Once again, your article at http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=special_ coverage&id=3905371 (about the "dangers" of the Nintendo DS) is a pack of lies. None of the claims it makes are true. There are not sexual predators out looking for children with Nintendo DSes. It's simply not possible.
For your own sake I hope you realize you should remove this article from your web site, or you may face a libel suit from Nintendo.
This article is a mockery of the journalistic process and does nothing but expose your station for the sham that it is.
Next time you want to do a program about how video games are "dangerous" for kids, don't call in a paid shill as an expert. The guy you called "internet safety expert Keith Dunn" is selling a program that lets you spy on your children. Let me explain something to you: He wants you to scare parents into buying it so he can make a buck off of their ignorance. Sentences like "Nintendo confirms what happened to Emily is possible but the company claims that person must also be using another DS system and be within 65 feet" are playing into his hands. It's possible for a child predator to go out in public and hold up a big poster with his name on it, too, but I don't see you going after people who make posterboard and saying that they "claim" they don't intend for it to happen. The Nintendo DS' chat function can only operate within a local area of 65-100 feet. This isn't a "claim," it's a scientific fact. The wireless card in the DS cannot reach any further than that. Period.
For a child to be in danger from sexual predators, their parents would have to leave them unattended and walk over 100 feet away from them for an extended period of time. It would be very simple for them to pick out possible child predators, too - just look for people holding a Nintendo DS who aren't your child. Simple as that.
Fearmongering, scare tactics, and an "expert" who is essentially using you to huck a product. Yes, it certainly sounds like you're doing a fantastic job of crapping all over journalistic integrity. Keep up the fantastic work.
That's also a deceptive statement, though it's obviously not meant to be one like their article was. The only game capable of VoIP at this point is SOCOM: Fire Team Bravo. The game is rated M, so in theory you could only chat with people over 18 if you're over 18 yourself. Otherwise, no chatting at all. Unfortunately, of course, the ratings system is tough to enforce.
Where the heck are you buying CDs??? At every Barnes & Noble, Meijer, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Fry's, etc. that I've been to, I have never seen a CD that costs $25. Most cost around $14-$18.
Nathan Garrelts, a professor at my college, is trying to work video games into the curriculum by discussing their cultural dynamics and examining them as literary works. He wrote an excellent article called "Will Master Chief Ever Frag Moby Dick?" for the International Game Developers Association. He has also edited a collection of essays on how digital media influences our perceptions, and how our perceptions influence how we interact with digital media. I wrote an article about him for our newspaper back in December of last year. He's a blast to talk to, and he is really passionate about bringing games and other digital media into a more positive light.
That's not disagreeing at all, really. I said that people who make history shouldn't write it because they'd make themselves look good. He said that he intended to write history and thus make himself look good. He was just proving my point.
No, I try to lead an ethical life. There's a difference between censoring yourself to make yourself look good and censoring yourself to edit out things that aren't mentionable in pleasant company.
Call him a troll if you want, but he's right. See here (never mind, article has apparently been removed. It was from September of last year.)
"Federal auditors said Friday that the Bush administration had violated the law by purchasing favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party."
Last year, a FAKE news report was broadcast that essentially praised Bush's Medicare drug benefit plan. It ended with the "reporter" saying "From Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting."
Earlier this year a new FAKE report was broadcast, talking about the benefits of the No Child Left Behind plan.
How does it end? "From Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting."
When the first video came out, The Daily Show had a segment about it in which they exposed the fact that there is no reporter named Karen Ryan working for any media outlet in either Washington, D.C. or the state of Washington. These reports were fabricated and funded by the U.S. government. The first was made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the second by
more articles: #1, #2 (which identifies Karen Ryan as a government contractor who produces and narrates the videos), #3 (which has a picture and background on Karen Ryan)
There were also several "town hall meetings" where obvious plants in the audience asked Bush questions. Example: An episode of The Daily Show featured an excerpt from one such meeting. A child no older than eight asked Bush what policies he was putting in place to help fight the war on terror. Children that young do not ask those questions.
5 entries found for vested interest. (n)
1. Law. A right or title, as to present or future possession of an estate, that can be conveyed to another.
2. A fixed right granted to an employee under a pension plan. 3. A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.
4. vested interests: Those groups that seek to maintain or control an existing system or activity from which they derive private benefit.
Anyways, regardless of whether or not information is as objective as humanly possible, we all have our own biases and prejudices that we will unconsciously apply to the message, thus subverting its objectivity. The best we can hope for is to maintain the illusion of objectivity.
... The controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.
Let me tell you: No, it is not. It is not ethical for people to censor and edit their lives. It is ethical for them to try to live a life that doesn't need censoring. It does nothing but further prove the serious ethical problems that permeate the Congress.
Those who make history should not be the ones who write it, or they'll put themselves in a favorable light.
You have the combined weight of 1,000's of years of history and practically every major world religion on one side and you have progressives on the other.
Which is exactly the point. You cannot base current policy off of traditions from 2000 years ago, and religions are afraid of change because change provides the possibility that the religion is wrong. Fundamentalist religions in America are seen as grudging, stubborn, out-of-date, out-of-touch institutions, because they refuse to adapt (like every other institution has). And no, marriage and the family are not religious institutions - otherwise, atheists wouldn't marry or have children.
One problem: Marriage licenses also go to couples who get married drunk in overnight marriage chapels in Vegas, who never intend to live together, love each other, or have children.
"So why does gov't get involved in the institution of marriage at all? Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens. The gov't - and the public - have a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage for that reason alone."
If they want to protect the institution of marriage, they should begin by outlawing divorce. Seriously, we have senators who have been married five times. How can they possibly claim that marriage is a sacred institution? And if they do claim it's sacred, how can they politicize it? That's a religious statement, not a political one.
Those who say they are banning gay marriage to protect the institution of marriage are doing nothing but talking. If two total strangers who neither love each other nor intend to ever live together can get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, but two committed, loving, sensitive people can't get married simply because they're the same sex, there is something wrong with the institution of marriage in this country, and it's not that gays are marrying. Gay marriage can do nothing but help America.
Scientists have also linked mirror neurons to autism. It has been suggested that in the autistic brain, mirror neurons are either absent or in short supply. Mirror neurons fire off a signal whenever we see another person exhibiting any signs of emotion or stress, so it makes sense that they would fire off whenever we see a character doing something we would consider stressful. It's part of what helps us be part of a larger community of empathic beings. This explains why mirror neurons are linked to autism: Autistic people often have great difficulty understanding the emotions and motives of others, and thus seem entirely alien and separate to most non-autistic people. It also explains why some people cried when Aeris died:)
Using VBScript, I believe so. I know it's capable of sending key commands; I'm not sure about key combinations such as Alt+anything or Ctrl+Anything. To read up a bit on it, check here. There's more information here.
You're probably aware of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality.
I'm also aware of a correlation between being black and being more likely to commit a crime. Seeing how the first applies to me, but not the second, I'm reminded of one important thing: one does not cause the other.
No, I don't. Maybe if it happened more often. But in nearly every case I've seen, women who are raped don't suddenly decide to become lesbian/bisexual. The disposition has to exist beforehand.
Anecdote: A woman I know gave up on men after a third date rape. She started experimenting with women and is now happy in a long-term relationship with a woman. She admitted to me that she still finds men attractive, but she refuses to let herself be hurt again. She considers herself to be gay now.
(Disclaimer: I am heterosexual, with certain morals that will be clear here)...For instance: The strongest lion kills the children of its rivals within the pride to increase the chances of its genes. Ergo, when men beat/kill their stepchildren, this is 'natural.' Furthermore, we can assume that, being natural, this behavior should be subject to no censure or punishment.
You shot yourself in the foot. In your very first sentence, you negated this argument. People have morals. Lions do not.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, your article at http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=special_ coverage&id=3905371 (about the "dangers" of the Nintendo DS) is a pack of lies. None of the claims it makes are true. There are not sexual predators out looking for children with Nintendo DSes. It's simply not possible.
For your own sake I hope you realize you should remove this article from your web site, or you may face a libel suit from Nintendo.
This article is a mockery of the journalistic process and does nothing but expose your station for the sham that it is.
Next time you want to do a program about how video games are "dangerous" for kids, don't call in a paid shill as an expert. The guy you called "internet safety expert Keith Dunn" is selling a program that lets you spy on your children. Let me explain something to you: He wants you to scare parents into buying it so he can make a buck off of their ignorance. Sentences like "Nintendo confirms what happened to Emily is possible but the company claims that person must also be using another DS system and be within 65 feet" are playing into his hands. It's possible for a child predator to go out in public and hold up a big poster with his name on it, too, but I don't see you going after people who make posterboard and saying that they "claim" they don't intend for it to happen. The Nintendo DS' chat function can only operate within a local area of 65-100 feet. This isn't a "claim," it's a scientific fact. The wireless card in the DS cannot reach any further than that. Period.
For a child to be in danger from sexual predators, their parents would have to leave them unattended and walk over 100 feet away from them for an extended period of time. It would be very simple for them to pick out possible child predators, too - just look for people holding a Nintendo DS who aren't your child. Simple as that.
Fearmongering, scare tactics, and an "expert" who is essentially using you to huck a product. Yes, it certainly sounds like you're doing a fantastic job of crapping all over journalistic integrity. Keep up the fantastic work.
That's also a deceptive statement, though it's obviously not meant to be one like their article was. The only game capable of VoIP at this point is SOCOM: Fire Team Bravo. The game is rated M, so in theory you could only chat with people over 18 if you're over 18 yourself. Otherwise, no chatting at all. Unfortunately, of course, the ratings system is tough to enforce.
Where the heck are you buying CDs??? At every Barnes & Noble, Meijer, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Fry's, etc. that I've been to, I have never seen a CD that costs $25. Most cost around $14-$18.
How about building it into the DS, instead of the utterly useless PictoChat?
Nathan Garrelts, a professor at my college, is trying to work video games into the curriculum by discussing their cultural dynamics and examining them as literary works. He wrote an excellent article called "Will Master Chief Ever Frag Moby Dick?" for the International Game Developers Association. He has also edited a collection of essays on how digital media influences our perceptions, and how our perceptions influence how we interact with digital media. I wrote an article about him for our newspaper back in December of last year. He's a blast to talk to, and he is really passionate about bringing games and other digital media into a more positive light.
Mod parent up. We've known about this for quite some time.
HOW DID YOU FIND OUT?
That's not disagreeing at all, really. I said that people who make history shouldn't write it because they'd make themselves look good. He said that he intended to write history and thus make himself look good. He was just proving my point.
No, I try to lead an ethical life. There's a difference between censoring yourself to make yourself look good and censoring yourself to edit out things that aren't mentionable in pleasant company.
Call him a troll if you want, but he's right. See here (never mind, article has apparently been removed. It was from September of last year.)
"Federal auditors said Friday that the Bush administration had violated the law by purchasing favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party."
Last year, a FAKE news report was broadcast that essentially praised Bush's Medicare drug benefit plan. It ended with the "reporter" saying "From Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting."
Earlier this year a new FAKE report was broadcast, talking about the benefits of the No Child Left Behind plan.
How does it end? "From Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting."
When the first video came out, The Daily Show had a segment about it in which they exposed the fact that there is no reporter named Karen Ryan working for any media outlet in either Washington, D.C. or the state of Washington. These reports were fabricated and funded by the U.S. government. The first was made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the second by
more articles: #1, #2 (which identifies Karen Ryan as a government contractor who produces and narrates the videos), #3 (which has a picture and background on Karen Ryan)
There were also several "town hall meetings" where obvious plants in the audience asked Bush questions. Example: An episode of The Daily Show featured an excerpt from one such meeting. A child no older than eight asked Bush what policies he was putting in place to help fight the war on terror. Children that young do not ask those questions.
Score: -1, Congress
5 entries found for vested interest.
(n)
1. Law. A right or title, as to present or future possession of an estate, that can be conveyed to another.
2. A fixed right granted to an employee under a pension plan.
3. A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.
4. vested interests: Those groups that seek to maintain or control an existing system or activity from which they derive private benefit.
Anyways, regardless of whether or not information is as objective as humanly possible, we all have our own biases and prejudices that we will unconsciously apply to the message, thus subverting its objectivity. The best we can hope for is to maintain the illusion of objectivity.
... The controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.
Let me tell you: No, it is not. It is not ethical for people to censor and edit their lives. It is ethical for them to try to live a life that doesn't need censoring. It does nothing but further prove the serious ethical problems that permeate the Congress.
Those who make history should not be the ones who write it, or they'll put themselves in a favorable light.
Not to mention gay prostitute Jeff Gannon as official media plant.
You have the combined weight of 1,000's of years of history and practically every major world religion on one side and you have progressives on the other.
Which is exactly the point. You cannot base current policy off of traditions from 2000 years ago, and religions are afraid of change because change provides the possibility that the religion is wrong. Fundamentalist religions in America are seen as grudging, stubborn, out-of-date, out-of-touch institutions, because they refuse to adapt (like every other institution has). And no, marriage and the family are not religious institutions - otherwise, atheists wouldn't marry or have children.
One problem: Marriage licenses also go to couples who get married drunk in overnight marriage chapels in Vegas, who never intend to live together, love each other, or have children.
"So why does gov't get involved in the institution of marriage at all? Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens. The gov't - and the public - have a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage for that reason alone."
If they want to protect the institution of marriage, they should begin by outlawing divorce. Seriously, we have senators who have been married five times. How can they possibly claim that marriage is a sacred institution? And if they do claim it's sacred, how can they politicize it? That's a religious statement, not a political one.
Those who say they are banning gay marriage to protect the institution of marriage are doing nothing but talking. If two total strangers who neither love each other nor intend to ever live together can get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, but two committed, loving, sensitive people can't get married simply because they're the same sex, there is something wrong with the institution of marriage in this country, and it's not that gays are marrying. Gay marriage can do nothing but help America.
"Yes, please" = gay OR bisexual, buddy.
Scientists have also linked mirror neurons to autism. It has been suggested that in the autistic brain, mirror neurons are either absent or in short supply. Mirror neurons fire off a signal whenever we see another person exhibiting any signs of emotion or stress, so it makes sense that they would fire off whenever we see a character doing something we would consider stressful. It's part of what helps us be part of a larger community of empathic beings. This explains why mirror neurons are linked to autism: Autistic people often have great difficulty understanding the emotions and motives of others, and thus seem entirely alien and separate to most non-autistic people. It also explains why some people cried when Aeris died :)
Ooh, mouse clicks... I'd just go for Alt+whatever. I found out how to do those, too: see here.
Using VBScript, I believe so. I know it's capable of sending key commands; I'm not sure about key combinations such as Alt+anything or Ctrl+Anything. To read up a bit on it, check here. There's more information here.
You're probably aware of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality.
I'm also aware of a correlation between being black and being more likely to commit a crime. Seeing how the first applies to me, but not the second, I'm reminded of one important thing: one does not cause the other.
No, I don't. Maybe if it happened more often. But in nearly every case I've seen, women who are raped don't suddenly decide to become lesbian/bisexual. The disposition has to exist beforehand.
Anecdote: A woman I know gave up on men after a third date rape. She started experimenting with women and is now happy in a long-term relationship with a woman. She admitted to me that she still finds men attractive, but she refuses to let herself be hurt again. She considers herself to be gay now.
Yeah. Pretty obvious she was bisexual, then.
(Disclaimer: I am heterosexual, with certain morals that will be clear here)...For instance: The strongest lion kills the children of its rivals within the pride to increase the chances of its genes. Ergo, when men beat/kill their stepchildren, this is 'natural.' Furthermore, we can assume that, being natural, this behavior should be subject to no censure or punishment. You shot yourself in the foot. In your very first sentence, you negated this argument. People have morals. Lions do not.