My belief in the past was that games/movies/TV did not teach kids violence. This point of view changed when I met a 5 year old boy who had been playing doom since he could hold a mouse. This kid had no concept of death or dying. Every day he would often make threatening comments to people - adults or kids - around him. Killing was only a game to him. I am absolutely convinced that had someone put a gun in his hand he would shoot someone just as easily as if he was playing Doom. He wouldn't do this out of malice, but because he did not know the difference between games and reality. That's the danger of video games.
Now, his parents did not put any effort into teacjing him better. This is definitely part of the problem. Good parenting, explaining about games, may help avoid some of the damage done, but children left to themselves will still be harmed.
I'll repeat the important part - The danger is not that games will cause kids to harm someone out of malice, but that they will do it because they don't know the difference.
Re:Yeah, and we can nuke 'em right back.
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 1
Global strike capability is new to china. They have never had the long range bombers or submarines that the US and Russia rely on as our secong strike force. China is making some slow gains in the submarine field, but they can't rely on them for SLBM's quite yet. The biggest gains in all this is the diplomatic power that ICBM's give them. They're in a new league now. A league that previously had two teams, Us and Russia.
Some corrections to be made... One, Reagan saves the country a lot of money by preventing us from having to maintain the cold war for another 10 or 20 years. This is not an opinion, it comes from recent statements made by former senior russian officials. All of them credit Reagan with the end to the cold war. Had Reagan not acted as he did we'd still be spending inordinate amounts of money on defense and related programs. Two, The threat IS the weaponry, not the military types. You're right in thinking that this may develop into another Cold War. I hope that is as far as it goes. All china needs to do to put a nuke on your doorstep is swap payloads. Manned space flight and ICBMs are built on the same platform. This is a huge threat, regardless of how much the military types stand to gain.
None of the coverage I have read up to this point has picked up on the real signifigance of this story. A manned module and an ICBM is it's payload.
Yesterday, China put the world on notice that it can now strike anywhere in the world within half an hour.
All the other possibilities for China are minor side effects of this ability. Weapons in space, trips to Mars, etc. are not the focus of developing rocket technology.
Take note: China can put a nuke on your doorstep.
Re:Blinded by mindless Limbaugh-ism...
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 1
To someone in the stone age, bronze is an important step forward. So to is 30 year old missile technology for a nation that is 50 years behind in research. One piece of technology China stole gave them the ability to package several warheads on one missile. That means with each missile China can target several cities.
Now, the signifigance of this story is not that we have a new nation in the space race, it this: the only difference between this rocket and an ICBM is the payload and the programmed trajectory.
China can now target any point on the earth's surface!
10 years ago China could hardly hit Taiwan. 5 years ago they still couldn't hit Korea. It makes no difference how many places they could have obtained this technology. They got it here. Cheap.
Religion is based on faith. We're all agreed? Good. Science is based on fact. Agreed? Good. The observations that compose our science are measured by technology we currently have. -as were observations that would contribute to religious beliefs 1000's of years ago. At any time, we may discover a new technology that will open up entire new observations to us, diproving every observation scientists have made in the last XXXX years. Belief in the current scientific model of (choose your field) is thus based on the belief that what we currently observe, and how we choose to define/explain it, will always remain true. Since we have no way of knowing for sure, we must take this on faith. Since science is based on this faith it is simply a religion.
I'm glad to see one other person out there has realized these two systems/theories are not exclusive of each other.
I think of it as "guided evolution". The big ball of matter that would become the universe had to come from somewhere, not just appear on it's own (Conservation theory). Could it be that the "Higher Power" set things in motion - bang there's a universe - then helped things along the way - Hmm maybe we need a few planets.... yadda yadda.... mankind.
Slashdot Mirror
My belief in the past was that games/movies/TV did not teach kids violence. This point of view changed when I met a 5 year old boy who had been playing doom since he could hold a mouse. This kid had no concept of death or dying. Every day he would often make threatening comments to people - adults or kids - around him. Killing was only a game to him. I am absolutely convinced that had someone put a gun in his hand he would shoot someone just as easily as if he was playing Doom. He wouldn't do this out of malice, but because he did not know the difference between games and reality. That's the danger of video games.
Now, his parents did not put any effort into teacjing him better. This is definitely part of the problem. Good parenting, explaining about games, may help avoid some of the damage done, but children left to themselves will still be harmed.
I'll repeat the important part - The danger is not that games will cause kids to harm someone out of malice, but that they will do it because they don't know the difference.
Global strike capability is new to china. They have never had the long range bombers or submarines that the US and Russia rely on as our secong strike force. China is making some slow gains in the submarine field, but they can't rely on them for SLBM's quite yet. The biggest gains in all this is the diplomatic power that ICBM's give them. They're in a new league now. A league that previously had two teams, Us and Russia.
Some corrections to be made... One, Reagan saves the country a lot of money by preventing us from having to maintain the cold war for another 10 or 20 years. This is not an opinion, it comes from recent statements made by former senior russian officials. All of them credit Reagan with the end to the cold war. Had Reagan not acted as he did we'd still be spending inordinate amounts of money on defense and related programs. Two, The threat IS the weaponry, not the military types. You're right in thinking that this may develop into another Cold War. I hope that is as far as it goes. All china needs to do to put a nuke on your doorstep is swap payloads. Manned space flight and ICBMs are built on the same platform. This is a huge threat, regardless of how much the military types stand to gain.
None of the coverage I have read up to this point has picked up on the real signifigance of this story. A manned module and an ICBM is it's payload.
Yesterday, China put the world on notice that it can now strike anywhere in the world within half an hour.
All the other possibilities for China are minor side effects of this ability. Weapons in space, trips to Mars, etc. are not the focus of developing rocket technology.
Take note: China can put a nuke on your doorstep.
To someone in the stone age, bronze is an important step forward. So to is 30 year old missile technology for a nation that is 50 years behind in research. One piece of technology China stole gave them the ability to package several warheads on one missile. That means with each missile China can target several cities.
Now, the signifigance of this story is not that we have a new nation in the space race, it this: the only difference between this rocket and an ICBM is the payload and the programmed trajectory.
China can now target any point on the earth's surface!
10 years ago China could hardly hit Taiwan. 5 years ago they still couldn't hit Korea. It makes no difference how many places they could have obtained this technology. They got it here. Cheap.
Religion is based on faith. We're all agreed? Good. Science is based on fact. Agreed? Good. The observations that compose our science are measured by technology we currently have. -as were observations that would contribute to religious beliefs 1000's of years ago. At any time, we may discover a new technology that will open up entire new observations to us, diproving every observation scientists have made in the last XXXX years. Belief in the current scientific model of (choose your field) is thus based on the belief that what we currently observe, and how we choose to define/explain it, will always remain true. Since we have no way of knowing for sure, we must take this on faith. Since science is based on this faith it is simply a religion.
I'm glad to see one other person out there has realized these two systems/theories are not exclusive of each other.
.... mankind.
I think of it as "guided evolution". The big ball of matter that would become the universe had to come from somewhere, not just appear on it's own (Conservation theory). Could it be that the "Higher Power" set things in motion - bang there's a universe - then helped things along the way - Hmm maybe we need a few planets.... yadda yadda
Just my opinion. I could be wrong.