When I was at Best Buy a month or so ago, I asked about pre-ordering the PS3 and was told that they weren't going to allow pre-orders for any new consoles anymore after the problem with the XBox 360. A local retailer told me the same.
You have a point here. You were in front of the computer learning. Most kids I knew growing up were on the computer just to play games and other less educational reasons.
Then we get into the argument of what constitutes learning... I learned a lot (about computers) by installing new games, getting device drivers to work, tweaking the graphics cards etc. Kids who play computer games are generally more adept when it comes to using a computer.
Also, many types of games a great vocabulary builders. I learned a lot about mythology, both western and eastern, from MMORPGs. WW2 stategy games gave insight into war. Even Need For Speed taught me a little about cars. I should clarify that I don't think thatgames are the best way to learn about these things; I'm just saying that it is possible to learn a lot from them.
Not to mention, my typing ability went through the roof when I started playing Ultima Online. You can't look at the keys to type "Help" while running from a monster, much less "Haha, I stole all ShortSpear of Vanquishing" with a group of players chasing you.
Grades in school may suffer because kids are playing video games, but this is probably because they are learning other things than what is required by the shool, not because they aren't learning anything.
Have you looked at Sony's stock prices over the last decade? Whether or not it is the cause of the changes, the price spikes around the launch of the PS1 and PS3 and also has significant drops around the release of the XBox. I'm not an analyst, but it seems like Sony's stock is highly dependent upon what happens in the game industry.
Hell yeah! And let's burn all the violent books, movies, and rock and roll CDs too!
You know what I think is a much more effective way of desensitizing someone? Having them watch another person get beat up. Since this happens frequently in our school systems, we better find a way to fix that first. It's even worse if they see someone actually die in real life. We better find a way to prevent young people from ever seeing a dead body... Wait, at the start of the 20th century, most funerals were held in people's homes. Young people saw dead bodies all the time, in their own homes no less. Maybe its our sensitization that's making it easier for people to kill. Maybe we need to see more actual dead people to understand what it means to die. Maybe we shouldn't distance ourselves from death so much so that people like you don't think that watching someone die on a video game will incite violence.
But I guess I'm missing your point too. You're not speaking out against video games or saying that people shouldn't be able to play them, you're just saying they 'may' cause violent people to become violent. That's kinda like saying, "I don't have anything against cigarettes, but I'm just going to tell you that they cause cancer and kill millions of people every year."
I also didn't know about the shooting. I live in the US, but have given up on the network news because I find that I get more relavent information by reading between the jokes on the daily show.
This question sure is a lot better than asking whether or not its unethical to "hack" the Governor of California's website.
Part of me thinks that if someone walks up to you on the street, claims to work for your bank and then asks you for some money, you're an idiot if you take out your wallet. However, the internet is still relatively new and even though most slashdotters can recognize a phishing attempt, my mom still wonders how all those porn advertisements know where she lives...
No. That honestly surprises me as I have attended a Pomona College, a private college in California; Joliet Junior College, a community college; and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. None of which haveever had any sort of fee to get to web pages. This is really the first I've ever heard of it.
Most of my computer science professors at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) post all of their lecture notes on the internet. In their cases, since they use the lecture notes in class to guide their discussions, it isn't any more work for them to just put them up on the internet. The majority of these lectures are available to anyone, whether they are university students or not.
One of my profs, who teaches a course that is also open to students in other countries who are paying to take an online course, has a TA video record the whole lecture, which is then posted on the internet for all students paying for the class (university and distance education, or online, students). He has the recordings password protected because the university has some rules about it and won't let him essentially give the course for free to anyone who wants it (at least I think that was the explanation he gave but I'm not completely sure).
Personally, I think either of these two scenarios are the proper way to do things. If a prof is charging to give out copies of his lectures notes on the internet, then should he be charging if students come to his office during his office hours and ask about what they missed in classed? Isn't that one of the things a prof's office hours are for? And further more, even though it is using the slippery slope fallacy, if profs start charging for lecture notes and people think it is acceptable, then why don't they charge for the booklets used to write tests on or extra materials handed out in class? The simple answer to that question is because the institutions they work for are providing them with copy machines and such. Along that logic, I would say that time spent creating lecture notes is time spent preparing for class. It's true that they don't have to do it, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to charge for it.
...than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.... Why do the british/american people delude themselves under the false assumption that it could never happen with them?
Just so I have this straight... First, you responded to an article that talks about broad, sweeping generalizations that are use to combat terrorists, leading me to assume, possibly incorrectly, that you believe it is wrong to to monitor people due to stereotypes without a lot of evidence (For the record, I don't think it is ok to freeze someone's assets just because they 'might' be a terrorist). After that, you go on to making a sweeping generalization about the British/American public. My question is, why do you think it is acceptable for you to make sweeping generalizations while it is not ok for the British government to profile people in order to track suspected terrorists?
Practice what you preach.
In response to your question, there are plenty of Americans, and I'd assume the same can be said for the UK, who are scared of the current administration. I know people who seriously consider not supporting the ACLU and other such organizations for fear that the government might put them on a watch list (it doesn't stop them for supporting, but they shouldn't have to be worried about it). I know plenty of others that are considering moving to another country, and a few that have, although that is just running away from the problem. The reason a lot of Americans are calm, even though they may be scared, is that we will have new leadership in a little over 2 years. Hopefully, with that new leadership, things will get better. Looking back over the history of the US, we've been through this before and we get over it. Just look at McCarthyism for starters. I wonder why more Americans do not see the parallel between 1950 and today. However, just like back then, administrations change and the balance of power shifts back, or at least it always has.
On the other hand, if Bush somehow manages to stick around for a 3rd term, I won't be able to stay calm anymore.
Don't get me wrong, this is horrible in my opinion, but the really sad part is that a fair portion of the US is glad that you won't step foot here again... a lot of conclusions can be drawn from that, but I don't want to get into them because there is just too much to say. Regardless, I'm always saddened to hear about people who feel the way you do (which is in no way your fault in case it sounds like I'm saying that), not that this is anywhere near the first time I've heard it or thought about what makes it happen.
Is this the 'way of the future' for PC titles? Will games powered by specific pieces of hardware become the norm?
Short-run, maybe; long-run, no. IMHO, things will consolidate like they always seem to do. Video cards are necessary for more than just games, so they won't be going anywhere. Physics and AI cards seem to be useful for nothing but games. It would be foolish to combine all video cards with physics and AI chips because not everyone plays games, but why not combine the physics and AI chips? Farther down the road someone will come out with a new card to enhance some other aspect of gameplay, and eventually that will merge with the physics and AI chips on their own card.
Things are always being consolidated on PCs. Look at all the things on mobos that used to require separate cards 10 years or even 5 years ago. Designers get better and better at cramming more things into a smaller space (even if that is getting harder and harder to do), so it seems to me that these things will keep merging together when it is useful to do so. In this case, I don't think most PC users want to have 3-5 cards just for games, so it is useful. I could be completely wrong on that point though.
Wow, I didn't know that when you set an example for someone, if that person follows the example, it is immediately your fault. What an interesting way to look at things. So I guess you think that if a MLB player uses steroids and some kid who plays little league uses steroids, it must be the MLB player's fault. Personally, I think people make their own bad decisions and, in most cases, have no one else to blame but themselves. However, it would be niave to think that the actions of others do not influence our own actions. Influencing someone is different from causing them to do something.
The initial poster only said that Bush, as a leader, was setting examples, through his actions, for other leaders. It just so happens that those examples are about breaking the law.
A: Anyone who wants to see more of the positive effects of the internet brought under a media spotlight instead of just hearing about online predators on myspace.
A: Anyone who gets into arguments (discussions) with people who think the only thing the internet is good for is pirating music.
A: Anyone who wants some extra evidence when trying to explain to some ignorant individual that the internet is not just an evil system of tubes. ...to name a few
I kept hoping (and still do to some extent) that as the game industry grew, the percentage of games offered in both Japan and the US (among other regions) would increase. This seemed to be true for a while when more and more games had simultaneous releases in different regions and when I started to see more random Japanese games on the market. For MS to think that it doesn't need a Japanese market seems like the start of a slippery slope to me. What if Sony starts to think that they don't need the American market much anymore? That seems ridiculous, but if US$600 isn't too much for most of Japan so the PS3 sells well there while it fails to sell in the US, it becomes more plausible.
As someone who loves RPGs, that thought is as scary to me as MS giving up on the Japanese market is to avid Japanese 360 owners.
I know that I'm being pessimistic and at the moment, most of this isn't true anyway, but its still a little disappointing to hear.
True, but most of google's ads are NOT about mindshare.
Semi-true, but definitely arguable. A strong support in your favor is that most google ads are text based instead of image based. Going to a site 50 times and seeing the word "Ford" will not produce the same effect as seeing the Ford logo 50 times. Google's ads don't really create brand recognition, so I agree with your point.
This is where online advertising has deviated significantly from *most* other forms of advertising. Other ads are in place primarily for the sake of brand recognition. When you drive down the highway and see a billboard for a new Ford, most people don't rush to the nearest dealer and buy a new car. However, they remember (sometimes just subconsciously) that they saw an ad for a new Ford and that it looked good or whatever, and that may play a role the next time they decide to buy a new car. It seems to me that there should be more online advertising based on page loads (or ad loads) instead of just clicks. This should only apply to banner ads, IMO, and shouldn't be worth as much as a a PPC or CPA ad. It seems obvious that publishers wouldn't want a Ford CPA ad because it wouldn't generate any revenue but does promote brand recognition.
If he had labelled his map "Elvis Sightings" instead of "Deployment Map", he probably would have gotten an entirely different set of reacations.
I don't know about that. Given that the right information is displayed or left out, "Elvis Sightings" can be just as *scary* as "Deployment Map". If I was a terrorist and wanted to make some attack, I wouldn't give away my plan on some website. If the purpose of the website was to keep other terrorists in the loop, then using something silly like "Elvis Sightings" would help keep attention off of our plans. However, if I just wanted to scare the shit out of people or distract them so that I could attack a day earlier or something, then I would make just this type of website, and the author showed that it would work (sort of). Terrorists use fear as a weapon, and this website shows that their weapons have been successful on a good number of people.
To me, the site seemed like a cheap advertising ploy: the type of thing you would see for some new video game or movie. It never occurred to me that it was some evil terrorist plot, but then again I don't believe there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, so maybe I'm the foolish one.
I admit I haven't played a lot of the games on your list, but I don't think it is completely relevant. Most of the newer, as well as the older, games on your list are still 2-D games. I was just trying to focus on the effects of the change from 2-D to 3-D, although some of my complaints could also be applied to late era 2-D games.
Looking past the article's scarce content, I completely agree with its point. However, I look towards RPGs for support. Personally, I loved the old tile-based RPGs such as Final Fantasy 3, the early games of the Breath of Fire series, along with the first Dragon Warrior games. These were relatively simple games where you didn't have to worry about bad camera angles or how well you could control a character like in the bike races in FF7. I also dislike how in many games today, there will be some places where you have to stand in just the right position to make an event occur, which was obviously much easier in tile-based games.
I'm not saying that these things don't belong in RPGs, but that doesn't mean they are required either. I feel like there is still a market for simple, 2-D games. After every RPG I play, my dad asks me if he can play it because even though he loves the games, he can't play a lot of them due to his almost complete lack of hand-eye coordination (he played FF7, but I had to get him through a couple parts). Making games more realistic, and consequently more complicated, does not always make the games more fun.
How many schoolkids know what are the warning signs of a possible problem? How many even have a clue that there is a non-zero chance of a permanent problem?
I would argue, many. I think most kids (let's say, by the end of their freshman year in high school) know more about drugs than their parents do. And this isn't because of programs like D.A.R.E or other government sponsored drug education programs, most of which show only the extreme negative effects of drug use, but that's a different rant of mine. The internet, although there is a fair amount of false information on it, can provide a great deal of help towards understanding the effects of drugs. Assuming that people without ADHD who take ritalin without a prescription are taking "meds without a clue" isn't necessarily the case. It is very possible to take drugs that aren't suscribed to you by a physician while still knowing what the effects might be.
More importantly: Speed Kills. So do fast cars. But with a fast car you know in advance what will happen.
Unless the engine breaks while you are driving, or a tire blows out, or the car in front of you slams on the breaks, or... How is driving a fast car (and I assume you mean either speeding or racing because driving a fast car at the speed limit wouldn't really make sense in this case) any different from trying ritalin? Other than that its probably safer to do ritalin. Both have consequences. If you choose to weight the risks of taking ritalin to be higher than driving a "fast car", then that's your opinion but I think you a very wrong especially with the number of deaths on the highways these days.
And finally, ritalin is not the same as meth or other forms of speed anymore than caffeine is the same as ritalin. Lumping drugs together just because they are "uppers" or some other psuedo-scientific slang doesn't mean they are the same and have the same effects. You wouldn't try to tell me that all antidepressents are the same or that morphine is the same as ibuprofen because they are both painkillers.
Whoa slow down there, they ARE thinking of the children. Did you forget what happens in a few months? It's an election year, so the world becomes much smaller and only the really important issues that might comprimise solid family values can be addressed... like gay marriage, violence in video games, and those damn kids with their iPods who don't work hard these days.
it doesnt matter how much speed you do, or how much, if you keep using it you'll one day have that switch in your brain thrown
I don't think many people are trying to say that long term use of these drugs won't have effects, but taking an adderall or ritalin pill before midterms and finals doesn't really amount to long term use.
I find the statement that this class of drugs is basically safe obscene.
Again, this depends on whether or not you are talking about long or short term use, along with the amount of the doses. Long term use of almost any drug will have serious effects. This is the same for cigarettes. Video games, if played too often, can have detrimental effects. Eating too much food is a serious problem nowadays. On the other end, even too much exercize can be bad for you. Too much of anything is a bad thing.
I'm no doctor, but besides allergies and other side effects that can happen to any individual, I haven't seen any evidence to show that taking a 5mg pill of ritalin 4 or 5 times a year will have any serious effect on a person without ADHD.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was at Best Buy a month or so ago, I asked about pre-ordering the PS3 and was told that they weren't going to allow pre-orders for any new consoles anymore after the problem with the XBox 360. A local retailer told me the same.
I'd agree with you, if only there haven't been studies showing that the use of IM does not adversely affect students' abilities to write well.
You have a point here. You were in front of the computer learning. Most kids I knew growing up were on the computer just to play games and other less educational reasons.
Then we get into the argument of what constitutes learning... I learned a lot (about computers) by installing new games, getting device drivers to work, tweaking the graphics cards etc. Kids who play computer games are generally more adept when it comes to using a computer.
Also, many types of games a great vocabulary builders. I learned a lot about mythology, both western and eastern, from MMORPGs. WW2 stategy games gave insight into war. Even Need For Speed taught me a little about cars. I should clarify that I don't think thatgames are the best way to learn about these things; I'm just saying that it is possible to learn a lot from them.
Not to mention, my typing ability went through the roof when I started playing Ultima Online. You can't look at the keys to type "Help" while running from a monster, much less "Haha, I stole all ShortSpear of Vanquishing" with a group of players chasing you.
Grades in school may suffer because kids are playing video games, but this is probably because they are learning other things than what is required by the shool, not because they aren't learning anything.
Have you looked at Sony's stock prices over the last decade? Whether or not it is the cause of the changes, the price spikes around the launch of the PS1 and PS3 and also has significant drops around the release of the XBox. I'm not an analyst, but it seems like Sony's stock is highly dependent upon what happens in the game industry.
Hell yeah! And let's burn all the violent books, movies, and rock and roll CDs too!
You know what I think is a much more effective way of desensitizing someone? Having them watch another person get beat up. Since this happens frequently in our school systems, we better find a way to fix that first. It's even worse if they see someone actually die in real life. We better find a way to prevent young people from ever seeing a dead body... Wait, at the start of the 20th century, most funerals were held in people's homes. Young people saw dead bodies all the time, in their own homes no less. Maybe its our sensitization that's making it easier for people to kill. Maybe we need to see more actual dead people to understand what it means to die. Maybe we shouldn't distance ourselves from death so much so that people like you don't think that watching someone die on a video game will incite violence.
But I guess I'm missing your point too. You're not speaking out against video games or saying that people shouldn't be able to play them, you're just saying they 'may' cause violent people to become violent. That's kinda like saying, "I don't have anything against cigarettes, but I'm just going to tell you that they cause cancer and kill millions of people every year."
mythbusters attacked that idea:
video on youtube
wikipedia (under Primary Perception)
I also didn't know about the shooting. I live in the US, but have given up on the network news because I find that I get more relavent information by reading between the jokes on the daily show.
This question sure is a lot better than asking whether or not its unethical to "hack" the Governor of California's website.
Part of me thinks that if someone walks up to you on the street, claims to work for your bank and then asks you for some money, you're an idiot if you take out your wallet. However, the internet is still relatively new and even though most slashdotters can recognize a phishing attempt, my mom still wonders how all those porn advertisements know where she lives...
No. That honestly surprises me as I have attended a Pomona College, a private college in California; Joliet Junior College, a community college; and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. None of which haveever had any sort of fee to get to web pages. This is really the first I've ever heard of it.
would you gladly pay $1.50 if you missed class and wanted to get the homework assignment but your prof charged yor for it?
Do your profs have course web pages, and if so, would you be willing to pay for access to the course web page? Just some thoughts.
Most of my computer science professors at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) post all of their lecture notes on the internet. In their cases, since they use the lecture notes in class to guide their discussions, it isn't any more work for them to just put them up on the internet. The majority of these lectures are available to anyone, whether they are university students or not.
One of my profs, who teaches a course that is also open to students in other countries who are paying to take an online course, has a TA video record the whole lecture, which is then posted on the internet for all students paying for the class (university and distance education, or online, students). He has the recordings password protected because the university has some rules about it and won't let him essentially give the course for free to anyone who wants it (at least I think that was the explanation he gave but I'm not completely sure).
Personally, I think either of these two scenarios are the proper way to do things. If a prof is charging to give out copies of his lectures notes on the internet, then should he be charging if students come to his office during his office hours and ask about what they missed in classed? Isn't that one of the things a prof's office hours are for? And further more, even though it is using the slippery slope fallacy, if profs start charging for lecture notes and people think it is acceptable, then why don't they charge for the booklets used to write tests on or extra materials handed out in class? The simple answer to that question is because the institutions they work for are providing them with copy machines and such. Along that logic, I would say that time spent creating lecture notes is time spent preparing for class. It's true that they don't have to do it, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to charge for it.
...than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.... Why do the british/american people delude themselves under the false assumption that it could never happen with them?
Just so I have this straight... First, you responded to an article that talks about broad, sweeping generalizations that are use to combat terrorists, leading me to assume, possibly incorrectly, that you believe it is wrong to to monitor people due to stereotypes without a lot of evidence (For the record, I don't think it is ok to freeze someone's assets just because they 'might' be a terrorist). After that, you go on to making a sweeping generalization about the British/American public. My question is, why do you think it is acceptable for you to make sweeping generalizations while it is not ok for the British government to profile people in order to track suspected terrorists?
Practice what you preach.
In response to your question, there are plenty of Americans, and I'd assume the same can be said for the UK, who are scared of the current administration. I know people who seriously consider not supporting the ACLU and other such organizations for fear that the government might put them on a watch list (it doesn't stop them for supporting, but they shouldn't have to be worried about it). I know plenty of others that are considering moving to another country, and a few that have, although that is just running away from the problem. The reason a lot of Americans are calm, even though they may be scared, is that we will have new leadership in a little over 2 years. Hopefully, with that new leadership, things will get better. Looking back over the history of the US, we've been through this before and we get over it. Just look at McCarthyism for starters. I wonder why more Americans do not see the parallel between 1950 and today. However, just like back then, administrations change and the balance of power shifts back, or at least it always has.
On the other hand, if Bush somehow manages to stick around for a 3rd term, I won't be able to stay calm anymore.
Don't get me wrong, this is horrible in my opinion, but the really sad part is that a fair portion of the US is glad that you won't step foot here again... a lot of conclusions can be drawn from that, but I don't want to get into them because there is just too much to say. Regardless, I'm always saddened to hear about people who feel the way you do (which is in no way your fault in case it sounds like I'm saying that), not that this is anywhere near the first time I've heard it or thought about what makes it happen.
Is this the 'way of the future' for PC titles? Will games powered by specific pieces of hardware become the norm?
Short-run, maybe; long-run, no. IMHO, things will consolidate like they always seem to do. Video cards are necessary for more than just games, so they won't be going anywhere. Physics and AI cards seem to be useful for nothing but games. It would be foolish to combine all video cards with physics and AI chips because not everyone plays games, but why not combine the physics and AI chips? Farther down the road someone will come out with a new card to enhance some other aspect of gameplay, and eventually that will merge with the physics and AI chips on their own card.
Things are always being consolidated on PCs. Look at all the things on mobos that used to require separate cards 10 years or even 5 years ago. Designers get better and better at cramming more things into a smaller space (even if that is getting harder and harder to do), so it seems to me that these things will keep merging together when it is useful to do so. In this case, I don't think most PC users want to have 3-5 cards just for games, so it is useful. I could be completely wrong on that point though.
Wow, I didn't know that when you set an example for someone, if that person follows the example, it is immediately your fault. What an interesting way to look at things. So I guess you think that if a MLB player uses steroids and some kid who plays little league uses steroids, it must be the MLB player's fault. Personally, I think people make their own bad decisions and, in most cases, have no one else to blame but themselves. However, it would be niave to think that the actions of others do not influence our own actions. Influencing someone is different from causing them to do something.
The initial poster only said that Bush, as a leader, was setting examples, through his actions, for other leaders. It just so happens that those examples are about breaking the law.
And its not going to be a potion
hmm... I wonder if there were a lot of people who actually thought it would be a potion?
Q: Who cares?
...to name a few
A: Anyone who wants to see more of the positive effects of the internet brought under a media spotlight instead of just hearing about online predators on myspace.
A: Anyone who gets into arguments (discussions) with people who think the only thing the internet is good for is pirating music.
A: Anyone who wants some extra evidence when trying to explain to some ignorant individual that the internet is not just an evil system of tubes.
I kept hoping (and still do to some extent) that as the game industry grew, the percentage of games offered in both Japan and the US (among other regions) would increase. This seemed to be true for a while when more and more games had simultaneous releases in different regions and when I started to see more random Japanese games on the market. For MS to think that it doesn't need a Japanese market seems like the start of a slippery slope to me. What if Sony starts to think that they don't need the American market much anymore? That seems ridiculous, but if US$600 isn't too much for most of Japan so the PS3 sells well there while it fails to sell in the US, it becomes more plausible.
As someone who loves RPGs, that thought is as scary to me as MS giving up on the Japanese market is to avid Japanese 360 owners.
I know that I'm being pessimistic and at the moment, most of this isn't true anyway, but its still a little disappointing to hear.
True, but most of google's ads are NOT about mindshare.
Semi-true, but definitely arguable. A strong support in your favor is that most google ads are text based instead of image based. Going to a site 50 times and seeing the word "Ford" will not produce the same effect as seeing the Ford logo 50 times. Google's ads don't really create brand recognition, so I agree with your point.
This is where online advertising has deviated significantly from *most* other forms of advertising. Other ads are in place primarily for the sake of brand recognition. When you drive down the highway and see a billboard for a new Ford, most people don't rush to the nearest dealer and buy a new car. However, they remember (sometimes just subconsciously) that they saw an ad for a new Ford and that it looked good or whatever, and that may play a role the next time they decide to buy a new car.
It seems to me that there should be more online advertising based on page loads (or ad loads) instead of just clicks. This should only apply to banner ads, IMO, and shouldn't be worth as much as a a PPC or CPA ad. It seems obvious that publishers wouldn't want a Ford CPA ad because it wouldn't generate any revenue but does promote brand recognition.
If he had labelled his map "Elvis Sightings" instead of "Deployment Map", he probably would have gotten an entirely different set of reacations.
I don't know about that. Given that the right information is displayed or left out, "Elvis Sightings" can be just as *scary* as "Deployment Map".
If I was a terrorist and wanted to make some attack, I wouldn't give away my plan on some website. If the purpose of the website was to keep other terrorists in the loop, then using something silly like "Elvis Sightings" would help keep attention off of our plans. However, if I just wanted to scare the shit out of people or distract them so that I could attack a day earlier or something, then I would make just this type of website, and the author showed that it would work (sort of). Terrorists use fear as a weapon, and this website shows that their weapons have been successful on a good number of people.
To me, the site seemed like a cheap advertising ploy: the type of thing you would see for some new video game or movie. It never occurred to me that it was some evil terrorist plot, but then again I don't believe there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, so maybe I'm the foolish one.
I admit I haven't played a lot of the games on your list, but I don't think it is completely relevant. Most of the newer, as well as the older, games on your list are still 2-D games. I was just trying to focus on the effects of the change from 2-D to 3-D, although some of my complaints could also be applied to late era 2-D games.
Looking past the article's scarce content, I completely agree with its point. However, I look towards RPGs for support. Personally, I loved the old tile-based RPGs such as Final Fantasy 3, the early games of the Breath of Fire series, along with the first Dragon Warrior games. These were relatively simple games where you didn't have to worry about bad camera angles or how well you could control a character like in the bike races in FF7. I also dislike how in many games today, there will be some places where you have to stand in just the right position to make an event occur, which was obviously much easier in tile-based games.
I'm not saying that these things don't belong in RPGs, but that doesn't mean they are required either. I feel like there is still a market for simple, 2-D games. After every RPG I play, my dad asks me if he can play it because even though he loves the games, he can't play a lot of them due to his almost complete lack of hand-eye coordination (he played FF7, but I had to get him through a couple parts). Making games more realistic, and consequently more complicated, does not always make the games more fun.
How many schoolkids know what are the warning signs of a possible problem? How many even have a clue that there is a non-zero chance of a permanent problem?
I would argue, many. I think most kids (let's say, by the end of their freshman year in high school) know more about drugs than their parents do. And this isn't because of programs like D.A.R.E or other government sponsored drug education programs, most of which show only the extreme negative effects of drug use, but that's a different rant of mine. The internet, although there is a fair amount of false information on it, can provide a great deal of help towards understanding the effects of drugs. Assuming that people without ADHD who take ritalin without a prescription are taking "meds without a clue" isn't necessarily the case. It is very possible to take drugs that aren't suscribed to you by a physician while still knowing what the effects might be.
More importantly:
Speed Kills. So do fast cars. But with a fast car you know in advance what will happen.
Unless the engine breaks while you are driving, or a tire blows out, or the car in front of you slams on the breaks, or...
How is driving a fast car (and I assume you mean either speeding or racing because driving a fast car at the speed limit wouldn't really make sense in this case) any different from trying ritalin? Other than that its probably safer to do ritalin. Both have consequences. If you choose to weight the risks of taking ritalin to be higher than driving a "fast car", then that's your opinion but I think you a very wrong especially with the number of deaths on the highways these days.
And finally, ritalin is not the same as meth or other forms of speed anymore than caffeine is the same as ritalin. Lumping drugs together just because they are "uppers" or some other psuedo-scientific slang doesn't mean they are the same and have the same effects. You wouldn't try to tell me that all antidepressents are the same or that morphine is the same as ibuprofen because they are both painkillers.
Whoa slow down there, they ARE thinking of the children. Did you forget what happens in a few months? It's an election year, so the world becomes much smaller and only the really important issues that might comprimise solid family values can be addressed... like gay marriage, violence in video games, and those damn kids with their iPods who don't work hard these days.
it doesnt matter how much speed you do, or how much, if you keep using it you'll one day have that switch in your brain thrown
I don't think many people are trying to say that long term use of these drugs won't have effects, but taking an adderall or ritalin pill before midterms and finals doesn't really amount to long term use.
I find the statement that this class of drugs is basically safe obscene.
Again, this depends on whether or not you are talking about long or short term use, along with the amount of the doses. Long term use of almost any drug will have serious effects. This is the same for cigarettes. Video games, if played too often, can have detrimental effects. Eating too much food is a serious problem nowadays. On the other end, even too much exercize can be bad for you. Too much of anything is a bad thing.
I'm no doctor, but besides allergies and other side effects that can happen to any individual, I haven't seen any evidence to show that taking a 5mg pill of ritalin 4 or 5 times a year will have any serious effect on a person without ADHD.