The implications are that if we don't teach robots to kills us all, they won't kill us all? So all we humans have to do is stop killing each other, and we won't have to worry about Skynet and the Terminators.
OneNote 2016 has wonderful version tracking. Given its tight integrations with other Office products I've privately nick-named it "Office 2016".
When a OneNote document does not exceed the single digit GBs, it is an excellent collaboration tool. Unfortunately, syncing larger notebooks reveals where OneNote comes up short. Triple digit GB OneNote notebooks are largely unusable, despite the highly dynamic UI being very popular.
Apple's market strategy was largely incompatible with the start at the bottom approach. You either have a premium product where people are willing to pay for the extra polish and work, or you have a mass marketed product which is affordable at the lower and entry levels.
Alphabet's Chromebook and Android platforms are geared towards this low cost entry level market, and have great potential for success.
Microsoft's dominance began because it was easy to program for. Start with QBasic, then DOS, then.NET, etc. Provide a platform that mediocre developers can push something to market fairly quickly, and you will get a stronger and more competitive market. A stronger market means one where competitors offer more kick-backs, and the prices are more affordable. This creates a popularity where new techs are more likely to gain experience with a platform, and therefore recommend that platform to businesses and organizations, as well as individuals. Thus Microsoft's platform is not one that holds strictly to a premium product, but one that scales to suit a vast spectrum.
Currently, Microsoft is still prevalent enough that its market dominance is not under any serious short-term threat. However, a long-term strategy of weaning the world off of Microsoft may be quite effective by starting with grade school students. Just because Apple undermined its own success, doesn't mean that the strategy itself is invalid. If children can make it to adulthood without needing any Microsoft products, then they will have no inclination to recommend Microsoft products to startups, and would be ill equipped to support Microsoft products among their peers or co-workers. This would result in a dissatisfaction in the quality of Microsoft products, and a shift in the products purchased. Furthermore, Microsoft's push around Windows 10 to a less stable platform, in the Debian definition of stable, to something that changes every six months or so, makes the many of the concerns of changing platforms largely moot. Microsoft could find itself becoming an Apple like niche premium product. If so, then one wonders what would provide Microsoft with staying power beyond Google/Alphabet? Why switch to Microsoft if a small company has survived entirely on Alphabet products? If nobody is developing software for Microsoft, then what is going to keep the costs down and the platform affordable, either programmer salary wise, or software catalog wise? What happens to the scalability and competitive market of the platform?
The former Expanded Universe (Legends?) provided the Empire with a defense against such hyperspace kamikaze weapons, gravity well generators. The Empire had dedicated starships such as the Interdictor Class Star Destroyer.
Planning ahead means buying a physical disk. Downloading a high res Blu-Ray quality video involves consuming gigabytes, and I only get 150 GB per month. Practically unlimited for everything but HD video content and the rare new game purchases, which means I have to ration it for HD video.
On the subject of Google, I was going on the hype of several pieces I've ready recently about Google pulling out of the ISP game because they accomplished what they intended, by creating competition in upgrading infrastructure to enable higher bandwidths.
How much longer are physical media formats going to be developed? It seems to me that the biggest hindrance to digital subscription and services is bandwidth. With Google's push into the ISP arena upping the available bandwidth, not quite nationally, the times of distributed physical media may be nearing an end.
The second biggest hindrance is of course cost. And the risk of losing the money invested does little to offset the costs. However, is this enough to kill Digital Distribution? Is the risk of losing your entire collection worth not having easy access to that collection for a short time?
I think this is one of the most well written comments on the subject at hand.
My question is, why is it ludicrous? The religion of capitalism? We can't have any other outlook or understanding of how an economy should be structured? Of how labor and resources should be managed and distributed?
We are a team, every member of the economy, from the engineer's overseeing Nuclear power plants or deforestation/replanting, to the burger flippers and non-skilled labor, are here to build a utopia for all Americans. It is a team. We're working together. Every job contributes something, something which might be undervalued by the economics of the situation.
The question is not whether the Walmart or Amazon jobs should provide for a single parent. Because that may not be the purpose of those jobs, indeed such jobs may be charity or generosity. The question is whether or not the American people should put forth effort to include a single parent's needs when producing resources and goods. (There is an old parable about a man feeding 5,000 people, starting with a few loaves and a few fish, and ended up with 12 baskets left over. The moral is that we produce more than we need, and there is plenty to go around.)
The question is how bad might things get, how thin our resources might get spread, if we didn't discourage irresponsible reproduction? As such, how can we fairly discourage irresponsible reproduction? Is the "capitalist" system of economics ethical or moral? Or is it cold, uncaring, and heartless?
That actually makes it sound like a good thing. If Amazon or the like refuses to hire "at risk" employees who might need welfare or other benefits to sustain themselves, then they will likely eliminate their hiring pool and it should result in forcing them to raise their wages.
Meanwhile for teenagers starting out, who don't need welfare or a "living wage" this wouldn't prevent them from being hired for jobs or gaining experience, etc.
It seems like an ideal solution. My only concern is whether the jobs needed are sufficiently profitable to sustain the population without redistributing the GDP. If our country can sustain a population, but if there is no work of sufficient value to redistribute the wealth generated by the nation as a whole, then this tax could destroy the marginal growth in GDP we might experience. Will it tip the scales back towards recirculating the GDP throughout the entire nation by increasing the value of labor, or will it tip the scales towards a jobless economy by making the work not worth the cost?
In a perfect world perhaps. We live in a world where innuendo, and subtlety is commonplace. Where people are expected to read between the lines when more direct approaches would result in negative reactions. Where people like to cover their behinds and allow an "out" to avoid the full repercussions of an action.
As a result having a virtual representation of someone using a gun on school property to shoot fictional monsters is potentially very similar to one where you are just shooting the people. Particularly when there is a heightened sensitivity to such actions in the jurisdiction.
The question to ask is, what is more important to the player's enjoyment of the game, the augmented reality and game world, or the location where the events took place? The actions and interactions of the gamer in the augmented reality recorded in the video would likely give some measure of his intentions and character, and it is entirely within the realm of likelihood that a popular franchise and a popular emerging platform would lead to an overlooking of the big picture concerns. I do agree that the most likely explanation is that it was simply a young man playing a video game, like most of us who visit this site have done.
"The response is absolutely unreasonable, but so is the belief the behavior is acceptable."
Agreed. His offense is along the lines of wearing a tank top and shorts to a job interview for a desk job. Alternatively, it is like buying your girlfriend a pet frog for her birthday. Another comparison that may also fit, is taking an 18 year old nephew to a strip club for his birthday. These things are not considered to be acceptable behavior.
Playing a computer game is not a red flag. A computer game which uses AR and guns in a school setting can be used as a recruiting or planning tool for a crime. Schools already have a problem with shooters. Parents and teachers are already on edge. A video game isn't something important to a student's life. There should be no loss of life on school property, ever. And to reflect that the situation is being taken seriously, and being given proper respect, even virtual simulations using "augmented reality" should not be allowed on school property.
My argument is that the school's code SHOULD say something about it. I am in complete agreement that he shouldn't be facing any sort of charges outside of school. This is at best minor circumstantial evidence to build a case with regards to a much more serious offense. Without any other evidence there is no case, and without a crime being committed there is nothing to charge him with.
The school however would be blamed for any future students who actually did commit crimes on school property, and were witnessed playing games like "The Walking Dead" on school property and were not reprimanded or discouraged from doing so.
Escapist entertainment is something to be enjoyed whilst away from school property. Particularly, anything that disrespects the school, or otherwise makes it harder for teachers and faculty to protect students by burying red flags in yet another haystack...
There are other games, and even non-"Augmented Reality" shooter games which the student can enjoy while on school property. A student will not be unduly inconvenienced by not being allowed to enjoy a very specific form of entertainment.
Finally, while on school property, a student is expected to adhere to a more rigorous standard of behavior suitable to that of the workplace. It would not be appropriate to go around an office building playing an augmented reality shooter, and therefore such behavior should not be condoned within the educational system.
The purpose is to make it easier to spot and get help for troubled kids. Cleary we have a problem with doing so already. Lets not bury those kids in another haystack. Lets not normalize certain behaviors or imagery. Certain things should be held with respect and dignity.
You're missing the part where the guns existed within the virtual version of the school, which used live video footage of the actual school to blur the lines between the real and the virtual.
A WWII documentary, or other textbook documents do not occur in real-time within the that very school building. They are abstracted by history, and location, and context. In addition, there are lessons to be learned from history.
An Augmented Reality Video Game however, serves no intrisic purpose to the education of the student, and instead potentially desensitizes the student to the notion of carrying a gun on school property.
Furthermore, one thing leads to another. We need to have a clearly defined line so that "red flag" behavior is detectable. We need to keep from making it easy for students to carry out attacks. We need to keep them from being able to practice such things.
I say nip it in the bud. When I attending school, cell phone use was generally prohibited, and few kids had cell phones. There are rules for clothing, and so on and so forth. Lets make sure there are clear rules and clear punishments in place for playing "The Walking Dead" on school property. Such as being expelled...
Criminal charges are perhaps "cruel and unusual punishment" for a virtual game, but the guy should perhaps be suspended from school, or otherwise held accountable for his actions by the principal and the school board.
There is a old Bible verse about feeding 5,000 people. It starts with one basket containing a few loaves of bread and fish.
As a people we produce more everday than we need. We have more than enough for everybody, but our economic system does not value human life intrinsically.
Thus we value the individual's ability to increase production capacity and wealth stores. Not all are equally suited to such advanced thinking and foresight. In a purely evolutionary system these once strong laborers, the former backbones of our economy, the shoulders upon which we have stood, would die off due to not being able to acquire and manage the resources to compete in an ever increasingly intellectually challenging economic game.
But there are those which ask the moral and ethical questions of "what am I working for?"... Are we merely working to i crease the wealth of a "noble few", while hoping to skim enough resources off the top to survive? Or are we working for some greater purpose? Are we working to ensure that all of humanity is free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Simple minded view which indicates blindness to the complications which have arisen.
It starts out that to consume resources, man must invest and work to gather those resources.
Next, trade enters the picture and individuals exchange resources and both are better off.
Then banking enters the system, and rather than storing valuable resources, a placeholder is stored, an I.O.U. of sorts. Wealth is no longer perishable, it can be accumulated or saved over time.
Then those that save wealth, who store favors, gain a disproportionate advantage over those that don't. They are able to acquire ownership over greater means of production, and take a larger share of the resources, or the stored value of those resources.
Next the wealthy are then able to incentivize the workforce to engineer more effect means of production. Which allows them to gain more resources for less effort.
Then things start to break down. A growing population requires more resources. Those who control the means of production can do so at such high levels of efficiency that they do not need the laborers. Without a need, there is no incentive to redistribute resources. Any resources the workers provide only dilute the value of those resouces, and thus reduces the resources gained in return.
The next stage is one of two things, either those who have optimized the means of production begin giving generously from their capacity, rather than according to supply and demand economics, or the there is a layering effect, where the classes become separate economies or even nations. A third world country living amongst a first world country, potentially warring for the resources contained within.
It violates the boundary of respect for a policy of no guns on school property.
The virtual aspect of the weapons should not allow them to be exempt from school guidelines or policy.
Most games with guns simulate virtual environments far from the area where the school is located, and thus there is a clear distinction between the real and the virtual. AR games intentionally blur this line by having the game be superimposed upon reality itself. This "virtually" violates the school policy and code of conduct. The Zombies are immaterial.
The weapons are virtual. The combination of the virtual weapons, and the game taking place inside the school itself is what pushes the boundaries.
Virtual guns should not be allowed on school property via Augemented Reality, out of respect for the seriousness of the crisis we are facing. As such AR shooter games should not be allowed on school property as part of the school's official code of conduct.
The intimidation aspect was showing a virtual representation of somebody carrying and using a firearm on school property. The "zombie" element in the video is irrelevant. It should be against school policy to allow shooter AR games, such as "The Walking Dead", to be played on school property.
This guy crashed the aircraft. It made headlines. Hopefully, this will drive the point home to anybody else who might consider attempting to fly an aircraft with only simulator experience. Worst thing that could have happened would be him having succeeded in landing the aircraft.
One wonders if it may also affect the qualifications for pilots in a future era of self-flying aircraft. If the pilots only train on simulators, and have little real world experience, how will they handle the aircraft when the self-flying mechanism fails?
Flight Simulators include training on the controls, mechanics, and physics. The goal of flight sims are to be as true to life as possible. The interfaces used by Flight Sim players are typically very similar to the real thing. All of this means that skills acquired in a flight sim are supposed to translate to skills in actual aircraft, that is the point.
Most shooters are not simulating the aiming and firing of a weapon. They are merely doing an entertaining "arcade" variation where a targeting cursor appears in the middle of the screen. At best you might argue that there is some training in maneuvers and teamwork, but these are most often against unconventional enemies which require different tactics. Furthermore, most tactics are, over the course of time, highly optimized for specific situations or maps, and are not designed to improve survival and success outside of that specific scenario. This is kind of like the difference between studying for a test and studying for success. Additionally, the "respawn" mechanic drastically reduces the cost of "death", encouraging extremely risky tactics on the battlefield (such as using explosives to achieve greater height when jumping).
TL;DR, Flight Sims are documentaries, FPS games are unrealistic action movies.
Slashdot Mirror
^ He's right, you know.
The implications are that if we don't teach robots to kills us all, they won't kill us all? So all we humans have to do is stop killing each other, and we won't have to worry about Skynet and the Terminators.
OneNote 2016 has wonderful version tracking. Given its tight integrations with other Office products I've privately nick-named it "Office 2016".
When a OneNote document does not exceed the single digit GBs, it is an excellent collaboration tool. Unfortunately, syncing larger notebooks reveals where OneNote comes up short. Triple digit GB OneNote notebooks are largely unusable, despite the highly dynamic UI being very popular.
Apple's market strategy was largely incompatible with the start at the bottom approach. You either have a premium product where people are willing to pay for the extra polish and work, or you have a mass marketed product which is affordable at the lower and entry levels.
.NET, etc. Provide a platform that mediocre developers can push something to market fairly quickly, and you will get a stronger and more competitive market. A stronger market means one where competitors offer more kick-backs, and the prices are more affordable. This creates a popularity where new techs are more likely to gain experience with a platform, and therefore recommend that platform to businesses and organizations, as well as individuals. Thus Microsoft's platform is not one that holds strictly to a premium product, but one that scales to suit a vast spectrum.
Alphabet's Chromebook and Android platforms are geared towards this low cost entry level market, and have great potential for success.
Microsoft's dominance began because it was easy to program for. Start with QBasic, then DOS, then
Currently, Microsoft is still prevalent enough that its market dominance is not under any serious short-term threat. However, a long-term strategy of weaning the world off of Microsoft may be quite effective by starting with grade school students. Just because Apple undermined its own success, doesn't mean that the strategy itself is invalid. If children can make it to adulthood without needing any Microsoft products, then they will have no inclination to recommend Microsoft products to startups, and would be ill equipped to support Microsoft products among their peers or co-workers. This would result in a dissatisfaction in the quality of Microsoft products, and a shift in the products purchased. Furthermore, Microsoft's push around Windows 10 to a less stable platform, in the Debian definition of stable, to something that changes every six months or so, makes the many of the concerns of changing platforms largely moot. Microsoft could find itself becoming an Apple like niche premium product. If so, then one wonders what would provide Microsoft with staying power beyond Google/Alphabet? Why switch to Microsoft if a small company has survived entirely on Alphabet products? If nobody is developing software for Microsoft, then what is going to keep the costs down and the platform affordable, either programmer salary wise, or software catalog wise? What happens to the scalability and competitive market of the platform?
The former Expanded Universe (Legends?) provided the Empire with a defense against such hyperspace kamikaze weapons, gravity well generators. The Empire had dedicated starships such as the Interdictor Class Star Destroyer.
Planning ahead means buying a physical disk. Downloading a high res Blu-Ray quality video involves consuming gigabytes, and I only get 150 GB per month. Practically unlimited for everything but HD video content and the rare new game purchases, which means I have to ration it for HD video.
On the subject of Google, I was going on the hype of several pieces I've ready recently about Google pulling out of the ISP game because they accomplished what they intended, by creating competition in upgrading infrastructure to enable higher bandwidths.
How much longer are physical media formats going to be developed? It seems to me that the biggest hindrance to digital subscription and services is bandwidth. With Google's push into the ISP arena upping the available bandwidth, not quite nationally, the times of distributed physical media may be nearing an end.
The second biggest hindrance is of course cost. And the risk of losing the money invested does little to offset the costs. However, is this enough to kill Digital Distribution? Is the risk of losing your entire collection worth not having easy access to that collection for a short time?
What do you mean Steam is next? Steam just pulled the plug on Windows XP and Windows Vista. A different shade of the same thing...
I think this is one of the most well written comments on the subject at hand.
My question is, why is it ludicrous? The religion of capitalism? We can't have any other outlook or understanding of how an economy should be structured? Of how labor and resources should be managed and distributed?
We are a team, every member of the economy, from the engineer's overseeing Nuclear power plants or deforestation/replanting, to the burger flippers and non-skilled labor, are here to build a utopia for all Americans. It is a team. We're working together. Every job contributes something, something which might be undervalued by the economics of the situation.
The question is not whether the Walmart or Amazon jobs should provide for a single parent. Because that may not be the purpose of those jobs, indeed such jobs may be charity or generosity. The question is whether or not the American people should put forth effort to include a single parent's needs when producing resources and goods. (There is an old parable about a man feeding 5,000 people, starting with a few loaves and a few fish, and ended up with 12 baskets left over. The moral is that we produce more than we need, and there is plenty to go around.)
The question is how bad might things get, how thin our resources might get spread, if we didn't discourage irresponsible reproduction? As such, how can we fairly discourage irresponsible reproduction? Is the "capitalist" system of economics ethical or moral? Or is it cold, uncaring, and heartless?
That actually makes it sound like a good thing. If Amazon or the like refuses to hire "at risk" employees who might need welfare or other benefits to sustain themselves, then they will likely eliminate their hiring pool and it should result in forcing them to raise their wages.
Meanwhile for teenagers starting out, who don't need welfare or a "living wage" this wouldn't prevent them from being hired for jobs or gaining experience, etc.
It seems like an ideal solution. My only concern is whether the jobs needed are sufficiently profitable to sustain the population without redistributing the GDP. If our country can sustain a population, but if there is no work of sufficient value to redistribute the wealth generated by the nation as a whole, then this tax could destroy the marginal growth in GDP we might experience. Will it tip the scales back towards recirculating the GDP throughout the entire nation by increasing the value of labor, or will it tip the scales towards a jobless economy by making the work not worth the cost?
In a perfect world perhaps. We live in a world where innuendo, and subtlety is commonplace. Where people are expected to read between the lines when more direct approaches would result in negative reactions. Where people like to cover their behinds and allow an "out" to avoid the full repercussions of an action.
As a result having a virtual representation of someone using a gun on school property to shoot fictional monsters is potentially very similar to one where you are just shooting the people. Particularly when there is a heightened sensitivity to such actions in the jurisdiction.
The question to ask is, what is more important to the player's enjoyment of the game, the augmented reality and game world, or the location where the events took place? The actions and interactions of the gamer in the augmented reality recorded in the video would likely give some measure of his intentions and character, and it is entirely within the realm of likelihood that a popular franchise and a popular emerging platform would lead to an overlooking of the big picture concerns. I do agree that the most likely explanation is that it was simply a young man playing a video game, like most of us who visit this site have done.
"The response is absolutely unreasonable, but so is the belief the behavior is acceptable." Agreed. His offense is along the lines of wearing a tank top and shorts to a job interview for a desk job. Alternatively, it is like buying your girlfriend a pet frog for her birthday. Another comparison that may also fit, is taking an 18 year old nephew to a strip club for his birthday. These things are not considered to be acceptable behavior.
Playing a computer game is not a red flag. A computer game which uses AR and guns in a school setting can be used as a recruiting or planning tool for a crime. Schools already have a problem with shooters. Parents and teachers are already on edge. A video game isn't something important to a student's life. There should be no loss of life on school property, ever. And to reflect that the situation is being taken seriously, and being given proper respect, even virtual simulations using "augmented reality" should not be allowed on school property.
My argument is that the school's code SHOULD say something about it. I am in complete agreement that he shouldn't be facing any sort of charges outside of school. This is at best minor circumstantial evidence to build a case with regards to a much more serious offense. Without any other evidence there is no case, and without a crime being committed there is nothing to charge him with.
The school however would be blamed for any future students who actually did commit crimes on school property, and were witnessed playing games like "The Walking Dead" on school property and were not reprimanded or discouraged from doing so.
Escapist entertainment is something to be enjoyed whilst away from school property. Particularly, anything that disrespects the school, or otherwise makes it harder for teachers and faculty to protect students by burying red flags in yet another haystack...
There are other games, and even non-"Augmented Reality" shooter games which the student can enjoy while on school property. A student will not be unduly inconvenienced by not being allowed to enjoy a very specific form of entertainment.
Finally, while on school property, a student is expected to adhere to a more rigorous standard of behavior suitable to that of the workplace. It would not be appropriate to go around an office building playing an augmented reality shooter, and therefore such behavior should not be condoned within the educational system.
The purpose is to make it easier to spot and get help for troubled kids. Cleary we have a problem with doing so already. Lets not bury those kids in another haystack. Lets not normalize certain behaviors or imagery. Certain things should be held with respect and dignity.
You're missing the part where the guns existed within the virtual version of the school, which used live video footage of the actual school to blur the lines between the real and the virtual.
A WWII documentary, or other textbook documents do not occur in real-time within the that very school building. They are abstracted by history, and location, and context. In addition, there are lessons to be learned from history.
An Augmented Reality Video Game however, serves no intrisic purpose to the education of the student, and instead potentially desensitizes the student to the notion of carrying a gun on school property.
Furthermore, one thing leads to another. We need to have a clearly defined line so that "red flag" behavior is detectable. We need to keep from making it easy for students to carry out attacks. We need to keep them from being able to practice such things.
I say nip it in the bud. When I attending school, cell phone use was generally prohibited, and few kids had cell phones. There are rules for clothing, and so on and so forth. Lets make sure there are clear rules and clear punishments in place for playing "The Walking Dead" on school property. Such as being expelled...
Criminal charges are perhaps "cruel and unusual punishment" for a virtual game, but the guy should perhaps be suspended from school, or otherwise held accountable for his actions by the principal and the school board.
There is a old Bible verse about feeding 5,000 people. It starts with one basket containing a few loaves of bread and fish.
As a people we produce more everday than we need. We have more than enough for everybody, but our economic system does not value human life intrinsically.
Thus we value the individual's ability to increase production capacity and wealth stores. Not all are equally suited to such advanced thinking and foresight. In a purely evolutionary system these once strong laborers, the former backbones of our economy, the shoulders upon which we have stood, would die off due to not being able to acquire and manage the resources to compete in an ever increasingly intellectually challenging economic game.
But there are those which ask the moral and ethical questions of "what am I working for?"... Are we merely working to i crease the wealth of a "noble few", while hoping to skim enough resources off the top to survive? Or are we working for some greater purpose? Are we working to ensure that all of humanity is free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Simple minded view which indicates blindness to the complications which have arisen.
It starts out that to consume resources, man must invest and work to gather those resources.
Next, trade enters the picture and individuals exchange resources and both are better off.
Then banking enters the system, and rather than storing valuable resources, a placeholder is stored, an I.O.U. of sorts. Wealth is no longer perishable, it can be accumulated or saved over time.
Then those that save wealth, who store favors, gain a disproportionate advantage over those that don't. They are able to acquire ownership over greater means of production, and take a larger share of the resources, or the stored value of those resources.
Next the wealthy are then able to incentivize the workforce to engineer more effect means of production. Which allows them to gain more resources for less effort.
Then things start to break down. A growing population requires more resources. Those who control the means of production can do so at such high levels of efficiency that they do not need the laborers. Without a need, there is no incentive to redistribute resources. Any resources the workers provide only dilute the value of those resouces, and thus reduces the resources gained in return.
The next stage is one of two things, either those who have optimized the means of production begin giving generously from their capacity, rather than according to supply and demand economics, or the there is a layering effect, where the classes become separate economies or even nations. A third world country living amongst a first world country, potentially warring for the resources contained within.
It violates the boundary of respect for a policy of no guns on school property.
The virtual aspect of the weapons should not allow them to be exempt from school guidelines or policy.
Most games with guns simulate virtual environments far from the area where the school is located, and thus there is a clear distinction between the real and the virtual. AR games intentionally blur this line by having the game be superimposed upon reality itself. This "virtually" violates the school policy and code of conduct. The Zombies are immaterial.
The weapons are virtual. The combination of the virtual weapons, and the game taking place inside the school itself is what pushes the boundaries.
Virtual guns should not be allowed on school property via Augemented Reality, out of respect for the seriousness of the crisis we are facing. As such AR shooter games should not be allowed on school property as part of the school's official code of conduct.
Rifle, AR, and School.
The intimidation aspect was showing a virtual representation of somebody carrying and using a firearm on school property. The "zombie" element in the video is irrelevant. It should be against school policy to allow shooter AR games, such as "The Walking Dead", to be played on school property.
This guy crashed the aircraft. It made headlines. Hopefully, this will drive the point home to anybody else who might consider attempting to fly an aircraft with only simulator experience. Worst thing that could have happened would be him having succeeded in landing the aircraft.
One wonders if it may also affect the qualifications for pilots in a future era of self-flying aircraft. If the pilots only train on simulators, and have little real world experience, how will they handle the aircraft when the self-flying mechanism fails?
Flight Simulators include training on the controls, mechanics, and physics. The goal of flight sims are to be as true to life as possible. The interfaces used by Flight Sim players are typically very similar to the real thing. All of this means that skills acquired in a flight sim are supposed to translate to skills in actual aircraft, that is the point.
Most shooters are not simulating the aiming and firing of a weapon. They are merely doing an entertaining "arcade" variation where a targeting cursor appears in the middle of the screen. At best you might argue that there is some training in maneuvers and teamwork, but these are most often against unconventional enemies which require different tactics. Furthermore, most tactics are, over the course of time, highly optimized for specific situations or maps, and are not designed to improve survival and success outside of that specific scenario. This is kind of like the difference between studying for a test and studying for success. Additionally, the "respawn" mechanic drastically reduces the cost of "death", encouraging extremely risky tactics on the battlefield (such as using explosives to achieve greater height when jumping).
TL;DR, Flight Sims are documentaries, FPS games are unrealistic action movies.