millions on new software which does not work. And his law and order state had issues with soccer hooligans.

In short: the guy is a joke. Don't take him seriously.

30 more years of idiocy by Handlarn · 2006-12-07 22:04 · Score: 2

Gamers only need to hold out for about 30 more years. By then every politician will have grown up with "violent" gaming themselves, and stupid things like these will be history. Of course, by then, all politicians will have something new to wrongly accuse of turning people into drooling monsters.

Populistic crap by soccerisgod · 2006-12-07 22:06 · Score: 1

We've heard this kind of demand before. A lot. They're just rechewing the same arguments everytime some kid loses it, just as they keep repeating that our army (the Bundeswehr) needs to be able to operate as a sort of police force in Germany. The problem with things like this is that if they keep repeating their FUD over and over again, people start to believe it. There are already opinion polls that show growing support for this legislative crap. And yes, Beckstein (some call him 'Dreckschwein') may only be the minister of the interior of Bavaria, but when he speaks, the cameras are on him. So, to anyone who thinks this is just gonna blow over, I can only suggest not to take this too lightly. Even if they drop the idea this time, the next time a kid runs amok they will try again, and there will be a good chance they'll eventually succeed with it.

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?

Wait a minute... by Psyjack · 2006-12-07 22:31 · Score: 1

I thought the US was the center of depravity. Now it's Germany at the lead with violence among children? US parents unite! Get the trophy back to us! Give me a freakin break, another who blames video games. Does anyone here believe that is you buy a kid the CSI game that they can solve a crime too?

Re:You know what causes the most school shootings. by professionalfurryele · 2006-12-07 23:25 · Score: 1

This is exactly the problem. In schools we are forced to pick a side. And what side do we pick? The side of the useless. The current situation is this. Useless quasi-human children intimidate, use violence and generally have total control in schools. Useful children are terrorised. People act like there can be justice in school, there cant, we have to pick a side. It should be generally acknowledged that smart kids get to do whatever they want in school, the way strong kids do now anyway. At least that way we could foster a culture of supporting the useful.

That is unless someone can come up with a way to make the system fair. But in the mean time, if we aren't going to have a fair system, lets at least have a productive one.

Re:Where do you draw the line by shutdown+-p+now · 2006-12-08 00:00 · Score: 1

In fact, the makers of personal computers will be liable if someone uses their personal computer to virtually harm another being--including making them feel bad.

On a good side, at least MS will pull out of Germany very very quick, before they get sued for developing Windows.

No More Patience by Jekler · 2006-12-08 00:25 · Score: 1

I decided I'm no longer going to waste any time constructing well-reasoned arguments in opposition of people who want to inhibit basic human freedoms. Going forward all I care to say to such people is: Interesting proposal, no thanks, goodbye.

Re:Euh by Bastard+of+Subhumani · 2006-12-08 00:35 · Score: 1

No, it's Breakfast of Champions.

--
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.

What the ? by Dokterdok · 2006-12-08 00:42 · Score: 1

I don't get it, usually Bad German Guy is the evil boss in : (x) violent video games (x) Hollywood movies and now you're telling me that he's also a developper! science-fiction...

I'm looking for a Mrs Schluss. First name Ann by Bloke+down+the+pub · 2006-12-08 01:00 · Score: 1

Ah, but historically Austria has always been part of Greater Germany.

--
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.

Re:You know what causes the most school shootings. by Hubbell · 2006-12-08 01:00 · Score: 1

The problem in the US is the Zero Tolerance policy most if not all schools have adopted. This hurts the bullied more than anyone else. Under the Zero Tolerance policy, if you are picked on, shoved, or in any way accosted/assaulted, and you retaliate in self defense, YOU get suspended, and a lot of the time for a much longer period of time.

I got pushed around one day by 3 kids and after a few times of pushing me back and forth to each other, when one pushed me to the next I dropped the kid I got shoved at with a punch to the throat. In ANY other setting, I'd have been found to be defending myself from a group attacking me, but because of the Zero Tolerance policies of the school, the 3 kids got 2 day suspensions and I got a 5 day out of school suspension.

Kids are being educated by the schools that it is not ok to protect yourself, that when someone hurts you in any way, shape, or form, that you are to run immediately to an authority figure and cry your heart out to them so they can take care of you. This is why things that would usually just end with a good old fashioned fist fight after or during school ends with bloodshed at the end of a barrel.

Ob. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · 2006-12-08 01:24 · Score: 1

This Beckstein guy sounds like he's as thick as a brick.

--
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.

I don't get this by Zatic · 2006-12-08 01:25 · Score: 1

They should not outlaw fps games.

They should ban going postal directly.

It's so simple.

Re:Euh by Cheapy · 2006-12-08 01:38 · Score: 1

I have never read Breakfast of Champions. But seeing as how right now I'm looking at Slaughterhouse Five in my hands, and I'm reading "Poo-tee-weet" on the last page of the book (as well as the last page of the first chapter), I'd think it's in Slaughterhouse Five.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?

Re:As a native speaker... by thaig · 2006-12-08 02:25 · Score: 1

I think the English name might be "Flintlock Pistol" which refers to the firing mechanism - a spring-loaded chip of flint (a stone commonly used to make sparks) which is released by pulling the trigger.

--
This is all just my personal opinion.

Not just Germany by mdwh2 · 2006-12-08 02:52 · Score: 1

I agree - and this is particularly worrying in that they want to criminalise players. It's one thing to expect publishers to be aware of laws, but even if a player wishes to be law-abiding, how is he to know which games do or don't fall foul of the law? What about a home-made game someone makes and doesn't even publish? Censorship is too weak a word to describe this sort of thing.

This has parallels to a disturbing proposed law in the UK, where the Government plans to apply obscenity laws to possession, in that it will be a criminal offence to merely possess certain kinds of images it considers violent (even if the images are fake/simulated - and the burden of proof will be lower than for current obscenity laws, meaning that it would likely include things which are currently legal for publication).

It also has parallels in the way that polls and so on have been used to suggest that public opinion is greatly in favour of such laws. Really - they may be in favour on tighter regulation on publication, but to suggest prison sentences because someone owns a game or material that other people don't like the look of?

See my sig if you oppose this kind of thing...

Don't mention the War by hauntingthunder · 2006-12-08 03:23 · Score: 1

or the Piano Wire

--
You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim

That's an overly simplistic view by metternich · 2006-12-08 03:44 · Score: 1

The main reason why Austria felt that they could act as aggressively towards Serbia as they did was Germany's promise of unconditional backing for any action they took. Germany also declared war on Russia simply in response to a Russian mobilization, before Russia had entered the fighting. Furthermore, Germany declared war on France and invaded neutral Belgium because France was Russia's ally, even though there was no indication that she would necessarily get involved.

The reason for Germany's aggressiveness towards Russia, France and Belgium was their War Plans, which had been drafted years before. These plans called for an invasion of France though Belgium in six weeks, which is how long they had estimated it would take Russia to mobilize. Rather than adjust their plans to the diplomatic situation, The Germans needlessly expanded the war to fit their plans.

The plan didn't even work. Russia mobilized faster than expected, forcing them to withdraw forces from the Western Front at a critical time. More seriously, due to the Belgians destroying rail lines, they were unable to transfer troops or supplies quickly enough to the left flank, that was suppose to sweep along the coast and strike Paris from behind, forcing them to turn their attack before reaching Paris leading to their defeat at the Battle of The Marne.

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Re:You know what causes the most school shootings. by Das+Modell · 2006-12-08 03:55 · Score: 1

It's all becoming clear to me. I mean, it's so fucking obvious. What do all killers have in common? They all wear pants. If you ban the use of pants, these incidents will stop dead in their tracks. It's pretty easy to see how pants could destabilize someone.

Ban pants, and ban underwear too, just to be safe.

Re:Mod parent up by ShadowsHawk · 2006-12-08 04:09 · Score: 1

I wish I still had mod points. It's unfortunate that people want to regulate anything they disagree with.

Re:Kinda funny because... by level_headed_midwest · 2006-12-08 04:24 · Score: 1

Well, I did see that coming, didn't I? (Okay, well, it was actually modded "troll" and not "flamebait," but it's pretty much the same.) My guess is their parents provide everything for them, including the basement they live in, so they have no personal responsibilities.

--
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.

It's all your fault by ClubStew · 2006-12-08 04:59 · Score: 1

'We have among the most drastic censorship rules for games,' said Frank Sliwka, head of the Deutsche E-Sport Bund, an umbrella federation for German online gaming teams. 'Now we are being labelled as a breeding ground for unstable, dysfunctional and violent youngsters.'

Of course it's your fault - nowhere else do unstable, dysfunctional and violent youngters breed. Nowhere.

Hurray! by crhylove · 2006-12-08 05:28 · Score: 1

It's good to know that idiocy isn't just an epidemic in the US. So proud of my German heritage!

Let's allow these corporations to continue lowering the standard of living in every country, but jail people for playing Urban Terror, which is basically a grown-up version of "Cops and Robbers".

Why is every government so completely filled with utter idiots?!?

rhY

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.

The story is repeating itself by prefec2 · 2006-12-08 06:02 · Score: 1

We had a shooting at school several years ago. At that time ego-shooters were pulled out as cause of the shooting. Nevertheless there were ohter, better explanations. (Problems with the schooling system, no future etc.) Right now we have a second incident but this time the suicide note was published. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/24/24030/1.html

Re:Kinda funny because... by Lars+T. · 2006-12-08 06:24 · Score: 1

At the risk of being modded "flamebait" I will answer the question. The school of thought where everything can be blamed on something external arose from modern social liberalism. Yet it's mostly (like in this case) the Conservatives doing the blaming.

--

Lars T.

To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

you're conflating issues by Ender+Ryan · 2006-12-08 07:48 · Score: 1

You are conflating a lot of different issues in order.

Animal fat has negligible trace amounts of trans fat. It's still expensive, and bad for you nonetheless. It is generally considered to be the tastiest.

There are a myriad of plant-based oils and fats that are used in frying/baking. The most cost-effective solutions are partially hydrogenated and contain trans fat. Hydrogenation is used for making solid fats, and making fry oil last longer, and improving shelf-life.

Fast food restaurants generally use trans fat poisoned oil for deep frying. That is done purely to save money. Non hydrogenated vegetable oils break down more rapidly in high temperatures and must be replaced more often(from my own experience, we did not replace our oil less often when switching to hydrogenated oil, due to the oil getting filthy long before it became rancid).

For baking, where solid fats are often desirable, there are alternatives, including animal fat, that are just more expensive. Again, it's the animal fats that some prefer the taste of. Trans fat does not weigh into the issue of taste, only expense.

I don't have any good links for you on restaurants dropping trans fat usage, but I've been in several that advertised having done so.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden

"Games cause violence".. oh geez, gimme a break by jmerlin · 2006-12-08 08:22 · Score: 1

Every gamer in america can vouch for this: games do NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE. What does cause violence: violent movies shown to underage viewers who aren't mature enough to fully grasp the consequences of what is being shown on the big screen. What also causes violence: brutal dictatorship and invasion of other countries and gassing/burning of 6 million jews. At least I know if I was brought up in this kind of country I'd be killing as many of my classmates as possible, wtf? Video games are for ENJOYMENT. When you shoot someone in the head in real life, you didn't kill them, you didn't hurt them ( maybe their ego ), and anyone with a brain older than 5 years will understand it's just vertices, pixels, and shaders imitating blood and gore, not to mention 1 minutes or less later that person is alive again! People like this guy make me sick, there have been no studies that prove conclusively a trend between playing, OR CREATING for that matter, violent games and violent behaviour. There's a great saying that's been going around.. for a long time, and from time to time we have to remind the sunless vampires in counter-strike of this rule of thumb, "It is just a game, it is not real." The only thing a video game might do is exercise your mind, give you entertainmen, and help you unwind. If you're competitive, however, you might be addicted to headshotting noobs, but that's another story. This guy is a joke. Here's my prediction: He decides to bomb USA because of all of the professional gaming and game development going on in america, not to mention the two gpu giants ATI/NVIDIA ( ati being in canada, but close enough ). This will begin WWIII and once again, germany will be blamed for the world war, forced to pay for it, and, if they're lucky, not completely evaporated from the earth by nuclear warfare.

Re:"Games cause violence".. oh geez, gimme a break by jmerlin · 2006-12-08 08:29 · Score: 1

Sorry:
"When you shoot someone in the head in real life, you didn't kill them, you didn't ",
'real life' should be 'cyber reality'
Re:"Games cause violence".. oh geez, gimme a break by deanoaz · 2006-12-08 10:29 · Score: 1

"Sorry:"

It's okay, I understood that part. It was the rest I couldn't figure out.

By the way, I played the Battlefield 2142 demo for two hours last night before going to bed. This morning when I was entering my office building I noticed people coming down the stairs from the parking garage. They didn't have any blue 'friendly ID' markers above their heads and I was momentarily convinced that I should be shooting at them.

--
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
Re:"Games cause violence".. oh geez, gimme a break by jmerlin · 2006-12-08 12:23 · Score: 1

That's your problem, BF 2142 corrupts the mind and has subliminal messages going on and on about an aryan race and instructing you to take over the world and kill as many people as possible, some german coder put it in there ( oops, yeah just had to say it :s ).

Meanwhile... by Azure+Khan · 2006-12-08 08:52 · Score: 1

In other news, the German government is following up the successful wins of it's German soccer teams by agreeing to build a new $300M soccer and sporting stadium. Shortly after Germany's world cup win, celebratory Germans and disappointed Brazilians alike took to the streets to commemorate the end of soccer season, overturning hundreds of cars, lighting fire to 17 city blocks of Berlin, and leaving dozens dead and wounded after a night of intense partying. Asked to comment, German parliament was too drunk to be coherent.

--

--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.

Re:You know what causes the most school shootings. by Firefly1 · 2006-12-08 09:49 · Score: 1

The poster to whom you are responding says, "It seems to be pretty much the accepted order in American high schools for the jocks to physically threaten and intimidate the other students." Assuming for argument's sake that this is ineed the case, the question that then needs to be asked is 'why is this so?'. I can't recall it being asked much lately.

Kids are being educated by the schools that it is not ok to protect yourself...

An ironic message, given that self-defense and retaliation are not only understandable and natural reactions, but are themselves the subject of much in the way of popular fiction... take as examples the exploits of Paul Kersey or Frank Castle. One cannot help but think that the people doing the 'educating' you refer to have forgotten their own experiences and observations of high school.

--
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts

Re:Kinda funny because... by WilliamSChips · 2006-12-08 09:53 · Score: 1

The number one case against personal responsibility is the type of people who endorse it.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.

Re:Kinda funny because... by level_headed_midwest · 2006-12-08 16:48 · Score: 1

There's a big difference between "little c" conservatives and "big C" Conservatives. The "little c" conservatives are probably more like libertarians in this regard and don't want the government to tell people what to do. The "big C" conservatives are socially conservative and not afraid to grow the government to enforce that. In that regard, there's little difference between the big-C Conservatives and liberals. Both spend like drunken sailors and want to legislate behavior. In the case of the liberals, it's the government knows best, for the Conservatives, it's they want to save you from religious damnation.

--
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.

Godwin Law by BlueYoshi · 2006-12-08 23:26 · Score: 1

I think that it would more efficient would close the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna or forbid them to reject people who try to learn painting.

Because you know there is valid proof that people rejected from this institute for "unfitness for painting" cause millions of deaths.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Early_ad ulthood_in_Vienna_and_Munich

--
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005

Re:You know what causes the most school shootings. by Tokerat · 2006-12-10 17:36 · Score: 1

I, and many of my friends agree with the pants ban, 100%. What it has to do with school shootings...well no. It doesn't. Obviously sarcasm, but you've hit on another topic worth mentioning. VIVA LA PANTLESS

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Slashdot Mirror

German Minister Seeks Jail Time For FPS Players

311 of 383 comments (clear)