How naive, thinking that it still works like that...

It doesn't. At all. If somebody abuses it, it'll likely go on for months before somebody finds out that can do something about it.

To be honest, I'm more worried about who mans these cameras. If it's local citizens, there are FAR too many ways to abuse this system, and if it's a computer, than there's no way to take the context of the situation into account, which is the main problem I have with red light cameras and the like (they always give tickets, while cops might be more lenient depending on the situation).

Who believes that shit, though?

I mean, seriously, "Mission Accomplished!" is still a huge joke with some of my friends to this day. Throw it in during an unrelated conversation, I know at least one or two people that will snicker.

It only counts as brainwashing if it..... you know.... brainwashes.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that, in my opinion. This generation of gamers can get by with it easily, due to the fact that they've played those games before, and they're comfortable with that level of graphical presentation. Newer gamers, however, don't really have that advantage and probably wouldn't be able to sit through NES or SNES generation games for more than a few minutes before getting bored, unless they're clued in to the quality behind the games before hand.

I, for instance, was raised on the NES and the Genesis, but I pretty much skipped over the N64 generation. As a result, I have difficulties taking any game put out around 2000 seriously, with a few exceptions, despite the fact that I love a large number of sprite-based games, as well as everything on this side of the graphical divide.

No, it's not a mature approach to gaming. Being completely unable to appreciate graphics for what they make a game is more or less a slap in the face to the developers who put all that elbow grease into making the game pretty and immersible.

Now, granted, the opposite view, that graphics make a game, can be just as much a slap in the face, and is definitely an immature way to judge games, but that doesn't really raise it's counterpart into the realm of legitimate views, it just means that the ideal, mature way to judge games is somewhere in the middle.

Graphics are important for many games - they add a sense of realism. Far Cry 2, for instance, was a decent game. It had a barely average plot, absolutely painful voice acting on all characters, and the vehicle mechanics were awful. At the same time, though, I could spend hours just playing with the fire mechanics, something that wouldn't be possible with, say, 2004-level graphics.

That's not to say that graphics make a game - many games are, in fact, good without good graphical presentation, but just as good game play or a good story can save a game, so can good use of graphics and special effects.

I don't think 2 Girls 1 Cup was made to turn people on.

It's called shock porn for a reason.

Oh psh, it happened like, what, a week ago?

By now, it's fair game.

Ads? On MY Slashdot?

It's more likely than you think.

And as a side note.... $500 is never "cheap" unless we're talking cars, houses, real jewelry, or very powerful computers.

If desensitization is the main problem you have behind violent video games, you may want to rethink your argument.

Desensitization happens through a wide variety of means in a wide variety of areas. Were we actually concerned about desensitization, not only should we focus on the widely referred to horror and action films (which often go far further than games are ever reasonably allowed to go) but also many other forms of media, pornography chief among them (and probably far more pressing, to boot, considering how quickly porn can desensitize, and how much wider a range of taboos it includes).

But.... desensitization really isn't that big of a deal. Yeah, you might be slower to help people, or some BS like that, but at the end of day, being able to sit through a violent video game or horror movie without feeling as much horror as other people really isn't that terrible. There are more pressing issues that can be fixed without the need to censor media or restrict a valid art form.

Assuming by "realistic" you mean more blood, guts, and polygons, while ignoring the universally unappealing aspects of death, as most game marketers seem to take it.

In this context, though, it doesn't mean more gory, it means more tangible and more believable. Video games have a tendency (as they should) to strip out the undesirable parts of the aspects they cover. As an earlier poster said, video games don't have you run out of breath if you try to run for too long, or stub your toe every once in a while, and the same goes for deaths - the truly unappealing aspects are usually stripped out, either purposefully or because of the lack in technology to convey them, to keep games fun.

True, but at the same time, you can't say that video games are causing violence when violent crimes haven't increased since video games became violent.

I mean, unless you find some root cause of the decline in violence that can offset negative trends normally caused by video games and still cause a decrease in violence (possible, but unlikely) then there's really no reason to tinker with the system until it stops working again.

Well, let's see...

Consequences for killing people in a game world - fun, pretty red blood splatters.

Consequences for killing people in the real world - jail, loss of (unrecoverable) life, social backlash, etc. etc. etc.

It's to the point where pretty much anyone over the age of 4 (as well as many, many 4 and unders) can grasp just why we shouldn't kill people in the real world, even though it's OK in games.

Unfortunately, the resources alloted to a presidential CANDIDATE far outstrip those alloted to the president, in some senses.

Although Obama had vast sums of money at man power at his disposal, that's mostly because he wasn't already in a position of power, but rather fighting for it tooth and nail. Once you reach the presidency, although some semblance of the man power and money remain, it mostly goes away due to the fact that it's not as vital once you've reached the top.

You'd have more of a case were you arguing this during the election cycle, rather than 3/4 of a year after the fact.

The logic behind the argument is that, if he's avoiding discussion now, it's not because he disagrees, but because he wants to put it off until he can address the issue without as much backlash (I.E. losing another 4 years in office), and that, if he did disagree, he'd just come out and say it rather than hide from the issue due to the fact that it probably wouldn't really affect his chances at being elected (he has the democrat nomination for president in 2012 in the bag as is, due to his current position, so there's not as much to worry about political backlash on his side, especially this early in the game).

I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but there's sound backing for the idea.

I agree, but it's still a bit of a dick move on their part.

It probably would have been a better idea to give the people they were ditching a firm notice ahead of time, rather than ditch them after only a "probably at some point" type warning.

No, there is very little needed to discover why men don't like condoms.

They rob feeling, they're ugly, greasy, and usually cost money. They're not always handy, they kill the moment, and they make the whole thing seem less intimate (for the romantic types who notice things like that) and so on and so forth. The reason why men don't use them as often as they should? Hormones, availability, laziness, and alternate contraceptives.

As for why some men use them all the time, and others rarely to not at all, that can be explained by how much a man is concerned about his partner getting pregnant, as well as how well he plans ahead, and how much self control he has.

If you want to fix these problems, increase condom availability (via handing out condoms, or some other such method), find ways to make them thinner, more sensitive, and easier to use, and other such things.

The problem with the research is not it's intent so much as the fact that it's getting information that could be gleaned from an Internet survey, and that it's money that could be put to better use, rather than finding out something that's common knowledge to anyone whose used a condom and had sex a few times.