Do folks see this type of regulation as a slippery slope? What could it lead to?
If parents want their kids to be able to play violent games, they can just buy them. Not allowing the children themselves to purchase the games isn't really a problem IMO. If publishers are concerned that their marketing efforts to children will be wasted, then maybe they need to change their marketing. If adults won't buy these games for their kids, it's a different problem.
it's the teachers who are extremely boring and review review review
from
the current education fails to do for 90% of students who are either not interested at all in subjects they're being taught (case in point biology is required for my PROGRAMMING degree...I hate biology, much rather would take physics...you know, that think I'm very likely to program for any game/simulation...) or simply over or under challenged by the course
People don't understand this but teachers don't make very many decisions at all about what exactly is being taught in a course, and certainly don't make decisions about what's required for particular degree programs. Besides if you didn't want to go to a school whose requirements you considered asinine, you should have investigated it more fully before you joined. This isn't high school where you're required (hm are you in the US?) by law to go and required by the school to take certain courses. The problem you describe seems to be that the school isn't addressing your perceived needs specifically enough. There are schools that pride themselves on doing that, why didn't you go to one of them?
All I'm saying is that it's useless to point to parents as the true source of guidance for children when we all know it's generally not true.
Also what you used was the contrapositive not the converse. Luckily for your argument, statements do imply their contrapositives. You'd have a good argument except that it's not OK for McDonald's to do what they do just because Jack Thompson isn't suing them. No one person can do everything. Video games are just an easy target. People like Jack Thompson are simply doing what they do for money or for their image. I doubt he really cares about the things he says he does.
The problem is that this situation is inherently unfair. Parents shouldn't allow their young children access to these materials that allow free exploration of morally questionable activities (let's use bloodshed) which are then rewarded. But they've dropped the ball and technically no one else has the responsibility so no one takes it. A business is going to take on something like child rearing? Please. They'll do whatever the market will bear.
As I understood it from the article, the innovation of these sandwiches is that no preparation is needed to make them into a sandwich. Which is good, since they taste better (I hope) than a regular MRE and don't take time to put together. I think that's good even though to some people it might seem like a small thing. Food is fundamental. Just the phrase "indestructible sandwich" seems funny to me.
Get a load of this old news where the army has created an indestructible sandwich. Is that a supply drop? Quick! We only have 3 years to find it before it's not "fresh" anymore:
They are too self absorbed to be watching what their kids see on TV or what video games these kids play. These kids may watch violence all the time. They feel toughness is empowering. These are the kids that go to school and bully other kids around. They steal and fight and act with impunity. I think I'd like my government to protect me and my kids from kids like that. It's not the fault of those children but the fault of their parents, but my children might pay the price of those parent's incompetance.
Moreover, there are plenty of parents who actively encourage their kids to participate in school violence, i.e. "if someone hits you, you hit them back twice as hard." That may even be the safest course of action. Who really thinks that every single parent knows enough about right and wrong to teach their kids about it? I've taught middle and high school and have met more than a few parents who still identify with their kids and operate in the same juvenile mindset.
This would only be possible on a pvp server, where farmers often farm in cross faction teams and just kill anyone who gets close. Maybe with overwhelming numbers you could stop them for a short time but they'd just move elsewhere or stop for as long as it takes for people to get bored.
Bleem was basically sued out of existence even though I'm pretty sure they were in the right and no existing playstation code was used. The difference may be that Bleem was a commercial enterprise and this SWG emulation apparently is not. I guess that's a pretty big difference but I'm still surprised that they were allowed to get as far as they have.
I teach high school, and I used to teach middle school. From my experience of kids, there are a great many with a hard time paying attention. That's about all you can say about them. There may be some certain kids whose condition is so extreme that they need medication. I've actually had some of those kids where medication really makes a difference.
The temptation is to think that anyone who bears some similarity to him will also benefit from medication. In people's minds the definition of ADHD becomes broader and broader. If there weren't a name for lack of attention span (which isn't really ADHD as I understand it), people would just deal with kids the way they are. I have lots of students now who have some kind of "attention problem" but I don't think all of them need to be medicated.
I think it's because computer games aren't social. TV and movies are. You can watch a TV show with your friends or even talk about a TV show with your friend and you don't feel like you should be watching it instead. The same goes for movies. Even with a massively multiplayer online game, you're still sitting by yourself at your computer. Talking to someone out of game about the game is silly, unless you're trying to talk them into playing.
I had an opportunity a while ago to visit a "gaming center" for an article I was writing. Think of it as an internet cafe without the cafe. A LAN Party as a business. Anyway, the center was participating in a nationwide C&C Red Alert tournament. It wasn't social at all even though all the guys were sitting in the same room playing the same game.
That's probably the best way to get someone to switch. I remember reading here (?) about an African(?) country that was taking the same approach with its government computers. If you only use the operating system to launch applications, it doesn't matter what the OS itself is. And when the OS brand becomes irrelevant, it's a pretty easy decision to choose a stable one over an unstable one.
I think this is very old news. I saw something (here even; I'm pretty sure anyway) where a guy queued the same movies on two different accounts with different rental activity and saw different waiting times listed. The light renter account had shorter or no wait times for availability on new releases. The article mentions this. At the time the person was only checking for new release wait times and I don't think the phenomenon applied to older movies that were less in demand. I could be wrong it was a long time ago and I can't find the article anymore.
I cringe whenever I see ads for technology to take your workplace anywhere. With _______ you can be at your desk wherever you go!
That just means you're always at work. I'm sure executives want to be able to reach employees at all times, but there's some value in being unreachable when you're not on the clock. Yes, for certain applications it's important for certain mission critical people to be always there, but I don't think most business is like that.
The "base" for a particular politician may be spread out across the country, not all located in their district. So if a Democratic congressman panders to people like me even though I don't live in his district, I'd say he's doing his constituency a disservice.
This is like saying that extroverts have more physical activity. While it's generally true, it doesn't mean anything beyond what you could know by reading the definitions.
The introvert's inner world is usually more interesting than the outside world. Maybe not always as much fun or gratifying, but more demanding of attention. So the only way to do that is in your head.
Slashdot Mirror
Do folks see this type of regulation as a slippery slope? What could it lead to?
If parents want their kids to be able to play violent games, they can just buy them. Not allowing the children themselves to purchase the games isn't really a problem IMO. If publishers are concerned that their marketing efforts to children will be wasted, then maybe they need to change their marketing. If adults won't buy these games for their kids, it's a different problem.
I'm curious how you conclude
fromPeople don't understand this but teachers don't make very many decisions at all about what exactly is being taught in a course, and certainly don't make decisions about what's required for particular degree programs. Besides if you didn't want to go to a school whose requirements you considered asinine, you should have investigated it more fully before you joined. This isn't high school where you're required (hm are you in the US?) by law to go and required by the school to take certain courses. The problem you describe seems to be that the school isn't addressing your perceived needs specifically enough. There are schools that pride themselves on doing that, why didn't you go to one of them?
I hear people decry the American education system a lot. Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong? I do mean exactly.
You're my personal hero.
The phrase "super-special helmet edition" made me think the helmet was for a special person, not that the edition was special.
I teach school so I'm certainly sensitive to some people's special needs, but still an edition with a helmet is funny.
All I'm saying is that it's useless to point to parents as the true source of guidance for children when we all know it's generally not true.
Also what you used was the contrapositive not the converse. Luckily for your argument, statements do imply their contrapositives. You'd have a good argument except that it's not OK for McDonald's to do what they do just because Jack Thompson isn't suing them. No one person can do everything. Video games are just an easy target. People like Jack Thompson are simply doing what they do for money or for their image. I doubt he really cares about the things he says he does.
The problem is that this situation is inherently unfair. Parents shouldn't allow their young children access to these materials that allow free exploration of morally questionable activities (let's use bloodshed) which are then rewarded. But they've dropped the ball and technically no one else has the responsibility so no one takes it. A business is going to take on something like child rearing? Please. They'll do whatever the market will bear.
How many parents do you know? 100? 200?
I've met at least 3000 parents over the last 10 years as a teacher. There are lots of incompetent folks out there.
9-2 were roleplaying games and then number one is a first person shooter?
How does that work? I guess at least they had the decency to name Torment as the number 1 RPG.
If you liked "create synergy in n-Tier multi-platform Web 2.0 AJAX solution" you'll love the Web Economy Bullshit Generator.
Man I read that as something else. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
People think that if we put the burden on parents they will fulfill it. That's naive.
No I haven't, but I have been starving before.
As I understood it from the article, the innovation of these sandwiches is that no preparation is needed to make them into a sandwich. Which is good, since they taste better (I hope) than a regular MRE and don't take time to put together. I think that's good even though to some people it might seem like a small thing. Food is fundamental. Just the phrase "indestructible sandwich" seems funny to me.
Get a load of this old news where the army has created an indestructible sandwich. Is that a supply drop? Quick! We only have 3 years to find it before it's not "fresh" anymore:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2151Moreover, there are plenty of parents who actively encourage their kids to participate in school violence, i.e. "if someone hits you, you hit them back twice as hard." That may even be the safest course of action. Who really thinks that every single parent knows enough about right and wrong to teach their kids about it? I've taught middle and high school and have met more than a few parents who still identify with their kids and operate in the same juvenile mindset.
How can you go about disrupting such a farmer on a pve server? Kill his pet? How?
This would only be possible on a pvp server, where farmers often farm in cross faction teams and just kill anyone who gets close. Maybe with overwhelming numbers you could stop them for a short time but they'd just move elsewhere or stop for as long as it takes for people to get bored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!
Bleem was basically sued out of existence even though I'm pretty sure they were in the right and no existing playstation code was used. The difference may be that Bleem was a commercial enterprise and this SWG emulation apparently is not. I guess that's a pretty big difference but I'm still surprised that they were allowed to get as far as they have.
You should try to find Gods for the PC then. Also a Bitmap Brothers game.
I teach high school, and I used to teach middle school. From my experience of kids, there are a great many with a hard time paying attention. That's about all you can say about them. There may be some certain kids whose condition is so extreme that they need medication. I've actually had some of those kids where medication really makes a difference.
The temptation is to think that anyone who bears some similarity to him will also benefit from medication. In people's minds the definition of ADHD becomes broader and broader. If there weren't a name for lack of attention span (which isn't really ADHD as I understand it), people would just deal with kids the way they are. I have lots of students now who have some kind of "attention problem" but I don't think all of them need to be medicated.
I think it's because computer games aren't social. TV and movies are. You can watch a TV show with your friends or even talk about a TV show with your friend and you don't feel like you should be watching it instead. The same goes for movies. Even with a massively multiplayer online game, you're still sitting by yourself at your computer. Talking to someone out of game about the game is silly, unless you're trying to talk them into playing.
I had an opportunity a while ago to visit a "gaming center" for an article I was writing. Think of it as an internet cafe without the cafe. A LAN Party as a business. Anyway, the center was participating in a nationwide C&C Red Alert tournament. It wasn't social at all even though all the guys were sitting in the same room playing the same game.
Maybe console games. Maybe.
That's probably the best way to get someone to switch. I remember reading here (?) about an African(?) country that was taking the same approach with its government computers. If you only use the operating system to launch applications, it doesn't matter what the OS itself is. And when the OS brand becomes irrelevant, it's a pretty easy decision to choose a stable one over an unstable one.
I think this is very old news. I saw something (here even; I'm pretty sure anyway) where a guy queued the same movies on two different accounts with different rental activity and saw different waiting times listed. The light renter account had shorter or no wait times for availability on new releases. The article mentions this. At the time the person was only checking for new release wait times and I don't think the phenomenon applied to older movies that were less in demand. I could be wrong it was a long time ago and I can't find the article anymore.
Oh wait I found it.
I cringe whenever I see ads for technology to take your workplace anywhere. With _______ you can be at your desk wherever you go!
That just means you're always at work. I'm sure executives want to be able to reach employees at all times, but there's some value in being unreachable when you're not on the clock. Yes, for certain applications it's important for certain mission critical people to be always there, but I don't think most business is like that.
Read The Electronic Sweatshop by Barbara Garson. It's a very quick read and eye-opening.The "base" for a particular politician may be spread out across the country, not all located in their district. So if a Democratic congressman panders to people like me even though I don't live in his district, I'd say he's doing his constituency a disservice.
This is like saying that extroverts have more physical activity. While it's generally true, it doesn't mean anything beyond what you could know by reading the definitions.
The introvert's inner world is usually more interesting than the outside world. Maybe not always as much fun or gratifying, but more demanding of attention. So the only way to do that is in your head.