Here's a copy of an email I will soon be sending to Jack Thompson:
Quote:Dear Jack Thompson,
I've been an avid gamer for many years, but unlike others I'm not going to spend this email trying to insult you or called you names. Rather, I'd like to engage you in an honest debate, if this is possible. I'd like to start by posting an essay that I did for my Physchology class in college that deals with the effects of violence [though it's more in general rather than focusing exclusively on video games]. I've gone over several studies and articles written about this subject and have compiled them into a comprehensive arguement. If you have the time, I would like for you to read it over and explain to how it's wrong:
Although some studies have claimed to found a “link” between violent television and violent behavior amongst children, many of these studies were conducted in laboratory environments and on short-term bases instead of in the “real world” and on long term bases.
What can be shown in laboratory tests is not necessarily what takes place in natural setting, such as at home or school. Because investigators can produce sociopathic attitudes and behaviors in the laboratory does not mean that violent television programming does create such effects within a naturalistic viewing environment. A laboratory is not a setting most children would be familiar with and they would be surrounded by strangers, so it’s possible that all this could influence the way a child would react in a certain way that they wouldn’t normally do if they were in their home or school surrounded by family or friends and teachers.
Also, in the “real world” there are many social, psychological, and biological factors that can drown out the “influence” of the mass media. Also, nearly all developed nations are exposed to similar types of mass media and many of them have lower crime rates than American, which suggests that there are other issues in play.
One thing to consider is that many children are exposed to crime, drug addiction, and child abuse or neglect in real life, all factors which have been proven to contribute to violent and anti-social behavior. A recent study in an urban setting found that 40% of children were receiving public assistance, all had been exposed to media violence, but 97% also had been exposed to real-life violence. Almost half had been victims of violence themselves, and almost a third had seen a person stabbed, shot, or killed. Peer relations are always influential in forming attitudes towards violence, and they become increasingly important when absent parenting creates a vacuum.
The National Television Violence Study, a cable industry investigation that analyzed the 1994-1995 season, found no direct connection between TV and real-world violence. And in his new book, Power Play, Gerald Jones writes, “children need stories of conflict and violence in order to explore the scary feelings they’ve been taught to deny, and then to integrate those feelings into a more complex and resilient sense of self.”
Something that’s important to note is that plays such as Macbeth and puppet show like Punch and Judy, both of which feature two very different types of violence, have been watched for years. People enjoy watching the mayhem of others. But something that needs to exist is an ability to distinguish between violence on TV and violence in real life. Parents must teach their children that real life violence has consequences and that it causes others to suffer while violence in movies and games is simply make-believe.
Most researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the US National Academy of Sciences listed “biological, individual, family, peer, school and community factors” as all playing a role in the development of children. And a 2001 report by the US surgeon general concluded that “the preponderance of evidence indicated that violent behavior seldom results from a single cause; rather, multiple factors converging over time contribute to such behavior.” So it seems unfair to pull out one factor among many and say “this is the problem, if we remove it everything will be all right.”
Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researches downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality.
It’s also important to understand that nothing about violence is new. Jack the Ripper lived long before people even dreamed of television or videogames, but that didn’t stop him from being a brutal, homicidal maniac who killed at least five women. And there are many more stories similar to this. Violence has existed long before Grand Theft Auto became a convenient excuse for random acts of killing and it will continue to exist long after those videogames are forgotten.
Violence also has its place in society. Many of the great tragedies of the 20th century would simply make no sense without the pictures and videos that go along with them to give a sense of reality to the people viewing them. They can be used to stir people to action or to open their wallets and help those in need. Censoring the violence of those images and video would reduce the scope and magnitude of the tragedies and allow them to be overlooked and forgotten more easily.
Tuesday, the 11th book in the Wheel of Time series, Knife of Dreams, will be released.
I've been re-reading the series, my third time doing so. I started at the beginning of September and I am almost finished with Path of Daggers right now. This time I've kept a much closer eye and took my time, and even to this point, I'm riveted. I have a far greater appreciation for Jordan's storytelling ability, even if his descriptive talents are sort of lacking.
So, I know there are a few WOT fans here, and I think it'd be nice to have this forum WOT themed for a little while.
im going to try to get some of my friends to sign up , but some of them have already signd up and they cant post for some reason.??:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:
Nothing all that interesting, but I wanted to bring this up for ABF...
Quote:How do the Xbox and the Xbox 360 compare in terms of manufacturing costs and subsidies?
They're quite different. Let's just put it that way.
Basically, Xbox was done, as I said, in 18 months. We used a lot of off-the-shelf parts, which was required to get the product to market in time and made it easy for developers, so that was good. The challenges over time have been that it's tougher to cost-reduce the product. We couldn't combine chipsets - we actually couldn't change the chipsets at all, because they weren't ours. NVIDIA and Intel were just producing the chips and then supplying them to us.
So there wasn't anything we could do to combine chips, or merge the silicon architecture - and that's where the huge amount of cost reduction actually comes from. You know, in hard discs and DVD drives, there's actually not that much cost reduction that happens. There are physical laws - a spinning platter costs so much, and there's very little you can do about that.
In this generation, we actually manage the intellectual property for our chipsets ourselves. We have the capability to combine those chips, to redesign them, to cost-reduce them - and so this will be a far more cost-effective product from a manufacturing perspective. The beginning of a cycle is always high cost, but that will go down in a more straightforward and predictable fashion on Xbox 360 than it did with Xbox.
...
Is that something that happened with Xbox? Have you ever hit a break-even point on hardware costs against sale prices?
In the hardware, I think we've said pretty consistently that the hardware has been subsidised throughout the life cycle of the product. Again, part of the design for it was that we had to make an investment to get into the marketplace; we had 18 months. We didn't design the hardware to be a break-even endeavour over the life cycle, we designed it to be the most powerful console, and to have an impact.
We think it did that successfully, and it just required us to fund that. Now with Xbox 360 we have the opportunity to make that investment pay off.
I just wanted you to see I wasn't making all that stuff up about Microsoft having changed things up concerning the hardware and cost-reduction.
Quote:<b>20-year-old who used Grand Theft Auto as defense for triple homicide sentenced to lethal injection.</b>
Earlier this year, Devin Moore, now 20, was on trial for the 2003 triple homicide of three Alabama policemen. While in detention for stealing a car, Moore grabbed the pistol of one officer and used it to fatally shoot a total of three of them.
The defense mounted a case based on a childhood full of mental and physical abuse, as well as an affinity for violent games. One game in particular, Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto III, was singled out, because gamers can steal cars and kill cops in it. Moore had said he was inspired by the PlayStation 2 game.
In August, a jury swiftly convicted Moore of the charges. And today, a judge laid down the most severe punishment the justice system allows.
Moore will be put to death by lethal injection. Defense attorney Jim Standridge will appeal the case.
The victims' families have sued Take-Two Interactive (parent company of Rockstar), Sony, Wal-Mart, and GameStop for their parts in the manufacturing and selling of the game.
Ugh...weren't crazy people killing BEFORE video games were invented? I also like the way they really kind of gloss over the whole "lifetime of physical and mental abuse...<i>BUT HE PLAYED GRAND THEFT AUTO TOO!</i>"
*cue gasps, dramatic music*
Why don't the sue the parents for making the kid crazy instead of the game manufacturer who has safely entertained 99.999998% of the gaming population by NOT turning them into mass-murderers?
![[Image: th_a21_Pokemon_Ranger.jpg]](http://img11.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a21_Pokemon_Ranger.jpg)
