I can't believe the words i'm hearing out of my fellow slashdotters. I'll grant that the videogame industry has been taking some unjust slander over the course of the last few years, but this is an instance where I think there may be a little something to the issue at hand. Grand Theft Auto 3/Vice City is one of those ultra-rare titles which blends a ruthless, cold, criminal element with unrestricted action/motivation in the game, allowing for someone to be as sadistic as they see fit to. For a responsible adult who has clear definitions for right and wrong, and a healthy respect for the law, this isn't such a problem. However, we're not talking about adults here. We're talking about children playing a morally reprehensible game - children who clearly lacked adequate and proper supervision/rolemodels.
This game should not have come into the hands of kids. The videogaming industry has a ratings system for it's titles, just as the movie industry does. Is this to be taken any less seriously just because they're videogames? No. The problem is not always irresponsible parents who aren't keeping tabs on their heathens. I gurentee 84.6% (being -conservative-) of the people who have made that statement commenting on this story do NOT have children, or any experience with which to comment from related to delinquent children.
Is the problem that the videogame industry is producing "too violent" titles, causing ethical and moral dillemas for today's videogame afficinados? Partially. Don't dispute that, otherwise I would be tickled pink and obliged to hand your 9-year-old encouragable son a copy of GTA: Vice City and show him how to pick up hookers and get some action. Oh, you don't want that? Why's that? Because the game is -morally reprehensible-, it advocates murder, larsony, and other thug-like behaviors typical to an aspiring mafia syndicate lord.
So, where does the real problem lay? Somewhere between the industry and the public perception of the industry. Videogames have long been thought of as devices for children. The audience has changed, however. The kids who played Excitebike, Mario 2, and Marble Madness into the wee hours of the night are now adults. This, combined with the natural evolution of technology (read Moore's Law), creates a scenario where more sophisticated/adult targetted titles are coming to pass. The problem is that the naive public still perceive videogames as a child's sport, and those who've been playing videogames all along are so threatened by the notion that videogames can cause detriment to a person's logical synapses that they'll blame anyone/anything but the game itself.
Now recently, there's been some amount of headway into truly 'adult' (X rated) console titles. Maybe when you irresponsible videogame addicts see your offspring commanding Tommy Vercetti to bang a hooker in full, graphic detail in GTA: 5, you'll stop being so selfish with the content of your opinion.
Until the public starts taking videogame ratings a little more seriously, expect these trends to continue.
Until the legions of videogame-going adults see that children aren't growing up on Mario anymore, but more thought-provoking titles, expect these trends to continue.
Until someone perfects a method (or device?) for controlling delinquent children who do as they see fit to, expect these trends to continue.
Well, this may be all well and good for government applications, as when dealing with resources of the government, security is obviously of the utmost importance. Let's be realistic, though. More damage is done to government and commercial sites by infected HOME user machines than probably any number of virii/worms that have slipped through some lazy sysadmin's email filters. A network is only as secure as the nodes remotely connected to it.
Too bad Linux-philes are running in too many (bleeping) directions to unite and make an operating system worthy of the Ma and Pa test. Tons of free software, very few general domain standards, and too many zealots who will see that it stays that way forever.
Pa: What the hell is a shell, and why do I want to make in it? That sounds like a Destruction Man reference. This thing is filthy and too complicated.
CRN: Some respected industry observers--including Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) Sloan School of Management professor, consultant and author Michael Cusumano--say SCO and the former Caldera are basically holding companies for filing lawsuits and that's about it.
McBride: The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
Hundreds, as opposed to Linux's hundreds of thousands.. hm..
CRN: CRN noticed that SCO recently changed its number of resellers from 16,000 to 11,000. Can you explain?
McBride: We cleaned up the list. We had 16,000 names in our database, but about 5,000 names were marketing fluff that we sent materials to. This is the real number.
So, it takes 11,000 resellers to convince a few hundred naive people to buy an inferior product, huh? I wonder if their stock includes fecal matter, because I smell bullshit.
Did I miss something? Is this the Chinese "Year of the Evil Corperation"? Is modern business even legitimate business anymore? When did the underlying ethic behind fair competition become, "Enlist your friends, sue your enemies"?
Maybe if we stuck all SCO/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA/etc's lawyers in a Monty Python worthy blender, grinding them into a fine red (or black, as some might claim) paste, we'd have enough environmentally friendly biodegradable waste to restore a rainforest somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe the words i'm hearing out of my fellow slashdotters. I'll grant that the videogame industry has been taking some unjust slander over the course of the last few years, but this is an instance where I think there may be a little something to the issue at hand. Grand Theft Auto 3/Vice City is one of those ultra-rare titles which blends a ruthless, cold, criminal element with unrestricted action/motivation in the game, allowing for someone to be as sadistic as they see fit to. For a responsible adult who has clear definitions for right and wrong, and a healthy respect for the law, this isn't such a problem. However, we're not talking about adults here. We're talking about children playing a morally reprehensible game - children who clearly lacked adequate and proper supervision/rolemodels.
This game should not have come into the hands of kids. The videogaming industry has a ratings system for it's titles, just as the movie industry does. Is this to be taken any less seriously just because they're videogames? No. The problem is not always irresponsible parents who aren't keeping tabs on their heathens. I gurentee 84.6% (being -conservative-) of the people who have made that statement commenting on this story do NOT have children, or any experience with which to comment from related to delinquent children.
Is the problem that the videogame industry is producing "too violent" titles, causing ethical and moral dillemas for today's videogame afficinados? Partially. Don't dispute that, otherwise I would be tickled pink and obliged to hand your 9-year-old encouragable son a copy of GTA: Vice City and show him how to pick up hookers and get some action. Oh, you don't want that? Why's that? Because the game is -morally reprehensible-, it advocates murder, larsony, and other thug-like behaviors typical to an aspiring mafia syndicate lord.
So, where does the real problem lay? Somewhere between the industry and the public perception of the industry. Videogames have long been thought of as devices for children. The audience has changed, however. The kids who played Excitebike, Mario 2, and Marble Madness into the wee hours of the night are now adults. This, combined with the natural evolution of technology (read Moore's Law), creates a scenario where more sophisticated/adult targetted titles are coming to pass. The problem is that the naive public still perceive videogames as a child's sport, and those who've been playing videogames all along are so threatened by the notion that videogames can cause detriment to a person's logical synapses that they'll blame anyone/anything but the game itself.
Now recently, there's been some amount of headway into truly 'adult' (X rated) console titles. Maybe when you irresponsible videogame addicts see your offspring commanding Tommy Vercetti to bang a hooker in full, graphic detail in GTA: 5, you'll stop being so selfish with the content of your opinion.
Until the public starts taking videogame ratings a little more seriously, expect these trends to continue.
Until the legions of videogame-going adults see that children aren't growing up on Mario anymore, but more thought-provoking titles, expect these trends to continue.
Until someone perfects a method (or device?) for controlling delinquent children who do as they see fit to, expect these trends to continue.
Oh, and who am I to speak about all this?..
Just someone in the 'biz.
Well, this may be all well and good for government applications, as when dealing with resources of the government, security is obviously of the utmost importance. Let's be realistic, though. More damage is done to government and commercial sites by infected HOME user machines than probably any number of virii/worms that have slipped through some lazy sysadmin's email filters. A network is only as secure as the nodes remotely connected to it.
Too bad Linux-philes are running in too many (bleeping) directions to unite and make an operating system worthy of the Ma and Pa test. Tons of free software, very few general domain standards, and too many zealots who will see that it stays that way forever.
Pa: What the hell is a shell, and why do I want to make in it? That sounds like a Destruction Man reference. This thing is filthy and too complicated.
CRN: Some respected industry observers--including Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) Sloan School of Management professor, consultant and author Michael Cusumano--say SCO and the former Caldera are basically holding companies for filing lawsuits and that's about it.
McBride: The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
Hundreds, as opposed to Linux's hundreds of thousands.. hm..
CRN: CRN noticed that SCO recently changed its number of resellers from 16,000 to 11,000. Can you explain?
McBride: We cleaned up the list. We had 16,000 names in our database, but about 5,000 names were marketing fluff that we sent materials to. This is the real number.
So, it takes 11,000 resellers to convince a few hundred naive people to buy an inferior product, huh? I wonder if their stock includes fecal matter, because I smell bullshit.
SCO..
Microsoft..
DirecTV..
MPAA/RIAA..
Did I miss something? Is this the Chinese "Year of the Evil Corperation"? Is modern business even legitimate business anymore? When did the underlying ethic behind fair competition become, "Enlist your friends, sue your enemies"?
Maybe if we stuck all SCO/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA/etc's lawyers in a Monty Python worthy blender, grinding them into a fine red (or black, as some might claim) paste, we'd have enough environmentally friendly biodegradable waste to restore a rainforest somewhere.
Finally, a practical use for lawyers..