The Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet was always my favorite because it reached the public in a new fashion. I understood Shakespeare more from that, beyond basic points. When a play is decently performed, you still get those subtle hints and between-the-lines meanings.Years later, when I was in high school, when Romeo and Juliet was brought up, that movie was what everyone remembered. People knew plot points because of that movie.
If you expose a child to blood and gore you could be held responsible for contributing to the corruption of a minor.
In my experience, talking to parents and teachers who handle kids everyday, there seems to be a muddling of the line of responsibility...many parents would take that above comment (which I agree with), to mean "there shouldn't be anymore violent video games" or "there should be a lockdown to them being sold to minors"...when the real statement should be, "I should stop my children from getting exposed to this."
Their arguments always start with what the video game industry is doing wrong when they should be looking at why their children are playing these games in the living room to begin with and where they get them from. 10 year olds don't immediately have $50 to spend on a new game. Where are they getting their money from? Where are their friends who let them borrow games getting their money from? I say giving these kids resources to get these games is also a corruption. Some parents are being enablers.
The line is simply blurred right there, the difference between parental responsibility and government/private company responsibility. The ERSB does a fine job in labeling games and rating them -- it's adults who don't understand them and ignore them that is the problem.
Meanwhile, a lot of parents I have talked to have said matter of factly, "I shouldn't have to protect my child from violence -- it shouldn't be available to them" and they ignore the fact that there are probably rated-R movies in the living room, waiting to be popped into the DVD player.
I like this quote from American McGee in this USA Today article from July 2004 about lawmakers' attacks on video games.
"They look at how hypocritical our society is when it comes to judging the content or sexuality in the media," McGee said. "And they look at how these double standards or triple standards are applied to films versus games or music versus games or written fiction versus games, and it's a silly argument to get involved in."
Over the summer there was an article about the confusion by many parents about video game ratings...I wish I could find it. It was at USA Today.
What a shame. I think they might have missed out on some great jazz.:)
I've encountered people who held fast to the "don't befriend nonbelievers" mantra. People who live in bubbles shouldn't criticize others for not choosing to do the same.
The first church I was in did the same. They didn't like my mother because she was a single mother and they didn't like my family in general because my grandparents didn't disown their husbandless daughter (ignoring that he was am abusive nutcase). It really dissuaded me from a lot of Christian teaching until I went to a different church where people were incredibly nice and were open minded.
I can't really imagine why people would ignore you simply because you were an athiest -- on the contrary, I would have expected them to increase their efforts. Whatever the case, it's their problem for not obeying the Bible to begin with, which was to go into the world and spread the gospel. It's not going or spreading if you're ignoring and being impolite to the people that you want to reach...
What's a social life? Is it when a ton of people stand, sit, huddle and squat around a 15 inch monitor and play RISK? Cause if it is...well...mine's gone.
I've got a breaking news bulletin for you guys...a friend of mine just informed me that the Deans are going to start reprimanding students for what they have posted on Facebook, photos, comments, whatever. They're going to start looking through facebook and checking on what people are posting.
Does the school have a right to go onto a web site and look at information that you have and reprimand you for that information? What if someone else posts something on my wall and it happens to violate my school's rules? Do I get into trouble for not deleting that comment?
While they weren't punished simply for that, they were also student athletes that had signed an agreement stating they wouldn't drink/do drugs/be a bad peron as they're representatives of the school. They were suspended from athletic events because of this. I don't think a student should be held responsible for what (s)he does on his/her own time, unless it affects the school itself
Well, in this case, they are affecting the school. These are school athletes that agreed to (in exchange for the opportunity to play sports) forgo certain things such as alcohol and drugs. By drinking, being drunk, or taking drugs, these athletes are impacting the way the school is looked at and is represented, as well as the sports organization they are playing for.
But this is a far cry from the evangelical's idea that the more souls that they save the more secure their spot in heaven.
Evangelicals, for the most part, do not hold to such an idea. Salvation in God guarantees a spot. That's it.
I met a person yesterday who argued that evangelicals were only out to collect souls...this was a person going to an evangelical college. Mistaking one misguided evangelical (or catholic) for all evangelicals (or catholics) is misguided in itself...from my personal experience, the majority of evangelicals aren't out to convert you. They're only out to give you information and let you process it, if you choose to. The ones that are pushy and who seem to only want to "save" your soul are the minority and I know that most of the other evangelicals dislike those kinds as well.
Yeah, which is why they didn't really get into trouble...but I believe they might have been investigated, at the very least by their RA's. Unless there was reason to suspect them, I think students were just questioned or they got a slap on the wrist about posting stuff like that.
My school states that rules apply during the term and during break, on campus or off. I think they shouldn't have that rule and of course, there is no real way to keep track of what happens during the breaks but they do state it in the rulebook.
They shouldn't have any say in what I do during breaks or what I do off campus but I knew the rule as I stepped onto campus for the first time. Whether I choose to follow them when home on break is my choice, just like it was her choice to get photographed and to put it on display.
Even if she didn't know about the rules when she chose to go to that school (her mistake, not knowing the rules) she had to know about them at the time her photo was taken, if it was during her term as a student. If it was before she was a student, it should not matter. But if it was taken during her attendance, I understand where the college would take some form of action. But only if it was stated that a student has to abide by the rules on or off campus, vacations or otherwise.
I guess in a company situation, if your actions impede your work or damage the company in any way, since you are a representative of that organization, the company could take action...then again, it would have to be in the contract that they can do so based on "improper conduct" and they'd have to define what that was...
Has anyone ever had a contract given to them by an employer with something like that in it?
EXACTLY. At my college alcohol isn't allowed on campus -- trust me, the place is better off without alcohol involved. All of these "Drinkers anonymous" groups popped up on Facebook and students started to get into trouble once their RA's or faculty or administration started looking around Facebook (either joining it or just looking) and found the groups they were in. They couldn't really prove thestudents had been drinking unless they said something -- which several of them did, on the group message boards.
I sat through this girl's speech about how much facebook is corrupting society and how it's bad, bad, bad. She completely ignored the fact that you control the information you place in your own profile.
What I am saying is that Child's Play is a charity that is geared toward a certain group of people. It's fine for them to branch out but that if they were to choose to send toys to countries like India and Africa, there might be concern that those kids need things more significant than toys and that their goals are misguided.
Also, it says right on the Child's Play web site that they are using this as a way of proving wrong critics of the gaming industry.
Under "About Child's Play" it says, For two years now we've set up and organized a charity called Child's Play. We set it up because we were angry the media decided to blame all the world's problems on games and gamers. Basically they said that gamers were bad people, and we thought that wasn't right. Apparently, you guys agreed: through Child's Play you sent nearly a million dollars in toys, games, and cash to the sick kids in Children's Hospitals around the nation.
Child's Play isn't for poor children -- it's for sick children in hospitals.
Children in India, Africa and South America need medical care and food above a PlayStation 2. That said, I understand that since the organization is Penny Arcade, they are doing this charity as a twofold purpose:
1) To give to children
2) To promote the idea that games are healthy for kids and offer education, not violence
The second reason is because there is a lot of criticism over the gaming industry and this is one way that PA can approach the subject with actions, not just words, and help needy children.
Kids in the US, UK, Canada, etc. who Child's Play is geared toward are getting the medical care they need -- the problem is, many of the parents of those sick children might be seeing all of their income go towards medical bills and basic expenses such as food and utilities.
They might not have enough money leftover for a good Christmas. PA steps in and helps a little bit. Yes, toys and games are material and can't be as valuable as clean water and food for children in India and Africa. But it's about evaluating what these countries need. Kids in India and Africa need medical care more than they need toys. Kids in the US and UK in these hospitals are already getting that medical care. What they need is a little happiness during their illness.
Why would I pay $.99 to download something that has no interest for me in the first place.
Because the majority of consumers DO have satellite or cable and would be able to do this. You don't have satellite or cable to begin with -- so this doesn't even apply to you.
The market isn't made for you. The majority of consumers have cable or satellite and don't watch only PBS. The majority of consumers go to Blockbuster or pay for Netflix when they rent DVDs.
There are those of us who do have cable or satellite and there are those of us who would spend money to watch idiots voluntarily stuck on an island eating lizards.
It partially has to do with who has the flashier set up...after all, why go minimal if you can spend a little more and get the full blown get up with all the bells and whistles? Most people who can, will. It's about pride and competition, about status. A lot of people can save a few hundred dollars by going with minimal equipment and running things at lower resolutions. But it's not about doing "well", it's about doing "exceptional" which is why this new culture is formed. You have to look the best, even if it means living off ramen for a few months cause your paychecks are going toward your bills for the shiny new system you just built.
Also a viable option. I do a lot of graphics work so my original interest was in a powerbook. That was last summer though...the more I'm looking at my situation now, where I'm going in my career, I think I'll stick to my trusty PC until the time is right for several computers.
Slashdot Mirror
The Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet was always my favorite because it reached the public in a new fashion. I understood Shakespeare more from that, beyond basic points. When a play is decently performed, you still get those subtle hints and between-the-lines meanings.Years later, when I was in high school, when Romeo and Juliet was brought up, that movie was what everyone remembered. People knew plot points because of that movie.
They should just invent Dentics like on Farscape...how do you feel about small worm-like organisms in your mouth cleaning your teeth?
I wonder how his credit card looks...
In my experience, talking to parents and teachers who handle kids everyday, there seems to be a muddling of the line of responsibility...many parents would take that above comment (which I agree with), to mean "there shouldn't be anymore violent video games" or "there should be a lockdown to them being sold to minors"...when the real statement should be, "I should stop my children from getting exposed to this."
Their arguments always start with what the video game industry is doing wrong when they should be looking at why their children are playing these games in the living room to begin with and where they get them from. 10 year olds don't immediately have $50 to spend on a new game. Where are they getting their money from? Where are their friends who let them borrow games getting their money from? I say giving these kids resources to get these games is also a corruption. Some parents are being enablers.
The line is simply blurred right there, the difference between parental responsibility and government/private company responsibility. The ERSB does a fine job in labeling games and rating them -- it's adults who don't understand them and ignore them that is the problem.
Meanwhile, a lot of parents I have talked to have said matter of factly, "I shouldn't have to protect my child from violence -- it shouldn't be available to them" and they ignore the fact that there are probably rated-R movies in the living room, waiting to be popped into the DVD player.
"They look at how hypocritical our society is when it comes to judging the content or sexuality in the media," McGee said. "And they look at how these double standards or triple standards are applied to films versus games or music versus games or written fiction versus games, and it's a silly argument to get involved in."
Over the summer there was an article about the confusion by many parents about video game ratings...I wish I could find it. It was at USA Today.
I've encountered people who held fast to the "don't befriend nonbelievers" mantra. People who live in bubbles shouldn't criticize others for not choosing to do the same.
The first church I was in did the same. They didn't like my mother because she was a single mother and they didn't like my family in general because my grandparents didn't disown their husbandless daughter (ignoring that he was am abusive nutcase). It really dissuaded me from a lot of Christian teaching until I went to a different church where people were incredibly nice and were open minded. I can't really imagine why people would ignore you simply because you were an athiest -- on the contrary, I would have expected them to increase their efforts. Whatever the case, it's their problem for not obeying the Bible to begin with, which was to go into the world and spread the gospel. It's not going or spreading if you're ignoring and being impolite to the people that you want to reach...
You should also never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. See? You can learn International Policy and Diplomacy from Princess Bride!
It's WarGames, Google-style! I can see George Lucas' hamster wheel spinning. "The Google Wars"
What's a social life? Is it when a ton of people stand, sit, huddle and squat around a 15 inch monitor and play RISK? Cause if it is...well...mine's gone.
Does the school have a right to go onto a web site and look at information that you have and reprimand you for that information? What if someone else posts something on my wall and it happens to violate my school's rules? Do I get into trouble for not deleting that comment?
While they weren't punished simply for that, they were also student athletes that had signed an agreement stating they wouldn't drink/do drugs/be a bad peron as they're representatives of the school. They were suspended from athletic events because of this. I don't think a student should be held responsible for what (s)he does on his/her own time, unless it affects the school itself Well, in this case, they are affecting the school. These are school athletes that agreed to (in exchange for the opportunity to play sports) forgo certain things such as alcohol and drugs. By drinking, being drunk, or taking drugs, these athletes are impacting the way the school is looked at and is represented, as well as the sports organization they are playing for.
Evangelicals, for the most part, do not hold to such an idea. Salvation in God guarantees a spot. That's it.
I met a person yesterday who argued that evangelicals were only out to collect souls...this was a person going to an evangelical college. Mistaking one misguided evangelical (or catholic) for all evangelicals (or catholics) is misguided in itself...from my personal experience, the majority of evangelicals aren't out to convert you. They're only out to give you information and let you process it, if you choose to. The ones that are pushy and who seem to only want to "save" your soul are the minority and I know that most of the other evangelicals dislike those kinds as well.
For things like the PHASR (couldn't find anything for the E I guess) or rail gun technology?
Yeah, which is why they didn't really get into trouble...but I believe they might have been investigated, at the very least by their RA's. Unless there was reason to suspect them, I think students were just questioned or they got a slap on the wrist about posting stuff like that.
The bright side: at least it doesn't look like a remote control like the phasers on Star Trek did.
A low-cost solution would just be to mount a Maglite onto a rifle.
They shouldn't have any say in what I do during breaks or what I do off campus but I knew the rule as I stepped onto campus for the first time. Whether I choose to follow them when home on break is my choice, just like it was her choice to get photographed and to put it on display.
Even if she didn't know about the rules when she chose to go to that school (her mistake, not knowing the rules) she had to know about them at the time her photo was taken, if it was during her term as a student. If it was before she was a student, it should not matter. But if it was taken during her attendance, I understand where the college would take some form of action. But only if it was stated that a student has to abide by the rules on or off campus, vacations or otherwise.
I guess in a company situation, if your actions impede your work or damage the company in any way, since you are a representative of that organization, the company could take action...then again, it would have to be in the contract that they can do so based on "improper conduct" and they'd have to define what that was... Has anyone ever had a contract given to them by an employer with something like that in it?
I sat through this girl's speech about how much facebook is corrupting society and how it's bad, bad, bad. She completely ignored the fact that you control the information you place in your own profile.
Rock on! I'm going to donate some money or toys. Not sure which yet or both. I've got one of the PDF flyers hanging on my door.
Also, it says right on the Child's Play web site that they are using this as a way of proving wrong critics of the gaming industry.
Under "About Child's Play" it says, For two years now we've set up and organized a charity called Child's Play. We set it up because we were angry the media decided to blame all the world's problems on games and gamers. Basically they said that gamers were bad people, and we thought that wasn't right. Apparently, you guys agreed: through Child's Play you sent nearly a million dollars in toys, games, and cash to the sick kids in Children's Hospitals around the nation.
Children in India, Africa and South America need medical care and food above a PlayStation 2. That said, I understand that since the organization is Penny Arcade, they are doing this charity as a twofold purpose:
1) To give to children
2) To promote the idea that games are healthy for kids and offer education, not violence
The second reason is because there is a lot of criticism over the gaming industry and this is one way that PA can approach the subject with actions, not just words, and help needy children.
Kids in the US, UK, Canada, etc. who Child's Play is geared toward are getting the medical care they need -- the problem is, many of the parents of those sick children might be seeing all of their income go towards medical bills and basic expenses such as food and utilities.
They might not have enough money leftover for a good Christmas. PA steps in and helps a little bit. Yes, toys and games are material and can't be as valuable as clean water and food for children in India and Africa. But it's about evaluating what these countries need. Kids in India and Africa need medical care more than they need toys. Kids in the US and UK in these hospitals are already getting that medical care. What they need is a little happiness during their illness.
Why would I pay $.99 to download something that has no interest for me in the first place. Because the majority of consumers DO have satellite or cable and would be able to do this. You don't have satellite or cable to begin with -- so this doesn't even apply to you. The market isn't made for you. The majority of consumers have cable or satellite and don't watch only PBS. The majority of consumers go to Blockbuster or pay for Netflix when they rent DVDs. There are those of us who do have cable or satellite and there are those of us who would spend money to watch idiots voluntarily stuck on an island eating lizards.
Orrin Hatch might agree with you. He and his INDUCE act have done nothing but cause trouble.
It partially has to do with who has the flashier set up...after all, why go minimal if you can spend a little more and get the full blown get up with all the bells and whistles? Most people who can, will. It's about pride and competition, about status. A lot of people can save a few hundred dollars by going with minimal equipment and running things at lower resolutions. But it's not about doing "well", it's about doing "exceptional" which is why this new culture is formed. You have to look the best, even if it means living off ramen for a few months cause your paychecks are going toward your bills for the shiny new system you just built.
Also a viable option. I do a lot of graphics work so my original interest was in a powerbook. That was last summer though...the more I'm looking at my situation now, where I'm going in my career, I think I'll stick to my trusty PC until the time is right for several computers.