The author certainly mentions Games for Health and what's going on, but two-thirds of the article is more talking about where the educational games went. Maybe he's never heard of Leap Frog, but he does bring up a valid point.
If according to Mr. Popularity himself, Jack Thompson, violent games cause violent kids because the interaction level of aggressive games teaches them aggression far better than any other form of media, shouldn't it follow that educational games teach children educational themes far better too?
What about a game that makes a child do math problems to win? Or a game that requires chemestry, or biology? Honestly, is there any subject you couldn't stick into a game and make a billion times more fun for kids? Imagine what would happen if you hooked all their computers together, and for Billy to beat little Jimmy he'd better be quick with the algebra! Children are brilliant creatures, all you have to do is give them something they're interested in and they'll be experts in no time. What's more, you'll have to drag them away from it.
The most impressive and intelligent thing I've ever seen a child do was when my nephew learned how to play the original Warcraft. He was six years old and he understood the different units, the different buildings, and the different resources he needed to collect. He can't even work the mouse that well and he's sending a pack of water elementals down to decimate an orc town because he knows they're powerful and don't cost any wood or gold. I don't care if the game is technically about waging war, I feel he showed more organizational leadership potential than half the people who voted in the last election.
I pretty much regard it as inevidable that children will eventually be taught through interactive media. People in the not-so-distant future will actually laugh at the suggestion that you should stand in front of a group of children and lecture, much in the same way we laugh at using leeches now.
Staph bacteria is something that's very common on the outside of people. The article itself places the number at 30%, and that number is much higher for kids who handle unsanitary things all the time don't wash their hands as often as they should. It's not an epidemic because it has to enter your blood through an open wound. Most adults simply don't cut themselves very often (with the exception of shaving, but that's sanitized anyhow), so the majority of staph infections are in kids.
The problem with this device is when would you use it? Either you're waiting for mom to bring in the kid after you already think she has a staff infection, or you're sniffing everyone at random. If mom thinks it's a staff infection, the kid probably does have staph bacteria on him, but that doesn't get you any closer to knowing if that's the infection. If you're sniffing everyone at random, you're really only picking out the people that don't wash their hands enough and making them pay for it with extra (almost certainly unnecessary) testing.
In either case, who's celebrating this as some kind of new breakthrough that's going to revolutionize the health care industry? This really makes me wonder if this device is more for revenue than for health screening. "Hey, it looks like you tested positive for a possible staff infection. I'm sure your insurance will cover some extra tests."
What you don't realize is that these market firms are really upstanding corporations out to help the community by safely taxing the stupid people. Let's face it, the guy who gets an email and thinks "gee, they need my help? I'd better get right on that!" was going to part with his cash sooner or later. Give the guys a break, it's hard to think of things that only the dumbest of the dumb would fall for.
Fortunately, I've thought of a great idea to get money from stupid people, and I'll be happy to sell it to you.
In 1959, we began development on the XB-70, which had a cruising speed of MACH 3, but ultimately gave up on the project because flight at that speed is far too unstable for something as big and as unmaneuverable as a bomber. In fact, bombers have been getting slower, not faster. The B-2 isn't even capable of MACH 1.
The more important thing here is the B-2's $1.157 billion price tag. That's for each plane, excluding the cost of development. How many B-2 bombers do you think the U.S. military has at that price? How many missions do you think they ran in Iraq? Heck, we don't even really use our B-1s all that much. There's a reason we're still mostly using B-52s, the same basic plane it was in the Vietnam war.
Obviously the hypersonic bomber looks to vastly exceed that cost in both development and in unit price. Even if they are taken into production, they will be more rare than even the B-2, and I hardly think they would change the shape of our entire military and foreign policies. That, combined with the date 2025, makes me think "yeah, so?" By then, far more important developments will come along.
Slashdot Mirror
The author certainly mentions Games for Health and what's going on, but two-thirds of the article is more talking about where the educational games went. Maybe he's never heard of Leap Frog, but he does bring up a valid point.
If according to Mr. Popularity himself, Jack Thompson, violent games cause violent kids because the interaction level of aggressive games teaches them aggression far better than any other form of media, shouldn't it follow that educational games teach children educational themes far better too?
What about a game that makes a child do math problems to win? Or a game that requires chemestry, or biology? Honestly, is there any subject you couldn't stick into a game and make a billion times more fun for kids? Imagine what would happen if you hooked all their computers together, and for Billy to beat little Jimmy he'd better be quick with the algebra! Children are brilliant creatures, all you have to do is give them something they're interested in and they'll be experts in no time. What's more, you'll have to drag them away from it.
The most impressive and intelligent thing I've ever seen a child do was when my nephew learned how to play the original Warcraft. He was six years old and he understood the different units, the different buildings, and the different resources he needed to collect. He can't even work the mouse that well and he's sending a pack of water elementals down to decimate an orc town because he knows they're powerful and don't cost any wood or gold. I don't care if the game is technically about waging war, I feel he showed more organizational leadership potential than half the people who voted in the last election.
I pretty much regard it as inevidable that children will eventually be taught through interactive media. People in the not-so-distant future will actually laugh at the suggestion that you should stand in front of a group of children and lecture, much in the same way we laugh at using leeches now.
I've noticed a lot of people welcoming pretty much anything as an overlord. In fact, there's so many, it's as if they're taking over Slashdot.
And may I be the first to welcome our new "welcomes everything as a new overlord" overlords. May your reign be long and prosper--aw, crap, it's over.
They already welcomed someone else as our new overlords.
Staph bacteria is something that's very common on the outside of people. The article itself places the number at 30%, and that number is much higher for kids who handle unsanitary things all the time don't wash their hands as often as they should. It's not an epidemic because it has to enter your blood through an open wound. Most adults simply don't cut themselves very often (with the exception of shaving, but that's sanitized anyhow), so the majority of staph infections are in kids.
The problem with this device is when would you use it? Either you're waiting for mom to bring in the kid after you already think she has a staff infection, or you're sniffing everyone at random. If mom thinks it's a staff infection, the kid probably does have staph bacteria on him, but that doesn't get you any closer to knowing if that's the infection. If you're sniffing everyone at random, you're really only picking out the people that don't wash their hands enough and making them pay for it with extra (almost certainly unnecessary) testing.
In either case, who's celebrating this as some kind of new breakthrough that's going to revolutionize the health care industry? This really makes me wonder if this device is more for revenue than for health screening. "Hey, it looks like you tested positive for a possible staff infection. I'm sure your insurance will cover some extra tests."
the irony that an article complaining about all games being too "epic" is going to single handedly save the entire gaming industry?
Fine. It is stealing. I'm stealing back the 18 damn dollars I shouldn't have paid for all those CDs in the first place.
Now tell me, why didn't we get to pick out individuals from the RIAA and prosecute them personally?
I bet getting road head would really confuse the shit out of it.
What you don't realize is that these market firms are really upstanding corporations out to help the community by safely taxing the stupid people. Let's face it, the guy who gets an email and thinks "gee, they need my help? I'd better get right on that!" was going to part with his cash sooner or later. Give the guys a break, it's hard to think of things that only the dumbest of the dumb would fall for.
Fortunately, I've thought of a great idea to get money from stupid people, and I'll be happy to sell it to you.
Russia: We can destroy the entire world in 6 hours
U.S.: We can beat that.
In 1959, we began development on the XB-70, which had a cruising speed of MACH 3, but ultimately gave up on the project because flight at that speed is far too unstable for something as big and as unmaneuverable as a bomber. In fact, bombers have been getting slower, not faster. The B-2 isn't even capable of MACH 1.
The more important thing here is the B-2's $1.157 billion price tag. That's for each plane, excluding the cost of development. How many B-2 bombers do you think the U.S. military has at that price? How many missions do you think they ran in Iraq? Heck, we don't even really use our B-1s all that much. There's a reason we're still mostly using B-52s, the same basic plane it was in the Vietnam war.
Obviously the hypersonic bomber looks to vastly exceed that cost in both development and in unit price. Even if they are taken into production, they will be more rare than even the B-2, and I hardly think they would change the shape of our entire military and foreign policies. That, combined with the date 2025, makes me think "yeah, so?" By then, far more important developments will come along.