But Doom did train those kids to kill! It's an accurate portrayal of an actual shootout: No strafing No reloading No aiming up or down. Or left and right, for that matter. And all your targets will run right at you. And don't forget, ammo and guns can be found just lying around. If you need to heal a wound, just touch a medkit in a local nurse's office
With these advanced skills, previously only taught to spies, marines, and Jack Bauer, are now in the hands of our children. Beware, America! Doom shall be your doom!
I do sort of agree with you. While I do understand the necessity of seperating criminal cases and civil cases, it is, essentially, a legal mugging here. The RIAA can't hold a man up with a gun to the head or heart, so they hold it up to his wallet.
Just because a man can't be put in jail for a lawsuit doesn't mean, though, that the evidence should be any less sufficient, in my opinion. I cannot say I'm informed enough to say whether or not this is "sufficient evidence" I do know that the "evidence" put forth by the RIAA before in other cases has often been questionable at best. In this case, I think that the biggest problem is that, how can the RIAA prove that it's being "harmed?" I'm saying in a sense that, when you catch someone shoplifting at your store, you have prove that you're being harmed. You cought someone making off with YOUR property. In this case, though, it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. And we have to wonder, are these people losing sales to this? Is anyone losing anything? I don't buy the argument of "every download is a lost sale" (For a number of reasons, which are too numerous to list here and I'll assume they're obvious enough).
To me, it feels like if I went to a mall, and a shop owner pulled me over and said, "We print and have copyright over that design on your shirt. We're sending a team of investigators over, on your expense, to make sure you obtained that legally and aren't making shirts yourself."
Essentially, a company is charging someone to prove their innocence, or, for a slightly lower cost, you can plead guilty and they'll go easy on you. I'd certainly like to see some more concrete evidence before these things go to trial, and have the RIAA pay the legal fees of the innocent.
Coming soon from the people who brought you Insta-Cassettes, the movies released before they're finished filming comes: Insta-Slashdot! Read all of your favorite comments from the news stories that haven't happened yet! Find out who's being modded a troll and complaining about a liberal bias before the politicians can even hide the hooker's body! Find out how much Anonymous Coward hates your opinions on the RIAA's lawsuits before the suits can even dial their lawyers! And of course, find out what furniture Steve Ballmer will throw now before he can even order it from Office Depot.
That modding baffles me, too. If I had some, I'd reverse it. It would only be flamebait if you had said "Ever since those goddamn conservatives/liberal/queers/rednecks/Mexicans came here and started to fuck everything over."
Corruption and incompetence are real problems in situations like this. I mean, I'm not an expert on patents, but if a business model is able to have a patent, then let me be the first to make a patent for the idea of offering goods and services in exchange for currency. I'll be rich overnight!
This lawsuit, like most that end up on/. should be thrown out and have the initiator fined for wasting time.
Why Cesium? Let's get rid of mercury. I mean, first of all, it's supposed to be a metal, but it's LIQUID at room temperature. It thinks it's so cool, 'cause it's rebelling against its "solid" parents. Secondly, it poisons people. Oh yeah, real nice. Sure, lead can poison us, too, but only if we consume it. If someone tried to consume parts of me I'd poison them, too, but Mercury can just be in the area. Have you touch it. I think it's time to get rid of Hg once and for all, and replace it with something more useful. Like Chocolate. No one ever complains about liquid chocolate, after all.
Well, obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would question the legality of getting logs from an ISP. And even if they find out you've downloaded SOME things, wouldn't they need to prove it was indeed illegal? Would it count me transfering files via e-mail? (As I often do for small music/video/picture files) Of course, if I recall correctly, these are the same people who say you shouldn't be allowed to back up your own CDs. So more than likely, they'd still sue me if I downloaded that MP3 of *Insert Band Here*'s *insert song* even if I already OWN the damn CD.
Bottom line, I do not pretend to know copyright laws, but this whole thing reeks of stupidity no matter what.
Maybe you can clear something up for me. This is a lawsuit, and not a criminal case, but shouldn't the rule still be that you need some type of evidence to even BEGIN a case? I mean, someone can't be charged with murder unless, you know, there's a body that has been murdered, right? I mean, in an ideal world, anyway, it should go like this: RIAA: We're suing you. Me: On what grounds? RIAA: For the contents of your harddrive! Me: But you don't know what's on my harddrive. RIAA: No, but once you give it to us, we'll prove you have illegal things on it. Me: Why would I give it to you? RIAA: So we can prove you're a criminal? Me: As soon as you work your way out of that circle, we'll talk. So long and thanks for all the fish.
I'm just saying, maybe I judge should need to see this sort of stuff BEFORE a lawsuit notifcation can even be sent out. And if they don't have any (legal) justification for believing I infringed on their copyrights, why should I have to even dignify them?
I'd say so. If I download a song, I have that, an MP3 file of a song. If I buy a CD, I have a physical back up of all the songs, a case in which to store it (which often looks snappy if placed correctly) and a mirade of other features and bonus work that, while not essential, is nice to have. The same can go for movies. Plus, it avoids, for better or worse, things like the "DO NOT WANT!" version of SW:EP3.
I've often followed the tradition of only downloading either to sample a group (how I met some of my favorite bands, like Bad Religion and Weird Al), or when the CD isn't easily available or sold in America at all. I know not everyone follows this model, but it does show some people will at least always be willing to support that which we like.
But let's be honest here. If *Cable Company X* wants your dollar, it still has to work for it. If Microsoft wants it... well, it might cost them $5, but dammit, they're going to get yours, anyway. Ah well.
I just wanted to make sure to avoid the trap of "Well, in MY day we knew how to _______! Unlike these damn kids today with their baggy pants and their rock and/or roll..." beliefs. As an example, a lot of people will say that there wasn't this many crap movies in theaters back in the 50's. But if that's true, where'd MST3K come from? As time goes on, people remember the awesome stuff (see, for example, the list I originally made), and the crap is forgotten as quickly as it came.
But on the other hand, I recently got my hands on Animaniacs vol. 1 on DVD and watched it all and realized it was even funnier than I remembered. It had a lot of the silly slapstick violence you had from any classic Looney Toons cartoon, but it also had jokes that were actually witty and actually required some knowledge of politics/religion/classic film/literature/etc. When I turn on Saturday morning cartoons now, all I see is overtly politically correct shows that just lack the same degree of intelligence. Not only that, but people STILL complain that cartoons are way too violent for little kids, but apparently forgotten just how violent and risque Looney Toons and Tom and Jerry were (In fact, watching some of these now, I notice they censored out jokes about suicide, blackface, etc.)
Network TV is pretty much the worst offender. All I ever see is the same old sitcoms, repackaged with fresher celebrity jokes. (We've moved on from Michael Jackson jokes to Tom Cruise, people!) News programs that have less news in them than what I can read on the back of a box of Froot Loops. Reality shows... let's not even go there. And let's not forget the commercials which insult your intelligence, treating you like a God damn child, with lies so obvious a 10 year old could see through them. As a side note, if I see a commercial for one more police/court drama show, I'm going to scream. Look, every network doesn't need 10 of their own versions of CSI.
I'm biased, I must admit, but this is essentially the reason I pretty much just leave my TV on Cartoon Network when I'm not using it to watch a DVD or play a console. It's the only station that still does come out with some pretty amazing stuff (it still has its fair share of crap, but that's to be expected). For a "kid's channel," The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy is more than a little morbid and adult, and late night action shows like Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex actually make me feel like the writers aren't talking down to me to get that lowest common denominator.
Still, it makes me wonder if the young kids today are going to be having this same conversation in 20 years. "Boy, back when I was a kid, we had GOOD shows. I remember waking up 8am everyday to catch *Whatever the Hell FOX plays in the morning*, not like the trash you little brats watch on your smell-o-visions."
I can't speak for the grandparent, but I have VerizonDSL right now and I would personally like to murder them. I'm not very knowledgable on the subject of wires, but we have friends and family who work on the lines in our area, and they openly admit that the wires themselves are ancient, and decades past the date they should have been replaced, but Verizon doesn't want to invest in that because within another decade they'll be replacing it with Fiber Optic Cable, so in the meantime, we're prone to random outages, with no warning, and it gets extremely frustrating.
While I think you could tone down the "ignorant masses" routine, I agree with your overall point. As a kid, I did watch a lot of TV, I admit. But to be fair, I do remember growing up to watch cartoons like Muppet Babies, Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, The Simpsons before it became Guest Cartoon Celebrity of the Week, etc.
But as I grew up, I just started to watch less and less. I'd occasionally find a show that was worth watching, but it was a rarity.
Now, well, I still watch some, but not really much. Mainly just Cartoon Network for certain anime shows, or something like The Venture Brothers. I'll often keep Comedy Central on just to listen to the Daily Show and Colbert Report as I do something else.
I don't know whether I've grown up (slightly) or if TV has just dumbed down (or both, or we've just become more aware of just how dumb it is), but it's hard to actually devote the effort to actually watch a show when you have better things to do with your spare time. Hell, even if it's just browsing forums for links to news articles or searching Wikipedia, I actually feel LESS insulted on the Internet than I do watching TV.
It's a rather round about way of me saying, basically, that Cable companies need to wake up and learn that they can't just overcharge people for the same crap year after year. It gets old, and some people, albeit maybe not the majority and not all at once, will find alternatives. "What do you mean if I just want 5 channels, I need to order another 45? No way." This is especially true since now even if you don't get a station for that one show you like, you can most likely just find it on YouTube or DVD.
So I just offer them this message: Stop overcharging and forcing people to buy things they don't want, or people will find alternatives, or even, gasp, go without!
Not to derail, but your post reminds me of a little line from the Hitchhiker's Guide, about how the Bable fish and its destruction of all barriers of communication managed to cause more wars in the galaxy than anything else.
It makes me think if some countries are violent now when they CAN'T understand each other, just imagine the bloodshed when they DO.
"...due to a pounding headache, General Washington couldn't think well enough to keep his troops in line. Luckily, a medic delivered to him new TYLENOL FAST ACTING GEL CAPLETS, the soothing action of which cleared his head in just minutes, letting him order his troops properly, and ensuring the victory for the Americans.
Tylenol: Fast acting strength, protecting America from the British since 1776"
My God, those cunning bastards... Don't you see what this is? The RIAA's brand new money-making schemes. It's brilliant! First, they sue the pants off of everyone and anyone to make everyone hate them. Then, they get artists mad, too, to the point that the artists rebel and make songs about how evil the RIAA is. The consumers then agree with the artists and their popularity soars, causing more people to actually buy their CDs, thus giving more money to the RIAA!
It's the music equivalent of the guy at the dunking booth taunting you into playing his game!
Curses. Well, no big deal. We scientists will just have to go back to our other mission, building a tiny civilization from the bacteria on our teeth. Wait, what? Oh, okay. Then we'll just place a fake angel in an isolated town to simulate how it reacts to the end of the world. Wait, they did that too? Dammit! Well, how about we just go invent chairs that can't tip backwards or an automatic hammer, huh? Oh son of a--
Screw this, I'm going to Vegas to get drunk and married!
I don't think Futurama actually even tries to have a real continuity. In the beginning of the series, they make references to Star Trek all the time, but later on the name becomes a "forbidden word."
I just think of it like I did the Simpsons in some jokes. Lisa once stated the Springfield Oil Field is 3 times the size of Texas. This means either they live in Alaska (possibly, I need to consult a map for scale) or it's a joke because it's too ridiculous to be true.
Psst. Hey, how'd you like to have some real fun? I got some "World of Warcraft" right here for you... And hey, don't sweat it, the first taste (or month) is free, 'cause once you have some, you'll be back.
And apparently, Douchebag Thompson has never seen The Professional. If he had, he'd know a good hitman never shoots for the face, because then the target is difficult to identify. You aim for the gut to stun and then aim for the lungs and heart.
At least, that's what the movie said (IANAH- I Am Not a Hitman)
Whoops. Look like I was a little later in posting.
But anyway, I understand your interest in seeing the results of such a study, but here's the problem: I, as a gamer, have not felt any more aggressive after playing a video game than I have after, say, one of my Tae Kwon Do lessons. I know plenty of gamers who are violent, sure, but I know plenty of people who are violent (in the, will fight people for fun) who are not gamers (at least, dedicated. Maybe they play GTA on the weekends, but nothing so time-consuming). This suggests to me that games have no affect on aggression, or at least no more than ANY activity that gets your adrenaline flowing. I mean, studies have shown that football players are aggressive after a game, because of the adrenaline. But do people question putting restrictions on sports? Of course not.
However, if such a study came out, it is of my opinion, and only my opinion, that gamers would show a SLIGHT increase in aggressive tendancies, mostly due to adrenaline again, which would send the media and congress into a fresh uproar of "Games taught my kid to kill!"
Or to put it more simply, I see few benefits from such a study, but plenty of ways it could be abused.
Even if it proved to be true, what does that prove? Does it mean that games make people more likely to become murderers, or does murder make people more likely to become gamers? And besides, isn't the key demographic of Sony and MS right now 18-34 year old males? I'm fairly certain that'd be the age and gender of most western violent crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
But Doom did train those kids to kill! It's an accurate portrayal of an actual shootout:
No strafing
No reloading
No aiming up or down.
Or left and right, for that matter.
And all your targets will run right at you.
And don't forget, ammo and guns can be found just lying around.
If you need to heal a wound, just touch a medkit in a local nurse's office
With these advanced skills, previously only taught to spies, marines, and Jack Bauer, are now in the hands of our children. Beware, America! Doom shall be your doom!
I do sort of agree with you. While I do understand the necessity of seperating criminal cases and civil cases, it is, essentially, a legal mugging here. The RIAA can't hold a man up with a gun to the head or heart, so they hold it up to his wallet.
Just because a man can't be put in jail for a lawsuit doesn't mean, though, that the evidence should be any less sufficient, in my opinion. I cannot say I'm informed enough to say whether or not this is "sufficient evidence" I do know that the "evidence" put forth by the RIAA before in other cases has often been questionable at best. In this case, I think that the biggest problem is that, how can the RIAA prove that it's being "harmed?" I'm saying in a sense that, when you catch someone shoplifting at your store, you have prove that you're being harmed. You cought someone making off with YOUR property. In this case, though, it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. And we have to wonder, are these people losing sales to this? Is anyone losing anything? I don't buy the argument of "every download is a lost sale" (For a number of reasons, which are too numerous to list here and I'll assume they're obvious enough).
To me, it feels like if I went to a mall, and a shop owner pulled me over and said, "We print and have copyright over that design on your shirt. We're sending a team of investigators over, on your expense, to make sure you obtained that legally and aren't making shirts yourself."
Essentially, a company is charging someone to prove their innocence, or, for a slightly lower cost, you can plead guilty and they'll go easy on you. I'd certainly like to see some more concrete evidence before these things go to trial, and have the RIAA pay the legal fees of the innocent.
Coming soon from the people who brought you Insta-Cassettes, the movies released before they're finished filming comes: Insta-Slashdot! Read all of your favorite comments from the news stories that haven't happened yet! Find out who's being modded a troll and complaining about a liberal bias before the politicians can even hide the hooker's body! Find out how much Anonymous Coward hates your opinions on the RIAA's lawsuits before the suits can even dial their lawyers! And of course, find out what furniture Steve Ballmer will throw now before he can even order it from Office Depot.
Classic Spaceballs reference, my good man.
That modding baffles me, too. If I had some, I'd reverse it. It would only be flamebait if you had said "Ever since those goddamn conservatives/liberal/queers/rednecks/Mexicans came here and started to fuck everything over."
/. should be thrown out and have the initiator fined for wasting time.
Corruption and incompetence are real problems in situations like this. I mean, I'm not an expert on patents, but if a business model is able to have a patent, then let me be the first to make a patent for the idea of offering goods and services in exchange for currency. I'll be rich overnight!
This lawsuit, like most that end up on
Why Cesium? Let's get rid of mercury. I mean, first of all, it's supposed to be a metal, but it's LIQUID at room temperature. It thinks it's so cool, 'cause it's rebelling against its "solid" parents. Secondly, it poisons people. Oh yeah, real nice. Sure, lead can poison us, too, but only if we consume it. If someone tried to consume parts of me I'd poison them, too, but Mercury can just be in the area. Have you touch it. I think it's time to get rid of Hg once and for all, and replace it with something more useful. Like Chocolate. No one ever complains about liquid chocolate, after all.
Well, obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would question the legality of getting logs from an ISP. And even if they find out you've downloaded SOME things, wouldn't they need to prove it was indeed illegal? Would it count me transfering files via e-mail? (As I often do for small music/video/picture files) Of course, if I recall correctly, these are the same people who say you shouldn't be allowed to back up your own CDs. So more than likely, they'd still sue me if I downloaded that MP3 of *Insert Band Here*'s *insert song* even if I already OWN the damn CD.
Bottom line, I do not pretend to know copyright laws, but this whole thing reeks of stupidity no matter what.
Maybe you can clear something up for me. This is a lawsuit, and not a criminal case, but shouldn't the rule still be that you need some type of evidence to even BEGIN a case? I mean, someone can't be charged with murder unless, you know, there's a body that has been murdered, right? I mean, in an ideal world, anyway, it should go like this:
RIAA: We're suing you.
Me: On what grounds?
RIAA: For the contents of your harddrive!
Me: But you don't know what's on my harddrive.
RIAA: No, but once you give it to us, we'll prove you have illegal things on it.
Me: Why would I give it to you?
RIAA: So we can prove you're a criminal?
Me: As soon as you work your way out of that circle, we'll talk. So long and thanks for all the fish.
I'm just saying, maybe I judge should need to see this sort of stuff BEFORE a lawsuit notifcation can even be sent out. And if they don't have any (legal) justification for believing I infringed on their copyrights, why should I have to even dignify them?
I'd say so. If I download a song, I have that, an MP3 file of a song. If I buy a CD, I have a physical back up of all the songs, a case in which to store it (which often looks snappy if placed correctly) and a mirade of other features and bonus work that, while not essential, is nice to have. The same can go for movies. Plus, it avoids, for better or worse, things like the "DO NOT WANT!" version of SW:EP3.
I've often followed the tradition of only downloading either to sample a group (how I met some of my favorite bands, like Bad Religion and Weird Al), or when the CD isn't easily available or sold in America at all. I know not everyone follows this model, but it does show some people will at least always be willing to support that which we like.
OUCH! I should have seen that coming. =)
But let's be honest here. If *Cable Company X* wants your dollar, it still has to work for it. If Microsoft wants it... well, it might cost them $5, but dammit, they're going to get yours, anyway. Ah well.
I just wanted to make sure to avoid the trap of "Well, in MY day we knew how to _______! Unlike these damn kids today with their baggy pants and their rock and/or roll..." beliefs. As an example, a lot of people will say that there wasn't this many crap movies in theaters back in the 50's. But if that's true, where'd MST3K come from? As time goes on, people remember the awesome stuff (see, for example, the list I originally made), and the crap is forgotten as quickly as it came.
But on the other hand, I recently got my hands on Animaniacs vol. 1 on DVD and watched it all and realized it was even funnier than I remembered. It had a lot of the silly slapstick violence you had from any classic Looney Toons cartoon, but it also had jokes that were actually witty and actually required some knowledge of politics/religion/classic film/literature/etc. When I turn on Saturday morning cartoons now, all I see is overtly politically correct shows that just lack the same degree of intelligence. Not only that, but people STILL complain that cartoons are way too violent for little kids, but apparently forgotten just how violent and risque Looney Toons and Tom and Jerry were (In fact, watching some of these now, I notice they censored out jokes about suicide, blackface, etc.)
Network TV is pretty much the worst offender. All I ever see is the same old sitcoms, repackaged with fresher celebrity jokes. (We've moved on from Michael Jackson jokes to Tom Cruise, people!) News programs that have less news in them than what I can read on the back of a box of Froot Loops. Reality shows... let's not even go there. And let's not forget the commercials which insult your intelligence, treating you like a God damn child, with lies so obvious a 10 year old could see through them. As a side note, if I see a commercial for one more police/court drama show, I'm going to scream. Look, every network doesn't need 10 of their own versions of CSI.
I'm biased, I must admit, but this is essentially the reason I pretty much just leave my TV on Cartoon Network when I'm not using it to watch a DVD or play a console. It's the only station that still does come out with some pretty amazing stuff (it still has its fair share of crap, but that's to be expected). For a "kid's channel," The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy is more than a little morbid and adult, and late night action shows like Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex actually make me feel like the writers aren't talking down to me to get that lowest common denominator.
Still, it makes me wonder if the young kids today are going to be having this same conversation in 20 years. "Boy, back when I was a kid, we had GOOD shows. I remember waking up 8am everyday to catch *Whatever the Hell FOX plays in the morning*, not like the trash you little brats watch on your smell-o-visions."
I can't speak for the grandparent, but I have VerizonDSL right now and I would personally like to murder them. I'm not very knowledgable on the subject of wires, but we have friends and family who work on the lines in our area, and they openly admit that the wires themselves are ancient, and decades past the date they should have been replaced, but Verizon doesn't want to invest in that because within another decade they'll be replacing it with Fiber Optic Cable, so in the meantime, we're prone to random outages, with no warning, and it gets extremely frustrating.
While I think you could tone down the "ignorant masses" routine, I agree with your overall point. As a kid, I did watch a lot of TV, I admit. But to be fair, I do remember growing up to watch cartoons like Muppet Babies, Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, The Simpsons before it became Guest Cartoon Celebrity of the Week, etc.
But as I grew up, I just started to watch less and less. I'd occasionally find a show that was worth watching, but it was a rarity.
Now, well, I still watch some, but not really much. Mainly just Cartoon Network for certain anime shows, or something like The Venture Brothers. I'll often keep Comedy Central on just to listen to the Daily Show and Colbert Report as I do something else.
I don't know whether I've grown up (slightly) or if TV has just dumbed down (or both, or we've just become more aware of just how dumb it is), but it's hard to actually devote the effort to actually watch a show when you have better things to do with your spare time. Hell, even if it's just browsing forums for links to news articles or searching Wikipedia, I actually feel LESS insulted on the Internet than I do watching TV.
It's a rather round about way of me saying, basically, that Cable companies need to wake up and learn that they can't just overcharge people for the same crap year after year. It gets old, and some people, albeit maybe not the majority and not all at once, will find alternatives. "What do you mean if I just want 5 channels, I need to order another 45? No way." This is especially true since now even if you don't get a station for that one show you like, you can most likely just find it on YouTube or DVD.
So I just offer them this message: Stop overcharging and forcing people to buy things they don't want, or people will find alternatives, or even, gasp, go without!
Not to derail, but your post reminds me of a little line from the Hitchhiker's Guide, about how the Bable fish and its destruction of all barriers of communication managed to cause more wars in the galaxy than anything else.
It makes me think if some countries are violent now when they CAN'T understand each other, just imagine the bloodshed when they DO.
History 101, chapter 57, American Revolution
"...due to a pounding headache, General Washington couldn't think well enough to keep his troops in line. Luckily, a medic delivered to him new TYLENOL FAST ACTING GEL CAPLETS, the soothing action of which cleared his head in just minutes, letting him order his troops properly, and ensuring the victory for the Americans.
Tylenol: Fast acting strength, protecting America from the British since 1776"
My God, those cunning bastards... Don't you see what this is? The RIAA's brand new money-making schemes. It's brilliant! First, they sue the pants off of everyone and anyone to make everyone hate them. Then, they get artists mad, too, to the point that the artists rebel and make songs about how evil the RIAA is. The consumers then agree with the artists and their popularity soars, causing more people to actually buy their CDs, thus giving more money to the RIAA!
It's the music equivalent of the guy at the dunking booth taunting you into playing his game!
How many roads must a man walk down?
Microsoft.
Sorry. It's
Curses. Well, no big deal. We scientists will just have to go back to our other mission, building a tiny civilization from the bacteria on our teeth. Wait, what? Oh, okay. Then we'll just place a fake angel in an isolated town to simulate how it reacts to the end of the world. Wait, they did that too? Dammit! Well, how about we just go invent chairs that can't tip backwards or an automatic hammer, huh? Oh son of a--
Screw this, I'm going to Vegas to get drunk and married!
I don't think Futurama actually even tries to have a real continuity. In the beginning of the series, they make references to Star Trek all the time, but later on the name becomes a "forbidden word."
I just think of it like I did the Simpsons in some jokes. Lisa once stated the Springfield Oil Field is 3 times the size of Texas. This means either they live in Alaska (possibly, I need to consult a map for scale) or it's a joke because it's too ridiculous to be true.
"More permanent then a mountain"
This is incorrect. Then denotes a sequence. "I arrived first, then cmdTaco came, but CowboyNeal never showed up."
Than denotes a comparison. "Ha ha! My computer has more memory than yours!"
Remember:
Then = order
Than = comparison
I can't speak for everyone, but for me... Shigeru Miyamoto.
Psst. Hey, how'd you like to have some real fun? I got some "World of Warcraft" right here for you... And hey, don't sweat it, the first taste (or month) is free, 'cause once you have some, you'll be back.
And apparently, Douchebag Thompson has never seen The Professional. If he had, he'd know a good hitman never shoots for the face, because then the target is difficult to identify. You aim for the gut to stun and then aim for the lungs and heart.
At least, that's what the movie said (IANAH- I Am Not a Hitman)
Whoops. Look like I was a little later in posting.
But anyway, I understand your interest in seeing the results of such a study, but here's the problem: I, as a gamer, have not felt any more aggressive after playing a video game than I have after, say, one of my Tae Kwon Do lessons. I know plenty of gamers who are violent, sure, but I know plenty of people who are violent (in the, will fight people for fun) who are not gamers (at least, dedicated. Maybe they play GTA on the weekends, but nothing so time-consuming). This suggests to me that games have no affect on aggression, or at least no more than ANY activity that gets your adrenaline flowing. I mean, studies have shown that football players are aggressive after a game, because of the adrenaline. But do people question putting restrictions on sports? Of course not.
However, if such a study came out, it is of my opinion, and only my opinion, that gamers would show a SLIGHT increase in aggressive tendancies, mostly due to adrenaline again, which would send the media and congress into a fresh uproar of "Games taught my kid to kill!"
Or to put it more simply, I see few benefits from such a study, but plenty of ways it could be abused.
Even if it proved to be true, what does that prove? Does it mean that games make people more likely to become murderers, or does murder make people more likely to become gamers? And besides, isn't the key demographic of Sony and MS right now 18-34 year old males? I'm fairly certain that'd be the age and gender of most western violent crimes.
Correlation does not imply causality.