"as the "web 2.0" empowerment of individuals continues unchecked, people's reputation will come less from the judgement of university systems, but rather from people's actual connections and accomplishments."
Right... so you are not going to care whether or not that "big lumbering" medical school decided your surgeon adequately learned medicine before he cuts you open, as long as he sounds cool and knows all the medical buzzwords of the time (their equivalent of "web 2.0", "ajax", "mashup", etc.)?
You really cannot compare learning on your own by reading the wikipedia and going through a formal education system. When learning on your own you are prone to fall victim to "Sesame Street Syndrome" and will not get the depth and experience you would get through a formal education.
"I don't particularly like pineapple on pizza, but that doesn't mean I'll impose my preferences on others."
Except that nless you work at home or in an office all by yourself, by bringing your dog to work, you are imposing your preference on others. Look, I like dogs as well, I think they are great (at home). But many people just plain don't. And its not just about mere preferences, some people are actually afraid of dogs. Those people won't be able to work at all if they are afraid to death of the blood thirsty pit bull in the office across the hall from them.
And I call BS on your studies (actually, its just one study with three articles discussing the same research). They discuss the benefits of pet ownership, not bringing a pet to work.
Not necessarily. If it is harder to develop applications for or maintain Vista than XP, then jobs will be created. Of course, generally you want your new product to increase worker efficiency, not decrease it...
There is a tiny little banner there which leads to a page with a link to the article and what I assume is a giant fancy Flash ad (I have Flashblock installed, so I didn't have to actually see it).
Except then you have to wait through the entire message.
Actually I do get a lot of automated calls that don't have any such message, though usually they are addressed to whoever had the phone number before me so they may be valid calls instead of telemarketers (I'm guessing that if he forgot to change his contact information, he may well have forgotten to pay a few bills as well).
He did mention other languages like Python or C++, and discards them. I'm not sure why exactly, but apparently he doesn't think they are any good for beginners (I think he is mostly just nostalgic for his programming days in which he used BASIC).
I would actually say there are plenty of kids who learn programming these days. Yes, they are doing it using more modern languages that have not been rendered obsolete, but that doesn't mean they are not learning valuable skills.
And I call bullshit on his assertion that learning BASIC is the CS equivalent to a med student learning chemistry. Those basic fundemental skills are learned when the student takes a computer engineering course (which I believe most universities require) and learns how logic gates work and writes programs in assembly. Those are the fundemental building blocks of our modern computers. Learning BASIC is closer to a med student learning outdated theories on medicine. Interesting from the historical perspective, but not essential for their education.
Lets please institute a rule and stop posting articles from Salon. Whenever someone does, the article is nothing but elitist bullshit with a lot of ads.
"wouldn't know if I ever got a call like that because I never let a telemarketing call last that long. I've been squacking the same phrase at telemarketers for the last 5 years or so: "Please add me to your do-not-call list and never call this number again." I politely say it at the first break in conversation I get from them, or I interrupt them after just a few seconds if they begin their shpiel without a pause. Usually I get an "OK", at which point I hang up; but some times I get an argument or a question from them, at which point I enunciate the phrase in a less-friendly voice and wait for a positive confirmation before hanging up."
Which works fine unless the call is some automated recording. They are not usually very good listeners...
They are not going straight from the lab to the streets, if you RTFA you will see it specifically mentions they are doing at least some medical testing, and I'm sure much more extensive testing is done before even the first volunteer test subjects are brought in. When he said "tested on American citizens", he most likely meant testing in the sense that the first deployment of the weapons in real world scenarios should be domestically. And what it sounds like he wants tested is the potential public relations impact such weapons would have and whether or not the public would complain. Although if he really cared about public relations, he probably could have picked better wording for this report.
Well I don't think he meant 'hot' as in sexually attractive, but rather 'hot' as in 'hot-blooded'. The woman they were describing likes describing herself as a 'hot-blooded Latino', and he was joking (not making a serious generalization) about that characterization.
So why do you think tuna is sold with that big 'dophin-safe' label on it? Did they get paid off by the Cetacean lobby? Or why does my local coffee shop sells 'Fair Trade' coffee? Or virtually any corporation puts so much money into PR campaigns?
Well despite what movies like The Core will make you believe, its not like this is their only way to tell where they are going. I believe they primarily rely on sight and memory, they are not just flying around there with their eyes closed.
Of course there is only one way to find out for sure. Tie big magnets to the bird's heads and see if they can still find their way South. If not, we know it plays a big role in their navigation. Either that or it weighed them down so much they couldn't fly.
Well, at least no one can say I didn't try to patch things up with this insignificant little troll.
Yeah, you 'school' me, and its worked really well, hasn't it? I do consider it rather ironic that you think I'm condescending. BTW, who exactly is it that you think are my 'superiors'? You? The fact that you think I'm egotistical is also ironic.
Except all that ethical stuff gets incorporated in profits. If a company has a reputation for acting immorally, people will stop buying their product or using their services. Google's reputation was hurt when they decided to censor the Chinese version of their site. Thats why in a free market you need transparency and openness concerning the actions of businesses.
Right, and I'm sure you have references from when I have made statements against homosexuals, foreigners, or people of other races (I have a reference from you getting mad when I made fun of white-supremists, I just don't feel like digging it up as it was two fucking years ago).
Look, if I go out of my way and post this without a karma bonus, will you please go away and get a life? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings way back when I made fun of you, I didn't really think anyone took a fucking Internet community that seriously. Get a girlfriend, get laid (prostitutes don't count), maybe even get a job and move out of your parent's basement. I mean really, you were funny a while ago, how someone could be so obsessed about the rating system on/. that they would track and follow someone just because they disagreed with their rating. It was pathetic to the point of comedy. But to be honest, its gotten old and I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. Please, do something useful with your life. And if you really don't want me to be rated so high, either follow your own advice and change your preferences (thats why they can be changed) or get an account, get your karma up, and moderate yourself. Of course that would require you post something other than "I hate nwbvt", "anyone who lives in the south is a racist", "macs are so pretty, anyone who disagrees with my subjective view on aesthetics must be a pompous windbag", or you will go down as a troll faster than the guys who post nothing but links to male porn...
better sound (and yes, that can be and has been tested),
longer battery life,
support for more file types such as ogg vorbis and FLAC (at least using the default firmware, yes if you are willing to void the warrently you can install Rockbox but I'm not going to credit Apple for an open source project that was ported to one of their products due to its lack of features),
fewer durability questions,
shorter gaps (though in order to get true gapless play you need to either go with Rockbox or find an old Rio Karma),
a lower price,
integration with more online music services (yes I know you can download 'free' mp3s from all over the net, I'm just assuming you care about intellectual property for a second),
and many features that Apple doesn't have or didn't have at the time it was released (video, fm radio, lyrics),
so I consider it better. I have had some trouble with the company's tech support (though supposedly thats only in the US, they are supposed to be great in other countries), but I've heard that about Apple as well. Of course this is all based on from when I was shopping for digital music players about a year ago, I'm not sure what is on the market now.
To be honest, my main problem with the iPod is its reliance on proprietary technology. You are supposed to use Apple's music store, Apple's music program, Apple's file type... And people complain about vendor lock-in with MS because they include a built-in music player with an operating system?
Yes, it will piss off Mac zealots like my little stalker friend (check the other response to my previous post, and yes he has been doing that for years now whenever I criticize either Apple or neo-Nazis), but I'll say it anyways. Not everything Apple produces is the best on the market just because the Apple guy looks cooler than the PC guy in the commericials.
"There doesn't seem so much of a crack in any edifice as much as there's ultimately a saturation of the marketplace."
Well the hope is probably that people will eventually want to upgrade them after a few years, like you would a computer. Of course that would require them to come out with new features that would justify buying a new unit, and the only thing that has come out recently is video.
And I'm also curious how much competing devices are eating up Apple sales. There are plenty of other, better, digital music players out there, plus other devices like phones that can play music.
"the sale of feature-length films via the internet for viewing on the devices, which may receive an expanded 'widescreen' and improved storage capacity."
If this does catch on, optometrists are going to make a fortune. Think of all the young eyes that will be permanently damaged by squinting to watch feature-length films on their iPods.
Portable video does have its place. I watch TV shows that I recorded off my TV tuner all the time when I am on vacation (though on an iAudio x5, not an iPod). Its free, they are short enough to fit and not damage my eyes (at least not permanently), and the loss of quality that usually results from recorded TV shows doesn't really matter on such a small screen. But entire movies? Just give me a DVD and let me play it on my widescreen TV with surround sound (ok, I haven't quite gotten the widescreen TV yet, but I will eventually).
Well, yes, from a philosophical point of view, such a scenario would be possible. Another being (be it some sort of god or the machines from the Matrix) could have created the world and made it look like life just evolved. But thats not really what is meant by the term 'theory', just that we cannot completely rule out another theory from coming around that better describes the origin of life.
And I fail to see how science's inability to completely rule something like an all powerful being that created the world means we shouldn't trust a scientist when they use the word 'could'.
Well first of all, you could try reading the article again... It doesn't say we are bringing about dangerous climate changes (which is what the media and politicians will say it says), it says we "could be bringing about dangerous climate changes". Yes, it also doesn't say we won't bring about dangerous climate changes, and virutally no one is arguing So claiming we are 'doomed' is a bit premature (except in the sense that eventually, human interference or not, the Earth's environment will naturally change to something we cannot survive in).
Second, climate change is nothing new. Yes, it unfortunately happens too slowly for us to have a collective memory of it happening (after a few generations of an unusually stable climate, we begin to think that the current climate is 'normal' and 'unchanging'). But it does happen more often than one would think. The little ice age may not have been that big compared to other changes (including those that humans have faced in the past), but it had a tremendous impact on human civilization. Yet despite the fears of those living at the time, there was no apocalypse. The human race was able to adapt, and I'm fairly certain we (or our children or our grandchildren or whoever has to face the next disaster) will be able to adapt as well, regardless of what they have to face (a climate changed by greenhouse gases, a climate changed by the sun's output, a climate changed by a few major volcanic eruptions, or whatever).
Finally, with regard to your Katrina question, tell me where you live and I'm sure I can find some potential natural disaster that could kill you and your family. Does that make you dumb for living there? Actually, since we can usually detect hurricans for some time before they hit land, they acutally are not all that dangerous compared to other disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, crippling blizzards, tornadoes, etc.). You just have to follow certain precautions (for instance if you are told a category 5 storm is headed to your city and your house happens to be at or below sea level, GET THE ROYAL FUCK OUT OF THERE!!!!).
I think eating will be the last thing on your mind after your body is fried from a solar radiation. It seems strange how many people think its as if all we need to do is plant a few trees on Mars and it will be tha same as Earth. I guess movies like Mission to Mars and The Red Planet (or whatever those movies were named) are just more interesting than real science.
"I did read the article thanks. And she does actually state that these games are that violent by her measure."
Where does she state what you origionally claimed she stated, that such games are "100% violent" or that one would "rate it higher than GTA"? I want specific quotes, from TFS.
"
I notice you didn't quote anything from the article which could suggest that she wasn't saying that."
Well, I sort of wanted you to read it yourself (which despite your claims, it seems you still haven't done, or you only read the about.com 'article'), but you want a quote? Fine, here are a few:
We have never and would never use the percentage of violent game play to make a ridiculous claim that a game like The Legend of Zelda is more "violent" than a game like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, for example, although critics of our work like to throw out such statistics and attribute such claims to us.
For example, we specifically examine not just the percentage of violent game play, but also other crucial factors like the severity of the portrayal of injuries and suffering, the numbers of human and nonhuman deaths, the types of weapons used, and the reward system.
I think that it is important to keep in mind is that games rated E are played by children as young as 2 and 3 years old, and the developmental psychology literature indicates that young children do not have the developmental capacity to distinguish reality from fantasy until approximately age 6 or 7 (of course this varies).
I am a huge advocate for self-regulation and for better parenting (I believe self-regulation means responsibility is required by all).
"And as has been said many times before, any system which gives PacMan a 62% violence rating clearly is not using an appropriate scaling mechanism."
I don't know how many times I can say this. That is not what the research was saying. That 62% was merely a statistic that was pulled way out of context by the about.com 'journalist'.
"It's not feasible for game raters to play games in depth, and even if they did, they would inevitably miss content. That's why the current system has them rate games based on videos of the most violent/whatever moments. It's a good system, and no more flawed than the alternatives."
Well for starters, look at where they are getting that information. Currently they get it solely from the publisher, who clearly has a bias.
"Why, could this possibly be why ESRB ratings have contained helpful little content descriptions like "animated violence" for about 10 years now?"
First of all, I'm looking at the list right now and there is no "Animated Violence". There is "Cartoon Violence" and "Animated Blood", but no "Animated Violence". Anyways, the problem she is complaining about is that those content descriptions are often lacking on games that do contain some amount of violence.
"Trying to say how violent a game is by how many minutes of 'violence' there is a game without ANY weighting to the context or impact of said violence is ridiculous. To say that Centipede is 100% violent because the entire game is spent being chased by something that intends 'harm' is just stupid. It's a reflex/puzzle game... and it's a game of tag effectively. To rate it higher than GTA because there are stretches in GTA where there is no violence is just plain moronic."
Yeah, its almost as ridiculous as trying to say how good a study is by one or two particular statistics involved without ANY weighting to the context or the actual argument presented. To say that this study claims Centipede or Pac-Man is in the same league as GTA because it records how many minutes of 'violence' is in each game is just stupid.
Just RTFS, not some half-assed article on about.com 'critiquing' it.
"You can't apply an objective measure to something so plainly subjective as violence in the media."
Coincidentally, that isn't far from what she is arguing.
Slashdot Mirror
"as the "web 2.0" empowerment of individuals continues unchecked, people's reputation will come less from the judgement of university systems, but rather from people's actual connections and accomplishments."
Right... so you are not going to care whether or not that "big lumbering" medical school decided your surgeon adequately learned medicine before he cuts you open, as long as he sounds cool and knows all the medical buzzwords of the time (their equivalent of "web 2.0", "ajax", "mashup", etc.)?
You really cannot compare learning on your own by reading the wikipedia and going through a formal education system. When learning on your own you are prone to fall victim to "Sesame Street Syndrome" and will not get the depth and experience you would get through a formal education.
"I don't particularly like pineapple on pizza, but that doesn't mean I'll impose my preferences on others."
Except that nless you work at home or in an office all by yourself, by bringing your dog to work, you are imposing your preference on others. Look, I like dogs as well, I think they are great (at home). But many people just plain don't. And its not just about mere preferences, some people are actually afraid of dogs. Those people won't be able to work at all if they are afraid to death of the blood thirsty pit bull in the office across the hall from them.
And I call BS on your studies (actually, its just one study with three articles discussing the same research). They discuss the benefits of pet ownership, not bringing a pet to work.
Not necessarily. If it is harder to develop applications for or maintain Vista than XP, then jobs will be created. Of course, generally you want your new product to increase worker efficiency, not decrease it...
There is a tiny little banner there which leads to a page with a link to the article and what I assume is a giant fancy Flash ad (I have Flashblock installed, so I didn't have to actually see it).
Except then you have to wait through the entire message.
Actually I do get a lot of automated calls that don't have any such message, though usually they are addressed to whoever had the phone number before me so they may be valid calls instead of telemarketers (I'm guessing that if he forgot to change his contact information, he may well have forgotten to pay a few bills as well).
He did mention other languages like Python or C++, and discards them. I'm not sure why exactly, but apparently he doesn't think they are any good for beginners (I think he is mostly just nostalgic for his programming days in which he used BASIC).
I would actually say there are plenty of kids who learn programming these days. Yes, they are doing it using more modern languages that have not been rendered obsolete, but that doesn't mean they are not learning valuable skills.
And I call bullshit on his assertion that learning BASIC is the CS equivalent to a med student learning chemistry. Those basic fundemental skills are learned when the student takes a computer engineering course (which I believe most universities require) and learns how logic gates work and writes programs in assembly. Those are the fundemental building blocks of our modern computers. Learning BASIC is closer to a med student learning outdated theories on medicine. Interesting from the historical perspective, but not essential for their education.
Lets please institute a rule and stop posting articles from Salon. Whenever someone does, the article is nothing but elitist bullshit with a lot of ads.
"wouldn't know if I ever got a call like that because I never let a telemarketing call last that long. I've been squacking the same phrase at telemarketers for the last 5 years or so: "Please add me to your do-not-call list and never call this number again." I politely say it at the first break in conversation I get from them, or I interrupt them after just a few seconds if they begin their shpiel without a pause. Usually I get an "OK", at which point I hang up; but some times I get an argument or a question from them, at which point I enunciate the phrase in a less-friendly voice and wait for a positive confirmation before hanging up."
Which works fine unless the call is some automated recording. They are not usually very good listeners...
They are not going straight from the lab to the streets, if you RTFA you will see it specifically mentions they are doing at least some medical testing, and I'm sure much more extensive testing is done before even the first volunteer test subjects are brought in. When he said "tested on American citizens", he most likely meant testing in the sense that the first deployment of the weapons in real world scenarios should be domestically. And what it sounds like he wants tested is the potential public relations impact such weapons would have and whether or not the public would complain. Although if he really cared about public relations, he probably could have picked better wording for this report.
Well I don't think he meant 'hot' as in sexually attractive, but rather 'hot' as in 'hot-blooded'. The woman they were describing likes describing herself as a 'hot-blooded Latino', and he was joking (not making a serious generalization) about that characterization.
So why do you think tuna is sold with that big 'dophin-safe' label on it? Did they get paid off by the Cetacean lobby? Or why does my local coffee shop sells 'Fair Trade' coffee? Or virtually any corporation puts so much money into PR campaigns?
Well despite what movies like The Core will make you believe, its not like this is their only way to tell where they are going. I believe they primarily rely on sight and memory, they are not just flying around there with their eyes closed.
Of course there is only one way to find out for sure. Tie big magnets to the bird's heads and see if they can still find their way South. If not, we know it plays a big role in their navigation. Either that or it weighed them down so much they couldn't fly.
Well, at least no one can say I didn't try to patch things up with this insignificant little troll.
Yeah, you 'school' me, and its worked really well, hasn't it? I do consider it rather ironic that you think I'm condescending. BTW, who exactly is it that you think are my 'superiors'? You? The fact that you think I'm egotistical is also ironic.
Except all that ethical stuff gets incorporated in profits. If a company has a reputation for acting immorally, people will stop buying their product or using their services. Google's reputation was hurt when they decided to censor the Chinese version of their site. Thats why in a free market you need transparency and openness concerning the actions of businesses.
Right, and I'm sure you have references from when I have made statements against homosexuals, foreigners, or people of other races (I have a reference from you getting mad when I made fun of white-supremists, I just don't feel like digging it up as it was two fucking years ago).
Look, if I go out of my way and post this without a karma bonus, will you please go away and get a life? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings way back when I made fun of you, I didn't really think anyone took a fucking Internet community that seriously. Get a girlfriend, get laid (prostitutes don't count), maybe even get a job and move out of your parent's basement. I mean really, you were funny a while ago, how someone could be so obsessed about the rating system on /. that they would track and follow someone just because they disagreed with their rating. It was pathetic to the point of comedy. But to be honest, its gotten old and I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. Please, do something useful with your life. And if you really don't want me to be rated so high, either follow your own advice and change your preferences (thats why they can be changed) or get an account, get your karma up, and moderate yourself. Of course that would require you post something other than "I hate nwbvt", "anyone who lives in the south is a racist", "macs are so pretty, anyone who disagrees with my subjective view on aesthetics must be a pompous windbag", or you will go down as a troll faster than the guys who post nothing but links to male porn...
Well, my iAudio has
so I consider it better. I have had some trouble with the company's tech support (though supposedly thats only in the US, they are supposed to be great in other countries), but I've heard that about Apple as well. Of course this is all based on from when I was shopping for digital music players about a year ago, I'm not sure what is on the market now.
To be honest, my main problem with the iPod is its reliance on proprietary technology. You are supposed to use Apple's music store, Apple's music program, Apple's file type... And people complain about vendor lock-in with MS because they include a built-in music player with an operating system?
Yes, it will piss off Mac zealots like my little stalker friend (check the other response to my previous post, and yes he has been doing that for years now whenever I criticize either Apple or neo-Nazis), but I'll say it anyways. Not everything Apple produces is the best on the market just because the Apple guy looks cooler than the PC guy in the commericials.
"There doesn't seem so much of a crack in any edifice as much as there's ultimately a saturation of the marketplace."
Well the hope is probably that people will eventually want to upgrade them after a few years, like you would a computer. Of course that would require them to come out with new features that would justify buying a new unit, and the only thing that has come out recently is video.
And I'm also curious how much competing devices are eating up Apple sales. There are plenty of other, better, digital music players out there, plus other devices like phones that can play music.
"the sale of feature-length films via the internet for viewing on the devices, which may receive an expanded 'widescreen' and improved storage capacity."
If this does catch on, optometrists are going to make a fortune. Think of all the young eyes that will be permanently damaged by squinting to watch feature-length films on their iPods.
Portable video does have its place. I watch TV shows that I recorded off my TV tuner all the time when I am on vacation (though on an iAudio x5, not an iPod). Its free, they are short enough to fit and not damage my eyes (at least not permanently), and the loss of quality that usually results from recorded TV shows doesn't really matter on such a small screen. But entire movies? Just give me a DVD and let me play it on my widescreen TV with surround sound (ok, I haven't quite gotten the widescreen TV yet, but I will eventually).
Well, yes, from a philosophical point of view, such a scenario would be possible. Another being (be it some sort of god or the machines from the Matrix) could have created the world and made it look like life just evolved. But thats not really what is meant by the term 'theory', just that we cannot completely rule out another theory from coming around that better describes the origin of life.
And I fail to see how science's inability to completely rule something like an all powerful being that created the world means we shouldn't trust a scientist when they use the word 'could'.
Well first of all, you could try reading the article again... It doesn't say we are bringing about dangerous climate changes (which is what the media and politicians will say it says), it says we "could be bringing about dangerous climate changes". Yes, it also doesn't say we won't bring about dangerous climate changes, and virutally no one is arguing So claiming we are 'doomed' is a bit premature (except in the sense that eventually, human interference or not, the Earth's environment will naturally change to something we cannot survive in).
Second, climate change is nothing new. Yes, it unfortunately happens too slowly for us to have a collective memory of it happening (after a few generations of an unusually stable climate, we begin to think that the current climate is 'normal' and 'unchanging'). But it does happen more often than one would think. The little ice age may not have been that big compared to other changes (including those that humans have faced in the past), but it had a tremendous impact on human civilization. Yet despite the fears of those living at the time, there was no apocalypse. The human race was able to adapt, and I'm fairly certain we (or our children or our grandchildren or whoever has to face the next disaster) will be able to adapt as well, regardless of what they have to face (a climate changed by greenhouse gases, a climate changed by the sun's output, a climate changed by a few major volcanic eruptions, or whatever).
Finally, with regard to your Katrina question, tell me where you live and I'm sure I can find some potential natural disaster that could kill you and your family. Does that make you dumb for living there? Actually, since we can usually detect hurricans for some time before they hit land, they acutally are not all that dangerous compared to other disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, crippling blizzards, tornadoes, etc.). You just have to follow certain precautions (for instance if you are told a category 5 storm is headed to your city and your house happens to be at or below sea level, GET THE ROYAL FUCK OUT OF THERE!!!!).
I think eating will be the last thing on your mind after your body is fried from a solar radiation. It seems strange how many people think its as if all we need to do is plant a few trees on Mars and it will be tha same as Earth. I guess movies like Mission to Mars and The Red Planet (or whatever those movies were named) are just more interesting than real science.
Of course not. Don't be silly.
"I did read the article thanks. And she does actually state that these games are that violent by her measure."
Where does she state what you origionally claimed she stated, that such games are "100% violent" or that one would "rate it higher than GTA"? I want specific quotes, from TFS.
" I notice you didn't quote anything from the article which could suggest that she wasn't saying that."
Well, I sort of wanted you to read it yourself (which despite your claims, it seems you still haven't done, or you only read the about.com 'article'), but you want a quote? Fine, here are a few:
There is a difference between reviewing every single possible frame and simply playing the game for long enough to get a feel for how the game plays.
"And as has been said many times before, any system which gives PacMan a 62% violence rating clearly is not using an appropriate scaling mechanism."
I don't know how many times I can say this. That is not what the research was saying. That 62% was merely a statistic that was pulled way out of context by the about.com 'journalist'.
"It's not feasible for game raters to play games in depth, and even if they did, they would inevitably miss content. That's why the current system has them rate games based on videos of the most violent/whatever moments. It's a good system, and no more flawed than the alternatives."
Well for starters, look at where they are getting that information. Currently they get it solely from the publisher, who clearly has a bias.
"Why, could this possibly be why ESRB ratings have contained helpful little content descriptions like "animated violence" for about 10 years now?"
First of all, I'm looking at the list right now and there is no "Animated Violence". There is "Cartoon Violence" and "Animated Blood", but no "Animated Violence". Anyways, the problem she is complaining about is that those content descriptions are often lacking on games that do contain some amount of violence.
"Trying to say how violent a game is by how many minutes of 'violence' there is a game without ANY weighting to the context or impact of said violence is ridiculous. To say that Centipede is 100% violent because the entire game is spent being chased by something that intends 'harm' is just stupid. It's a reflex/puzzle game... and it's a game of tag effectively. To rate it higher than GTA because there are stretches in GTA where there is no violence is just plain moronic."
Yeah, its almost as ridiculous as trying to say how good a study is by one or two particular statistics involved without ANY weighting to the context or the actual argument presented. To say that this study claims Centipede or Pac-Man is in the same league as GTA because it records how many minutes of 'violence' is in each game is just stupid.
Just RTFS, not some half-assed article on about.com 'critiquing' it.
"You can't apply an objective measure to something so plainly subjective as violence in the media."
Coincidentally, that isn't far from what she is arguing.