Slashdot Mirror
Fox News Brings Video Game Violence Debate To a New Low
Fox News took another shot at the video game violence debate earlier this week when they asked whether Bulletstorm, an upcoming M-rated shooter from Epic Games, is the worst game in the world. The article links violent games with an increase in rapes, and suggests there should be greater penalties for selling to minors. Gaming website Rock, Paper, Shotgun breaks down the problems with the article's sensationalist claims and highlights the disingenuous cherry-picking of quotes.
"Scott Steinberg, CEO of TechSavvy Global, and all-round industry guru, got in touch with me to show me the answers he submitted to Fox when they approached him for comment. The full answers are reproduced below, because what results is a fantastic interview on the subject of adult game content and regulation. Fox chose to use none of Steinberg’s comments in their final piece, opting instead for the more sensational claims of those with no expertise in the subject (neither of whom have found time to reply to our emails). But seeing these answers also provides further insight into how the mainstream media coverage of gaming stories works. Far from being a reporter ignorant of the subject and twisted by naive contributors, Fox correspondent John Brandon was equipped with a wealth of factual information and informed opinion before composing his frantic article."
Sounds great, where can I buy it.
Hint: There's no such things as bad publicity for computer games.
The FBI's stats actually show rape is down yet people dont take the time to verify things anymore. News reporters are meant to verify and inform not spread idle gossip and misinformation.
HOW DARE YOU question the the integrity of FOX NEWS and its "stories".
Fox NEWS clearly is suffering from dementia.
It's a disability you know.
Maybe Medicare could get them the pills they need.
I mean, the game would affect the minds*
A newbie in this perplexed tech world
This is what you get for watching Faux News. Are you new to American news TV?
We have the same problem in the UK too. Do not trust the media is the only outcome we'll end up with. This is not good.
I found this one via the B3TA Newsletter. http://b3ta.com/newsletter/issue465/
* HOW THE DAILY MAIL WORKS - Long, long blog entry, but interesting and quite damning. To put it bluntly, they make stories up. http://goo.gl/acMZq
Video games are a waste of time as far as NewsCorp is concerned. Every minute you spend actively engaged in a game is a minute you DON'T spend watching their (paid-for) movies, or (ad-filled) television prgrams, or (propaganda AND ad-filled) "news". If it's not good for Rupert Murdoch's bottom line, expect him to whip up FUD against it wherever possible!
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
But it's fine in movies?
Fortunately, there isn't any rape in this game. Even Fox News wouldn't claim that. They just claim that seeing "Gang Bang" come up on the screen as an achivement when you kill a gang of people will cause your teenage sons to go out and rape people. You can draw your own conclusions about that.
Reallllly? Move to russia or china i think you will like it better there.
The FBI's stats actually show rape is down yet people don't take the time to verify things anymore
When I was a kid, my mother went to a PTA meeting where the school director (a retired army colonel, BTW) presented police statistics showing a decrease in rape incidents. He interpreted this as an indicator of increased use of marijuana because, according to him, marijuana causes sexual impotence.
Conclusion: if video games cause rape that's good, because it will decrease drug use, same as piracy decreases global warming.
there's already a 1000 comments over on fox's website slamming the article. Though, I don't appear to be able to link to them. Stupid Ajaxy website breaking the Internet!
You'll have to click the comments icon.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
With the slander and bullshit they put out on an hourly basis, are any /.ers really surprised at this?
That's why it is the duty of those that are informed to educate those that are gullible and fall for crap like this.
Journalism is not about collecting facts and putting them on paper. It is about collecting a very large range of facts and opinions, selecting between them and constructing those chosen into a narrative for a particular purpose. Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result. Soulskill doesn't understand this basic fact. Instead, he thinks that because Fox selected some quotes and disregarded others, selected some opinions and disregarded others, they are necessarily wrong. Or at least that's the way he paints it.
Anything he disagrees with is "sensationalist" or "disingenuous" or "frantic". Anyone he agrees with is "and all-round industry guru" (full marks for grammar there), "fantastic" or "informed". When you first read it, it all sounds clear-cut; poke around under the surface and it is a pretty straight-forward example of using pejorative language to remove someone's credibility without actually engaging with them in debate.
Violence in video games is a topic on which a lot of people hold strong, opposing views. Research carried out frequently comes to contradictory conclusions, based mostly on where the money came from. So I think that best answer we can honestly give at the moment is, "We don't know." So actually engaging in debate would be more useful than this sort of biased name-calling.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Also, Fox News causes rape.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Fact is that both the FBI and Fox News are highly biased against rape.
It would be nice to see a more liberal perspective when discussing rape.
I doubt any Slashdot poster counts as a valid source of consensual gang bang experiences.
To be fair, Beck might not have raped and killed a girl in 1990. But the fact remains that many Americans are asking the question: "Did he rape and kill a girl in 1990?"
Best publicity this game could have ever gotten. Epic Games is probably secretly happy with the article.
We used to watch this every day after school back in the 60's. So did we run around gouging eyes, ripping out hair or the old favorite, whacking with a plank on the head? No. I remember my mom teaching us, "This just a comedy film, don't really do this to each other, or someone is going to get hurt."
I think violent crime is a sign of more deeper social problems, that are more difficult to address. It's just easier to blame it on video games as a scapegoat.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Fox News Brings Video Game Violence Debate To a New Low ... why?
and this is a shock to anyone
fox news isn't news, it's opinion pieces and bullshit, all you need to know about fox "news" is to see is Outfoxed : Rupert Murdochs War on journalism
Thats an old joke Gilbert Godfried made up about Bob Saget. He did a Speel on it at the New York Friar's club.
Super Mario Brothers. He became very angry that the princess was always in another castle.
The florida supreme court found that news stations don't have to tell the truth so reporters aren't protected by the whistleblower laws.
Journalism is ... about ... putting ... very large ... individuals ... on ... Fox
Or at least ... the ... "sensationalist" or "disingenuous" or "frantic" ... "and all-round" ... "fantastic", ... and ... Using pejorative language to remove someone's credibility without actually engaging with them in debate.
IMHO, I agree with what you said RE: what passes as "journalism" today.
People ... opposing ... [r]esearch carried out ... biased name-calling.
I don't expect Fox News to be the number one source of gaming news, just like I don't expect Slashdot to be the number one source for politics.
..it's one where you just punch Glenn Beck repeatedly in the face.
This is perhaps just another example of otherwise decent-minded little cogs caught in a malevolent machine built and serviced by engineers of evil who care nothing for the Common Good or ethics beyond how those can be exploited to benefit them. Perhaps John Brandon is really a nice thoughtful guy who really wouldn't have chosen such a slant to the article; just as likely or moreso is that he was being an obedient cog and protecting his career by writing the article with the bias his bosses wanted him to inject. Perhaps he was "just following orders'? Of course that makes it all the more sickening, because "just following orders" as an ethical defense means that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
Hierarchies pervert potentially decent people into doing bad things, because the not-so-decent people are the ones at the top of the hierarchy giving the orders and "making the tough decisions"... you know, the ones that are unethical. In the case of governments it's we the ignorant little cogs who often put them there, but in business and the military it's OTHER not-so-decent people grooming their successors and colleagues. /rant
My only question is how much does a publisher have to pay to get their game features/dissected by fox news? The media coverage is priceless and every kid going will now want that game. Intelligent parents will invariably go buy a copy for their 8-12 years olds so they can smack talk me when I got to play online after having put my own children to bed.
I wish they would apply the same distaste for violence to the sale of real guns and arms - that's what actually hurts people, not the boom and splat of video games.
Has anybody considered that maybe this is exactly the sort of thing children do if they've been raised by somebody that works for Fox News?
Technically, it would also be 0%.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
News at 11.
Why do the people on Fox look so plastic? Seriously, one guy looks like he has a rubber Devo wig on his head ("Bret" something?). And they all have way too much make-up on their mugs.
I think the real question here is:
If Glen Beck didn't rape and kill that girl in 1990, why won't he just come out and deny it?
What is he hiding?
-- Sig under construction...
At least the Weekly World News never took itself seriously and never expected anyone to believe that Bat Boy was real.
After this amount of time it shouldn't surprise anyone that Fox News can't be arsed to come out with anything resembling news or information. Facts and accuracy be damned. Death panels? Sure. Obama is going to sneak into your house in the dead of night and smother your grandmother *personally.* Similarly, playing this game will turn your kids into serial killers. Never mind the research. What counts is eyeballs and page hits.
If Fox News said that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, I would have to check the astronomical tables to confirm.
Fox News is a fraud.
Anyone who still watches Fox is confirmed for stupid. I don't care if your IQ is 200. You still watch Fox? You take anything they say seriously? Then I have nothing to discuss with you. Ever.
Fox News wants you to believe in them. Fox News wants you to believe in Bat Boy.
--
BMO
and isn't this the same OLD low?
Nothing new or "News" here.
FOXnews is doing the same bullshit they do every other day.
-- Sig under construction...
Hmm? Not sure how to take that.
If you mean the morality of it, I don't think you'll find many "liberal" perspectives that it's not so bad. In fact, just about the only ones who argue that there's any situation where the woman can't say no, are a subclass of the bible-thumping nutters, for whom God made the woman subordinate to their dick.
If you mean incidence or prevalence statistics, then opinions and political biases don't matter, only the numbers do. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the incidence has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, i.e., about six times. I don't see how any political bias can change that, short of going out and raping someone to make up for the difference.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Everyone knows that the worst video game in the world is ET for the Atari 2600.
Why should the news outlets let the trusth stand in the way of sensationalism and greater profits that provides?
Amen
âoeThe increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,â she said.
Emphasis mine. See? They never said rape has actually gone up,
STOP RIGHT THERE. "The increase in rapes" is what makes their statement actually say that rape has gone up. Simple English, yo. They are discussing a supposed increase in rape, therefore they have directly implied (this is a case of implication, NOT inference) that rapes have increased.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...What does it say about what they do to the rest of the day's news?
... how watching Fox News leaves viewers less informed.
Help me out, but why does a "news" outlet that was a cheerleader for invading Iraq -- which has resulted in real atrocities, such as an increase in rapes and murders of Iraqi civilians -- and has continually voiced a fanboy-like enthusiasm for torture, feel that it has any room or moral high ground to talk about objectionable content in a video game?
Did Fox News rape and murder a girl in 1990? They haven't denied it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And why won't he deny it?
I am not accusing him of anything, I am just asking questions, but isn't it interesting: Why are we the only ones asking these questions? what the rest of the media trying to hide? The big journalistic rape and murder gang-bang of 1990? - I don't know, how would I, I am not a rape-murdering TV-personality.
One of the countries with the lowest rates of rape (Japan) actually has rape simulation games.
Wonder how Fox would spin that?
There's something even more troubling about the quotes you just provided.
Expert says: “The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games.” ...[says] that sexual situations and acts in video games...have led to real-world sexual violence."
Fox News concludes: "Carol Lieberman
Worse yet, when the average uninformed reader reads "have led" first, it won't matter that the expert only says there's a potential link, not an absolute one. Hell, you probably could have written the story like this, and I bet it wouldn't make any difference to the average reader:
Carol Lieberman, a psychologist and book author, told FoxNews.com that sexual situations and acts in video games -- highlighted so well in Bulletstorm -- have led to real-world sexual violence. “Nothing gets me off better than listening to two hours of Glenn Beck on the radio,” she said.
That's misinformation at its finest.
One of the countries with the lowest rates of rape (Japan) actually has rape simulation games.
Wonder how Fox would spin that?
Do Japan woman tend to report rape as often as woman from other countries? Is what is considered rape in other countries the same as what is considered rape in Japan? Based on what I have read on Slashdot about Assage, countries vary greatly on what is considered rape.
Just watch this video of some talking heads debating sexuality in Mass Effect, not knowing what their talking about, and getting their asses handed to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU
Fortunately, there isn't any rape in this game.
Someone should send them a copy of Rapelay.
At least then they would have something genuinely seedy to cry over as opposed to just a silly game featuring childish violence.
Everybody knows facts have no bearing on their irrational opinions!
I don't see the connection. Every gang bang I've been involved in has been 100% consensual.
Of course, this statement is vacuously true, right? Like how all unicorns are red?
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I don't think there's much of a comparison here. We have on one hand the claim sexual innuendo in games (and only in games) leads directly to rape. The counter-factual claim that rapes are on the increase, and concrete evidence that the reporter who wrote the piece knew full well that he what he was writing an utter fabrication.
On the other hand, I've been expecting an Democrat to be murdered for political reasons since the 2008 election campaign. It was obvious that it was going to happen when you have half of the political spectrum calling their opponents terrorists, traitors, and murderers. Eventually somebody is going to believe and then act on those claims. My only question is whether Palin and associates were evil enough to hope that it was Obama who'd get shot, or whether they're stupid enough to think they can act that way and there wouldn't be any consequences.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Unfortunately these questions can only be answered by Japanese. The statistics come from the UN and do state that it often shows willingness to report the crime. I would state one thing however, the difference between the #1 spot (South Africa) and and #54 (Japan) is quite substantial. The difference isn't quite as much between #9 (US) and #54, but still a marked difference. NB: This data is from the 1998-2000 survey, the 2008 data can be found here, but it's not as easily readable and is not ranked.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Think about it while you dance, enjoying the Al Gore rhythm.
Maybe it is just a divide by zero error waiting to happen?
They never said rape has actually gone up, they just make the reader think that but saying that it can cause them to go up. Not that it has or ever will.
If your reading it as a Lawyer, then I'd agree. If you're reading it as a person reading it like the rest of the readers reading it, you'd take it as a given assumption by the sentence that rape has increased. Anytime you say "the can be attributed in large part to the playing out of scenes in video games", it automatically denotes that happened, and this thing after it could possibly be the cause.
Now, if you rip it apart in a Lawyer'esque fashion then your right, the plantiff rests his case.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
“The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,” she said.
That bit suggests that there has been an increase in the amount of rapes, some of which can be attributed to video games. Using your sentence:
"The increase in racism can be seen by some as a result of reading Fox News, especially in localized areas that national statistics wouldn't be able to pick up."
With that logic, more deaths are occuring yearly because people are growing in numbers....
That's really stretching it. Please stop. Thank you.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
While this is a good article and it was wrong of Fox News to sensationalize it, it still misses the point. Even the industry calls these types of games "Adult Games." Why are minors being allowed to purchase them? We have R and NC-17 movies that as a society we have agreed that minors should not be allowed to see. Why is it different with interactive media.
I'm not saying adults shouldn't be able to purchase games like this. Heck, even parents can purchase them and give them to their kids. But we have to be honest that the studies, show there is a correlation between violent media and increased aggression. Hopefully, most adults deal with that aggression in rational ways. However, the 12-17 YOs who are the real target of this genre don't have those coping mechanisms (they haven't finished forming in the brain).
Fox News shouldn't have done what they did, but at the same time, there are actual studies showing that violent media does affect children (same with pornography).
If you can't see fox is the worst offender after watching 10 minutes of it, then I question your objectiveness.
Certainly other networks put spins on things, but fox is in their own league in the level and obviousness of it.
How many legally purchased firearms are used in violent crimes? Most American gun owners are law-abiding citizens who own them for various reasons; hunting, sport shooting, self-defense, nostalgia, law enforcement (backup / off-duty guns), etc.
The fact remains that most firearm-related violent crime is committed with stolen or black-market hardware. Even the shootings at Virginia Tech back in 2007 were committed with illegally purchased handguns, as the shooter had been adjudicated to mental health care (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html).
A nail gun, circular saw, or a hammer can be just as deadly as a gun, but we don't see regulation of their sales, do we? What about cars? A driver on a crowded highway or in a city with lots of pedestrian traffic can do immensely greater damage than a single shooter. What if it were a bus driver who went crazy and drove his passengers off a bridge, into a river or lake?
You ought to get that CNN gun control crap out of your head and check the real facts. Don't blame the tool, blame the person wielding it.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
So the mouthpiece of the party that opposes gun control and governmental regulation in general is advocating stricter imaginary-gun control?
Fox should only be allowed show re-runs of Mr Roger Neighborhood on the TV and News Networks then there would be no Violence in the whole world
"they asked whether Bulletstorm, an upcoming M-rated shooter from Epic Games, is the worst game in the world."
They obviously have never played the Leisure Suite Larry franchise.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I don't even know a good one that proves it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is from the first page of the Conservative Playbook: Invent a "clever" twist of a name to demean one's opponent, giggle while patting one's self on the back and never, never, actually debate any merits of an argument.
Ibid.
Maybe if Fox news cares about the effects of violence, they should worry less about symbolic violence and more about the fact that they are consistent cheerleaders for the wars and military culture that results in things like limbs being blown off and people being burned to death in the real world.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
Then allow me to take over?
Because THAT is exactly the reason. If kids are "out of control", it's not TV, not books, not the radio, not the "detective stories", not the "murder mystery" stories or other trashy literature, it's not Dungeons and Dragons and it's not computer games. It's effing bad parenting!
If you put children into this world, it is YOUR duty to educate them, to give them values and to teach them behaviour. Not the school's and not the government's. It's yours and ONLY yours. Parents got so comfortable to park kids in front of the idiot box so they're out of the way, out of sight, out of mind and out of their hair. Now they want the same with the internet and computer games. A nanny. A cheap nanny that you can hand those rugrats to while you go and enjoy your life.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. If you want kids, take responsibility for them! It's not my duty, not the government's, not the school's, not TV's, not games' and not the internet's duty to raise them.
IT IS YOURS!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Fox chose to use none of Steinberg’s comments in their final piece, opting instead for the more sensational claims
And yet, the first, first person shooters were developed by the military to desensitize soldiers into having to shoot another human being.
The post also claims Fox is mainstream media. I don't believe that to be true at all. They may have a following, but mostly, they're redneck, science-denyin', anti-queer, don't-tax-me, Nazi-claimin' bags of big wind.
And now, I'll watch as my /. karma twitches.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Technically, I'm fine with my 100% record.
That's why it has a big M on the front of the box, telling parents not to buy it for their children and shops not to sell it.
Whatever happens when irresponsible people do irresponsible things, while being warned not to, is their own fault.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I think you lie, snowgirl. Every single unicorn I've ever seen has been pure snow white, sometimes with a blue tint - again, like snow. Unicorns are as pure as the driven snow, after all. No red, no purple, no lilac, no pastels, nothing like that. If you're not lying, then you do some bad drugs.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I gotta give you thumbs up, for thinking, but thumbs down for missing a couple important details. Julian Assange is not charged with rape, but rather some kind of sexual "misconduct". Only the American media has managed to exaggerate Julian's case into some kind of rape case.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Might as well just get your news from Jon Stewart.
AC, meet the American left.
The makers of bullet storm couldn't have PAID for better marketing. I imagine they're drinking champagne, toasting their good fortune right now. Furthermore, I looked at the demo and the game didn't strike me as being especially violent as FPSs go.
Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well. ALL of his media and publications reflect those facts. Fox is no more conservative than I am a rocket scientist. Fox is a tool, designed for the purpose of shaping public opinion. I don't quite "hate" Fox - but I do despise it. What I truly hate is the fact that so many sniveling morons sit down to watch that crap, and take it all for gospel truth. Any man who takes the word of ANY media outlet as "THE TRUTH" is a complete moron, no matter what the political affiliation of that outlet.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"greater penalties for selling to minors."
I agree with this, if only because it'll (slightly, maybe, hopefully?) lessen the two year old idiots online.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Perhaps, instead of worrying about teens playing video games, we should worry about those who watch FOX "News". I don't know about a link between video games and violence, but there is a link between watching Fox News and being stupid.
No shit. However, this article is about FOX. Submit one and discuss the other egregious examples of this AlphabetSoup mass media bullshit so we can enlighten those here who aren't as keenly aware of their surroundings as you. Don't "hate" on slashdot for discussing this blatant bullshit.
Walk with Music;
Your best "experts" on this matter work in the advertising/marketing department. They already know the power of propaganda. To put it simply, video games have the same effect as any other ad. And just look how easily the voters are swayed by the bullshit you people call "news". So, let's not pretend here.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
They're pink and invisible. I tire of the lies.
Hey, 0 out of 0 would still be 100%
ERROR 02 DIV BY ZERO
I am not a crackpot.
Technically you can't divide by zero so the value is undefined.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
I don't see the connection. Every gang bang I've been involved in has been 100% consensual.
If you don't have the self-control to see the words on screen without doing it, then you probably have trouble getting consent. With that in mind, let's try an experiment:
<narrator's voice>
Go to school. Get a job. Hygene is awesome! Call your parents. Give to charity. Read a book. Pay someone an honest compliment. Do all these things and the learn self control!
</narrator's voice>
Bullshit. That is simply your own hallucination and interpretation which, as I stated above, supports what you choose to believe. When I do see a few minutes of the "news", whatever the station/channel/outlet, I am always amazed that people like yourself choose to *not* see the blatant attempt at brainwashing that these so-called "news shows" exhibit.
No, FoxNews is the worst. Does this mean no others are not guilty? Does this make the statement that Fox is the worst an hallucination?
FWIW - I stopped watching all of them 7+ years ago
I'd suggest that you can't have it both ways: not watching them and having an opinion on the current state of programming.
Also, does Glenn Beck kidnap and eat children? I don't know, I'm just asking questions. I know they'll try to silence me on this with moderation. That's OK. I'm posting this for you, not for me. I don't care what they do to me. This is not about me: this is about your right to know.
I am not a crackpot.
Seriously, when are people going to stop being surprised at Fox doing stuff like this?
Fox News is a company whose purpose is to make money. Their way to make money is by selling viewers to advertisers (In this, they are no different from other TV networks or things like newspapers, websites etc). Advertisers like a predictable audience they can characterize as accurately as possible, so they can tailor their products and/or advertisements to cater to said audience.
Fox News is simply trying to ensure that a predictable segment of the population reliably tune in to their station. Since people like hearing other people say things they agree with, one way to do this is by telling that section of the population exactly what they want to hear. And that is what Fox does.
In this case, is an informed, nuanced piece about how video games do or do not influence young gamers' behavior going to appeal to Fox's target audience? No, it is not. Therefore, it's a simple piece about how some violent person played violent video-games, ergo violent video-games turn sweet little kids into serial killers. The people in Fox's target audience who see this will find themselves nodding along with the piece, ensuring they will tune in again next week, same time, same channel.
You could argue (justifiably, IMHO) about whether this model has undesirable social effects, and about news networks' responsibility etc, but this simply doesn't show up in Fox's equation. All they know is that by doing things this way, they can predict who's going to watch, and that is valuable to advertisers. There's no malice in that, it's just business (in their mind, of course)
Jeroen
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
Not quite - they are accused of pyronecrobestiality, though the assaulter a male "reporter" and victim was burning dead female wallaby.
It's true - you heard it first from Slashdot, which never contains factual errors.
Fox News reporters can be seen by some as supporters of Al Qaeda, terrorism, and talking in a movie theatre," she said.
By the way....what relevance is it that she's a book author? I'm sure if she wrote a book relevant to video games, violence, or hell, even children, Fox News would have eaten that up and used it every way they could.
...crosshair shaped markers on maps do.
Maybe Palin did or didn't have anything to do with the gun violence in AZ, but it's funny how fast the crosshairs came down from her website when the shit hit the fan, no? That says something.
It says you complain when she does something polite and respectful at a time of tragedy. Would you complain less if she kept the graphic and added a check by Giffords's name? Somehow I doubt it.
No one seems to pay any attention to the rating system anyway. If they do, some Mom that doesn't want to here their kid scream about it anymore just buys its for them. The enforcement of the rating system is what is broken, not the games themselves. What would you think about a store selling smokes and booze to minors? Having Mon go in and buy smokes and booze for their kids? Porn? I'm sure it happens, but one is taken more serious than the other. If its that big an issue, quit bitching about it and get serious about enforcement.
I'm old enough I don't care, I can buy whatever games I want!
Newsflash, 'Foxhaters': Fox is not the only network to pick and choose what they say and how, and/or to use the words of others in the same way in order to boost their ratings. There have been many egregious examples of this by the other AlphabetSoup mass media outlets - ABC/CNN/PBS/CBS/NBC/BBC etc etc..
You're right. All the big networks sensationalize stuff like this to get ratings. But, as another poster pointed out, this is story is about Fox's presentation. I seriously doubt coverage of this game would have fared any better on CNN had they covered it.
It is worth noting that many Fox anchors, reporters and correspondents are former CNN employees.It is also worth noting that all these big networks are owed by a few companies. So all of them are going to behave similarly.
The left-right dichotomy between the networks comes off to me like professional wrestling. The body slams are real enough but the whole thing proceeds according to a script.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Sure, you can find differences in the two. One is about video games. The other is about political speech. One is about rape. The other is about gun violence.
On an abstract level, though, they're exactly the same. The question is, who gets the blame when someone does something criminal. Those who take negative actions or those who provide negative influences. When Columbine happened, it was all the fault of violent video games. Slashdot roared at the unfairness of the accusation and the threat to free speech and personal responsibility.
When a politically unsavory character like Sarah Palin can be painted with the exact same brush, I didn't see the same outcry here or on other typically progressive forums that I visit.
I'm not defending Sarah Palin. She's an idiot who doesn't belong in politics.
I'm always in the mood to defend consistency or at least raise the issue of hypocrisy vs consistency. I find this inconsistency curious and it's a little disappointing that it doesn't resonate with /.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well.
I'm not sure if that means Murdoch is himself opinionated. He uses public his influence on public opinion to further his goals, not necessarily because he believes that swaying opinion itself is good. A Linux zealot or a religious missionary wants to convert others to his way of thinking because his belief is that that conversion itself is for the greater good. (I'm sure someone can find a counter-example, but I believe my generalization is sufficiently true here.) But for Murdoch, it's a means to a different end.
The video game controversy is not this, though. Murdoch, or Fox News or Fox Networks doesn't stand to directly gain anything by generating an outcry over a video game. This "story" is just some "red meat" for the viewers. It gets them stirred up over something new and scary, like the new pool table in town. Not because you hate pool (but love billiards). No, it's to get the town to form a "boys band" to keep the kids out of trouble. And not because you oppose the kids getting in trouble, either. No, it's so you can sell them a bunch of instruments and uniforms, etc. and make a quick buck. I bet you could flesh that idea out and make a pretty good story . . .
In this case Fox is getting people stirred up over a video game to make them more susceptible to what they're really trying to sell. Stuff like "smaller government," particularly in areas where the government regulates its own business -- like relaxing FCC ownership rules. Did Murdoch become a US Citizen because of our proud history? Our culture? The beauty of our landscape? No, it was to eliminate the "citizenship" problem with owning media in this country.
ALL of his media and publications reflect those facts. Fox is no more conservative than I am a rocket scientist. Fox is a tool, designed for the purpose of shaping public opinion.
Can't argue with that. They take a "conservative" approach (however one might define that) when it fits their agenda to accomplish what they want. As you suggest, it's a tool. Like my screwdriver. I use it to drive screws, not because I believe in the greatness of the screwdriver as a tool, but because it suits the purpose.
I am not a crackpot.
Along the lines of this, are there any good enhanced interrogation simulators out there?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Technically, 100% of nothing is still nothing.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Bullshit. That is simply your own hallucination and interpretation which, as I stated above, supports what you choose to believe. When I do see a few minutes of the "news", whatever the station/channel/outlet, I am always amazed that people like yourself choose to *not* see the blatant attempt at brainwashing that these so-called "news shows" exhibit. FWIW - I stopped watching all of them 7+ years ago, tired of the nonsense and lies and the all-thought-consuming media that is the Idiot Box. I get my news from all over the place, from reading varied sources and applying my judgment as to the likely reliability of said sources taken in context of the whole story and my experience and knowledge about human nature and how the 'machine' that is society works, not from some one-sided corporate entity that is trying to sell me to their advertisers and solidify my support for their upstream political hacks.
Well then, how do you know Fox is not the worst now? You're one of them Tea Baggots aren't ya? Makin up lies and stuff.
Maybe the worst game for 2011, but not the worst game ever.
Anyone ever heard of Custer's Revenge?
Just one example.
Hey, I was only kidding. You don't have to MOD me "Troll" . . . again . . . .
"Language such as "f**k," "sh*t," "p*ssy," and "c*ck" can be heard in dialogue."
So, like an average day at work then...
On an abstract level the arguments might be the same, but you have to be careful that you don't abstract away important details. One important detail might be whether there's actually evidence that the the links exist in the first place. Going beyond that, the person who takes a negative action usually takes the blame, and in this case I don't think anyone's arguing that the gunman shouldn't be blamed (his lawyers may argue that he was too crazy to be legally responsible, but that's entirely different). However, that doesn't mean that Palin and friends shouldn't be castigated for their behavior. They're not responsible for his behavior, but they are responsible for their own behavior and it has been reprehensible and it's high time they got called out for their boorish, reckless, and irresponsible actions.
The shooting has merely focused more attention on their behavior. Your question of "who gets the blame when someone does something criminal" is a distraction question formulated by republican spin doctors to make you forget that the actions of many members of the Tea Party and Republicans are worth condemning regardless of whether they result in crimes.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
They're not even saying that there's rape in the game... they're saying that (from TFA):
"The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games."
They're saying that playing sexual situations in games is the cause of the "increase" (actually, over the last 10 years incidents of rape are on decline) of rape.
Sometimes I think that what people object to with Fox news is less the bias than the fact that they ignore previous societal norms about bias.
Fox News wears its bias on its sleeve. They are bold and direct and obvious in their agenda and their manipulation.
If you think the other networks don't have bias, you've never read one of their reports on gun control. But it's coached in much more collegiate terms - they observe the forms of unbiased reporting and the old-school, "respectable" image of the impartial journalist.
Not that the old classics of journalism were so impartial - they have almost always projected what they considered a centrist viewpoint - but again, it's a journalism-school-educated, upper-middle-class-living-in-New-York view of "centrist." Which has its own set of assumptions and agenda.
As an analogy, Fox News is the crass, new rich and the other media are the old guard. Their culture is very different, but their kids are all still going to Yale.
I played 1 violent game and now I just kill ever chance I get, it's totally the game makers fault, i have no freewill at all.
You do realize that no one made that argument, right?
People simply pointed out that the right uses a lot of violent rhetoric, and, look, an example of it. Where others might simply used a checkbox or something, Palin decided to use a gun crosshair, because she's all 'gunny', don't cha know.
Although I personally find her 'reload' comment to be a lot more crazy.
I know you won't believe it, but the right uses much much more of 'shooting things' rhetoric than the left.
And, yes, I'm sure there's some examples of the left using violent-originating figures of speech, but the right isn't using metaphors. 'Targets' are metaphors. 'Bullseyes' are metaphors. 'War' is a metaphor. Even saying 'in our crosshairs' might be.
If some on the left have cherry picked those terms out and complained about them, they're wrong, just like they were wrong to complain about the 'Repeal the job killing health care reform' bill's name. (Well, they should have just complained it was dishonest.)
But actually drawing crosshairs on a map...that's not a metaphor. I've certainly never seen crosshairs used to identify locations or people outside the context of shooting at that location. A bullseyes, an X, okay, I can accept those and not read 'shooting' into them, despite the origin, but a crosshairs, no.
Talking about 'ballot, soap, jury, ammo', is not a metaphor. Talking about 'using second amendment rights' is not a metaphor.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Scientifically, there are only three types of rapists:
1. The ones that watch fox news.
2. The ones that stopped watching fox news and now rape in their spare time
and
3. Those that never watched fox news. I can only think this type rapes from outrage after listening that fox news is saying.
Clearly. Fox news is very closely linked to the problem. Moreover, according to their statistics, as Glenn Beck has been going down in ratings, apparently rape is going up. Am I to assume that Glenn Beck was actually keeping rapists at home?
And many experts are saying that Glenn Beck's rape and murder of a young girl in 1990 was caused by video games.
(In the same way that 'the non-existent rise in rapes' were caused by them.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Fox
Underestimates
Common
Knowledge
In
Newreporting
Causing
Rich
Against
Poor
Fox new brings (_Topic_of_your_choice_) Debate to a new Low.
Summary: Fox News collected information from various experts and opinionists on the (_Topic_of_your_choice_) then choses to only air the information about (_Topic_of_your_choice_) from the opinionists who opinions on (_Topic_of_your_choice_) that closely match Fox News running narrative. Surprisingly all other research, studies and statistics were curtly summed up and presented as "... unsurprising theres are some studies 'out there' which can be contrived to present a different viewpoint ...". This is apparently done to maintain the "Fair and Balanced" integrity of Fox News.
Gone to my happy place.
Not quite...but I heard that Glen Beck did do a similar act. He still has not denied it either though.
It is at the least your duty to not buy them M rated video games.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Pretty much any time someone makes a reference to tea bagging in relation to the tea party movement, that's a good indication of someone who's following the misinformation of the MSM. Maybe FoxNews is the worst. Glenn Beck and FoxNews were dismissive of the tea party movement before they started attempting to hijack it. Everyone else just continues to try to dismiss it.
The Tea Party's defining day was the Tea Party moneybomb raising over $6 million in one day for Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Aside from a 5 minute blurb about that record, all the MSM including FoxNews was dismissive and always only showed the "bad side" (the few rotten apples) from the Ron Paul grassroots.
Yes, we were around while Bush was in office. Yes, we were yelling and screaming in objection to his deficit spending (among many other things). No, nobody paid attention, cause we supported Ron Paul and he was "unelectable".
My 4-year old daughter carries a sign that says "The National Debt is My Inheritance". She doesn't understand that now, but one day she will, and it would be my shame if I knew I never did anything about it.
Still want to call me a teabagger? Fine. I know who you are. You're the asshole that doesn't care that my daughter's current share of the national debt is $47,000 and her share of the current unfunded liabilities is $375,000, all this before she even starts preschool.
But the government is the problem, don't you know that? Spending money on solving rapes would require paying taxes.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
From TFA:
players are rewarded for shooting enemies in the private parts (such as the buttocks).
Phew! Good thing they exemplified, at first I was thinking "private parts" meant their motherboards.
"I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
Well, for one, that 'rapes have increased', when they manifestly have not.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Don't ride the yellow unicorns.
If you put children into this world, it is YOUR duty to educate them, to give them values and to teach them behaviour.
Sadly, many parents seem to think that good parenting means to force pointless personal beliefs (religious beliefs, political beliefs, blatant propaganda, etc) down their children's throats. It's startling how facts rarely come into play.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
We're talking about journalists here... to be fair Carol Lieberman was probably referring to the fact that as time goes on people get raped but they don't get unraped. Thus rapes increase over time...
It's easier to make sense of these political degenerates when you know they're lying and misleading from the start.
So, her logic is:
1. Rapes happen. They did last year.
2. This game is coming out.
3. Fewer rapes happened this year. How do you explain that rapes happened this year?
4. It must be the game.
Wow. Just Wow.
FOX even got a court to say the media can legally distort or falsify the news.
Glenn Beck hasnt denied the rape accusations, and until he does I have no doubt that Glenn Beck is a child raping murderer. Why wont he address these claims? I cant believe that these claims have been around for so long and he has not commented on them. I'm shocked. I guess he really does not care about the children or god. How can any man with a Fox News show get away without dealing with these claims. I never knew these claims existed on the internet until just now and after reading these claims, I'm amazed and shocked at Glenn Beck's unwillingness to refute these claims. Perhaps because deep down, he knows he's guilty of rape and murder?
Glenn Beck needs to be stopped before he rapes and kills again.
No of course not. The allegations that Glenn Beck raped and killed a young girl do need to be addressed though. Why is no one reporting on this?!
Do they not love America?
To be fair, video games have been known to turn a man into an uncontrollable murdering rapist. Good Glenn Beck be this man?
The claims are out there.... I've seen it, so it must be true.
Foxomatic
Drill baby drill - on Mars
...because they make them up.
Who says?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Julian Assange is not charged with rape, but rather some kind of sexual "misconduct".
Actually, the word "rape" is in fact on the paperwork that Sweden used to start the extradition process, BUT Assange is not charged with anything: He's wanted for "questioning".
You can't take the sky from me...
Pretty much any time someone makes a reference to tea bagging in relation to the tea party movement, that's a good indication of someone who's following the misinformation of the MSM.
Or, you know, we're just juvenile and we find enjoyment in referring to you as teabaggers. The other hilarious part is that you guys think you still have any real influence even though you've simply become a wing of the Republican party, who only "cares" about the deficit when it'll win them votes. Case in point: their "compromise" for keeping tax breaks for the rich (which increases the deficit, I might add) was to increase the deficit even further. Luckily for them, of course, the Dems keep on heaping on the spending, so watch Republicans pretend to care again next November.
I'm still waiting for somebody to catch on to the fact that the summary called Fox News part of the mainstream media. That alone would throw half the Fox News-watching population into a rage.
There were several quests in WotLK that were sexual innuendo:
Blowing Hodir's Horn, Polishing the Helm, Mounting Hodir's Helm, Raising Hodir's Spear, Thrusting Hodir's Spear, and Going Bearback
And some would say they've stepped it up a notch in Cataclysm:
Camel Tow, A Case of Crabs, A Taste For Tail, Just the Tip, and Premature Explosionation
My point is that if you are old enough to get the joke it's not like they are corrupting you since you've already been corrupted. As for double standards how about the song 'Crank That' by Soulja Boy where there are various references to 'superman' and 'super soak' 'that ho'. I'll spare you what those mean, you can look that up yourself on Urban Dictionary, but this is (or was, it's about 2 years old) on the radio. There's no parental controls on the radio. No outrage because it isn't the corrupter of this current generation - video games.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
"If Glen Beck didn't rape and kill that girl in 1990, why won't he just come out and deny it?
What is he hiding?"
Maybe it was a boy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Thank goodness the other news outlets receive all of their funding from dollars falling from the skies and don't have to depend on selling ads.
Interesting how people will put up with the sensationalism and propaganda as long as it lines up with their own beliefs or political leanings.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If you read the actual Fox News article it is not the opinion of the article it is the opinion of an expert in the field that claims it is a problem, an opposing view is also expressed so the article takes no sides.
So if Fox ran a segment with some kind of self-proclaimed expert calling you an idiot then cutting to 5 seconds of your mom saying "well, he's not all that bad", would you not be the least bit offended?
If you are the least bit offended, then you might understand how gamers feel when Fox runs a segment with some kind of self-proclaimed expert calling gamers responsible for "the increase in rapes". Especially when there has not been an "increase in rapes" since at least 2006, with preliminary 2010 data indicating more than 10% decrease since 2009.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Fox News is a propaganda mouth piece for war criminals and arms dealers disguised as politicians, routinely promotes actual violent warfare and hatred against other nations, yet they dare publish in a sensational way those "think of the children" articles about video game violence?
This is sickening. On other hand you try to scare people to death with "terrorists", fake missile threats and so on so that the audience feels foreign policy issues as fight-or-flee animal situations, and support extreme violence against the "terrorists". On another hand, violence is always taboo when mentioning or depicting it would not serve the propaganda interest - this is true of even mainstream french media for instance. Showing the mutilated corpses, widespread destruction and suffering of Iraq or Gaza isn't permitted because it's deemed offensive! But cheerleading for the bombs is patrotic.
Reporting ANYTHING Fox does or says is not news. It's just rehyping what should have died a long time ago.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The post also claims Fox is mainstream media. I don't believe that to be true at all.
Neither do I. I don't believe they're media at all.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Because the words "topless" and "gangbang" in an otherwise non-sexual game suddenly makes it a sexual situation.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Why are minors being allowed to purchase them?
Because they don't hurt them. Even minors can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Imagine the state that the population would be in if normal people couldn't even differentiate between fiction and reality and if fiction truly could make people violent. There would be far, far more violence than there is now. Yet, there isn't. Only a small minority of the population is violent, and yet most people are subjected to violent media. Funny, that.
We have R and NC-17 movies that as a society we have agreed that minors should not be allowed to see.
As a society? Who is that? I disagree completely. Unless you have an actual reason to keep these things from them (and so far, no one does), then just let them watch/play the media.
But we have to be honest that the studies, show there is a correlation between violent media and increased aggression.
No, they absolutely do not. The closest I have ever seen a study get to correlating violence with violent media is correlating temporary violent thoughts with violent media. 99% of the time, those thoughts do not translate into actual physical violence except in the case of an already disturbed individual (I would guess).
However, the 12-17 YOs who are the real target of this genre don't have those coping mechanisms (they haven't finished forming in the brain).
Who are you even talking about? This is ridiculous. A majority of minors aren't even violent, yet many of them are subjected to violent media. Again, that's funny.
they haven't finished forming in the brain
Are you serious? They might be going through some changes, but they are not so idiotic as to not be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.
The statistics simply aren't on your side.
You say that even minors can tell the difference between fiction and reality. That's why it's impossible for children to believe in Santa Claus, right? Sure they grow out of it , but unless they aren't minors, then evidently it's possible for some minors to not be able to tell the difference. And it's not just children. Depending on where you stand on your belief in God, there are a lot of people who can or cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality. Or, leaving God out of it, even though crop circles have been debunked, many still believe in them and UFOs, etc.
As for Society agreeing that minors shouldn't watch/play these things. The fact that there is a rating system in the first place, seems to indicate that there is some sort of societal norm to base the rating on. Whether you agree with the rating or not, the group responsible for the rating has to make a determination based on some objective standard.
As for studies showing the link between watched violence and increased aggression, there are too many to count. Increased aggression, however, does not mean that one will go shoot everybody at school. Just like there is a correlation between being physically abused as a child and being an abuser as an adult. A correlation does not mean that one will become an abuser, just that there is a link between the two.
As for coping mechanisms and brain development, it is a medical fact that ones brain does not finish forming until one enters their 20s. A lot of developmental changes occur in the brain during the teen years and at least in tests on other mammals, the brain is very adaptable at that time (it is considered unethical to actually test on human beings). There are definite stages to growth and development of brain structures. For instance, teen males seem to be impulsive in many things. That is because the frontal lobes are still developing and it is there that compulsive behaviour is regulated. The frontal lobes don't reach maturity until around age 25. They also have a lot to do with
What makes you think 12-17 year olds are the target of the action FPS genre? The average age of game-buyers is now over 30, and most of the people who play FPSes are in their 20s and 30s now.
Who purchases the game is different than how much time is spent sitting in front of the screen. There is a reason that the 20 some things play the games the most. But, it's important to realize they were much younger than 20-30 when they first got hooked. That is why the target audience is in the teen years, because it is only in the teen years, that you actually hook the individual. It's a biochemical thing. This has been shown with individuals from other cultures, where there is not exposure to video games. When brought to the West, the teenagers quickly adapt and play video games like there is no tomorrow. Much beyond the teen years and it's more of a take it or leave it attitude. In other words, there are very few in the West who become fanatical about FPS once they are out of their teens or early 20s. If they are fanatics in their late 20s or beyond, they were already a fanatic about the genre when younger. (And yes, there are always exceptions to every rule).
This does not mean that these people are dangerous or are going to go shoot everyone or blow something up, at least not if they are healthy and well adjusted. However, it only takes one unbalanced person to wreck havoc on the rest of us.
oh, I hadn't considered that.
Maybe Glen beck raped and killed a boy in 1990.
how very insightfull
-- Sig under construction...
They're pink and invisible. I tire of the lies.
May her blessed hooves be upon you!
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I love to play video games. America is all about pushing the boundaries, and unfortunately it is at our kids expense. I love the graphics, but not for the young at heart!
Who says?
Ah, basic mathematics.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Yet another /. poster who jumps into the middle of a conversation without bothering to read what I was actually responding to.
Yes 100% of nothing is still nothing and if that is what I wanted to say I would have said it.
But if you look up 3 posts from your response you will see that I was talking about the reference to "0 out of 0" being "100%". To express "0 out of 0" as a percentage:
0 / 0 * 100 = undefined
Because you can not divide by zero.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Seems like a pretty silly rule to me.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
that could possibly represent a danger to anyone with an IQ under 12 and wrap anything that could harm anyone with cotton wool. Then we might be a little safer. It's a dangerous world after all.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Shootings and rapes? Sounds like the news on my local Fox channel, followed by COPS. They're probably worried that people will spend time shooting imaginary people instead of listening to reporters tell them about shootings of real people.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I would say something clever but you're either trolling or too stupid to get it anyway.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Actually, I'm completely serious. I mean, why not just do like we did with taking the impossible square root of negative one and make division by zero another imaginary axis? 1/0 =k, 2/0 = 2k.
Look, saying the only reason for not dividing by zero is that it's "undefined" suggests that the only reason we can divide by two is because it is defined. Does math only exist because we've defined it? If not, then division by zero must have some definition we simply don't know yet. Otherwise, if we do have to give make up a definition for it to have one, then it not having one just means mathematicians are too lazy to come up with one.
Often I've heard the conceptual argument where you can't divide something into parts of size zero, it doesn't make sense. But, seriously, it does. You can divide something into zero-sized parts all day long, and you'd keep getting them forever. That's called infinity.
I'm sorry, but "undefined" is not a sufficiently satisfying explanation to me, and you really shouldn't be happy with it either.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
0 / 0 * 100 = undefined
Because you can not divide by zero.
0 / 0 * 100 = 0 * ( K / 0 * 100) = 0 * ( undefined) So we have zero undefined things. Sorry I'll get back in my box now.
My comment is mostly in pictorial format: http://i51.tinypic.com/qyesld.png
Since the educational system has failed you I'll try to explain.
If you divide 10 apples by 2 people each person gets 5 apples. Now try to divide 10 apples by 0 people. There is no answer that makes sense.
Another way it look at it is, (10 * 5) / 5 = 10. In general, (10 * x) / x = 10 except when x = 0.
If you still think it doesn't make sense then read the first section of this article.
If you still don't get it, you never will and I weep for the future.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
It's nice that you at least pretended to read my post. Maybe next time you could actually read what people say before you reply to them.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Facts are also not a good way to give children an incentive to follow your lead. When has "because I said so!" ever worked on you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why exactly?
Care to inform me why I have to deem it inappropriate for my 16 year old to see blood splattering across the screen? Or how hiring a hooker in a game to fulfill a goal makes him a worse person?
If anyone, I should be able to judge the mental abilities of my child to handle certain content. I should be able to understand how far along my child is and how able he or she is to see the difference between games and reality. I somehow do not consider people who are not able to see the difference themselves (i.e. the ones that cry the loudest about how games "ruin" our kids) an appropriate source for insight what's appropriate at what age.
Not to mention that I somehow don't follow the logic of age as a measuring yard for mental ability altogether. It's illegal today but legal tomorrow, boy, people sure change a LOT in those 24 hours before their 18th birthday!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Facts are also not a good way to give children an incentive to follow your lead.
Teaching them facts, however, is important.
When has "because I said so!" ever worked on you?
It hasn't. Begging the question shouldn't work on anyone.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Um, I don't know why you suddenly decided to disagree with me, but I was, in fact, agreeing with you.
There's plenty of parenting stuff parents are required to do, and one of them is the duty to not buy damn M rated games and then bitch that the games are, in fact, for adults.
That is perhaps the ultimate in parental irresponsibility, doing something that the society, thanks parental incompetence at raising their children, actually has managed to do for them...and then they go and work around it.
It is the parent's job to decide when their child is ready for that stuff. The entire society banded together to actually give them that option by baring kids from purchasing entire categories of stuff.
And we still have fucking stupid media telling us how 'damaging' it is for kids to have access to things they only have access to via adults.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Ahhh, ok, gotcha. I was under the impression that you wanted to tell me I cannot by my child an M-Rated game, even when fully accepting and knowing that it IS an M-Rated game and I deem it appropriate for him or her.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nope, I was just pointing out that parents might have legit claim that past the age 13 or so, most children are at least moderately unobserved at some point in time. They go to the mall in groups, they visit friends, etc. Parents cannot, and, for the sake of the child actually turning into an adult, actually observe their children literally 24/7.
And hence parents have a legit complaint that, I dunno, gas stations were giving out free samples of cigarettes to their kids. Or selling porn, or, yes, violent video games, or tattoos.
The problem is we've already recognized this as society, and hence don't let children buy certain classes of things.
It's entirely reasonable to point out _new_ things that belong in that group. Video games, for example, are one of the newest, getting put in that group about a decade ago. In another decade it will be something else. If parents are complaining about that, fine.
If parents are complaining about things we already restrict from children without their permission, well, my solution is to get them to sign a piece of paper stating that such a thing is damaging to their children, and then threaten to take their kids away for the crime of corrupting a minor after we point out they bought it themselves, warning label and at all.
I wish people would start mentioning that as an alternative, pointing out 'Well, you think this game is so bad and harmful to children, and yet you yourselves bought it, so the rather obvious solution is to remove the children from the damaging influence...namely, you. You seem incapable of understanding the danger in the world, and have probably also purchased your child a table saw also. You are not a fit parent, by your own definition of 'harm'.'
Then the rest of the adults, the entire society that has made things somewhat more inconvenient for ourselves at the insistence of retarded parents who then refuse to actually understand the system we made for them and just wander around buying kids violent video games and porn and probably cocaine and hookers and shotguns (who knows WTF they're thinking?) too, will finally get some peace.
Meanwhile, I have no problems with people who actually understand that kids are not as weak as we seem to assume for some reason, and, frankly, if I had a kid, I'd be buying them M rated games at 14 or 15 unless the entire premise of the game was somehow horrible.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Gotta love how "sexual innuendo in the names of kill streaks" turns in to "sexual situations and acts in video games".
I mean we all know how it works - kill 4 people and it's violence; kill 4 people and display "Gangbang" on the screen, and it is a graphic depiction of rape!