I think the point of playing games against computers is that there are times (like when I'm done with a real bitch of a Java class at 2:30 am and need to unwind before I crash) that one just can't find a human opponent.
It seems to me that all the comments here are generally the same -- you can't compare something that isn't out yet (and not due for 3 years) with something that is. There's also the fact that M$ is very good at promising the world and delivering Outer Mongolia. And, as we've seen, frequently when M$ adds something new or does a drastic redesign, it takes years (1995 for Win95 to 2002 for WinXP) to get most of the bugs out and make it stable.
So this guy thinks Longhorn and XP are fantastic and Linux and OSX are crap...
Why is everyone here preaching to the choir and patting each other on the back for OSes that many of us use regularly instead of educating the person who runs the "Win Super Site" on what is going on?
Perhaps if he gets a few e-mails from/.'ers calmly explaining the fallacy of his arguments and why his technical arguments are weak, he may not be as likely to spread such FUD in the future.
It might be too much to do for a large number of machines, but if you're backing up to an NFS mount, is it possible to boot a live CD like Knoppix (altered for your use, of course) and copy all the files over to an NFS partition?
I'd think it would be possible to modify Knoppix or another live CD so it would boot, backup, and exit (if possible, then, reboot the hard drive??).
I'm asking this half sarcastically and half seriously.
Could someone please explain to me: Isn't Mono basically an open source.NET and why would we expect Micro$oft to NOT shut Mono down cold if it goes anywhere so it becomes a threat to them?
If spammers are really behind these virii, and we're able to verify it, then it is probably that even the blind and computer-ignorant gov. offices, like FBI, or whoever, will eventually get the same info others have.
Whereas before their only offense was spam (which is gradually being outlawed), now they have done something for which people have been indicted and sent to jail for.
Spammers are evil -- we all know that -- and this just means the gov. (if they're awake) will finally have a tool to put the worst of them in jail once they can prove who's spacking and creating anti-anti-spam virii.
On the other hand, how are you defining a "bad" web page? I've seen some that may have bad code, but still get the information across. True, it's a TV dinner instead of a gourmet meal, but there is a place for TV dinners.
For example, if I have a friend over so we can work on a project for work, I might pop in a few TV dinners so we can eat while we work. If I have a date over -- well, it's not exactly time for a re-heated meal in a tray.
If you're a professional web designer, then use the best tool for you, which may be a text editor or Dreamweaver. On the other hand, if you like doing historical re-enactments, and know a lot about that, and want to share your resources with others in that field, or who are interested in that field, then a "tv-dinner website" is probably perfect. A WYSIWYG editor is great for someone like that -- they can put up a web page and share their knowledge. It may not be the best web page, but the point wasn't to produce excellent HTML and Javascript, but to share knowledge about re-enactments.
Just like having a friend over to get work done is not a task focused on food, so a tv dinner might fit the situation perfectly.
Maybe because I've got a full life and a lot more things to do with my time.
I can do straight HTML. But if I'm doing a big site, it is much more efficient to do it in WYSIWYG, get it done, and go on and have time with my friends.
But the point was not whether or not your nephew could do it (I'm assuming, since he is such a good example, that his sites include CSS and javascript controlled menus -- right?), but that there are many people who have good reasons for doing web sites but don't have time to learn HTML.
It seems to be the general geek opinion, though, that anything less than "what I use as a geek" is inferior and those using something else that is easier shouldn't be doing anything in computers.
Yes and no. I am not as much anti-video-game-violence as I am of the feeling that it should be strongly and effectively kept from children and, yes, even teens. If you're of age and want to spend your time blowing people up, and that's how you blow off steam, go ahead.
And as to being anti--violence, I am. I wasn't. In school nobody ever picked a 2nd fight with me. I was the small guy everybody thought they could pick on. In PE, when we had wrestling, people were amazed that I always won. Nobody talked about being in a fight with me because they didn't want to admit they lost to the small guy. I had no problem with finishing (or, sometimes, starting) fights. I turned to non-violence because I saw violence never worked. It never actually solved anything. So I beat someone in a fight -- it didn't make them friends and only pissed them off. I had another long-term enemy.
I became non-violent and an advocate of non-violence because I found, through experience, that the consequences of violent behavior may have been satisfying in the short term, but were overall negative in the long run.
I did not spend my childhood as a non-violence person. I've seen both sides of the fence and found which side is mentally and emotionally more satisfying and more likely to create constructive outcomes.
Yes, I'm strongly involved with the anti-violence side. And that's the result of having seen both sides. But I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind on Slashdot. I never thought any of these discussions did. (Is that the point? I thought it was a chance to discuss and say what we thought and read what others thought -- if changing people's minds is the purpose of these discussions on/., let me know, because if it is, I've been missing something._
Just a point -- if what you are saying is correct, then how do we know Jon Edward isn't really a psychic? I've noticed that the "scientific community" is always quick to say such things are not possible, yet I have never seen proof that they aren't.
I won't go into the horoscope thing. I'm not trying to prove either Jon Edwards or Horoscopes, just pointing out that I have yet to see a complete and non-biased de-bunking of such. I will say this much on horoscopes, though: I've made it a point to actively find and engage in conversation with astrologers and found that real astrology has nothing to do with the horoscopes in the papers every morning. While researching it, I found that there was a lot more to astrology than any scientist who was trying to debunk it ever admitted to. Again, I'm not sticking up for it. I will say that the astrologers I've interviewed know much more about astronomy than astronomers and scients have ever shown they knew about astrology. How can you debunk or prove something wrong if you don't study it closely and find out just what it is you're debunking?
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just supporting what I've said. It is clear you are strongly involved with gaming and trying to change the view of an avid gamer is not far from trying to change someone's religion or their political affilation.
If you have gone through and read all my posts (and thank you, by the way, for taking the time to explore my comments), then it is likely I made the point in a few of them (although I'll agree I may not have) that we are not the best observers of our own behavior. If you can, go ask Charles Manson if he thinks he's unbalanced. How about Hinckley? Do you think he thought he was mentally ill and that his behavior was extreme or unhealthy when he made plans and shot a President?
We are definately not the best judges of our behavior -- especially as children.
Think of whatever field you work in. When we start work in a field, we have hardly any experience (with some exceptions, but even college doesn't prepare us for the reality of what it's like when we finally set foot in the work place).
I cite my time and experience for 2 reasons: 1) It was ten years of observations. While I didn't note every observation on a clipboard and tally all the times I saw violent behavior that was related to violent games or videos, I learned. (Now, I know you're going want to cut me down on this, so I'll include some background. Spend 10 years doing anything and you learn to watch for certain causes and effects. A sailor learns that certain weather conditions lead to either good or bad sailing -- that's what he/she learns from experience. A doctor, even with years of training, still needs to learn from experience what little clues tell him/her to look deeper. Experience teaches us how to observe relationships between different events and situations.) I learned, from years of my own observations, and from the input from many well trained social workers, psychologists, and psychologists, how to read people carefully and how to difuse rough situations. Maybe you don't like it -- you dont' have to -- but I saw certain events happen over and over through 10 years and saw them, almost every time, lead to certain behaviors. Ten years of observation in ANY field is nothing to be written off.
And reason 2) That's not just 10 years of observation, but it's also 10 years of working with people who continually taught me how to observe -- both myself and others. As I pointed out, we are not good observers of our selves. We are not, by our own self, qualified to say if we are or are not balanced, mentally stable, violent, non-violent, or any other state that can best be determined by objective observation.
While you can call what I say "anecdotal evidence," I am citing evidence from professional experience and observed in professional situations, with a lot of training and supervision from many other professionals. I am not "armchair quarterbacking" and second guessiong a professional who has been trained to do something when I think I know more than someone who has spent years studying a field, training in it, or working in it.
I'm not saying that to intimidate, but to make a point. I write and spent the time I mentioned working in the psychology/social work field. Something I've noticed in both of those fields is that everyone thinks both of those fields are something anyone can do, and that we all know more than the professionals. Without the background, practice, daily work, and experience, you (not you personally) don't. There is a big difference between observing children and teens professionally for 10 years and saying, "I was a kid or teen for 10 years, so I know everything about it."
If personal experience is meaningless, it wouldn't matter what Maya Angelou wrote, since writing is subjective and based on personal experiences and ideas.
If personal experience is meaningless, then the lessons learned from experience is meaningless, and all the science and investigation that has come from that is meaningless.
Personal experience is not meaningless. We learn from personal experience. The scientific method was developed by people that had learned because of their personal experiences.
I've said, in many posts, that there are problems with violent video games and that my experience, when I used to work in social work, is that, no matter what proponents claim, they lead to violent behavior.
But the idea of banning them is completely wrong.
On the other hand, if someone makes games that are proven to lead to violent behavior, it seems victims would have as much right to sue the game companies as smokers who can't read warning labels on cigarettes have of suing tobacco companies.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be really cool if everybody had the backbone to just accept responsibility for their own behavior and stop trying to blame others or big companies for it.
...I'd have to re-emphasize some of the earlier posts. Keep it simple. Really -- keep it simple. While kids have a capacity for learning that is amazing, you DO NOT want to get too technical. You're not clear if you're presenting to K,3, & 5 grades at once, but that is a huge spread, and you're almost certain to lose either the K or 5th grade. If you're doing separate presentations, that'd be much better.
Take in logo (I think I saw an open source or downloadable version somewhere) and show them the direct connection between typing in a command and the logo turtle responding. Let them discover, o n their own, that when you type in RT 90, the turtle turns and when you type in FD 50, it goes forward. At that point they have a basic understanding that your commands effect the computer. Then show them a simple logo program -- maybe start with a long command line that draws a square, then load one that draws a face and run it. Let them see how complex it can get in stages.
After that, you can link the kind of program that controls a turtle to the kind of program that draws pictures and makes web pages. Focus on small stages. If you keep in mind things like the thousands of details you know, you'll lose them.
And remember, good teaching is often good entertainment as well. I'm not saying do a fancy show, but you have to keep them entertained to hold their attention.
As I point out, the muscular ability is only ONE component. While the kids are using controllers, it may or may not increase their ability to use firearms.
You missed my other point -- that it also creates an instinctive reaction to use violence instead of other methods to resolve confrontations. The conditioning doesn't just effect muscles and relfexes, but the way we react mentally and what kind of mental impulses we have when we see and react to a situation.
And I have to admit, if it weren't for a decade of experience working with kids, most of that in treatment situations with social workers and psychologists, I'd say it sounded like speculation. On the other hand, having had that experience and seeing, first hand, how violent games and videos effect kids, my experience tells me this is true.
The only problem is that there is a very distinct difference between real life violence and video game violence
Not as much as I wish there were. I've pointed this out before, in similar topics. Look at athletes: they train over and over and over to train their reflexes so they don't have to think -- so they react without thinking. When they perform actions over and over and over, they enforce the neuron pathways (yes, you can get more technical, but I'm abridging). The more often a 1st baseman practices catching a ball, making the tag, and immediately throwing it to another base or home, without having to look and decide where to throw a ball, the faster and better he can do it without thinking.
The more a child learns a reaction, the more that reaction becomes imprinted in his/her brain the same way an athlete's practice and repeated actions impress those actions in their brains and bodies. If a child repeatedly practices an action of kicking someone who is coming at him/her (or defensively kicking someone before THEY can kick him/her), the more imprinted that action becomes in them. True, it is strongly imprinted in their hand muscles to work the controls, but the other parts of the reaction (kick him first, take him down before he takes me down, don't think--just fight) are as equally imprinted. The kid is just that much more likely to solve his next problem with violence instead of trying to work it out or creating a win-win situation.
Also -- children often have a much harder time determining the difference between reality and fantasy than we, as adults, always realize. Learning and growing is an extremely complex process.
Maybe those of us who work (or, in my case, worked) with kids in treatment have already gone down that road and have the experience that tells us that, while some violent kids (or those in need of other help) are drawn to violent games, that there is also a negative effect on kids playing those games.
it's not completely crystal-clear....except for the fact that the one that says it is not clear is the one done by a group closely involved with gaming. It's like the study a while back that said Windows had a lower TCO than Linux -- but the study was funded by MS.
I fully agree about the denial here on/. In this case, I notice the "rebuttal" is a study done by a group who is directly involved in games. Remember the study a few months or a year or so ago that stated the total cost of ownership was higher for Linux than Microsoft systems? Everyone here jumped all over it, pointing out the study was funded by MS (either directly or indirectly, I don't recall).
So I guess it's okay to attack a pro-MS study that was funded by MS, but not take time to point out that the study that defends violent games is put out by a group involved with games.
I worked with kids of all ages, usually in rough situations. I found, over and over, that the more kids watched violent videos and played violent games, the more they acted out and looked for violent solutions to their problems. It wasn't always the case of only the violent kids playing violent games. I saw well mannered kids get involved in violent videos or games and their behavior would change within weeks.
But, then again, when I've said that here before, I find people on/. don't want to hear it. I've found that the people one would most expect to act logically (programmers, scientists, others who have learned to think logically) often don't.
It's as if they're so busy being "logical" and focusing on the topics they know that they haven't taken time to learn about their own self, and developed the self awareness and ability to monitor one's emotions that can only be gained from years of disciplined work in personal and spiritual growth, as opposed to studying more "academic" topics. I don't know the reason, and I'm not saying all/.'ers are like that. I am saying that often those whom one would think woudl act logically are often those who react most emotionally and don't realize they are being so illogical and emotional.
Which comes back to denial. Whenever this topic has come up before, I've seen myself and others say violent games and videos lead to violent behavior. Usually such comments are greeted by ugly responses (which reminds me those standing up for the violent games and vidoes are helping me with my point -- that those involved with them tend to not find constructive solutions to conflict), or by rather strongly worded comments with scant or no backing to prove their point.
I truly think those who like violent and anti-social games are so habituated or addicted to them they don't see the harm the cause and are unable/unwilling to examine the situation objectively.
No offense, but after having taught for over ten years in theraputic and other special needs classrooms, my experience tells me when someone makes a claim, like "I'm not a violent person," or, "I'm very patient and understanding," quite often that person is the last person who has an objective view of the situation.
There are only 2 lizards with venom that is harmful to humans: the Gila Monster and it's cousin, the Mexican Beaded Lizard. They look similar. They have grooves in their teeth and when they byte, they grab onto their prey and shake it back and forth. This helps the venom slide down along the grooves in their teeth and into the wound.
If you really want a lizard that can byte, go for the Komodo Dragon. Of course, they can be over 10 ft long and might bite off parts of your body, but they're not venomous.
I live where the summers are hot and humid (Richmond, VA) and used to keep anoles (Anolis Carolinius, I think was the right name -- also called the American Chameleon) and during the summer, my family would let them out on the screen porch. They'd stay there the full summer, usually on the screens, but sleeping on the potted plants. We'd often see them when they saw a fly and would run up and grab it for a meal.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point of playing games against computers is that there are times (like when I'm done with a real bitch of a Java class at 2:30 am and need to unwind before I crash) that one just can't find a human opponent.
It seems to me that all the comments here are generally the same -- you can't compare something that isn't out yet (and not due for 3 years) with something that is. There's also the fact that M$ is very good at promising the world and delivering Outer Mongolia. And, as we've seen, frequently when M$ adds something new or does a drastic redesign, it takes years (1995 for Win95 to 2002 for WinXP) to get most of the bugs out and make it stable.
/.'ers calmly explaining the fallacy of his arguments and why his technical arguments are weak, he may not be as likely to spread such FUD in the future.
So this guy thinks Longhorn and XP are fantastic and Linux and OSX are crap...
Why is everyone here preaching to the choir and patting each other on the back for OSes that many of us use regularly instead of educating the person who runs the "Win Super Site" on what is going on?
Perhaps if he gets a few e-mails from
It might be too much to do for a large number of machines, but if you're backing up to an NFS mount, is it possible to boot a live CD like Knoppix (altered for your use, of course) and copy all the files over to an NFS partition?
I'd think it would be possible to modify Knoppix or another live CD so it would boot, backup, and exit (if possible, then, reboot the hard drive??).
I'm asking this half sarcastically and half seriously.
.NET and why would we expect Micro$oft to NOT shut Mono down cold if it goes anywhere so it becomes a threat to them?
Could someone please explain to me: Isn't Mono basically an open source
If spammers are really behind these virii, and we're able to verify it, then it is probably that even the blind and computer-ignorant gov. offices, like FBI, or whoever, will eventually get the same info others have.
Whereas before their only offense was spam (which is gradually being outlawed), now they have done something for which people have been indicted and sent to jail for.
Spammers are evil -- we all know that -- and this just means the gov. (if they're awake) will finally have a tool to put the worst of them in jail once they can prove who's spacking and creating anti-anti-spam virii.
I get laid on a *very* regular basis (no, I'm not married)
But without paying for it and by the same species? (Dolls don't count.)
For the most part, I agree.
On the other hand, how are you defining a "bad" web page? I've seen some that may have bad code, but still get the information across. True, it's a TV dinner instead of a gourmet meal, but there is a place for TV dinners.
For example, if I have a friend over so we can work on a project for work, I might pop in a few TV dinners so we can eat while we work. If I have a date over -- well, it's not exactly time for a re-heated meal in a tray.
If you're a professional web designer, then use the best tool for you, which may be a text editor or Dreamweaver. On the other hand, if you like doing historical re-enactments, and know a lot about that, and want to share your resources with others in that field, or who are interested in that field, then a "tv-dinner website" is probably perfect. A WYSIWYG editor is great for someone like that -- they can put up a web page and share their knowledge. It may not be the best web page, but the point wasn't to produce excellent HTML and Javascript, but to share knowledge about re-enactments.
Just like having a friend over to get work done is not a task focused on food, so a tv dinner might fit the situation perfectly.
How complex a website?
Maybe because I've got a full life and a lot more things to do with my time.
I can do straight HTML. But if I'm doing a big site, it is much more efficient to do it in WYSIWYG, get it done, and go on and have time with my friends.
But the point was not whether or not your nephew could do it (I'm assuming, since he is such a good example, that his sites include CSS and javascript controlled menus -- right?), but that there are many people who have good reasons for doing web sites but don't have time to learn HTML.
It seems to be the general geek opinion, though, that anything less than "what I use as a geek" is inferior and those using something else that is easier shouldn't be doing anything in computers.
...Since someone is bound to say the K9 will be a real dog.
Yes and no. I am not as much anti-video-game-violence as I am of the feeling that it should be strongly and effectively kept from children and, yes, even teens. If you're of age and want to spend your time blowing people up, and that's how you blow off steam, go ahead.
/., let me know, because if it is, I've been missing something._
And as to being anti--violence, I am. I wasn't. In school nobody ever picked a 2nd fight with me. I was the small guy everybody thought they could pick on. In PE, when we had wrestling, people were amazed that I always won. Nobody talked about being in a fight with me because they didn't want to admit they lost to the small guy. I had no problem with finishing (or, sometimes, starting) fights. I turned to non-violence because I saw violence never worked. It never actually solved anything. So I beat someone in a fight -- it didn't make them friends and only pissed them off. I had another long-term enemy.
I became non-violent and an advocate of non-violence because I found, through experience, that the consequences of violent behavior may have been satisfying in the short term, but were overall negative in the long run.
I did not spend my childhood as a non-violence person. I've seen both sides of the fence and found which side is mentally and emotionally more satisfying and more likely to create constructive outcomes.
Yes, I'm strongly involved with the anti-violence side. And that's the result of having seen both sides. But I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind on Slashdot. I never thought any of these discussions did. (Is that the point? I thought it was a chance to discuss and say what we thought and read what others thought -- if changing people's minds is the purpose of these discussions on
Just a point -- if what you are saying is correct, then how do we know Jon Edward isn't really a psychic? I've noticed that the "scientific community" is always quick to say such things are not possible, yet I have never seen proof that they aren't.
I won't go into the horoscope thing. I'm not trying to prove either Jon Edwards or Horoscopes, just pointing out that I have yet to see a complete and non-biased de-bunking of such. I will say this much on horoscopes, though: I've made it a point to actively find and engage in conversation with astrologers and found that real astrology has nothing to do with the horoscopes in the papers every morning. While researching it, I found that there was a lot more to astrology than any scientist who was trying to debunk it ever admitted to. Again, I'm not sticking up for it. I will say that the astrologers I've interviewed know much more about astronomy than astronomers and scients have ever shown they knew about astrology. How can you debunk or prove something wrong if you don't study it closely and find out just what it is you're debunking?
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just supporting what I've said. It is clear you are strongly involved with gaming and trying to change the view of an avid gamer is not far from trying to change someone's religion or their political affilation.
If you have gone through and read all my posts (and thank you, by the way, for taking the time to explore my comments), then it is likely I made the point in a few of them (although I'll agree I may not have) that we are not the best observers of our own behavior. If you can, go ask Charles Manson if he thinks he's unbalanced. How about Hinckley? Do you think he thought he was mentally ill and that his behavior was extreme or unhealthy when he made plans and shot a President?
We are definately not the best judges of our behavior -- especially as children.
Think of whatever field you work in. When we start work in a field, we have hardly any experience (with some exceptions, but even college doesn't prepare us for the reality of what it's like when we finally set foot in the work place).
I cite my time and experience for 2 reasons: 1) It was ten years of observations. While I didn't note every observation on a clipboard and tally all the times I saw violent behavior that was related to violent games or videos, I learned. (Now, I know you're going want to cut me down on this, so I'll include some background. Spend 10 years doing anything and you learn to watch for certain causes and effects. A sailor learns that certain weather conditions lead to either good or bad sailing -- that's what he/she learns from experience. A doctor, even with years of training, still needs to learn from experience what little clues tell him/her to look deeper. Experience teaches us how to observe relationships between different events and situations.) I learned, from years of my own observations, and from the input from many well trained social workers, psychologists, and psychologists, how to read people carefully and how to difuse rough situations. Maybe you don't like it -- you dont' have to -- but I saw certain events happen over and over through 10 years and saw them, almost every time, lead to certain behaviors. Ten years of observation in ANY field is nothing to be written off.
And reason 2) That's not just 10 years of observation, but it's also 10 years of working with people who continually taught me how to observe -- both myself and others. As I pointed out, we are not good observers of our selves. We are not, by our own self, qualified to say if we are or are not balanced, mentally stable, violent, non-violent, or any other state that can best be determined by objective observation.
While you can call what I say "anecdotal evidence," I am citing evidence from professional experience and observed in professional situations, with a lot of training and supervision from many other professionals. I am not "armchair quarterbacking" and second guessiong a professional who has been trained to do something when I think I know more than someone who has spent years studying a field, training in it, or working in it.
I'm not saying that to intimidate, but to make a point. I write and spent the time I mentioned working in the psychology/social work field. Something I've noticed in both of those fields is that everyone thinks both of those fields are something anyone can do, and that we all know more than the professionals. Without the background, practice, daily work, and experience, you (not you personally) don't. There is a big difference between observing children and teens professionally for 10 years and saying, "I was a kid or teen for 10 years, so I know everything about it."
I'm sorry. Next time I'll use tags so people can tell that obvious sarcasm is really sarcasm.
If personal experience is meaningless, it wouldn't matter what Maya Angelou wrote, since writing is subjective and based on personal experiences and ideas.
If personal experience is meaningless, then the lessons learned from experience is meaningless, and all the science and investigation that has come from that is meaningless.
Personal experience is not meaningless. We learn from personal experience. The scientific method was developed by people that had learned because of their personal experiences.
I've said, in many posts, that there are problems with violent video games and that my experience, when I used to work in social work, is that, no matter what proponents claim, they lead to violent behavior.
But the idea of banning them is completely wrong.
On the other hand, if someone makes games that are proven to lead to violent behavior, it seems victims would have as much right to sue the game companies as smokers who can't read warning labels on cigarettes have of suing tobacco companies.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be really cool if everybody had the backbone to just accept responsibility for their own behavior and stop trying to blame others or big companies for it.
"nothing if not relentless"
Isn't that how Geordi described the Pakleds?
...I'd have to re-emphasize some of the earlier posts. Keep it simple. Really -- keep it simple. While kids have a capacity for learning that is amazing, you DO NOT want to get too technical. You're not clear if you're presenting to K,3, & 5 grades at once, but that is a huge spread, and you're almost certain to lose either the K or 5th grade. If you're doing separate presentations, that'd be much better.
Take in logo (I think I saw an open source or downloadable version somewhere) and show them the direct connection between typing in a command and the logo turtle responding. Let them discover, o n their own, that when you type in RT 90, the turtle turns and when you type in FD 50, it goes forward. At that point they have a basic understanding that your commands effect the computer. Then show them a simple logo program -- maybe start with a long command line that draws a square, then load one that draws a face and run it. Let them see how complex it can get in stages.
After that, you can link the kind of program that controls a turtle to the kind of program that draws pictures and makes web pages. Focus on small stages. If you keep in mind things like the thousands of details you know, you'll lose them.
And remember, good teaching is often good entertainment as well. I'm not saying do a fancy show, but you have to keep them entertained to hold their attention.
Good luck!
As I point out, the muscular ability is only ONE component. While the kids are using controllers, it may or may not increase their ability to use firearms.
You missed my other point -- that it also creates an instinctive reaction to use violence instead of other methods to resolve confrontations. The conditioning doesn't just effect muscles and relfexes, but the way we react mentally and what kind of mental impulses we have when we see and react to a situation.
And I have to admit, if it weren't for a decade of experience working with kids, most of that in treatment situations with social workers and psychologists, I'd say it sounded like speculation. On the other hand, having had that experience and seeing, first hand, how violent games and videos effect kids, my experience tells me this is true.
The only problem is that there is a very distinct difference between real life violence and video game violence
Not as much as I wish there were. I've pointed this out before, in similar topics. Look at athletes: they train over and over and over to train their reflexes so they don't have to think -- so they react without thinking. When they perform actions over and over and over, they enforce the neuron pathways (yes, you can get more technical, but I'm abridging). The more often a 1st baseman practices catching a ball, making the tag, and immediately throwing it to another base or home, without having to look and decide where to throw a ball, the faster and better he can do it without thinking.
The more a child learns a reaction, the more that reaction becomes imprinted in his/her brain the same way an athlete's practice and repeated actions impress those actions in their brains and bodies. If a child repeatedly practices an action of kicking someone who is coming at him/her (or defensively kicking someone before THEY can kick him/her), the more imprinted that action becomes in them. True, it is strongly imprinted in their hand muscles to work the controls, but the other parts of the reaction (kick him first, take him down before he takes me down, don't think--just fight) are as equally imprinted. The kid is just that much more likely to solve his next problem with violence instead of trying to work it out or creating a win-win situation.
Also -- children often have a much harder time determining the difference between reality and fantasy than we, as adults, always realize. Learning and growing is an extremely complex process.
Maybe those of us who work (or, in my case, worked) with kids in treatment have already gone down that road and have the experience that tells us that, while some violent kids (or those in need of other help) are drawn to violent games, that there is also a negative effect on kids playing those games.
it's not completely crystal-clear. ...except for the fact that the one that says it is not clear is the one done by a group closely involved with gaming. It's like the study a while back that said Windows had a lower TCO than Linux -- but the study was funded by MS.
I fully agree about the denial here on /. In this case, I notice the "rebuttal" is a study done by a group who is directly involved in games. Remember the study a few months or a year or so ago that stated the total cost of ownership was higher for Linux than Microsoft systems? Everyone here jumped all over it, pointing out the study was funded by MS (either directly or indirectly, I don't recall).
/. don't want to hear it. I've found that the people one would most expect to act logically (programmers, scientists, others who have learned to think logically) often don't.
/.'ers are like that. I am saying that often those whom one would think woudl act logically are often those who react most emotionally and don't realize they are being so illogical and emotional.
So I guess it's okay to attack a pro-MS study that was funded by MS, but not take time to point out that the study that defends violent games is put out by a group involved with games.
I worked with kids of all ages, usually in rough situations. I found, over and over, that the more kids watched violent videos and played violent games, the more they acted out and looked for violent solutions to their problems. It wasn't always the case of only the violent kids playing violent games. I saw well mannered kids get involved in violent videos or games and their behavior would change within weeks.
But, then again, when I've said that here before, I find people on
It's as if they're so busy being "logical" and focusing on the topics they know that they haven't taken time to learn about their own self, and developed the self awareness and ability to monitor one's emotions that can only be gained from years of disciplined work in personal and spiritual growth, as opposed to studying more "academic" topics. I don't know the reason, and I'm not saying all
Which comes back to denial. Whenever this topic has come up before, I've seen myself and others say violent games and videos lead to violent behavior. Usually such comments are greeted by ugly responses (which reminds me those standing up for the violent games and vidoes are helping me with my point -- that those involved with them tend to not find constructive solutions to conflict), or by rather strongly worded comments with scant or no backing to prove their point.
I truly think those who like violent and anti-social games are so habituated or addicted to them they don't see the harm the cause and are unable/unwilling to examine the situation objectively.
No offense, but after having taught for over ten years in theraputic and other special needs classrooms, my experience tells me when someone makes a claim, like "I'm not a violent person," or, "I'm very patient and understanding," quite often that person is the last person who has an objective view of the situation.
...and a vemonous one would be even better.
There are only 2 lizards with venom that is harmful to humans: the Gila Monster and it's cousin, the Mexican Beaded Lizard. They look similar. They have grooves in their teeth and when they byte, they grab onto their prey and shake it back and forth. This helps the venom slide down along the grooves in their teeth and into the wound.
If you really want a lizard that can byte, go for the Komodo Dragon. Of course, they can be over 10 ft long and might bite off parts of your body, but they're not venomous.
I live where the summers are hot and humid (Richmond, VA) and used to keep anoles (Anolis Carolinius, I think was the right name -- also called the American Chameleon) and during the summer, my family would let them out on the screen porch. They'd stay there the full summer, usually on the screens, but sleeping on the potted plants. We'd often see them when they saw a fly and would run up and grab it for a meal.