I disagree. I think it's because a lot of the strong Democrat Senators are (a) too busy with worrying about primaries that are going to happen nearly a year before the general election, and who are also (b) eyeing the White House and drooling over the thought of what kinds of powers this idiot administration has left them with.
It comes back to an unfortunate consequence of our two-party system, where if you're the party who isn't in power, you don't try to undo the evils of those in power, you try to become the power and take advantage of where the last scumbags left off. 90% of the dissidents in this country are cyring "Oust Bush, Oust Bush!" instead of "Restore Freedom or We'll Vote Libertarian/Green/whatever," and the Democratic leadership is only happy to comply.
2. Human reaction time is about one second, give or take a few hundred milliseconds. There's no way to get it significantly lower than that. It's actually closer to about a quarter of a second. Look it up.
Note to self: be doubly sure to double-check facts when trying to sound intelligent.
You make an interesting claim. Do you have any data to back it up, or do we just have to take your word for it? I'm all about saving lives on the road, so if you can show us some data, I'm behind you 100% on this one.
(Here come the "Troll/Flamebait" ratings, but if you're going to post a story about organized religion, what do you expect? Oh well, bye-bye karma...)
Personally I think it's sad that the church looks at Halo and can't realize that many people draw a lot of similarities between modern, organized Christianity and the Covenant...
refusal to question authority, eradication of heretics, belief in something ridiculous against all other evidence...
yep, sounds pretty much like what the corrupted leaders of the church do.
And, one last thing before I get modded down, I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity. I do have experience here. Don't tell me I "don't know what Christianity is like."
[stepping down from soapbox and shuffling back into the bar...]
Hear, hear! I am going to go back to school to get a degree in Education to teach the arts because I'm afraid that all this emphasis on S&T will make us fucking robots. We need to have balance!
As someone else whose family (and own history) is chock full of education, I agree with you, but I think you may be missing the point.
Discipline, respect, and hard work are all very good things for a working society, and thus they made their way into classical education, which is there not only for education but for social conditioning. (How many times have you said that home-school kids need to go to public school for social learning, if nothing else?) So, naturally, if discipline and respect are instilled at home, that child will do well in our education system, which demands discipline and respect...
...and coloring inside the lines. I think that's partly what this (CEO of a tech company who says schools need to buy more tech / successful, passionate person who thinks we need School v2.0) guy is saying, or if it's not, it's what he should be saying. One of my favorite quotes (here paraphrased) is from Einstein: It is a miracle that creativity survives public education.
So, yes, you're right, disciplined, respectful kids will do better in our system of education, but I don't think that necessarily means they're better learners. I was one of those disciplined and respectful kids, and I am intelligent, but some things I just can't learn, because I think inside the box, as a product of these environments that reward conformity. My wife, on the other hand, was a hellion child, broke all kinds of rules, and is just as intelligent as I am, and she can pick up new things and think creatively, which, unfortunately, is not as favorable in a school environment.
Seriously, be honest with yourself: why do schools have rules? Dress codes? Set hours? A (terribly set up) grading system? I predict that with your strong background in education, you will be staunchly opposed to any change in this, and you will point to "hippie teachers" as a good example of why it doesn't work, but like I said, it just depends on what the system itself rewards.
Just when I start to wonder if people who think differently from me might have a better way of thinking, I read some delusional crackpot statement like this:
Let's say for a minute, that global warming does come to pass, antarctica and iceland melt, the oceans rise, and even a billion people drown. My answer is: so what. A billion people die, and you say "so what?" That's triple the population of the United States! Were you one of those people who called for death and destruction on "evr'y last one of them damn'd Arabanian tow'lheads" after 9/11? That was a few thousand people. Do you still support what we have done to the people of Iraq because you think they want our way of life? That's a few hundred thousand people. Have you ever heard of World War 1, the Holocaust, Stalin, or the Kmher Rouge? Put them all together, and it's still a pittance compared to a billion people. So are you telling me those don't matter, either?
look at all the construction jobs you'll get, and you'll have cities built with better transportation and newer technology. New York, London, and other coastal cities are all old anyway and its time to just move on. If you think that the destruction of America's major coastal cities (hmmm... New York=center of finance, DC=center of government, LA= ok who cares about LA:O... ) will leave us in a position to think our economy will be great because of all the new jobs created, you're not thinking about the big picture. You're not even thinking about a little picture.
I'm sorry, I was giving serious consideration to your wisdom before you said you were OK with a billion people dying!
By the way, [Run:Expose_my_ignorance.exe], if these stars are 7-10 billion light years away, what does this mean for the age of the universe? I'd always heard something around 6 billion years... Doesn't it mean that these stars are 7-10 billion years old?
imho old persons become conservative just because of decline of cognitive functions due to old age. imho you're not old enough to have the experience required to know just how valuable experience can be. It may be incorrect to say that brain decay makes you conservative as you age, but what you are saying reveals that you are in denial about what is happening as you age.
In psychology, we call them "schemata." It's the mental organization that your brain has created to help you simplify information. It's basically how you keep from going crazy as you acquire more information. It's also how we get things like racial stereotypes, unfortunately.
Generally, yes, you become more conservative as you get older. One poster suggested that this was because of brain decay... maybe, maybe not. A major contributing factor is schemata.
When you're a child, and you see a stop sign for the first time, you see: an eight-side figure, a red figure, some letters, etc. When you're 25 and you've seen them all your life, it quickly registers in your mind as a stop sign. This is an example (best I can do on short notice) of schemata.
As you age, you acquire more and more information, and it becomes more and more necessary to use schemata. Therefore, you jump to conclusions more quickly and are less likely to give new information its due consideration, preferring to sort it by your schemata (hence, as in tfa, pressing "M" when a "W" comes up), and making you more conservative.
If you really do value experience and age, by the way, then you should know better than to take offense from some whippersnapper who says you're stupid because you're either old or conservative.
Can you cite some data on this for me? Was there a Gallup poll that I missed? We can go back and forth on these all day.
For example, you think that somebody is a sexual deviant because they are open-minded and not adhering to the structures of society in general; in essence, because they are liberal. Whereas, somebody like me might think that people become sexually deviant because they have tried (and failed) to adhere to the structures of society; in short, a conservative.
Unless you are trying to help prove the point of the article: that conservatives do not deal with conflict as well, which would be why you seem to think that being a sexual deviant is comparable to being stupid.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just sit around all day and talk about our opinions, and whoever had the best argument was right?
That's the method of ancient Greek philosophy, and while it was great at the time, we've developed this thing since called "scientific research." There were these guys named Galileo and Newton, among a multitude of others, who figured out that merely holding an opinion does not make you right. They went out into the world and found answers.
Sadly, years of research suggest that you are very very wrong. Violence in television and video games leads to aggressive behavior. It's been tested. Over, and over, and over again, flying in the face of what we gamers don't want to believe... but it is nonetheless true.
Want some information on studies? Here you go: this first one is a guy to whom the psychological community basically defers when talking about youths and media-related violence:
In fact, the psychology community is so sure that there is a major link between media-violence and aggression that they have been making statements since the 80's admonishing parents and the community to do something about it:
Or, if you like, here's the meat:
"WHEREAS, the great majority of research studies have found a relationship between televised violence and behaving aggressively, and
WHEREAS, the conclusion drawn on the basis of 25 years of research and a sizable number of experimental and field investigations (NIMH, 1972, 1982) is that viewing televised violence may lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children" The above goes on to say why they think something needs to be done by parents and the government about media violence. For all of you on/. who say that global warming is incontrovertible because the scientific community at large supports it (and I am generally on your side here), this is the same thing... except that the opinion of the scientific community has been the same since the 60's.
Some people at this point might not yet be convinced, saying that "video games and TV are totally different." This is, of course, ludicrous... video games are becoming so life-like anymore, and I can't say for sure, but I bet that since we're talking about "learned behavior," and younger generations are more apt to learn by doing than by simply watching, video games are actually more influential than TV. But, that's just a guess, and you want a study. Fine.
Since video games specifically are newer than TV, not as much research has been done on them. Still, here's info on study on video-game violence dating back to 2000:
We can give anecdotes until we're blue in the face about how we play GTA but we don't shoot hookers. But science holds firm above anecdotes, my friends.
I only ever managed to make it about an hour into the game. Legacy was definitely a bitchin' hard game, but like we've said, you got your money's worth on those NES games. That one does get my vote. Sort of like Mario Bros. meets Final Fantasy, and it didn't suck!
Of course, Legacy got about 10x harder when I lost the booklet and couldn't figure out how to play...
... but that is just heartbreaking. I never thought that videogames would make me feel depressed, but you just did it for me. I've always held your sentiments, but never were they expressed in such a sublime way.
I feel a little ridiculous getting emotional about videogames, but I suppose they really are a big part of many of our lives. If I could Mod your post "+1, Depressingly Nostalgic" I would.
Maybe to save myself from redundancy, how do you Slashdotters manage to find games that still challenge you based on abilities rather than investing your lives into them?
The problem that I have with the legalisation argument is that you are going to be depending on one of two bodies for control of drugs in the US: the federal government, or the pharmaceutical industry.
Boy, I sure (FEMA) feel safe in (REAL ID) the hands and (FDA) wisdom of the federal government. Equally as much do I feel (Fosamax) that the ever-benevolent (Adderall) drug industry would be (Vioxx cover-ups) very responsible and ethical regarding decisions about drugs with high risk of addiction and death.
While you're all right about the idiotic justice system in this country, legalising such drugs and putting them under control of the government/pharm industry would be like taking the Death Star away from Palpatine and handing it over to a Hutt...
[...]it is unlikely that a President will seriously impact what is taught in the tens of thousands of school districts across the nation (who pick their own cirriculum generally).
No Child Left Behind has effected some of the most serious changes in curriculum since we figured out that Duck and Cover won't quite cut it.
The majority of teachers (my family among them) don't have the opportunity to teach anything but test questions, because that's what the curriculum has become. Who cares about teaching application of knowledge? That's not on the test. Who cares about teaching how to question your sources? That's not on the test either.
With the federal government doing all it can to strangle the states into non-entities, a President is ever gaining more power to adversely effect our schools.
If WotC wants me to buy more books they should lower the price to something realistic.
The price of their core books is entirely realistic. I work for a major textbook publisher. Anytime somebody complains about buying a $100 textbook when it only costs $3.79 to print one reveals a true ignorance of how business works. There are so many people behind that book.The rest of that $96.21 goes to the authors, the writers (it's a terribly annoying difference), the editors, the marketers, the advertisers, the printers, and scores of other people.
The price is not the problem. The problem is that instead of coming out with a new edition every six months or so, they would do better to spend longer crafting this book and listening to their market... or, if you want terms you can understand, WotC has been consistently taking 10 when they should be taking 20.
I think you're brushing up against some good concepts here, but you're not quite hitting them on the mark.
Sorry dude, but I consider Warcraft lore (not just that in WoW, but across the Warcraft games in general) to be up there with LOTR. And if people like something, then it isn't bad. Be elitist about it all you want. Something is only truly bad if no one likes it. There really is no clear delineation between "good" and "bad" like you claim, only what we like or don't like.
Popularity is absolutely not a sign of quality, it is a sign of accessibility. Examples: Kelly Clarkson, Budweiser, McDonald's, Windows, The Today Show, John Grisham novels (most), our President.
OK, that last one was just a cheap shot, but the others are perfect examples. Anybody who raves about how Windows is the best OS out there is a dribbling lunatic. McDonald's used to claim (maybe still do) that their fries were "America's Favorite"-- they based that claim on the number of fries sold, not on a nationwide taste test. And do I buy more Budweiser than any other beer? Maybe, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that I want a can of Bud more than a bottle of Guinness or Leinenkugel.
The "true roleplaying style of gaming" is only what you make it. What is dying, if anything, is YOUR definition of that concept. I'm sorry, but there is no one true path for a game to be an RPG.
Brief disclaimer: for my part, I generally disagree with what you've been saying about WoW vs D&D-- for me, no video game will ever provide a better experience than a table-top game. A GM doesn't have to follow any rules but his/her own, and a player is limited only by imagination. But, like you've made clear, that's what I want it to be.
My personal opinions aside, you're absolutely right on with your last point: what keeps roleplayers going is that they make roleplaying what they want it to be, whether it's hack and slash or total conversation. Five points for Gryffindor.
The poster definitely should learn some grammar before posting again; I found the post to be just as confusing as you did. The problem comes when you try to sound intelligent. When you say "punctuation," do you mean "capitalization?"
"Punctuation" refers to the marks made to designate clauses, phrases and sentences (i.e. periods, commas and parentheses). It has very little to do with understanding proper nouns and capitalization.
Don't you just love it when somebody tries to sound all brilliant by cracking on the poster... and they're just as wrong as the poster was?:D
This is ridiculous. I can't believe it's making a headline. Of course playing aggressive video games can contribute to aggressive behavior. This is the same thing that has been scientifically shown with violent TV.
I can't recall the name of the study, but the control group watched shows like Teletubbies, and the experiment group watched shows like Power Rangers, and guess what? By the start of the very next day, the kids who watched the violent TV show were more aggressive on the playground.
While it's unspeakably hypocritical that the US deposed a democratically elected foreign official, and while that means that we should have learned at least back then, if not by now, that we are not an infallible world policeman...
You are incorrect that a nuclear infrastructure held by a theocratic nation is not a threat because of MAD (or, because of number or nukes)
You still need delivery vehicles. As for that, I think the ratio of USA to Iran is roughly 20,000:0 MAD worked for the US and USSR in the cold war because there weren't thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people in both countries who were willing to die just to kill each other. If you hadn't noticed, there is evidence which suggests that certain religious folks see nothing better than committing suicide in order to take the life of a perceived enemy.
Watered-down for you: If people will kill themselves with a chest-bomb WTF do you think they're going to do with a nuke?!
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. I think it's because a lot of the strong Democrat Senators are (a) too busy with worrying about primaries that are going to happen nearly a year before the general election, and who are also (b) eyeing the White House and drooling over the thought of what kinds of powers this idiot administration has left them with.
It comes back to an unfortunate consequence of our two-party system, where if you're the party who isn't in power, you don't try to undo the evils of those in power, you try to become the power and take advantage of where the last scumbags left off. 90% of the dissidents in this country are cyring "Oust Bush, Oust Bush!" instead of "Restore Freedom or We'll Vote Libertarian/Green/whatever," and the Democratic leadership is only happy to comply.
Thanks.
Note to self: be doubly sure to double-check facts when trying to sound intelligent.
You make an interesting claim. Do you have any data to back it up, or do we just have to take your word for it? I'm all about saving lives on the road, so if you can show us some data, I'm behind you 100% on this one.
Out of curiosity, can you back this data up? That's a very interesting statistic, and if true, seems to be very supportive of solar power.
Simpsons? Futurama? That sounds really familiar...
(Here come the "Troll/Flamebait" ratings, but if you're going to post a story about organized religion, what do you expect? Oh well, bye-bye karma...)
Personally I think it's sad that the church looks at Halo and can't realize that many people draw a lot of similarities between modern, organized Christianity and the Covenant...
refusal to question authority, eradication of heretics, belief in something ridiculous against all other evidence...
yep, sounds pretty much like what the corrupted leaders of the church do.
And, one last thing before I get modded down, I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity. I do have experience here. Don't tell me I "don't know what Christianity is like."
[stepping down from soapbox and shuffling back into the bar...]
Hear, hear! I am going to go back to school to get a degree in Education to teach the arts because I'm afraid that all this emphasis on S&T will make us fucking robots. We need to have balance!
Discipline, respect, and hard work are all very good things for a working society, and thus they made their way into classical education, which is there not only for education but for social conditioning. (How many times have you said that home-school kids need to go to public school for social learning, if nothing else?) So, naturally, if discipline and respect are instilled at home, that child will do well in our education system, which demands discipline and respect...
So, yes, you're right, disciplined, respectful kids will do better in our system of education, but I don't think that necessarily means they're better learners. I was one of those disciplined and respectful kids, and I am intelligent, but some things I just can't learn, because I think inside the box, as a product of these environments that reward conformity. My wife, on the other hand, was a hellion child, broke all kinds of rules, and is just as intelligent as I am, and she can pick up new things and think creatively, which, unfortunately, is not as favorable in a school environment.
Seriously, be honest with yourself: why do schools have rules? Dress codes? Set hours? A (terribly set up) grading system? I predict that with your strong background in education, you will be staunchly opposed to any change in this, and you will point to "hippie teachers" as a good example of why it doesn't work, but like I said, it just depends on what the system itself rewards.
Do you still support what we have done to the people of Iraq because you think they want our way of life? That's a few hundred thousand people.
Have you ever heard of World War 1, the Holocaust, Stalin, or the Kmher Rouge? Put them all together, and it's still a pittance compared to a billion people. So are you telling me those don't matter, either? look at all the construction jobs you'll get, and you'll have cities built with better transportation and newer technology. New York, London, and other coastal cities are all old anyway and its time to just move on. If you think that the destruction of America's major coastal cities (hmmm... New York=center of finance, DC=center of government, LA= ok who cares about LA
I'm sorry, I was giving serious consideration to your wisdom before you said you were OK with a billion people dying!
Any lawyers out there? What does it mean when someone is released on their own recognizance? I read that about OJ the other day, and now it's in TFA.
By the way, [Run:Expose_my_ignorance.exe], if these stars are 7-10 billion light years away, what does this mean for the age of the universe? I'd always heard something around 6 billion years... Doesn't it mean that these stars are 7-10 billion years old?
In psychology, we call them "schemata." It's the mental organization that your brain has created to help you simplify information. It's basically how you keep from going crazy as you acquire more information. It's also how we get things like racial stereotypes, unfortunately.
Generally, yes, you become more conservative as you get older. One poster suggested that this was because of brain decay... maybe, maybe not. A major contributing factor is schemata.
When you're a child, and you see a stop sign for the first time, you see: an eight-side figure, a red figure, some letters, etc. When you're 25 and you've seen them all your life, it quickly registers in your mind as a stop sign. This is an example (best I can do on short notice) of schemata.
As you age, you acquire more and more information, and it becomes more and more necessary to use schemata. Therefore, you jump to conclusions more quickly and are less likely to give new information its due consideration, preferring to sort it by your schemata (hence, as in tfa, pressing "M" when a "W" comes up), and making you more conservative.
If you really do value experience and age, by the way, then you should know better than to take offense from some whippersnapper who says you're stupid because you're either old or conservative.
Can you cite some data on this for me? Was there a Gallup poll that I missed? We can go back and forth on these all day.
For example, you think that somebody is a sexual deviant because they are open-minded and not adhering to the structures of society in general; in essence, because they are liberal. Whereas, somebody like me might think that people become sexually deviant because they have tried (and failed) to adhere to the structures of society; in short, a conservative.
Unless you are trying to help prove the point of the article: that conservatives do not deal with conflict as well, which would be why you seem to think that being a sexual deviant is comparable to being stupid.
That's the method of ancient Greek philosophy, and while it was great at the time, we've developed this thing since called "scientific research." There were these guys named Galileo and Newton, among a multitude of others, who figured out that merely holding an opinion does not make you right. They went out into the world and found answers.
Sadly, years of research suggest that you are very very wrong. Violence in television and video games leads to aggressive behavior. It's been tested. Over, and over, and over again, flying in the face of what we gamers don't want to believe... but it is nonetheless true.
Want some information on studies? Here you go: this first one is a guy to whom the psychological community basically defers when talking about youths and media-related violence:
Albert Bandura's study: http://www.psychologymatters.org/bandura2.html
In fact, the psychology community is so sure that there is a major link between media-violence and aggression that they have been making statements since the 80's admonishing parents and the community to do something about it:
American Psychological Association on TV violence: http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmpubint5.html
Or, if you like, here's the meat: "WHEREAS, the great majority of research studies have found a relationship between televised violence and behaving aggressively, and WHEREAS, the conclusion drawn on the basis of 25 years of research and a sizable number of experimental and field investigations (NIMH, 1972, 1982) is that viewing televised violence may lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children" The above goes on to say why they think something needs to be done by parents and the government about media violence. For all of you on
Some people at this point might not yet be convinced, saying that "video games and TV are totally different." This is, of course, ludicrous... video games are becoming so life-like anymore, and I can't say for sure, but I bet that since we're talking about "learned behavior," and younger generations are more apt to learn by doing than by simply watching, video games are actually more influential than TV. But, that's just a guess, and you want a study. Fine.
Since video games specifically are newer than TV, not as much research has been done on them. Still, here's info on study on video-game violence dating back to 2000:
Article citing Anderson's study on video games: http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.ht
We can give anecdotes until we're blue in the face about how we play GTA but we don't shoot hookers. But science holds firm above anecdotes, my friends.
I only ever managed to make it about an hour into the game. Legacy was definitely a bitchin' hard game, but like we've said, you got your money's worth on those NES games. That one does get my vote. Sort of like Mario Bros. meets Final Fantasy, and it didn't suck!
Of course, Legacy got about 10x harder when I lost the booklet and couldn't figure out how to play...
... but that is just heartbreaking. I never thought that videogames would make me feel depressed, but you just did it for me. I've always held your sentiments, but never were they expressed in such a sublime way.
I feel a little ridiculous getting emotional about videogames, but I suppose they really are a big part of many of our lives. If I could Mod your post "+1, Depressingly Nostalgic" I would.
Maybe to save myself from redundancy, how do you Slashdotters manage to find games that still challenge you based on abilities rather than investing your lives into them?
The problem that I have with the legalisation argument is that you are going to be depending on one of two bodies for control of drugs in the US: the federal government, or the pharmaceutical industry.
- Injury-C1/Fosamax-P76
- Injury-C1/Adderall-P16/
Boy, I sure (FEMA) feel safe in (REAL ID) the hands and (FDA) wisdom of the federal government. Equally as much do I feel (Fosamax) that the ever-benevolent (Adderall) drug industry would be (Vioxx cover-ups) very responsible and ethical regarding decisions about drugs with high risk of addiction and death.
While you're all right about the idiotic justice system in this country, legalising such drugs and putting them under control of the government/pharm industry would be like taking the Death Star away from Palpatine and handing it over to a Hutt...
------ Related links:
Fosamax * http://www.lawyerseek.com/Practice/Pharmaceutical
Adderall * http://www.lawyerseek.com/Practice/Pharmaceutical
Vioxx * http://www.newstarget.com/003068.html
No Child Left Behind has effected some of the most serious changes in curriculum since we figured out that Duck and Cover won't quite cut it.
The majority of teachers (my family among them) don't have the opportunity to teach anything but test questions, because that's what the curriculum has become. Who cares about teaching application of knowledge? That's not on the test. Who cares about teaching how to question your sources? That's not on the test either.
With the federal government doing all it can to strangle the states into non-entities, a President is ever gaining more power to adversely effect our schools.
The price of their core books is entirely realistic. I work for a major textbook publisher. Anytime somebody complains about buying a $100 textbook when it only costs $3.79 to print one reveals a true ignorance of how business works. There are so many people behind that book.The rest of that $96.21 goes to the authors, the writers (it's a terribly annoying difference), the editors, the marketers, the advertisers, the printers, and scores of other people.
The price is not the problem. The problem is that instead of coming out with a new edition every six months or so, they would do better to spend longer crafting this book and listening to their market... or, if you want terms you can understand, WotC has been consistently taking 10 when they should be taking 20.
And if people like something, then it isn't bad. Be elitist about it all you want. Something is only truly bad if no one likes it. There really is no clear delineation between "good" and "bad" like you claim, only what we like or don't like.
Popularity is absolutely not a sign of quality, it is a sign of accessibility. Examples: Kelly Clarkson, Budweiser, McDonald's, Windows, The Today Show, John Grisham novels (most), our President.
OK, that last one was just a cheap shot, but the others are perfect examples. Anybody who raves about how Windows is the best OS out there is a dribbling lunatic. McDonald's used to claim (maybe still do) that their fries were "America's Favorite"-- they based that claim on the number of fries sold, not on a nationwide taste test. And do I buy more Budweiser than any other beer? Maybe, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that I want a can of Bud more than a bottle of Guinness or Leinenkugel.
The "true roleplaying style of gaming" is only what you make it. What is dying, if anything, is YOUR definition of that concept. I'm sorry, but there is no one true path for a game to be an RPG.Brief disclaimer: for my part, I generally disagree with what you've been saying about WoW vs D&D-- for me, no video game will ever provide a better experience than a table-top game. A GM doesn't have to follow any rules but his/her own, and a player is limited only by imagination. But, like you've made clear, that's what I want it to be.
My personal opinions aside, you're absolutely right on with your last point: what keeps roleplayers going is that they make roleplaying what they want it to be, whether it's hack and slash or total conversation. Five points for Gryffindor.
The poster definitely should learn some grammar before posting again; I found the post to be just as confusing as you did. The problem comes when you try to sound intelligent. When you say "punctuation," do you mean "capitalization?"
:D
"Punctuation" refers to the marks made to designate clauses, phrases and sentences (i.e. periods, commas and parentheses). It has very little to do with understanding proper nouns and capitalization.
Don't you just love it when somebody tries to sound all brilliant by cracking on the poster... and they're just as wrong as the poster was?
This is ridiculous. I can't believe it's making a headline. Of course playing aggressive video games can contribute to aggressive behavior. This is the same thing that has been scientifically shown with violent TV.
I can't recall the name of the study, but the control group watched shows like Teletubbies, and the experiment group watched shows like Power Rangers, and guess what? By the start of the very next day, the kids who watched the violent TV show were more aggressive on the playground.
This is not news.
You are incorrect that a nuclear infrastructure held by a theocratic nation is not a threat because of MAD (or, because of number or nukes) You still need delivery vehicles. As for that, I think the ratio of USA to Iran is roughly 20,000:0 MAD worked for the US and USSR in the cold war because there weren't thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people in both countries who were willing to die just to kill each other. If you hadn't noticed, there is evidence which suggests that certain religious folks see nothing better than committing suicide in order to take the life of a perceived enemy.
Watered-down for you: If people will kill themselves with a chest-bomb WTF do you think they're going to do with a nuke?!