I can see the way that a RPG can calm you down, but I don't think this is a general rule for games. I've seen people all fired up from FPS so that they actually had to stop playing for a while to cool down again. This is actually an interesting comment. (Score one for the moderation system!) I wonder what results this study would have yielded had they substituted World of Warcraft with F.E.A.R. or any other FPS game out there. FPS games typically require more reflexes and reaction than does World of Warcraft, where if you are playing with a group, you require strategy, a plan, team roles, etc. The environment can be more controlled than playing Halo or Unreal.
Hell, I'm a mess after an hour or so of Ninja Gaiden Sigma.
After reading the short article, I believe that the researchers need to look into this topic deeper. Especially after reading this comment:
"This will help us develop an emotion and gaming questionnaire to distinguish the type of gamer who is likely to transfer their online aggression into everyday life." It seems to me that if someone were to transfer their online aggression into everyday life, they would do so anyway if you were to take away the online aspect. To put it in a clearer context, anyone who would go out and murder due to a video game would probably go out and murder for any other reason if the video games were taken away.
Another thought - is the stress relief due to the reward you get while playing? Is the simple action of slaying demons or sniping people what helps with the stress relief, or is the reward that you would get, such as a rare or epic item, money, or something telling you that you're awesome, what causes the change in mood?
You're right. I guess Douglas McArthur, like you, really UNDERSTOOD the art of war. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor he withdrew all marine craft from the pacific and focused entirely on defense. The next several years saw Japan make several unsuccessful invasions of the American heartland, thankfully America's invulnerable defense ensured our safety. Eventually Japan became disheartened and gave up attacking America, thus ending WWII. Sure we lost the Philippines, Australia, and eastern China is still part of the Great Japanese Empire, but that's all history. I know you were being facetious, but you misunderstood their point. I don't recall the poster advocating focusing primarily on defense after being attacked. Reread the part of the post that says:
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the art of war.
The first rule of war is: don't go to war.
The second rule of war is if you have to go to war make yourself invulnerable before you attack.
"Attack is the best defense" did not work for Germany in the 2nd world war. It didn't work in Vietnam or Korea. It's certainly not working for the US at the moment. You thought the poster meant "let's withdraw all forces, hunker down, and let everyone attack our defenses." Actually, MacArthur followed the second rule. The point being made was, an aggressive preemptive mentality often leads to defeat, which is why Japan and Germany lost their respective wars. The U.S. entering WWII was not an "attack mentality", but, an act of defense after we were attacked by Japan.
Fast forward to Vietnam and Iraq and you'll see why an attack mentality fails. How many years did it take the U.S. to realize that continuously being in attack mode in Iraq even AFTER the capture of Saddam Hussein did far more harm than the actual invasion itself? By the time the U.S. realized that we needed a peacetime force and not a full blown-out military force, the citizens of Iraq wanted us out and temporarily joined forces with al-Qaeda to form a resistance. (Only later did the Iraqis realize that al-Qaeda was far more interested in their own agenda than they were with helping the Iraqis, and turned against them too.)
And since you brought up Douglas MacArthur, read his bio, specifically:
President John F. Kennedy solicited MacArthur's counsel in 1961. The first of two meetings was shortly after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. MacArthur was extremely critical of the Pentagon and its military advice to Kennedy. MacArthur also cautioned the young President to avoid a U.S. military build-up in Vietnam, pointing out domestic problems should be given a much greater priority. Shortly prior to his death he gave similar advice to the new President, Lyndon Johnson. Even the great General you were referencing earlier warned Kennedy and Johnson about an aggressive military build-up in Vietnam.
No, on House they would have totally misdiagnosed her medical condition, given her an ass transplant, and when that didn't help, checked her for prostate cancer, then Alzheimer's, then gave her some drug that almost kills her, then amputate both legs, then 5 minutes before the show is over, say "hey... maybe it's her liver!". Then all is well again and she goes home and doesn't even think to sue the incompetent morons for malpractice. Let's not forget...
but any whisper otherwise, and i say the world needs to invade iran. all of the trauma and death from that is nothing compared to what religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb are capable of I really hope it doesn't come to that. And I know that you're not wishing for a war either. I just hope that the citizens of Iran show their government the door before it ever boils down into a world war. I have family there and I'd prefer that the Iranians take care of their own problem rather than another country doing it. If my Grandparents and extended family were to be killed, I'd rather it be due to their own rebellion against the Iranian government and not a U.S. or Israeli bomb.
here on slashdot, we are regularly reminded of the peril of religious fundamentalism: creationism, purposefully dumbing down of society, wrongminded social policies, the death of reason and science. and we are supposed to all of a sudden not worry when these people get nuclear weapons? I agree with this 1000%. I just don't think I could label the theocracy of Iran as blind, crazy fundamentalists as much as I do as opportunists who use religion to gain power to enslave a population. This is why I don't feel that they would ever pull the nuclear trigger were they to ever build a bomb. They have way more to lose than they would have to gain. But I've been wrong before. Let's just hope that I'm not in this case.
those are both 2 obvious facts Not according to the new Intelligence estimate. This is not a fact any more, as even our intelligence agency is telling us that Iran abandoned acquiring nukes years ago, which left President Bush scrambling.
forget all of the spin you have heard from every ideology and government entity in the entire world
doesn't just those two facts, all by their very selves, concern you, regardless of what anyone else's thinks for or against iran?
a theocracy
with nukes
what does that mean to you? Not much. Yeah, it sounds scary on paper. But seriously, we had the same FUD issue with the Russians during the Cold War. Cooler heads prevailed in the end. Oh sure, there were the proxy wars that we had in South America where we armed rebels to the teeth, but we also kept an entire country scared of a scenario where the former Soviet Union would launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. and we would be seeing mushroom clouds everywhere. How many households built bomb shelters in the 70s and 80s? No, a direct nuclear war with the former Soviet Union never happened.
Actually it almost became a self-fulfilling prophecy. We kept scaring ourselves of the Soviets, so we prepared counter-measures against them. This scared them into thinking that we were going to attack them, so they kept coming up with their own maneuvers. Because of the fear, we had guns trained on one another and all it would have taken was one itchy trigger finger to unleash a massive war.
Hell, we went as far as having a witch-hunt in the U.S. where ANY individual remotely affiliated with communism would have their careers destroyed. Today? We're actively trading with China and holding meetings with North Korea. And the only reason why we haven't opened any dialog with Cuba is because of the influence of the Florida Cuban population. Oh the Cubans are so brutal towards their population, yet we get along so well with Egypt and the Saudis who do way worse to theirs.
The only difference is that today our new boogeymen are Islamic mullahs as opposed to the Communists of yesterday.
We have every satellite trained in the Middle East and I'm certain Israel has war plans in case Iran does ever get any idea of starting a foolish nuclear war. Believe me, I'm Iranian and I KNOW what the corrupt, evil government of Iran is capable of at this point, and starting a nuclear war is not one of them. And don't think that there aren't people within Iran that want the government of Iran taken down. We now have students in the University of Tehran protest over the government more frequently and get beaten down. But the second the US or Israel threatens Iran, the citizens over there get all nationalistic again.
Anyway, I went a bit off-topic there. Didn't the war with Iraq teach us anything about subscribing to doomsday scenarios where some country is thought to be acquiring nukes and will use it against us?
So remember, if you are passionate about a technology, do not declare this "the year of it," as you are only hurting it.
Well, in that case I declare that 2008 will be the year of Vista on the desktop!
I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers.
I never said that. All I really said it is not obvious to some people that those who are see violence often tend to become desensitized to violence.
Ah, thanks for the clarification - sounds like I made a big leap with what you were saying as well.:) But back to your point, I can see what you mean now, and it really should be evident that constant exposure to violence would bring about some form of desensitization. Almost like the quote "nothing shocks me anymore." And that leads me to ask - how did societies cope during violent eras of rape, pillage, and burn? I remember reading descriptions of the Crusades as streets having rivers of blood. At least in most parts of the world, we really never see that, though those that served during the first and second world wars would beg to differ. How about in societies where a public beheading is quite the norm?
Let's take your average undertaker. The first few mangled bodies that come into the morgue are probably going to make him sick. However, after about 10 years on the job, that mangled heap of body parts is just another customer. Sure, some of the more hideous bodies will always affect him, like children, for example, but not like it did that first day.
Good example. Another good example are ER doctors. I remember having to do a project in my high school biology class that required me to shadow a doctor for almost a month. I was able to get permission from the local hospital to follow an ER doctor around, and on my first night there, we had some woman who overdosed on ten codeine pills. She had her stomach pumped and seemed to look like she would make it, but her liver failed and she died three days later. Anyway, I was completely sickened by the noises coming out of the ER room (they had me wait outside the door as they couldn't have too many people in there.) but the doctor I was shadowing had seen and heard that stuff so often that it didn't even phase him.
I agree with you that your average meeky mouse type person is not going to play a round of GTA and then suddenly go shoot up a mall. But as I mentioned in another post, for those that are right on the edge, this may be enough to push them over it.
And for this reason, I really wish that there would be a chance at a real study on long-term effects. It's such a political issue though that I can imagine getting real results like the ones in this study would be like pulling teeth. It's an interesting theory though as I have always wondered what the triggering mechanism is in those that suddenly go postal. What are they thinking and feeling the moment that they do? And would the adrenaline rush coming from a violent game or movie ever be enough to push them if they were already on the edge? Perhaps so - I've heard of people snapping for less severe reasons.
So passing a visual stimulus that is interpreted by the brain as violent affects the corresponding area of the brain...? Who would have guessed that...
Evidently, not many people who read/. Go back and read any of the summaries that deal with violent video games and look at all the people who say that video games have no effect on the minds of children. Take THIS one for example: If you're looking for scientific evidence about video games having an effect on the mind of children, you're looking at the wrong one, as the mean age in the experiment was 25 +-4.8 years. That does not diminish the findings, but there should at least be a comparative study with children as well.
I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers. There can be other issues that occur in the child's life that may contribute to violence: - Bad upbringing - Peer influence (drugs, violence) - Abuse - Negligent / deadbeat parents - Genetics
And the paper agrees with this. From the discussion section of the paper:
Although these results are suggestive, further data will be required to assess the specific effects of these functional changes on behavior. Because numerous studies have already linked exposure to violent media with an increase in aggressive behavior [6], it seems reasonable to consider the effect observed here as a plausible component of a mechanism; however, it is important to note that in an otherwise pacific individual, it is very unlikely that these exposure-related changes are a sufficient catalyst for the emergence of criminal aggression. The strongest evidence for this claim is the fact that, although many individuals watch violent media, relatively few go on to commit criminally violent acts. Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but from my understanding, the stimulus that we receive and what we do with the stimulus that we receive are two completely different things. The article and the published scientific findings do claim that the portion of the brain network that suppresses violent behavior becomes less active after repeated exposure. But it doesn't go so far so to discuss what happens afterwards. Does the brain recover? Will repeated exposure cause our brains to permanently inhibit its ability to suppress violent behavior? Furthermore, did the scientists screen the volunteers to see if they were predisposed to violence in their lives?
And maybe that's not what you're saying either. Correct me if I'm wrong.:)
Or THIS one:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=275887&cid=20322901 I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. The poster that you referenced seemed to be making a compelling argument that the parent should be the ultimate authority in what games their children plays, and not a group of politicians. These are two completely different discussions - one is within legal boundaries and the other is within scientific ones. Your arguments in that thread, by the way, were also interesting. I'm not claiming either one of you were right or wrong, just that it's legal vs. scientific.
They are not us citizens. They did not rob a starbucks. This is not a court matter. Stop trying to equate war criminals to U.S. citizens. Ah, so since they are not U.S. citizens, they should all be treated as sub-humans and be deprived of basic due process, regardless of their guilt or innocence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were hauled away under suspicion or anonymous tips, and that not all of them were caught "red handed" - with IEDs and a Jihadist manual?
And why are you suddenly calling them all War Criminals? That designation occurs after a lengthy process.
Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says. You tell us. What does the constitution say?
Interestingly enough, the parent poster never mentioned the constitution. You were the one that brought it up. What the parent was referring to was the fact that all people on this planet, regardless of citizenship, should have very basic rights. And the only way to determine guilt is through a trial with evidence before a jury of peers. Hell, even a military tribunal would be better than just legal limbo.
Anyway, since you brought up the Constitution:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I highlighted the word Person. The word person was NOT used by accident or out of convenience. The authors went through great pains to ensure that the word Person was used instead of the word Citizen, if only to avoid individuals such as yourself that believe that only U.S. Citizens have basic rights and nobody else.
Oh and I also italicized the part about the "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" because I know some person is going to say "SEE, the constitution says we can forget about due process in time of War or public danger." Wrong, it doesn't. That sentence refers to the fifth amendment not protecting those serving in the armed forces, which, in 1987, the Supreme Court held that members of the militia may be tried for any offense with indictments.
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment prevents individuals from being punished without "due process of law." Due process extends to all persons (including non-U.S. citizens) and corporate entities. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly binds the states with due process protections. I don't believe any individual here is against catching dangerous people committed to killing soldiers and civilians, but there needs to be some form of due process. Simply locking them up in a legal black hole and refusing to show any evidence on grounds that it is classified really doesn't seem like the correct approach.
(And before anyone says "But that only applies to Prisoners of War, not enemy combatants"...I know, but the enemy combatant designation was made to circumvent international law, so my point still stands.)
I know what you're getting at, but why compare apples to oranges? We're not al-Qaeda and the set of morals that we operate under must be different than theirs if we want to succeed. The wrong approach is to say "They're worse so we can do whatever we want." Furthermore, not every individual that has been taken into Guantanamo Bay has been proven guilty and very few of them have even seen an actual military tribunal. Others have been released after three to five years and will never know why they were there to begin with.
No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill. Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else. Not to nitpick, but the first thread, no less, had at least five posters calling the submission out as FUD. Even those that disagreed attempted to make some sort of logical assessment of the bill itself.
I visit slashdot for two reasons now:
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today, and maybe even have a good laugh. Unfortunately, sensationalism is what generates page hits, which generates revenues. I mean, it got you to view the post and make a comment, did it not? But I will say this in defense of/., go spend a week at Digg or the USAToday On Deadline Blog, and come back and revisit us here. No matter how jaded you may think political submissions and comments here are, I've come to realize that this is one of the few communities with experienced experts that try to contribute with intelligent discourse, if you can parse through the goatse links and the "I, for one, welcome our new $%$#%^3 overlord" memes.
If you spend a few days reading the aforementioned USAToday On Deadline blog, you'll see people spend all day flaming one another as "libtards, repukes, wingnuts, moonbats" and their solution to problems here and abroad is to bomb them back to the stone age. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, and I understand that just because there are worse websites out there doesn't mean that Slashdot should get a free pass. But even after all these years, I'm still impressed by this community. I can't say the same about the others.
When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics. But those that are jaded are just as relevant as those who seem to be willing to put 100% faith behind a Government that gave us FEMA, the Patriot Act, and a Terror Watch List that has over 755,000 names in it. (Some of them are likely dupes or variations of one another, but my point still stands.)
If there weren't enough people out there who would routinely question what the Government does, then the Government could come up with anything it wanted to. Perhaps using the terms quality control or sanity check can be too kind, but paranoia has its place in the overall scheme of things. We treat the Government as a single entity, but it is an entity composed of individuals with their own politics, agendas, and backgrounds. Oversight is needed, but I will agree with you that the oversight needs to be intelligent and can do without the sensationalism.
The topic of the submission was "Russian Software Piracy Crackdown Restricts Free Speech".
Every couple of weeks there are articles in russian press about police raids and confiscations of counterfeit CDs. I don't see any of these news here on/. But when the "free press" (which BTW is just as corrupt and self-involved as the ones they bash) is concerned, suddenly there's an article in WP and a helpful submission of our own "reporter".
I'm not disagreeing with your point of view as you have every right to it as much as Reporter does. But that's all I was asking for - just an example as to why you felt that this article was FUD. And since you mentioned that other confiscations exist, I found a link that also makes the claim that thousands upon thousands of pirated materials are confiscated.
Q: The authorities regularly report on yet another successful operation against the illegal manufacture and sale of audio and video materials. About 21 thousand tapes and videodisks were confiscated late January in St. Petersburg. Still, the pirates play their game. Can you tell us why the situation remains unchanged?
A: As far as I am concerned, the authorities talk a lot, but do too little. The police can shut down a wholesale warehouse stacked with illicit products but it is likely to be back in business one day after. Provided that payoffs are paid on time. You can even get back two-thirds of your stuff that was confiscated if you pay them an extra. Various police departments are supposed to combat the sale of pirated CDs and DVDs in Veliky Novgorod. Every time they would launch their "surprise" raids on the retail market, as a rule they do it once a year at the end of summer, we would be fully prepared to see them. A maximum fee for selling counterfeit products at retail is 4,000 rubles. My personal experience shows that the amount of fee can be subject to negotiation. Your punishment can be reduced to a warning if you are smart enough to offer some latest flick to an inspector you are dealing with.
Anyway...
I chose to call a selective representation of reality "FUD". Just like most of us call "Get The Facts" site reports about Windows vs. Linux performance. The results of the benchmarks were real, it's the test conditions that were...hmmm... uneven. Okay, putting it in this light, I cannot fault your reasoning. To be fair, the Washington Post article did make a slight reference that crackdowns are happening everywhere:
Police have raided businesses that play no political role, but without the sustained effort directed toward groups that are critical of the Kremlin.
"It's cynical, but it's also very difficult for us to say anything," said one Western observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the subject.
I still feel that the Russian government is using the piracy angle to stifle critics. It almost seems as if local merchants that sell pirated materials can get away with it much easier than those that run organizations that criticize the government. Still, while my feelings will differ with yours in this topic, I do appreciate your explanation as to why you felt it is FUD. It helps me understand a different angle that, as you point out, the Washington Post article did not properly explain.
While bashing a Cold War enemy is certainly fun, I don't see much "news for nerds" here. Keep/. politics focused on U.S., please. Wait, are you against FUD in general, or are you against FUD only when it applies to topics related to Russia? We cannot simply replace one "FUD" with another. (Emphasis placed as I am not claiming that the topic is FUD.)
The topic of the submission was "Russian Software Piracy Crackdown Restricts Free Speech". Again, emphasis mine. If we get rid of this article on the grounds that it is not news-for-nerds, then we might as well dismiss every article ever posted on/. that is related to the RIAA, MPAA, P2P, and File sharing.
Also, Slashdot has a worldwide readership. It would be a folly to filter out every topic that does not relate to the U.S. Regardless how how you may feel about the foreign news, worldwide political events will affect people in the States as much as anywhere else. For instance, there are plenty of foreign companies that do business in Russia. If any one of them ever use their position as a pulpit to disagree with the Kremlin, then they too may get a knock at the door for software piracy.
Lastly, you claim this article is FUD, as you say everything Reporter posts is. I don't see anywhere in your post your rebuttals or WHY you claim that it is FUD. I even read the original Washington Post article that this post linked to, and it seems pretty clear that Russia is only selectively enforcing copyright laws against organizations that have spoken out against the government.
That's not anti-Russian FUD, it's reality! Please explain to us why it is FUD. And saying "Because it is anti-Russian" doesn't cut it.
I'm guessing...he was teaching Six Sigma karate to underprivileged inner-city girls and, as happened with his wife, got too close and BAM...instant pregnancies all round. I'm not sure I know of many underprivileged inner-city girls who care much about:
Continuous efforts to reduce variation in process outputs is key to business success
Manufacturing and business processes can be measured, analyzed, improved and controlled
Succeeding at achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire organization, particularly from top-level management
Even at 'only' $250, it's that or a Wii. And the Wii is a stable platform, whereas your cutting edge premium card is going to look overpriced and behind the curve tomorrow - ask all the people who just ordered $400 8800 GTS cards how that feels.
Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why? That's a fair question. I purchased a $250 graphics card when I was building my system two years ago: XFX Geforce 7800 GT. (You're going to get some permutation of this answer at least 50 times.) I have yet to regret buying it. It served my purposes well for gaming and I was able to run every game that I owned at the time and even today at full settings without any problems. It would have been a complete waste of money had I purchased that card and used it only to play solitaire on my PC.
Furthermore, to address your point regarding the Wii or any other console-based system: I have a difficult time playing FPS, MMORPGs, and RTS games on consoles. Ever try to play Sim City for the console? Using a gamepad to move the character around while simultaneously aiming and firing in a FPS is even more difficult for me. Not everything available on the PC is available for consoles, so it is a matter of preference.
I will admit that games are more stable on consoles than they are on PCs, so I won't argue that PCs are superior just because it costs more. Price alone would never justify purchasing anything. But it really depends on how much it's worth to you the consumer. If I feel like I'm getting a real bargain for a graphics card at $250 - $400, or if I feel that the price tag is justified, then I have successfully met the definition of a sane consumer.
Oh, the fact he's making an unpopular comment about the corporate flavor of the month. I've noticed most flamebait posts on Slashdot actually make a valid point, however, the point is lost within a sea of comments that can start flamewars. So repeating common points that "Google is Evil, M$ is Evil, Apple fanbois are lu$ers" will certainly earn you a flamebait tag as it really does not help support your argument, and instead, will turn the thread quickly into something commonly found on Digg.
If someone really feels that Google is evil, they should take the time to spell out why they feel it is evil in the post rather than making that assertion with no facts to back it up. I've even noticed a growing trend here on Slashdot - yes, this very same Slashdot - to challenge baseless anti-Microsoft comments and articles, which was unheard of up until a few months ago.
The downside to the moderation here is that a lot of people do not understand the purpose of negative moderation, thus resort to using -1 Flamebait and -1 Troll on comments that they do not agree with. Those moderations should be saved for comments that have a malicious intent; comments meant to insult rather than contribute. (This does not mean that all insulting comments are flamebait.) So rather than moderating a comment down to Troll, Overrated, or Flamebait, they should instead reply to the comment as to why they disagree with its content.
As for the parent post, interestingly enough, they had one line that was relevant to the article:
There are other search engines out there. Pick a few and try them out. Everything else was about how awful Google is without mentioning anything specific.
Another poster, ceeam, said this about Yandex, but was instead moderated Informative:
Still, Yandex is unbelievable crap The difference between a flamebait and an informative post? Everything after that first line in ceeam's post was related to why they feel Yandex is unbelievable crap and related that to the article's topic of Google getting beaten out in local markets.
I'll stop here - I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.
To be fair, the fact that he found errors in his paper also contributed to him retracting it.
From the article:
Things grew worse when he reread his paper, he said, because he discovered errors. One related to what he called a "conjecture" about whether amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein and a crucial component of living things, could form naturally.
"Under the circumstances I mention, just a bunch of chemicals sitting together, no," he said. "Because it takes energy to go from the things that make glycine to glycine, glycine being the simplest amino acid."
There were potential sources of energy, he said. So to say that nothing much would happen in its absence "is totally beside the point." "And that is a point I did not make," he added".
Another assertion in the paper, about what would have had to occur simultaneously for living matter to arise, is just plain wrong, he said, adding, "It was a dumb mistake, but nobody ever caught me on it."
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, I'm a mess after an hour or so of Ninja Gaiden Sigma.
After reading the short article, I believe that the researchers need to look into this topic deeper. Especially after reading this comment: "This will help us develop an emotion and gaming questionnaire to distinguish the type of gamer who is likely to transfer their online aggression into everyday life." It seems to me that if someone were to transfer their online aggression into everyday life, they would do so anyway if you were to take away the online aspect. To put it in a clearer context, anyone who would go out and murder due to a video game would probably go out and murder for any other reason if the video games were taken away.
Another thought - is the stress relief due to the reward you get while playing? Is the simple action of slaying demons or sniping people what helps with the stress relief, or is the reward that you would get, such as a rare or epic item, money, or something telling you that you're awesome, what causes the change in mood?
Sorry for the obligatory Maddox reference.
Pink is the new White. And they'll use Google's new Custom time feature to e-mail the announcement to the media yesterday.
The first rule of war is: don't go to war.
The second rule of war is if you have to go to war make yourself invulnerable before you attack.
"Attack is the best defense" did not work for Germany in the 2nd world war. It didn't work in Vietnam or Korea. It's certainly not working for the US at the moment. You thought the poster meant "let's withdraw all forces, hunker down, and let everyone attack our defenses." Actually, MacArthur followed the second rule. The point being made was, an aggressive preemptive mentality often leads to defeat, which is why Japan and Germany lost their respective wars. The U.S. entering WWII was not an "attack mentality", but, an act of defense after we were attacked by Japan.
Fast forward to Vietnam and Iraq and you'll see why an attack mentality fails. How many years did it take the U.S. to realize that continuously being in attack mode in Iraq even AFTER the capture of Saddam Hussein did far more harm than the actual invasion itself? By the time the U.S. realized that we needed a peacetime force and not a full blown-out military force, the citizens of Iraq wanted us out and temporarily joined forces with al-Qaeda to form a resistance. (Only later did the Iraqis realize that al-Qaeda was far more interested in their own agenda than they were with helping the Iraqis, and turned against them too.)
And since you brought up Douglas MacArthur, read his bio, specifically: President John F. Kennedy solicited MacArthur's counsel in 1961. The first of two meetings was shortly after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. MacArthur was extremely critical of the Pentagon and its military advice to Kennedy. MacArthur also cautioned the young President to avoid a U.S. military build-up in Vietnam, pointing out domestic problems should be given a much greater priority. Shortly prior to his death he gave similar advice to the new President, Lyndon Johnson. Even the great General you were referencing earlier warned Kennedy and Johnson about an aggressive military build-up in Vietnam.
Or suffocate in the process. :\
No, on House they would have totally misdiagnosed her medical condition, given her an ass transplant, and when that didn't help, checked her for prostate cancer, then Alzheimer's, then gave her some drug that almost kills her, then amputate both legs, then 5 minutes before the show is over, say "hey... maybe it's her liver!".
Then all is well again and she goes home and doesn't even think to sue the incompetent morons for malpractice. Let's not forget...
but any whisper otherwise, and i say the world needs to invade iran. all of the trauma and death from that is nothing compared to what religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb are capable of I really hope it doesn't come to that. And I know that you're not wishing for a war either. I just hope that the citizens of Iran show their government the door before it ever boils down into a world war. I have family there and I'd prefer that the Iranians take care of their own problem rather than another country doing it. If my Grandparents and extended family were to be killed, I'd rather it be due to their own rebellion against the Iranian government and not a U.S. or Israeli bomb. here on slashdot, we are regularly reminded of the peril of religious fundamentalism: creationism, purposefully dumbing down of society, wrongminded social policies, the death of reason and science. and we are supposed to all of a sudden not worry when these people get nuclear weapons? I agree with this 1000%. I just don't think I could label the theocracy of Iran as blind, crazy fundamentalists as much as I do as opportunists who use religion to gain power to enslave a population. This is why I don't feel that they would ever pull the nuclear trigger were they to ever build a bomb. They have way more to lose than they would have to gain. But I've been wrong before. Let's just hope that I'm not in this case.
You made some very good points, by the way.
those are both 2 obvious facts Not according to the new Intelligence estimate. This is not a fact any more, as even our intelligence agency is telling us that Iran abandoned acquiring nukes years ago, which left President Bush scrambling. forget all of the spin you have heard from every ideology and government entity in the entire world
doesn't just those two facts, all by their very selves, concern you, regardless of what anyone else's thinks for or against iran?
a theocracy
with nukes
what does that mean to you? Not much. Yeah, it sounds scary on paper. But seriously, we had the same FUD issue with the Russians during the Cold War. Cooler heads prevailed in the end. Oh sure, there were the proxy wars that we had in South America where we armed rebels to the teeth, but we also kept an entire country scared of a scenario where the former Soviet Union would launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. and we would be seeing mushroom clouds everywhere. How many households built bomb shelters in the 70s and 80s? No, a direct nuclear war with the former Soviet Union never happened.
Actually it almost became a self-fulfilling prophecy. We kept scaring ourselves of the Soviets, so we prepared counter-measures against them. This scared them into thinking that we were going to attack them, so they kept coming up with their own maneuvers. Because of the fear, we had guns trained on one another and all it would have taken was one itchy trigger finger to unleash a massive war.
Hell, we went as far as having a witch-hunt in the U.S. where ANY individual remotely affiliated with communism would have their careers destroyed. Today? We're actively trading with China and holding meetings with North Korea. And the only reason why we haven't opened any dialog with Cuba is because of the influence of the Florida Cuban population. Oh the Cubans are so brutal towards their population, yet we get along so well with Egypt and the Saudis who do way worse to theirs.
The only difference is that today our new boogeymen are Islamic mullahs as opposed to the Communists of yesterday.
We have every satellite trained in the Middle East and I'm certain Israel has war plans in case Iran does ever get any idea of starting a foolish nuclear war. Believe me, I'm Iranian and I KNOW what the corrupt, evil government of Iran is capable of at this point, and starting a nuclear war is not one of them. And don't think that there aren't people within Iran that want the government of Iran taken down. We now have students in the University of Tehran protest over the government more frequently and get beaten down. But the second the US or Israel threatens Iran, the citizens over there get all nationalistic again.
Anyway, I went a bit off-topic there. Didn't the war with Iraq teach us anything about subscribing to doomsday scenarios where some country is thought to be acquiring nukes and will use it against us?
Netcraft confirms it!
There, that should seal the deal.
Evidently, not many people who read
I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers. There can be other issues that occur in the child's life that may contribute to violence:
- Bad upbringing
- Peer influence (drugs, violence)
- Abuse
- Negligent / deadbeat parents
- Genetics
And the paper agrees with this. From the discussion section of the paper: Although these results are suggestive, further data will be required to assess the specific effects of these functional changes on behavior. Because numerous studies have already linked exposure to violent media with an increase in aggressive behavior [6], it seems reasonable to consider the effect observed here as a plausible component of a mechanism; however, it is important to note that in an otherwise pacific individual, it is very unlikely that these exposure-related changes are a sufficient catalyst for the emergence of criminal aggression. The strongest evidence for this claim is the fact that, although many individuals watch violent media, relatively few go on to commit criminally violent acts. Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but from my understanding, the stimulus that we receive and what we do with the stimulus that we receive are two completely different things. The article and the published scientific findings do claim that the portion of the brain network that suppresses violent behavior becomes less active after repeated exposure. But it doesn't go so far so to discuss what happens afterwards. Does the brain recover? Will repeated exposure cause our brains to permanently inhibit its ability to suppress violent behavior? Furthermore, did the scientists screen the volunteers to see if they were predisposed to violence in their lives?
And maybe that's not what you're saying either. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=275887&cid=20322901 I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. The poster that you referenced seemed to be making a compelling argument that the parent should be the ultimate authority in what games their children plays, and not a group of politicians. These are two completely different discussions - one is within legal boundaries and the other is within scientific ones. Your arguments in that thread, by the way, were also interesting. I'm not claiming either one of you were right or wrong, just that it's legal vs. scientific.
And why are you suddenly calling them all War Criminals? That designation occurs after a lengthy process. Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says. You tell us. What does the constitution say?
Interestingly enough, the parent poster never mentioned the constitution. You were the one that brought it up. What the parent was referring to was the fact that all people on this planet, regardless of citizenship, should have very basic rights. And the only way to determine guilt is through a trial with evidence before a jury of peers. Hell, even a military tribunal would be better than just legal limbo.
Anyway, since you brought up the Constitution: Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I highlighted the word Person. The word person was NOT used by accident or out of convenience. The authors went through great pains to ensure that the word Person was used instead of the word Citizen, if only to avoid individuals such as yourself that believe that only U.S. Citizens have basic rights and nobody else.
Oh and I also italicized the part about the "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" because I know some person is going to say "SEE, the constitution says we can forget about due process in time of War or public danger." Wrong, it doesn't. That sentence refers to the fifth amendment not protecting those serving in the armed forces, which, in 1987, the Supreme Court held that members of the militia may be tried for any offense with indictments.
Reference: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
And also:
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment prevents individuals from being punished without "due process of law." Due process extends to all persons (including non-U.S. citizens) and corporate entities. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly binds the states with due process protections. I don't believe any individual here is against catching dangerous people committed to killing soldiers and civilians, but there needs to be some form of due process. Simply locking them up in a legal black hole and refusing to show any evidence on grounds that it is classified really doesn't seem like the correct approach.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html How's about comparing it to the Geneva Conventions ?
(And before anyone says "But that only applies to Prisoners of War, not enemy combatants"...I know, but the enemy combatant designation was made to circumvent international law, so my point still stands.)
I know what you're getting at, but why compare apples to oranges? We're not al-Qaeda and the set of morals that we operate under must be different than theirs if we want to succeed. The wrong approach is to say "They're worse so we can do whatever we want." Furthermore, not every individual that has been taken into Guantanamo Bay has been proven guilty and very few of them have even seen an actual military tribunal. Others have been released after three to five years and will never know why they were there to begin with.
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today, and maybe even have a good laugh. Unfortunately, sensationalism is what generates page hits, which generates revenues. I mean, it got you to view the post and make a comment, did it not? But I will say this in defense of
If you spend a few days reading the aforementioned USAToday On Deadline blog, you'll see people spend all day flaming one another as "libtards, repukes, wingnuts, moonbats" and their solution to problems here and abroad is to bomb them back to the stone age. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, and I understand that just because there are worse websites out there doesn't mean that Slashdot should get a free pass. But even after all these years, I'm still impressed by this community. I can't say the same about the others. When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics. But those that are jaded are just as relevant as those who seem to be willing to put 100% faith behind a Government that gave us FEMA, the Patriot Act, and a Terror Watch List that has over 755,000 names in it. (Some of them are likely dupes or variations of one another, but my point still stands.)
If there weren't enough people out there who would routinely question what the Government does, then the Government could come up with anything it wanted to. Perhaps using the terms quality control or sanity check can be too kind, but paranoia has its place in the overall scheme of things. We treat the Government as a single entity, but it is an entity composed of individuals with their own politics, agendas, and backgrounds. Oversight is needed, but I will agree with you that the oversight needs to be intelligent and can do without the sensationalism.
Sorry for the incessant rambling.
They were looking for your car ;)
I'm not disagreeing with your point of view as you have every right to it as much as Reporter does. But that's all I was asking for - just an example as to why you felt that this article was FUD. And since you mentioned that other confiscations exist, I found a link that also makes the claim that thousands upon thousands of pirated materials are confiscated.
Millions of bootleg tapes, CDs and DVDs are being sold across Russia
Anyway... I chose to call a selective representation of reality "FUD". Just like most of us call "Get The Facts" site reports about Windows vs. Linux performance. The results of the benchmarks were real, it's the test conditions that were
Police have raided businesses that play no political role, but without the sustained effort directed toward groups that are critical of the Kremlin.
"It's cynical, but it's also very difficult for us to say anything," said one Western observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the subject.
I still feel that the Russian government is using the piracy angle to stifle critics. It almost seems as if local merchants that sell pirated materials can get away with it much easier than those that run organizations that criticize the government. Still, while my feelings will differ with yours in this topic, I do appreciate your explanation as to why you felt it is FUD. It helps me understand a different angle that, as you point out, the Washington Post article did not properly explain.
The topic of the submission was "Russian Software Piracy Crackdown Restricts Free Speech". Again, emphasis mine. If we get rid of this article on the grounds that it is not news-for-nerds, then we might as well dismiss every article ever posted on
Also, Slashdot has a worldwide readership. It would be a folly to filter out every topic that does not relate to the U.S. Regardless how how you may feel about the foreign news, worldwide political events will affect people in the States as much as anywhere else. For instance, there are plenty of foreign companies that do business in Russia. If any one of them ever use their position as a pulpit to disagree with the Kremlin, then they too may get a knock at the door for software piracy.
Lastly, you claim this article is FUD, as you say everything Reporter posts is. I don't see anywhere in your post your rebuttals or WHY you claim that it is FUD. I even read the original Washington Post article that this post linked to, and it seems pretty clear that Russia is only selectively enforcing copyright laws against organizations that have spoken out against the government.
That's not anti-Russian FUD, it's reality! Please explain to us why it is FUD. And saying "Because it is anti-Russian" doesn't cut it.
Why was your post modded informative, and not insightful?
Let alone get pregnant off of it.
Six Sigma Black Belt Certification
It makes perfect sense. Global warming is wiping out the number of Pirates. This must really be Apple's fault!
Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why? That's a fair question. I purchased a $250 graphics card when I was building my system two years ago: XFX Geforce 7800 GT. (You're going to get some permutation of this answer at least 50 times.) I have yet to regret buying it. It served my purposes well for gaming and I was able to run every game that I owned at the time and even today at full settings without any problems. It would have been a complete waste of money had I purchased that card and used it only to play solitaire on my PC.
Furthermore, to address your point regarding the Wii or any other console-based system: I have a difficult time playing FPS, MMORPGs, and RTS games on consoles. Ever try to play Sim City for the console? Using a gamepad to move the character around while simultaneously aiming and firing in a FPS is even more difficult for me. Not everything available on the PC is available for consoles, so it is a matter of preference.
I will admit that games are more stable on consoles than they are on PCs, so I won't argue that PCs are superior just because it costs more. Price alone would never justify purchasing anything. But it really depends on how much it's worth to you the consumer. If I feel like I'm getting a real bargain for a graphics card at $250 - $400, or if I feel that the price tag is justified, then I have successfully met the definition of a sane consumer.
Oh, the fact he's making an unpopular comment about the corporate flavor of the month. I've noticed most flamebait posts on Slashdot actually make a valid point, however, the point is lost within a sea of comments that can start flamewars. So repeating common points that "Google is Evil, M$ is Evil, Apple fanbois are lu$ers" will certainly earn you a flamebait tag as it really does not help support your argument, and instead, will turn the thread quickly into something commonly found on Digg.
If someone really feels that Google is evil, they should take the time to spell out why they feel it is evil in the post rather than making that assertion with no facts to back it up. I've even noticed a growing trend here on Slashdot - yes, this very same Slashdot - to challenge baseless anti-Microsoft comments and articles, which was unheard of up until a few months ago.
The downside to the moderation here is that a lot of people do not understand the purpose of negative moderation, thus resort to using -1 Flamebait and -1 Troll on comments that they do not agree with. Those moderations should be saved for comments that have a malicious intent; comments meant to insult rather than contribute. (This does not mean that all insulting comments are flamebait.) So rather than moderating a comment down to Troll, Overrated, or Flamebait, they should instead reply to the comment as to why they disagree with its content.
As for the parent post, interestingly enough, they had one line that was relevant to the article: There are other search engines out there. Pick a few and try them out. Everything else was about how awful Google is without mentioning anything specific.
Another poster, ceeam, said this about Yandex, but was instead moderated Informative: Still, Yandex is unbelievable crap The difference between a flamebait and an informative post? Everything after that first line in ceeam's post was related to why they feel Yandex is unbelievable crap and related that to the article's topic of Google getting beaten out in local markets.
I'll stop here - I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.
They are, but under the monikers -1 Troll and -1 Flamebait.
From the article: Things grew worse when he reread his paper, he said, because he discovered errors. One related to what he called a "conjecture" about whether amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein and a crucial component of living things, could form naturally.
"Under the circumstances I mention, just a bunch of chemicals sitting together, no," he said. "Because it takes energy to go from the things that make glycine to glycine, glycine being the simplest amino acid."
There were potential sources of energy, he said. So to say that nothing much would happen in its absence "is totally beside the point." "And that is a point I did not make," he added".
Another assertion in the paper, about what would have had to occur simultaneously for living matter to arise, is just plain wrong, he said, adding, "It was a dumb mistake, but nobody ever caught me on it."