I haven't met many very talented yet unemployed software developers. I've met lots of mediocre or average developers that were unemployed. But the developers that I've met who were "very talented" have had little trouble finding a job.
Finding a job they like might be a different story of course.
Hey...if the Internet (and Free services like Wikipedia) actually prove to be valuable and affordable resources for the school kids (AKA the 16 Y/O user), then you've provided more $$$ for education than you did all last year with your taxes.
I believe you did.
Re:?????$20K is a lot of money for equipment?????
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
Agreed AC. All I was saying that $20K was not an unreasonable sum for what they're doing...as you clearly supported.
?????$20K is a lot of money for equipment?????
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Given, I'm talking about a _small_ commercial service company, but $20K USD is not a huge amount of money for us to look at for hardware. Running big websites (and especially other app servers aswell) can require very high-quality hardware (read "expensive") and (potentially) licensing to do it reliably.
Seriously, these guys (I've never used the Wikipedia) could easily spend $20K on hardware and not have that great of a system...but they claim that it will fix their problems...if they provide a good FREE service (no-one seems to disagree with that,) then I trust their judgement. I think I'll go donate $10 just cause they're trying to do something good for the "Internet Community".
[BTW - I'm a partner in an Internet based business that actually makes a profit...$20K for hardware doesn't sound like much to ask. We've looked at single units - not complete systems mind you - that cost more than a quarter million USD.]
LOL...I clicked into here to say something along the same lines, but you beat me to it. So, I'll just give you one of my Mod points and a nod of agreement instead:)
Isn't carpul tunel basically caused by repetitive motion. How is using a bent (I like to call them "broken":) keyboard avoiding repetitive motion? It's it still just as repetitive, just in a slightly augmented position?
Lots of companies out there are looking for Internet/Remote training solutions that equal the effectiveness of classroom training. It turns out that giving learners hands-on access to the technologies they are learning is critical to effectiveness, but throws a lot of wrenches into the trainer's methodologies.
Check out http://www.useractive.com/ for some interesting white papers on the methodology and techniques we use to solve these problems.
You're a moron. True, Sourceforge.net might not ever be a money maker. However, the technology behind it (i.e. proprietary Software) might be a huge success!
Think about it! An extremely scalable, cross-platform, multiple-developer code management system?
What big company wouldn't want a copy of that? Sure, sourceforge.net has some restrictions, but it is free! I would expect that any large company with development groups in disparate places would love to have this software/server platform unrestricted, and would be willing to pay for it!
For once, I'm not working at all on Christmas. No cell phone, no email, no nothin except for tryin out a cool new video game with my cool new Joystick:)
Been a long time since I actually did that on a holiday.
As co-owner of a "successful" start-up company (we've survived the "IPO"
bomb) in the field of computing education, I offer these suggestions
based on my experience. The company I'm involved with was founded because my
main partner and I met by co-teaching a class on general computer usage to
teachers. Believe me...teachers are not nearly as receptive to new ideas
as kids.
In general, people only learn by doing. With the resources available,
give your students the maximum amount of freedom that you can when using
the equipment (don't be fraid of them "breaking" it...they won't...I've
tried this:) I don't know what specific areas of computing you are
hoping to teach, but if that is yet open-ended, I suggest teaching
general operating system usage. I hope (only because it seems to be the
most likely dominant OS for the next several years) that you have Windows
machines. But if not, I'd suggest concentrating on the concepts of
filesystems and their usage (through explorer or the available OS's
equivalent.) If a person understands how files are accessed, it gives
them the ability to more easily understand more complex concepts (such as
programming.)
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE OUR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS! There are free
versions avaiable through www.usersource.com (www.useractive.com is our
commercial website which offers certification using virtually the same
materials - plus of course some proprietary ones:) Our materials are
focused on web programming, so they may not fit into the reasonable
learning curve that you've been given the time for. But if they do,
they're yours to use!
Thanks, and let me know if I can be of more help. Our overall goal
(although of course to make money through larger businesses:) is to help
people to "learn how to learn how to use computers"...that is, we teach
people how to learn...although disguised in the form of courses.
Kendell
Re:Ummm...really stupid, but not unconstitutional.
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
Sorry dude...Bill of Right's don't count till you're 18. They CAN force a kid under 18 to take the stand at his/her own juvenile trial, and they CAN impede on any of the "inalienable" rights.
Not saying it's right...I don't believe that it is...but them's the facts.
Didn't realize I had to do the 's by hand...here's that same post with line breaks.
FPS's are not real-person versus some imaginary computer-controlled "human" anymore! Given, in days past, we didn't have "multi-player." But realistically, the very day that multi-player was introduced to the FPS, the single-player FPS died. Sure, you can play in single player mode, but I think by-and-large players only use it to train for the multi-player mode.
OK...I'm barely old enough to have enjoyed Wolfenstein...arguably the "mother/father" of all First Person Shooters. Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Marathon, Quake, whatever, are certainly "violent" games.
The point I want to make here is that violence comes naturally to humans. As a human race, we've strived to replace murder as a form of gratification for this natural tendency. We've historically tried countless replacements (many of which I'm sure I'm not aware of,) but for the sake of this article, I'm going to concentrate on sports.
I'm a basketball player. I've played for championship quality teams, and had the option to play collegiate level ball (I chose a well-paying computer job instead.) I admit that I'm genetically inclined for such competition...not all people are. Allow me to give my perspective to those who are not experienced in this particular sport. Basketball, from a distance (anywhere that one is not competitively playing the game) appears to many to be a non-contact sport..."non-violent." Bullshit. Why was (and possibly still is) Charles Barkley one of the greatest players to play the game? It certainly wasn't because of his physical presence...the man's only (at some point in his career anyway) Height: 6'6" Weight: 252 lbs...not particularly big for a professional basketball player. Charles Barkley was so successful because he was the most violent man on the court. He intimidated everyone around him. He started a fight with Shaq for cryin' out loud.
Charles Barkley stated that he never wanted to be a role-model for children...I believe that this was because he knew that to be successful in the game, he had to play violently. When I played, I employed very similar strategy, as I believe most athletes do. As a player, you must physically dominate your opponent...but never intentionally injure another player (I don't believe that Sir Charles ever intentionally would.) Don't fool yourselves...Shaquille O'Neal is no different. People use the excuse that he's "just that much bigger," which no doubt gives him a natural advantage. But when Shaq's on the court, he's not trying to be nice to anyone on the other team. Readers, this is no different than WAR...except that on the modern sports battlefield, intentionally inflicting physical injury on another player is considered dishonorable...I see this as a sign of social evolution/improvement (IMHO.)
I've been saying to friends for years that I see FPS's as being sports (I personally play Tribes/Tribes 2, but I think the concept applies to all FPS's, and probably role-playing and strategy games.) FPS's don't require physical strength or size. Particularly in the case of FPS's, I think they DO require eye-hand coordination (a physical skill,) which in my mind qualifies them as a sport! Video Games provide a sense of accomplishment to the successful player...there's a winner. Psychologically speaking, is my ability to physically force my opponent out of my way on a basketball court any different? No, I'm not killing that basketball player, but then again in an FPS (or for that matter an opponent in a role-playing or strategy game) they can always re-spawn...they didn't eternally die.
I think it's universally agreed that murder is "evil" to say the least. Over the ages, humans have developed sports as an outlet for this natural human drive to dominate the sociological group(s) around them. Unfortunately, physical sports naturally lend themselves to the physically stronger and faster...those are the players who dominate (yes, intelligence and skill play equal roles.) Yet, where does that leave the humans that God gifted with other abilities...music, computers, mechanics, etc.? Isn't it a natural evolution, given the available technology, to provide all humans with a physically equalized environment for exercising our inherent competitive spirit?
In my mind, video games of all types (not just FPS's) offer a medium for such competition. Some might argue that non-violent games can offer the same gratification. My argument is that all games, at least on some level, involve killing...no matter how disguised it may be. What's the point of chess? Kill the king (some might argue that's it's capture...who ever heard of a captured king that lived?) If someone out there has an idea for a game that adequately satisfies the human need for competition with others without any (even indirect) equation to killing, I'll be the first to try it out. Up to this point, I've heard of nothing of the sort.
In my mind, to even consider the possibility that FPS's, or any other game-type for that matter, cause kids OR adults to commit violent acts is ridiculous...unless of course we're willing to admit that basketball has the same effect. No. Video games provide competition and the resulting satisfaction of accomplishment...not the opposite of killing, but instead, a substitute...just like basketball J
A couple of thoughts along a related train of thought:
Firstly, as a Christian, I see no alternative than to believe with absolute certainty that aliens exist...by definition:
(www.dictionary.com): "alien - A creature from outer space"
Yes, there are several alternative definitions, none of which contradict this definition. God sure aint terrestrial, so he must be from outer space.
(www.dictionary.com): "Outer Space -
Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially:
a. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere.
b. Interplanetary or interstellar space..."
Not that it matters, but I don't rule out the possibility of beings (not God) on other planets. Therefore, why is it any better to kill an alien than a human? I don't think it is.
Secondly, technically speaking, persons under the age of 18 cannot be citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, technically speaking, any US governmental body could constitutionally deny the right of persons under the age of 18 to do anything "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights (including free speech.) Additionally, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into any type of contractual agreement in the US, which would obviously rule out their rental of computers in video-game parlors/cyber-café's (public venues...I suppose public schools and libraries are outside this realm, but that's another discussion.) Interestingly, this also technically makes it illegal for a company/organization to allow a 2 year old to put a penny into a bubble-gum machine for the purchase of candy, but we all know there's no feasible way to enforce that law.
Bottom line...the concept of blaming video games for violence is ignorant. Perhaps more importantly, it's adverse to human nature. In my opinion, video games generally reduce violence among youngsters by providing socially challenged kids a method for working out their frustrations in a physically non-violent manner. I think it's well established that the physically inferior - although very possibly intellectually superior - kids tend to catch the brunt of "teasing", and as such have need for emotional release. However, video games do not provide an end-all solution to the problem...people can very easily equate online video games with real life, which is obviously not a cure for the core problem. Perhaps when used properly, video games might help such struggling youngsters to find intelligent (non-violent) solutions to their social problems.
Personal Note - I am of Christian faith...although some Christians might call me a blasphemer. I would ask readers to apply their own beliefs to this article before flaming me for that...I'm not attempting to force anyone to agree with my faith.
I was a kid that early on became the brunt of the typical "nerd/fag" jokes that I'm sure many Slashdotters are familiar with...I believe mostly because I was generally more intelligent than the rest of the "crowd". I was also gifted with somewhat extraordinary physical abilities, thankfully through which I learned to stand up for myself...albeit through somewhat violent methods. We can't expect inexperienced kids (a redundant noun?) to fully understand right from wrong, but we can expect kids to understand hurt from not-hurt...I learned that the hard way. Please do not take this as any suggestion that physical punishment is an end-all solution for teaching children life lessons...it's not a good solution...not even close. It's just how I learned it.
Kendell
Tribes2 - (RSV)El Mariachi
Modern FPS's are a SPORT...not random killing!
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
FPS's are not real-person versus some imaginary computer-controlled "human" anymore! Given, in days past, we didn't have "multi-player." But realistically, the very day that multi-player was introduced to the FPS, the single-player FPS died. Sure, you can play in single player mode, but I think by-and-large players only use it to train for the multi-player mode.
OK...I'm barely old enough to have enjoyed Wolfenstein...arguably the "mother/father" of all First Person Shooters. Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Marathon, Quake, whatever, are certainly "violent" games.
The point I want to make here is that violence comes naturally to humans. As a human race, we've strived to replace murder as a form of gratification for this natural tendency. We've historically tried countless replacements (many of which I'm sure I'm not aware of,) but for the sake of this article, I'm going to concentrate on sports.
I'm a basketball player. I've played for championship quality teams, and had the option to play collegiate level ball (I chose a well-paying computer job instead.) I admit that I'm genetically inclined for such competition...not all people are. Allow me to give my perspective to those who are not experienced in this particular sport. Basketball, from a distance (anywhere that one is not competitively playing the game) appears to many to be a non-contact sport..."non-violent." Bullshit. Why was (and possibly still is) Charles Barkley one of the greatest players to play the game? It certainly wasn't because of his physical presence...the man's only (at some point in his career anyway) Height: 6'6" Weight: 252 lbs...not particularly big for a professional basketball player. Charles Barkley was so successful because he was the most violent man on the court. He intimidated everyone around him. He started a fight with Shaq for cryin' out loud.
Charles Barkley stated that he never wanted to be a role-model for children...I believe that this was because he knew that to be successful in the game, he had to play violently. When I played, I employed very similar strategy, as I believe most athletes do. As a player, you must physically dominate your opponent...but never intentionally injure another player (I don't believe that Sir Charles ever intentionally would.) Don't fool yourselves...Shaquille O'Neal is no different. People use the excuse that he's "just that much bigger," which no doubt gives him a natural advantage. But when Shaq's on the court, he's not trying to be nice to anyone on the other team. Readers, this is no different than WAR...except that on the modern sports battlefield, intentionally inflicting physical injury on another player is considered dishonorable...I see this as a sign of social evolution/improvement (IMHO.)
I've been saying to friends for years that I see FPS's as being sports (I personally play Tribes/Tribes 2, but I think the concept applies to all FPS's, and probably role-playing and strategy games.) FPS's don't require physical strength or size. Particularly in the case of FPS's, I think they DO require eye-hand coordination (a physical skill,) which in my mind qualifies them as a sport! Video Games provide a sense of accomplishment to the successful player...there's a winner. Psychologically speaking, is my ability to physically force my opponent out of my way on a basketball court any different? No, I'm not killing that basketball player, but then again in an FPS (or for that matter an opponent in a role-playing or strategy game) they can always re-spawn...they didn't eternally die.
I think it's universally agreed that murder is "evil" to say the least. Over the ages, humans have developed sports as an outlet for this natural human drive to dominate the sociological group(s) around them. Unfortunately, physical sports naturally lend themselves to the physically stronger and faster...those are the players who dominate (yes, intelligence and skill play equal roles.) Yet, where does that leave the humans that God gifted with other abilities...music, computers, mechanics, etc.? Isn't it a natural evolution, given the available technology, to provide all humans with a physically equalized environment for exercising our inherent competitive spirit?
In my mind, video games of all types (not just FPS's) offer a medium for such competition. Some might argue that non-violent games can offer the same gratification. My argument is that all games, at least on some level, involve killing...no matter how disguised it may be. What's the point of chess? Kill the king (some might argue that's it's capture...who ever heard of a captured king that lived?) If someone out there has an idea for a game that adequately satisfies the human need for competition with others without any (even indirect) equation to killing, I'll be the first to try it out. Up to this point, I've heard of nothing of the sort.
In my mind, to even consider the possibility that FPS's, or any other game-type for that matter, cause kids OR adults to commit violent acts is ridiculous...unless of course we're willing to admit that basketball has the same effect. No. Video games provide competition and the resulting satisfaction of accomplishment...not the opposite of killing, but instead, a substitute...just like basketball J
A couple of thoughts along a related train of thought:
Firstly, as a Christian, I see no alternative than to believe with absolute certainty that aliens exist...by definition:
(www.dictionary.com): "alien - A creature from outer space"
Yes, there are several alternative definitions, none of which contradict this definition. God sure aint terrestrial, so he must be from outer space.
(www.dictionary.com): "Outer Space -
Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially:
a. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere.
b. Interplanetary or interstellar space..."
Not that it matters, but I don't rule out the possibility of beings (not God) on other planets. Therefore, why is it any better to kill an alien than a human? I don't think it is.
Secondly, technically speaking, persons under the age of 18 cannot be citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, technically speaking, any US governmental body could constitutionally deny the right of persons under the age of 18 to do anything "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights (including free speech.) Additionally, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into any type of contractual agreement in the US, which would obviously rule out their rental of computers in video-game parlors/cyber-café's (public venues...I suppose public schools and libraries are outside this realm, but that's another discussion.) Interestingly, this also technically makes it illegal for a company/organization to allow a 2 year old to put a penny into a bubble-gum machine for the purchase of candy, but we all know there's no feasible way to enforce that law.
Bottom line...the concept of blaming video games for violence is ignorant. Perhaps more importantly, it's adverse to human nature. In my opinion, video games generally reduce violence among youngsters by providing socially challenged kids a method for working out their frustrations in a physically non-violent manner. I think it's well established that the physically inferior - although very possibly intellectually superior - kids tend to catch the brunt of "teasing", and as such have need for emotional release. However, video games do not provide an end-all solution to the problem...people can very easily equate online video games with real life, which is obviously not a cure for the core problem. Perhaps when used properly, video games might help such struggling youngsters to find intelligent (non-violent) solutions to their social problems.
Personal Note - I am of Christian faith...although some Christians might call me a blasphemer. I would ask readers to apply their own beliefs to this article before flaming me for that...I'm not attempting to force anyone to agree with my faith.
I was a kid that early on became the brunt of the typical "nerd/fag" jokes that I'm sure many Slashdotters are familiar with...I believe mostly because I was generally more intelligent than the rest of the "crowd". I was also gifted with somewhat extraordinary physical abilities, thankfully through which I learned to stand up for myself...albeit through somewhat violent methods. We can't expect inexperienced kids (a redundant noun?) to fully understand right from wrong, but we can expect kids to understand hurt from not-hurt...I learned that the hard way. Please do not take this as any suggestion that physical punishment is an end-all solution for teaching children life lessons...it's not a good solution...not even close. It's just how I learned it.
Kendell
Tribes2 - (RSV)El Mariachi
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't met many very talented yet unemployed software developers. I've met lots of mediocre or average developers that were unemployed. But the developers that I've met who were "very talented" have had little trouble finding a job.
Finding a job they like might be a different story of course.
Thanks for covering the 16 Y/O. That's very cool.
Hey...if the Internet (and Free services like Wikipedia) actually prove to be valuable and affordable resources for the school kids (AKA the 16 Y/O user), then you've provided more $$$ for education than you did all last year with your taxes.
I believe you did.
Agreed AC. All I was saying that $20K was not an unreasonable sum for what they're doing...as you clearly supported.
Given, I'm talking about a _small_ commercial service company, but $20K USD is not a huge amount of money for us to look at for hardware. Running big websites (and especially other app servers aswell) can require very high-quality hardware (read "expensive") and (potentially) licensing to do it reliably.
Seriously, these guys (I've never used the Wikipedia) could easily spend $20K on hardware and not have that great of a system...but they claim that it will fix their problems...if they provide a good FREE service (no-one seems to disagree with that,) then I trust their judgement. I think I'll go donate $10 just cause they're trying to do something good for the "Internet Community".
[BTW - I'm a partner in an Internet based business that actually makes a profit...$20K for hardware doesn't sound like much to ask. We've looked at single units - not complete systems mind you - that cost more than a quarter million USD.]
Kendell
LOL...I clicked into here to say something along the same lines, but you beat me to it. So, I'll just give you one of my Mod points and a nod of agreement instead :)
No bar will ever be allowed to "swipe" my card, or share my personal information with anyone if I have anything to say about it. I'd rather not go in.
Isn't carpul tunel basically caused by repetitive motion. How is using a bent (I like to call them "broken" :) keyboard avoiding repetitive motion? It's it still just as repetitive, just in a slightly augmented position?
Lots of companies out there are looking for Internet/Remote training solutions that equal the effectiveness of classroom training. It turns out that giving learners hands-on access to the technologies they are learning is critical to effectiveness, but throws a lot of wrenches into the trainer's methodologies.
Check out http://www.useractive.com/ for some interesting white papers on the methodology and techniques we use to solve these problems.
You're a moron. True, Sourceforge.net might not ever be a money maker. However, the technology behind it (i.e. proprietary Software) might be a huge success!
Think about it! An extremely scalable, cross-platform, multiple-developer code management system?
What big company wouldn't want a copy of that? Sure, sourceforge.net has some restrictions, but it is free! I would expect that any large company with development groups in disparate places would love to have this software/server platform unrestricted, and would be willing to pay for it!
IMO
For once, I'm not working at all on Christmas. No cell phone, no email, no nothin except for tryin out a cool new video game with my cool new Joystick :)
Been a long time since I actually did that on a holiday.
As co-owner of a "successful" start-up company (we've survived the "IPO" bomb) in the field of computing education, I offer these suggestions based on my experience. The company I'm involved with was founded because my main partner and I met by co-teaching a class on general computer usage to teachers. Believe me...teachers are not nearly as receptive to new ideas as kids.
:) I don't know what specific areas of computing you are
hoping to teach, but if that is yet open-ended, I suggest teaching
general operating system usage. I hope (only because it seems to be the
most likely dominant OS for the next several years) that you have Windows
machines. But if not, I'd suggest concentrating on the concepts of
filesystems and their usage (through explorer or the available OS's
equivalent.) If a person understands how files are accessed, it gives
them the ability to more easily understand more complex concepts (such as
programming.)
:) Our materials are
focused on web programming, so they may not fit into the reasonable
learning curve that you've been given the time for. But if they do,
they're yours to use!
:) is to help
people to "learn how to learn how to use computers"...that is, we teach
people how to learn...although disguised in the form of courses.
In general, people only learn by doing. With the resources available, give your students the maximum amount of freedom that you can when using the equipment (don't be fraid of them "breaking" it...they won't...I've tried this
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE OUR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS! There are free versions avaiable through www.usersource.com (www.useractive.com is our commercial website which offers certification using virtually the same materials - plus of course some proprietary ones
Thanks, and let me know if I can be of more help. Our overall goal (although of course to make money through larger businesses
Kendell
Sorry dude...Bill of Right's don't count till you're 18. They CAN force a kid under 18 to take the stand at his/her own juvenile trial, and they CAN impede on any of the "inalienable" rights. Not saying it's right...I don't believe that it is...but them's the facts.
Didn't realize I had to do the
's by hand...here's that same post with line breaks.
FPS's are not real-person versus some imaginary computer-controlled "human" anymore! Given, in days past, we didn't have "multi-player." But realistically, the very day that multi-player was introduced to the FPS, the single-player FPS died. Sure, you can play in single player mode, but I think by-and-large players only use it to train for the multi-player mode.
OK...I'm barely old enough to have enjoyed Wolfenstein...arguably the "mother/father" of all First Person Shooters. Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Marathon, Quake, whatever, are certainly "violent" games.
The point I want to make here is that violence comes naturally to humans. As a human race, we've strived to replace murder as a form of gratification for this natural tendency. We've historically tried countless replacements (many of which I'm sure I'm not aware of,) but for the sake of this article, I'm going to concentrate on sports.
I'm a basketball player. I've played for championship quality teams, and had the option to play collegiate level ball (I chose a well-paying computer job instead.) I admit that I'm genetically inclined for such competition...not all people are. Allow me to give my perspective to those who are not experienced in this particular sport. Basketball, from a distance (anywhere that one is not competitively playing the game) appears to many to be a non-contact sport..."non-violent." Bullshit. Why was (and possibly still is) Charles Barkley one of the greatest players to play the game? It certainly wasn't because of his physical presence...the man's only (at some point in his career anyway) Height: 6'6" Weight: 252 lbs...not particularly big for a professional basketball player. Charles Barkley was so successful because he was the most violent man on the court. He intimidated everyone around him. He started a fight with Shaq for cryin' out loud.
Charles Barkley stated that he never wanted to be a role-model for children...I believe that this was because he knew that to be successful in the game, he had to play violently. When I played, I employed very similar strategy, as I believe most athletes do. As a player, you must physically dominate your opponent...but never intentionally injure another player (I don't believe that Sir Charles ever intentionally would.) Don't fool yourselves...Shaquille O'Neal is no different. People use the excuse that he's "just that much bigger," which no doubt gives him a natural advantage. But when Shaq's on the court, he's not trying to be nice to anyone on the other team. Readers, this is no different than WAR...except that on the modern sports battlefield, intentionally inflicting physical injury on another player is considered dishonorable...I see this as a sign of social evolution/improvement (IMHO.)
I've been saying to friends for years that I see FPS's as being sports (I personally play Tribes/Tribes 2, but I think the concept applies to all FPS's, and probably role-playing and strategy games.) FPS's don't require physical strength or size. Particularly in the case of FPS's, I think they DO require eye-hand coordination (a physical skill,) which in my mind qualifies them as a sport! Video Games provide a sense of accomplishment to the successful player...there's a winner. Psychologically speaking, is my ability to physically force my opponent out of my way on a basketball court any different? No, I'm not killing that basketball player, but then again in an FPS (or for that matter an opponent in a role-playing or strategy game) they can always re-spawn...they didn't eternally die.
I think it's universally agreed that murder is "evil" to say the least. Over the ages, humans have developed sports as an outlet for this natural human drive to dominate the sociological group(s) around them. Unfortunately, physical sports naturally lend themselves to the physically stronger and faster...those are the players who dominate (yes, intelligence and skill play equal roles.) Yet, where does that leave the humans that God gifted with other abilities...music, computers, mechanics, etc.? Isn't it a natural evolution, given the available technology, to provide all humans with a physically equalized environment for exercising our inherent competitive spirit?
In my mind, video games of all types (not just FPS's) offer a medium for such competition. Some might argue that non-violent games can offer the same gratification. My argument is that all games, at least on some level, involve killing...no matter how disguised it may be. What's the point of chess? Kill the king (some might argue that's it's capture...who ever heard of a captured king that lived?) If someone out there has an idea for a game that adequately satisfies the human need for competition with others without any (even indirect) equation to killing, I'll be the first to try it out. Up to this point, I've heard of nothing of the sort.
In my mind, to even consider the possibility that FPS's, or any other game-type for that matter, cause kids OR adults to commit violent acts is ridiculous...unless of course we're willing to admit that basketball has the same effect. No. Video games provide competition and the resulting satisfaction of accomplishment...not the opposite of killing, but instead, a substitute...just like basketball J
A couple of thoughts along a related train of thought:
Firstly, as a Christian, I see no alternative than to believe with absolute certainty that aliens exist...by definition: (www.dictionary.com): "alien - A creature from outer space"
Yes, there are several alternative definitions, none of which contradict this definition. God sure aint terrestrial, so he must be from outer space.
(www.dictionary.com): "Outer Space - Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially:
a. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere.
b. Interplanetary or interstellar space..."
Not that it matters, but I don't rule out the possibility of beings (not God) on other planets. Therefore, why is it any better to kill an alien than a human? I don't think it is.
Secondly, technically speaking, persons under the age of 18 cannot be citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, technically speaking, any US governmental body could constitutionally deny the right of persons under the age of 18 to do anything "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights (including free speech.) Additionally, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into any type of contractual agreement in the US, which would obviously rule out their rental of computers in video-game parlors/cyber-café's (public venues...I suppose public schools and libraries are outside this realm, but that's another discussion.) Interestingly, this also technically makes it illegal for a company/organization to allow a 2 year old to put a penny into a bubble-gum machine for the purchase of candy, but we all know there's no feasible way to enforce that law.
Bottom line...the concept of blaming video games for violence is ignorant. Perhaps more importantly, it's adverse to human nature. In my opinion, video games generally reduce violence among youngsters by providing socially challenged kids a method for working out their frustrations in a physically non-violent manner. I think it's well established that the physically inferior - although very possibly intellectually superior - kids tend to catch the brunt of "teasing", and as such have need for emotional release. However, video games do not provide an end-all solution to the problem...people can very easily equate online video games with real life, which is obviously not a cure for the core problem. Perhaps when used properly, video games might help such struggling youngsters to find intelligent (non-violent) solutions to their social problems.
Personal Note - I am of Christian faith...although some Christians might call me a blasphemer. I would ask readers to apply their own beliefs to this article before flaming me for that...I'm not attempting to force anyone to agree with my faith.
I was a kid that early on became the brunt of the typical "nerd/fag" jokes that I'm sure many Slashdotters are familiar with...I believe mostly because I was generally more intelligent than the rest of the "crowd". I was also gifted with somewhat extraordinary physical abilities, thankfully through which I learned to stand up for myself...albeit through somewhat violent methods. We can't expect inexperienced kids (a redundant noun?) to fully understand right from wrong, but we can expect kids to understand hurt from not-hurt...I learned that the hard way. Please do not take this as any suggestion that physical punishment is an end-all solution for teaching children life lessons...it's not a good solution...not even close. It's just how I learned it.
Kendell
Tribes2 - (RSV)El Mariachi
FPS's are not real-person versus some imaginary computer-controlled "human" anymore! Given, in days past, we didn't have "multi-player." But realistically, the very day that multi-player was introduced to the FPS, the single-player FPS died. Sure, you can play in single player mode, but I think by-and-large players only use it to train for the multi-player mode. OK...I'm barely old enough to have enjoyed Wolfenstein...arguably the "mother/father" of all First Person Shooters. Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Marathon, Quake, whatever, are certainly "violent" games. The point I want to make here is that violence comes naturally to humans. As a human race, we've strived to replace murder as a form of gratification for this natural tendency. We've historically tried countless replacements (many of which I'm sure I'm not aware of,) but for the sake of this article, I'm going to concentrate on sports. I'm a basketball player. I've played for championship quality teams, and had the option to play collegiate level ball (I chose a well-paying computer job instead.) I admit that I'm genetically inclined for such competition...not all people are. Allow me to give my perspective to those who are not experienced in this particular sport. Basketball, from a distance (anywhere that one is not competitively playing the game) appears to many to be a non-contact sport..."non-violent." Bullshit. Why was (and possibly still is) Charles Barkley one of the greatest players to play the game? It certainly wasn't because of his physical presence...the man's only (at some point in his career anyway) Height: 6'6" Weight: 252 lbs...not particularly big for a professional basketball player. Charles Barkley was so successful because he was the most violent man on the court. He intimidated everyone around him. He started a fight with Shaq for cryin' out loud. Charles Barkley stated that he never wanted to be a role-model for children...I believe that this was because he knew that to be successful in the game, he had to play violently. When I played, I employed very similar strategy, as I believe most athletes do. As a player, you must physically dominate your opponent...but never intentionally injure another player (I don't believe that Sir Charles ever intentionally would.) Don't fool yourselves...Shaquille O'Neal is no different. People use the excuse that he's "just that much bigger," which no doubt gives him a natural advantage. But when Shaq's on the court, he's not trying to be nice to anyone on the other team. Readers, this is no different than WAR...except that on the modern sports battlefield, intentionally inflicting physical injury on another player is considered dishonorable...I see this as a sign of social evolution/improvement (IMHO.) I've been saying to friends for years that I see FPS's as being sports (I personally play Tribes/Tribes 2, but I think the concept applies to all FPS's, and probably role-playing and strategy games.) FPS's don't require physical strength or size. Particularly in the case of FPS's, I think they DO require eye-hand coordination (a physical skill,) which in my mind qualifies them as a sport! Video Games provide a sense of accomplishment to the successful player...there's a winner. Psychologically speaking, is my ability to physically force my opponent out of my way on a basketball court any different? No, I'm not killing that basketball player, but then again in an FPS (or for that matter an opponent in a role-playing or strategy game) they can always re-spawn...they didn't eternally die. I think it's universally agreed that murder is "evil" to say the least. Over the ages, humans have developed sports as an outlet for this natural human drive to dominate the sociological group(s) around them. Unfortunately, physical sports naturally lend themselves to the physically stronger and faster...those are the players who dominate (yes, intelligence and skill play equal roles.) Yet, where does that leave the humans that God gifted with other abilities...music, computers, mechanics, etc.? Isn't it a natural evolution, given the available technology, to provide all humans with a physically equalized environment for exercising our inherent competitive spirit? In my mind, video games of all types (not just FPS's) offer a medium for such competition. Some might argue that non-violent games can offer the same gratification. My argument is that all games, at least on some level, involve killing...no matter how disguised it may be. What's the point of chess? Kill the king (some might argue that's it's capture...who ever heard of a captured king that lived?) If someone out there has an idea for a game that adequately satisfies the human need for competition with others without any (even indirect) equation to killing, I'll be the first to try it out. Up to this point, I've heard of nothing of the sort. In my mind, to even consider the possibility that FPS's, or any other game-type for that matter, cause kids OR adults to commit violent acts is ridiculous...unless of course we're willing to admit that basketball has the same effect. No. Video games provide competition and the resulting satisfaction of accomplishment...not the opposite of killing, but instead, a substitute...just like basketball J A couple of thoughts along a related train of thought: Firstly, as a Christian, I see no alternative than to believe with absolute certainty that aliens exist...by definition: (www.dictionary.com): "alien - A creature from outer space" Yes, there are several alternative definitions, none of which contradict this definition. God sure aint terrestrial, so he must be from outer space. (www.dictionary.com): "Outer Space - Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially: a. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere. b. Interplanetary or interstellar space..." Not that it matters, but I don't rule out the possibility of beings (not God) on other planets. Therefore, why is it any better to kill an alien than a human? I don't think it is. Secondly, technically speaking, persons under the age of 18 cannot be citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, technically speaking, any US governmental body could constitutionally deny the right of persons under the age of 18 to do anything "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights (including free speech.) Additionally, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into any type of contractual agreement in the US, which would obviously rule out their rental of computers in video-game parlors/cyber-café's (public venues...I suppose public schools and libraries are outside this realm, but that's another discussion.) Interestingly, this also technically makes it illegal for a company/organization to allow a 2 year old to put a penny into a bubble-gum machine for the purchase of candy, but we all know there's no feasible way to enforce that law. Bottom line...the concept of blaming video games for violence is ignorant. Perhaps more importantly, it's adverse to human nature. In my opinion, video games generally reduce violence among youngsters by providing socially challenged kids a method for working out their frustrations in a physically non-violent manner. I think it's well established that the physically inferior - although very possibly intellectually superior - kids tend to catch the brunt of "teasing", and as such have need for emotional release. However, video games do not provide an end-all solution to the problem...people can very easily equate online video games with real life, which is obviously not a cure for the core problem. Perhaps when used properly, video games might help such struggling youngsters to find intelligent (non-violent) solutions to their social problems. Personal Note - I am of Christian faith...although some Christians might call me a blasphemer. I would ask readers to apply their own beliefs to this article before flaming me for that...I'm not attempting to force anyone to agree with my faith. I was a kid that early on became the brunt of the typical "nerd/fag" jokes that I'm sure many Slashdotters are familiar with...I believe mostly because I was generally more intelligent than the rest of the "crowd". I was also gifted with somewhat extraordinary physical abilities, thankfully through which I learned to stand up for myself...albeit through somewhat violent methods. We can't expect inexperienced kids (a redundant noun?) to fully understand right from wrong, but we can expect kids to understand hurt from not-hurt...I learned that the hard way. Please do not take this as any suggestion that physical punishment is an end-all solution for teaching children life lessons...it's not a good solution...not even close. It's just how I learned it. Kendell Tribes2 - (RSV)El Mariachi