How disturbing is this statement? A corporate association is going to try to define for kids what is moral and ethical.
And look at the spin from the Junior Achievement guys. "Yet Darrell Luzzo, senior vice president of Junior Achievement, defends the industry's antipiracy program by saying it's not meant to cover all aspects of copyright law. Rather, the idea is to encourage student debate. ''We are learning ways to enhance classroom discussions."
To have a debate, you're supposed to argue both sides of an issue. Do you really think they would allow a student to express an opinion other than the one they want? I doubt the "volunteers" they send in to do these things even understand the laws enough themselves to truly debate the issues they are "teaching".
Actually, they're brainwashing kids into thinking that things which aren't illegal actually are (fair use).
Yup, and this is why it is so frightening. If all you know about rights is what some corporation tells you, if you don't know what your rights actually are, then do they even exist? Not for you they don't.
Your kids are being fed to corporate interests, who are trying to prevent them from really understanding what rights they have. This here is an actual threat to liberty. When does the bombing campaign start?
Part of the reason why people get so closely attached to the characters is because they play the game for so many hours, but the truth is that most of the hours in FF 6 were spent fighting monsters. There were a few fights where story/plot did progress, but the vast majority of those were fairly meaningless battles. If you cut out all the fights and wandering and went straight to story/plot/character development it is easily 5 hours or less, and you can pare that down very easily by losing some of the more peripheral characters. Just because a game is long, doesn't mean the story is especially long and complex. If you go back and play FF6 and only take the dialogue that advances the story or develops the characters, you'll be surprised at how little there really is. I'm not sure whether that is good (minimal dialogue but still resulting in the same desired emotions) or bad (not as deep and dense as you originally felt)
Of course, in a movie, a single battle often takes up a very large amount of time relative to how much the plot is actually advanced. In the game, each battle takes a shorter amount of time, but there's more of them to pad out the hours played.
P.S. Final Fantasy 6 is one of my top games of all time. I've spent at LEAST 200 hours playing and replaying (and replaying...) that game.
The problem is that the corporation is LEGALLY A PERSON, but has none of the responsibilities of one. A corporation isn't even an organization of people, but of parts of people, only those parts which will earn it profit. In fact, I believe it is illegal for a CEO to make decisions that go against a corporations profitability even if they wanted to. Their responsibility is to the shareholders more than anyone that might be affected by their decisions. The government is also loath to revoke a corporate charter for almost any reason, even though it is one of the few truly powerful controls on corporate behaviour.
For more, you might want to check out the documentary, The Corporation, which has been in theaters and TV here in Canada and will show up in US theaters in the next few months. My sig is from someone in that documentary.
There's the fun factor for those involved, not everybody needs to be a Spielberg.
Exactly. I figure that even if we're no good at it, doesn't everyone have some artform that they wish they could try to play with without all the big restrictions? Yes, everyone can now use a computer or pen and paper to write something (book or script or music etc.) or draw something, but not everyone wants to do those things. If EVERY artform was easily doable, would we all as a whole be happier or more content (because we can all express ourselves creatively as we want)? I want to make a movie or a videogame more than I want to write a book.
Has anyone else wondered what will happen when it becomes truly simple for EVERYONE to make movies, games, music etc. ? I mean, what will it be like when absolutely everyone can express what they want as they want it, even without technical skills? That's part of why I love the idea of machinima so much.
With Machinima, you do still need some technical skills, but you don't need cameras or locations, or a whole lot of photogenic actors. You can create the effects yourself (within the limits of the game engine). I don't think I have any sort of directorial talent, but I still dream of the day when I can just mess around with it, just for fun.
I imagine that if it ever does become super simple for people to create things like music and games and movies, we'll just get lots of crap. But maybe we'll get some gems. Maybe people will be less frustrated if they can express themselves artistically in some way. (Of course, some will be frustrated when they realize they have no talent and no audience.)
For an example of one man's vision, you can check out the anime Voices of a Distant Star, which was written, drawn, animated and I think scored by a single crazy guy.
Ok, first off, I am also studying Psychology. I have also spent most of my life playing videogames and have also read the article you mentioned above. In fact, it was part of my literature review for one of my reports. It's one of the easiest to find reports around, but it is also very old.
Let's break it down, they lock people in cubicles and tell them to play Wolfenstein, Myst and a Tetris clone (Tetrix) in 15 minute intervals. Just comparing the games shows that the study is seriously flawed. Playing Myst (a VERY sedate game) in a 15 minute interval will not allow you to get far enough in the game to experience any real amount of frustration or excitement. Of course if they had gotten to the base 5 puzzle, they may very well have gotten extremely frustrated. Tetris (Tetrix) also starts off fairly slowly, and many if not all (depending on player skill) of those 15 minutes will be spent in the low speed levels. In Wolfenstein, it is almost IMMMEDIATELY possible to die (lose), and the gameplay is in a competitive manner (ie it feels like it is you against the computer or enemies). This has an effect when you are told that the purpose of the experiment is to examine your skill development in the game.
Then let's move on to what they consider "aggressiveness". The participants are asked to send off a blast of white noise at their OPPONENT if they win by pressing keys faster than their opponent. The Wolfenstein and Tetrix players will be more likely to win this, because their games involve quicker reaction time. Besides this, Wolfenstein is the ONLY game that feels competitive. They should have included another game where it feels that you are playing against an opponent (even a computer one). Even something simple such as say Pong would have been better.
It seems pretty clear to me that playing a game that is designed to be more immediately exciting, with a competitive element and a quick win/lose condition, when you are told that you are being measured for your skill (what skill would they measure in Myst?) would leave you more excited after 15 minutes of play than the Tetrix or Myst. Also, Wolfenstein is much more complex in terms of controls and perhaps more inherently frustrating to play. OF COURSE this tends to result in more aggressive immediate behaviour.
But does it lead to the person becoming more fundamentally aggressive? Games are being played by more people, while becoming more "realistic". There are more titles rated as being violent every year. There are people (like me) now who have grown up on videogames. The violent crime rate has been steadily dropping every year in both Canada and the United States. Now, the violent crime rate is affected by more than videogames, but that is exactly my point. Videogames just don't have that big of an effect unless it is on someone who would probably have the same problem with other violent media.
I am also studying psychology and I probably have read more recent texts and studies than you have. And I admit that I do not work in a professional capacity with kids. But I have many young cousins with a fairly large age range, and they have grown up playing more violent games (more games in general) at an earlier age than I did. They don't cause more trouble than I did. All the boys but one get into fewer fights than I did at their age, and the one that does get into more fights plays the least videogames (he is more into physical activities) and he has changed his behaviour in the last 2 years.
I'm not saying that videogames don't have an effect, it just isn't as large an effect as other socio-economic factors. You only have to look at the difference in the Canadian and US violent crime rates (we watch/play the same media you do, and our film ratings are more lenient that American ones, btw Canada's population is MORE urbanized than the US per capita, to remove a common misconception). Of course, my argument was that videogame violence isn't necessarily more harmful than TV violence, and I think this is better brought out by
So the objection is to things that she deems overly violent IN GENERAL, and not necessarily the interactive nature of the violence. This is consistent and fair. Of course, perhaps she might feel that interactive violence is MORE harmful, but I would say that that is a perception problem.
Some people think that passivity is worse, some think interactivity is worse. Personally, I think it all just comes down to whether the person watching/playing understands that it is fictitious. If you don't, it's a negative effect for both and not necessarily one being worse than the other.
You do make a good point about at least you're killing the zombies in horror games. Videogames are the new storytelling for kids, where they are not only identifying with the "hero" conquering fears and overcoming scary things, but they can control the hero and do it themselves.
I have the exact same experience. If I was using my computer for anything but games, it was fine. But if I they even thought I was playing games (music playing or whatever), then they would tell me I was wasting my time or tell me to stop using the computer so much. They didn't do that when I was watching literally 3-6 hours of TV a day.
Frankly, I've learned more from games (hand-eye, socializing online, coding, level/architectural design, game design theory) than I have from much more time in front of the TV.
Your partner may be familiar with kids, but how familiar is she with VIDEOGAMES. Does she have a problem with allowing kids to watch slasher flicks?
My point was that people are more likely to be against videogame violence because they are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with videogames themselves. They then isolate the factor that sets it apart from things they are familiar with, namely interactivity and attribute their discomfort to that and use it as their argument.
I am interested in knowing if your partner plays videogames herself. I just feel that people who grow up with videogames (or are at least very comfortable with them) will still set boundaries for their kids, but it won't be because "participating" in the violence is necessarily more harmful. It is namely to the degree of violence that I think the decision should be made. (Personally, I feel Manhunt is VERY much NOT for kids. GTA can be violent but is fairly cartoonish and I think most teens can handle it fine.)
It isn't that parents are concerned that their kids are "actually performing the murder", because kids will do things like play superheroes or cops and robbers or cowboys and indians. It is that their children are doing so in a way that they don't understand.
EVERY new form of media that appeals to kids has come under attack from confused parents who don't understand it and simply go by what someone else is saying about it, thinking (hoping) that they understand it. For example, when comics were first printed in newspapers, there was an outcry that the mixing of reality and fiction would warp young minds. They wouldn't be able to discern the real from the fictional. Then, superhero comics (not in newspapers but magazine form) were supposed to be the cause of all juvenile delinquency and homosexuality as they became popular. Then music was corrupting our kids, making them devil worshippers. Then movies, then TV as each became more "realistic" and popular.
It's bullshit that people are opposed to it because their kids are active in the violence in a game. Previously, people said that being passive and soaking in violence from the TV was the worst thing we could do to our kids. It's all about parents not understanding their kids and their lives and feeling that something is wrong. There is something wrong. You're not trying to understand or talk to your kids, you're just trying to control their lives through environmental factors. Get to know your own damn kids! Just make sure they are relatively decent people (from their words and actions) and let them live their lives. They will naturally want to have their own space and rebel against you. Every generation wants to differentiate itself from the previous one and the older generation always thinks that there's something wrong with the newer generation.
There has never been a time in history when the older generation didn't think the newer generation were terrible and not quite right and leading us all into destruction. Guess what? Pretty much every generation eventually grows up into people fairly similar to those of the previous generation.
Oh BTW, this isn't an attack on the parent poster, it's more of a general rant against the argument that parents are against videogames because the children are "actively involved in the violence".
This won't hurt Nintendo this generation at all. Simply put, I highly doubt that Silicon Knights has much experience with either the PS2 or the Xbox, since they've been working exclusively with Nintendo for the last few years.
If SK makes any more games for this generation of consoles, it will be for Game Cube or be technically less polished ports of Eternal Darkness.
Long term though, I think this will hurt Nintendo. Silicon Knights made the type of games that Nintendo itself won't. More complicated, darker games with more attention paid to presentation (story and flash). This will just further reinforce peoples' view that Nintendo systems are for kids. I love playing Nintendo's games, but it does get boring not having something darker to play, and makes it that much harder to convince friends to play on a Nintendo console.
Silicon Knights had talent and were a good complement to Nintendo's usual style. Unless Nintendo manages something better with 3rd parties than it has (simply allowing Japanese companies to make Nintendo-published games isn't enough), things are only going to get worse. A good thing would be to seriously pursue Square-Enix to make games for their next system, even if only by telling them that they can't afford to allow Sony or Microsoft to go unopposed by Nintendo. After all, if Nintendo stops making consoles, then there'll be less competition amongst the hardware companies and they'll have to start competing with Nintendo games on PS4 or Xbox3. Not good for any 3rd party company.
It's been suggested that standards of beauty are based on economic conditions, that is, when food is scarce, biggger women are considered more attractive. When food is plentiful (like it is here) smaller women are considered attractive.
It's an interesting concept and it may have some genetic basis, or it may simply be about rarity (wanting a mate that is rarer and thus more desirable to show off with).
This is a state of affairs that not only speaks ill of society, but actually demeans science fiction and fantasy as well, by putting them in the impossible position of having to provide us with the answers to life, the universe and everything.
Sci-fi has already provided us with the answer to life, the universe and everything. It's 42. So much for this guy.
If you are unwilling to drop molten metal inside of your thousand dollar home theater equipment, what are you doing here?
It is my hope that every slashdotter has at least ruined more electronics than the average person will ever buy, or can explain he (she) hasn't because he (she) is intensely competent.
I'll be sending dead tree mails to my Liberal MP Tony Ianno, who will be facing a tough challenge here in Trinity Spadina if/when Olivia Chow runs for NDP (her husband is fed NDP leader Jack Layton), Scherrer and probably Paul Martin.
Personally, I think it'd be a great thing to get Scherrer ousted as a very symbolic gesture. A cabinet minister not being re-elected can be a serious thing, especially if they know that it was because of something they did just prior to the election.
The Liberals are already in trouble in Quebec, and if they were to lose Ontario ridings, then they are very much screwed. The only problem is that the most likely beneficiary would be the conservatives, whom I have no love for (just too much focus on religion there).
I thought about your argument a bit and came up with this:
If a representative puts themselves in the position of the one being actually effected, then the law will be less likely to be AGAINST a group than some of the stuff that is passed. From your above examples, the representative would put themselves in the place of the child being harmed, the black being persecuted, the prisoner being raped and conclude that they would not want to be subject to these things. Essentially, no one wants to be victimized. What about the offenders, who are also being affected? Well, their actions transgress against other people's rights.
But compare it to the examples the grandparent poster used: They would put themselves in the role of a gay person who wants to be married and conclude that gays don't want to be married (?!?), would put themselves into the role of a rap music listener and conclude that no one wants to listen to rap music (?!?), would put themselves into the role of someone who likes watching pr0n and conclude that it shouldn't be available (?!?). Now apparently, these people aren't the victims. Who is being victimized? Whose rights are being transgressed against? Does a right to marry for gays deny someone else's right to marry? (hint: the answer is no.) Does removing the right to listen to rap music prevent people from being killed? I doubt it, and I'd be interested to see any studies showing murder rates going higher with the introduction of rap music. This is possible, but not even close to probable. Does removing the right to watch pr0n prevent what? Rape? Possibly but not assuredly.
I think the point is this, in the first 3 examples, there IS NO VICTIM. Only the very slight chance of possible victims because of the acts which these things might lead to, which are illegal acts already. This line of reasoning is ridiculous and if you follow it, you would have to be against alcohol (prohibition went real well), guns (oh boy), cars (used in crime all the time) etc.
In your examples, if the act(s) takes place, then there is ASSUREDLY a victim.
There are enough actual victims of actual crimes, without pursuing non-existent victims of non-existent crimes. The grandparent examples illustrate how it is the moral objections of people against things they DISLIKE, and are not actually HARMED by that creates some laws.
If a law doesn't actually PROTECT actual people, then the law is simply restricting freedoms. Is that what laws are for?
There's one thing that always bothers me. Why is the onus for empathy always on the geek? Do jocks go out of their way to try to understand geeks? I mean, it could probably even be explained to them that geeks feel the same way about say computers as they do about sports and stats.
Essentially, it seems the reason is that because there's more of them than there are of us, that it is our duty to change. Because there are more of them then there are of us, they're the normal ones that we should be more like.
You may be right in that I find it difficult to know what another person (non-geek) is thinking. That makes me nervous and anxious. So how come the other person doesn't know to empathize with me feeling anxious and nervous? Why is it only a one-way street? It isn't that I don't try, I'm just not very good at it (with non-geeks). If they are better at empathy, is it just at empathizing with others like themselves (non-geek). If so, then isn't that just as limited as our ability to speak to other geeks better than we do to non-geeks?
Note: I realize I am sort of making an us/them type argument. It's just that I believe that people are just wired in different ways, and some people will always get along better with one group than another.
The only cooking I can do is to wait the 3 minutes for the boiling water to do its work. Even then, I sometimes forget all about it and end up with soggy noodles.:(
This is of course, what is frightening about current state of the legal system. That it's not whether you're right or wrong, it's about whether you've pissed off the wrong person/organization.
It's not about justice or fairness, it's about struggling for dominance, and if someone's got more money and/or power than you, you're screwed. Even if you win the verdict, you have to deal with the expenses and hardships before that (in this case, having his stuff seized), and then have to deal with appeals. Plus, those with power can screw your reputation, leaving you with image problems.
I work near a place that's got Karaoke at night. And for weddings (wedding songs karaoke... >shudder). They're so off-key that if you could code a program to recognize it, you would have to be insane and we'd have to accept the program as our new god.
Slashdot Mirror
How disturbing is this statement? A corporate association is going to try to define for kids what is moral and ethical.
And look at the spin from the Junior Achievement guys.
"Yet Darrell Luzzo, senior vice president of Junior Achievement, defends the industry's antipiracy program by saying it's not meant to cover all aspects of copyright law. Rather, the idea is to encourage student debate. ''We are learning ways to enhance classroom discussions."
To have a debate, you're supposed to argue both sides of an issue. Do you really think they would allow a student to express an opinion other than the one they want? I doubt the "volunteers" they send in to do these things even understand the laws enough themselves to truly debate the issues they are "teaching".
Actually, they're brainwashing kids into thinking that things which aren't illegal actually are (fair use).
Yup, and this is why it is so frightening. If all you know about rights is what some corporation tells you, if you don't know what your rights actually are, then do they even exist? Not for you they don't.
Your kids are being fed to corporate interests, who are trying to prevent them from really understanding what rights they have. This here is an actual threat to liberty. When does the bombing campaign start?
Part of the reason why people get so closely attached to the characters is because they play the game for so many hours, but the truth is that most of the hours in FF 6 were spent fighting monsters. There were a few fights where story/plot did progress, but the vast majority of those were fairly meaningless battles. If you cut out all the fights and wandering and went straight to story/plot/character development it is easily 5 hours or less, and you can pare that down very easily by losing some of the more peripheral characters. Just because a game is long, doesn't mean the story is especially long and complex. If you go back and play FF6 and only take the dialogue that advances the story or develops the characters, you'll be surprised at how little there really is. I'm not sure whether that is good (minimal dialogue but still resulting in the same desired emotions) or bad (not as deep and dense as you originally felt)
Of course, in a movie, a single battle often takes up a very large amount of time relative to how much the plot is actually advanced. In the game, each battle takes a shorter amount of time, but there's more of them to pad out the hours played.
P.S. Final Fantasy 6 is one of my top games of all time. I've spent at LEAST 200 hours playing and replaying (and replaying...) that game.
The problem is that the corporation is LEGALLY A PERSON, but has none of the responsibilities of one. A corporation isn't even an organization of people, but of parts of people, only those parts which will earn it profit. In fact, I believe it is illegal for a CEO to make decisions that go against a corporations profitability even if they wanted to. Their responsibility is to the shareholders more than anyone that might be affected by their decisions. The government is also loath to revoke a corporate charter for almost any reason, even though it is one of the few truly powerful controls on corporate behaviour.
For more, you might want to check out the documentary, The Corporation, which has been in theaters and TV here in Canada and will show up in US theaters in the next few months. My sig is from someone in that documentary.
There's the fun factor for those involved, not everybody needs to be a Spielberg.
Exactly. I figure that even if we're no good at it, doesn't everyone have some artform that they wish they could try to play with without all the big restrictions? Yes, everyone can now use a computer or pen and paper to write something (book or script or music etc.) or draw something, but not everyone wants to do those things. If EVERY artform was easily doable, would we all as a whole be happier or more content (because we can all express ourselves creatively as we want)? I want to make a movie or a videogame more than I want to write a book.
Has anyone else wondered what will happen when it becomes truly simple for EVERYONE to make movies, games, music etc. ? I mean, what will it be like when absolutely everyone can express what they want as they want it, even without technical skills? That's part of why I love the idea of machinima so much.
With Machinima, you do still need some technical skills, but you don't need cameras or locations, or a whole lot of photogenic actors. You can create the effects yourself (within the limits of the game engine). I don't think I have any sort of directorial talent, but I still dream of the day when I can just mess around with it, just for fun.
I imagine that if it ever does become super simple for people to create things like music and games and movies, we'll just get lots of crap. But maybe we'll get some gems. Maybe people will be less frustrated if they can express themselves artistically in some way. (Of course, some will be frustrated when they realize they have no talent and no audience.)
For an example of one man's vision, you can check out the anime Voices of a Distant Star, which was written, drawn, animated and I think scored by a single crazy guy.
Ok, first off, I am also studying Psychology. I have also spent most of my life playing videogames and have also read the article you mentioned above. In fact, it was part of my literature review for one of my reports. It's one of the easiest to find reports around, but it is also very old.
Let's break it down, they lock people in cubicles and tell them to play Wolfenstein, Myst and a Tetris clone (Tetrix) in 15 minute intervals. Just comparing the games shows that the study is seriously flawed. Playing Myst (a VERY sedate game) in a 15 minute interval will not allow you to get far enough in the game to experience any real amount of frustration or excitement. Of course if they had gotten to the base 5 puzzle, they may very well have gotten extremely frustrated. Tetris (Tetrix) also starts off fairly slowly, and many if not all (depending on player skill) of those 15 minutes will be spent in the low speed levels. In Wolfenstein, it is almost IMMMEDIATELY possible to die (lose), and the gameplay is in a competitive manner (ie it feels like it is you against the computer or enemies). This has an effect when you are told that the purpose of the experiment is to examine your skill development in the game.
Then let's move on to what they consider "aggressiveness". The participants are asked to send off a blast of white noise at their OPPONENT if they win by pressing keys faster than their opponent. The Wolfenstein and Tetrix players will be more likely to win this, because their games involve quicker reaction time. Besides this, Wolfenstein is the ONLY game that feels competitive. They should have included another game where it feels that you are playing against an opponent (even a computer one). Even something simple such as say Pong would have been better.
It seems pretty clear to me that playing a game that is designed to be more immediately exciting, with a competitive element and a quick win/lose condition, when you are told that you are being measured for your skill (what skill would they measure in Myst?) would leave you more excited after 15 minutes of play than the Tetrix or Myst. Also, Wolfenstein is much more complex in terms of controls and perhaps more inherently frustrating to play. OF COURSE this tends to result in more aggressive immediate behaviour.
But does it lead to the person becoming more fundamentally aggressive? Games are being played by more people, while becoming more "realistic". There are more titles rated as being violent every year. There are people (like me) now who have grown up on videogames. The violent crime rate has been steadily dropping every year in both Canada and the United States. Now, the violent crime rate is affected by more than videogames, but that is exactly my point. Videogames just don't have that big of an effect unless it is on someone who would probably have the same problem with other violent media.
I am also studying psychology and I probably have read more recent texts and studies than you have. And I admit that I do not work in a professional capacity with kids. But I have many young cousins with a fairly large age range, and they have grown up playing more violent games (more games in general) at an earlier age than I did. They don't cause more trouble than I did. All the boys but one get into fewer fights than I did at their age, and the one that does get into more fights plays the least videogames (he is more into physical activities) and he has changed his behaviour in the last 2 years.
I'm not saying that videogames don't have an effect, it just isn't as large an effect as other socio-economic factors. You only have to look at the difference in the Canadian and US violent crime rates (we watch/play the same media you do, and our film ratings are more lenient that American ones, btw Canada's population is MORE urbanized than the US per capita, to remove a common misconception). Of course, my argument was that videogame violence isn't necessarily more harmful than TV violence, and I think this is better brought out by
So the objection is to things that she deems overly violent IN GENERAL, and not necessarily the interactive nature of the violence. This is consistent and fair. Of course, perhaps she might feel that interactive violence is MORE harmful, but I would say that that is a perception problem.
Some people think that passivity is worse, some think interactivity is worse. Personally, I think it all just comes down to whether the person watching/playing understands that it is fictitious. If you don't, it's a negative effect for both and not necessarily one being worse than the other.
You do make a good point about at least you're killing the zombies in horror games. Videogames are the new storytelling for kids, where they are not only identifying with the "hero" conquering fears and overcoming scary things, but they can control the hero and do it themselves.
I have the exact same experience. If I was using my computer for anything but games, it was fine. But if I they even thought I was playing games (music playing or whatever), then they would tell me I was wasting my time or tell me to stop using the computer so much. They didn't do that when I was watching literally 3-6 hours of TV a day.
Frankly, I've learned more from games (hand-eye, socializing online, coding, level/architectural design, game design theory) than I have from much more time in front of the TV.
Your partner may be familiar with kids, but how familiar is she with VIDEOGAMES. Does she have a problem with allowing kids to watch slasher flicks?
My point was that people are more likely to be against videogame violence because they are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with videogames themselves. They then isolate the factor that sets it apart from things they are familiar with, namely interactivity and attribute their discomfort to that and use it as their argument.
I am interested in knowing if your partner plays videogames herself. I just feel that people who grow up with videogames (or are at least very comfortable with them) will still set boundaries for their kids, but it won't be because "participating" in the violence is necessarily more harmful. It is namely to the degree of violence that I think the decision should be made. (Personally, I feel Manhunt is VERY much NOT for kids. GTA can be violent but is fairly cartoonish and I think most teens can handle it fine.)
It isn't that parents are concerned that their kids are "actually performing the murder", because kids will do things like play superheroes or cops and robbers or cowboys and indians. It is that their children are doing so in a way that they don't understand.
EVERY new form of media that appeals to kids has come under attack from confused parents who don't understand it and simply go by what someone else is saying about it, thinking (hoping) that they understand it. For example, when comics were first printed in newspapers, there was an outcry that the mixing of reality and fiction would warp young minds. They wouldn't be able to discern the real from the fictional. Then, superhero comics (not in newspapers but magazine form) were supposed to be the cause of all juvenile delinquency and homosexuality as they became popular. Then music was corrupting our kids, making them devil worshippers. Then movies, then TV as each became more "realistic" and popular.
It's bullshit that people are opposed to it because their kids are active in the violence in a game. Previously, people said that being passive and soaking in violence from the TV was the worst thing we could do to our kids. It's all about parents not understanding their kids and their lives and feeling that something is wrong. There is something wrong. You're not trying to understand or talk to your kids, you're just trying to control their lives through environmental factors. Get to know your own damn kids! Just make sure they are relatively decent people (from their words and actions) and let them live their lives. They will naturally want to have their own space and rebel against you. Every generation wants to differentiate itself from the previous one and the older generation always thinks that there's something wrong with the newer generation.
There has never been a time in history when the older generation didn't think the newer generation were terrible and not quite right and leading us all into destruction. Guess what? Pretty much every generation eventually grows up into people fairly similar to those of the previous generation.
Oh BTW, this isn't an attack on the parent poster, it's more of a general rant against the argument that parents are against videogames because the children are "actively involved in the violence".
This won't hurt Nintendo this generation at all. Simply put, I highly doubt that Silicon Knights has much experience with either the PS2 or the Xbox, since they've been working exclusively with Nintendo for the last few years.
If SK makes any more games for this generation of consoles, it will be for Game Cube or be technically less polished ports of Eternal Darkness.
Long term though, I think this will hurt Nintendo. Silicon Knights made the type of games that Nintendo itself won't. More complicated, darker games with more attention paid to presentation (story and flash). This will just further reinforce peoples' view that Nintendo systems are for kids. I love playing Nintendo's games, but it does get boring not having something darker to play, and makes it that much harder to convince friends to play on a Nintendo console.
Silicon Knights had talent and were a good complement to Nintendo's usual style. Unless Nintendo manages something better with 3rd parties than it has (simply allowing Japanese companies to make Nintendo-published games isn't enough), things are only going to get worse. A good thing would be to seriously pursue Square-Enix to make games for their next system, even if only by telling them that they can't afford to allow Sony or Microsoft to go unopposed by Nintendo. After all, if Nintendo stops making consoles, then there'll be less competition amongst the hardware companies and they'll have to start competing with Nintendo games on PS4 or Xbox3. Not good for any 3rd party company.
It's been suggested that standards of beauty are based on economic conditions, that is, when food is scarce, biggger women are considered more attractive. When food is plentiful (like it is here) smaller women are considered attractive.
It's an interesting concept and it may have some genetic basis, or it may simply be about rarity (wanting a mate that is rarer and thus more desirable to show off with).
This is a state of affairs that not only speaks ill of society, but actually demeans science fiction and fantasy as well, by putting them in the impossible position of having to provide us with the answers to life, the universe and everything.
Sci-fi has already provided us with the answer to life, the universe and everything. It's 42. So much for this guy.
If you are unwilling to drop molten metal inside of your thousand dollar home theater equipment, what are you doing here?
It is my hope that every slashdotter has at least ruined more electronics than the average person will ever buy, or can explain he (she) hasn't because he (she) is intensely competent.
So when we hear or see the phrase "No More Bush!", whose campaign slogan is it?
You'll be living forever waiting for it then, I wager.
Nope, you're not alone.
I'll be sending dead tree mails to my Liberal MP Tony Ianno, who will be facing a tough challenge here in Trinity Spadina if/when Olivia Chow runs for NDP (her husband is fed NDP leader Jack Layton), Scherrer and probably Paul Martin.
Personally, I think it'd be a great thing to get Scherrer ousted as a very symbolic gesture. A cabinet minister not being re-elected can be a serious thing, especially if they know that it was because of something they did just prior to the election.
The Liberals are already in trouble in Quebec, and if they were to lose Ontario ridings, then they are very much screwed. The only problem is that the most likely beneficiary would be the conservatives, whom I have no love for (just too much focus on religion there).
And that story refers right back to the postings here on Slashdot! So this was written afterward.
I thought about your argument a bit and came up with this:
If a representative puts themselves in the position of the one being actually effected, then the law will be less likely to be AGAINST a group than some of the stuff that is passed. From your above examples, the representative would put themselves in the place of the child being harmed, the black being persecuted, the prisoner being raped and conclude that they would not want to be subject to these things. Essentially, no one wants to be victimized. What about the offenders, who are also being affected? Well, their actions transgress against other people's rights.
But compare it to the examples the grandparent poster used: They would put themselves in the role of a gay person who wants to be married and conclude that gays don't want to be married (?!?), would put themselves into the role of a rap music listener and conclude that no one wants to listen to rap music (?!?), would put themselves into the role of someone who likes watching pr0n and conclude that it shouldn't be available (?!?). Now apparently, these people aren't the victims. Who is being victimized? Whose rights are being transgressed against? Does a right to marry for gays deny someone else's right to marry? (hint: the answer is no.) Does removing the right to listen to rap music prevent people from being killed? I doubt it, and I'd be interested to see any studies showing murder rates going higher with the introduction of rap music. This is possible, but not even close to probable. Does removing the right to watch pr0n prevent what? Rape? Possibly but not assuredly.
I think the point is this, in the first 3 examples, there IS NO VICTIM. Only the very slight chance of possible victims because of the acts which these things might lead to, which are illegal acts already. This line of reasoning is ridiculous and if you follow it, you would have to be against alcohol (prohibition went real well), guns (oh boy), cars (used in crime all the time) etc.
In your examples, if the act(s) takes place, then there is ASSUREDLY a victim. There are enough actual victims of actual crimes, without pursuing non-existent victims of non-existent crimes. The grandparent examples illustrate how it is the moral objections of people against things they DISLIKE, and are not actually HARMED by that creates some laws.
If a law doesn't actually PROTECT actual people, then the law is simply restricting freedoms. Is that what laws are for?
There's one thing that always bothers me. Why is the onus for empathy always on the geek? Do jocks go out of their way to try to understand geeks? I mean, it could probably even be explained to them that geeks feel the same way about say computers as they do about sports and stats.
Essentially, it seems the reason is that because there's more of them than there are of us, that it is our duty to change. Because there are more of them then there are of us, they're the normal ones that we should be more like.
You may be right in that I find it difficult to know what another person (non-geek) is thinking. That makes me nervous and anxious. So how come the other person doesn't know to empathize with me feeling anxious and nervous? Why is it only a one-way street? It isn't that I don't try, I'm just not very good at it (with non-geeks). If they are better at empathy, is it just at empathizing with others like themselves (non-geek). If so, then isn't that just as limited as our ability to speak to other geeks better than we do to non-geeks?
Note: I realize I am sort of making an us/them type argument. It's just that I believe that people are just wired in different ways, and some people will always get along better with one group than another.
The only cooking I can do is to wait the 3 minutes for the boiling water to do its work. Even then, I sometimes forget all about it and end up with soggy noodles. :(
This is of course, what is frightening about current state of the legal system. That it's not whether you're right or wrong, it's about whether you've pissed off the wrong person/organization.
It's not about justice or fairness, it's about struggling for dominance, and if someone's got more money and/or power than you, you're screwed. Even if you win the verdict, you have to deal with the expenses and hardships before that (in this case, having his stuff seized), and then have to deal with appeals. Plus, those with power can screw your reputation, leaving you with image problems.
Interesting how every reply to this is from an AC. You're all whipped! Or very, very, sadly, single.
If you're on Slashdot, it could be both, with your mom doing the whipping, I guess.
I work near a place that's got Karaoke at night. And for weddings (wedding songs karaoke... >shudder). They're so off-key that if you could code a program to recognize it, you would have to be insane and we'd have to accept the program as our new god.