What's new
By:
Filters

In today's news...


Re: In today's news...

ToxicShock said:
605px-MOTARIREAL3.JPG
Click to expand...

Case in point.

Chibichibi said:
There are quicker and cleaner ways. Drowning is inhumane.
Click to expand...

Like it has been pointed out, it used to be a rather common practice. But how are you going to kill something like a puppy in a humane way? The most humane and painless methods would mean you have to snap its neck, or shoot it. Both things that get your hands dirty.

Still, I'm not agreeing with what happened here in the least. The event didn't need to be filmed and published online for folks to see. As for nurseries and such, this is Bosnia. Stray dogs are quite common, and no one really see's fit to rein them in I guess. It was worse in Afghanistan.
 
Re: In today's news...

Yeah it's been studied, drowning is the worst way to go.

I heard the best is stomach cancer
 
Re: In today's news...

sinfulwolf said:
Like it has been pointed out, it used to be a rather common practice. But how are you going to kill something like a puppy in a humane way? The most humane and painless methods would mean you have to snap its neck, or shoot it. Both things that get your hands dirty.
Click to expand...

I had to put down a kitten. Didn't have a gun. It's belly was being eaten alive by worms, and i do mean eaten alive. It had huge holes and... Anyway. I had to kill it. It was crying, I couldn't let it suffer. But I wasn't going to add more pain by drowning it either. So, I took some paving stones and..... I crushed it. Quick. Painless. And it was over. I buried it, in the backyard with a little marker.

I vomited afterward, and couldn't eat anything red for a week.

But, my point is that even if it "gets your hands dirty" its still better than flinging them from a bucket into a river while they're still crying.
 
Re: In today's news...

ToxicShock said:
Yeah it's been studied, drowning is the worst way to go.

I heard the best is stomach cancer
Click to expand...

I'd heard the worst was burning o_o I guess it's a difference between lengthy pain and lengthy fear.
 
Re: In today's news...

Haha, I was just throwing out a reference.
 
Re: In today's news...

Chibichibi said:
But, my point is that even if it "gets your hands dirty" its still better than flinging them from a bucket into a river while they're still crying.
Click to expand...

I agree, but not everyone can get their hands dirty.
 
Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links


Brian Wood, lead developer for Relic Games on Company of Heroes was killed in a car crash when another car swerved in front of his SUV, to force a head on collision. His final act was to save his pregnant wife by turning his own vehicle in such a way that his side of the vehicle was crushed, but his wife lived.
 
Re: In today's news...

sinfulwolf said:
You must be registered to see the links


Brian Wood, lead developer for Relic Games on Company of Heroes was killed in a car crash when another car swerved in front of his SUV, to force a head on collision. His final act was to save his pregnant wife by turning his own vehicle in such a way that his side of the vehicle was crushed, but his wife lived.
Click to expand...

Just read the article - now this man is a fucking hero.

I hope they absolutely fry the morons in the other car, there's too much stupidity there to allow them to remain in the gene pool.
 
Re: In today's news...

Typically less than 2 years. LESS THAN TWO FUCKING YEARS. Typically.

No. They were drugged up, and they killed someone - WHO he was doesn't matter, the fact that they killed him does.

Fuck. Even if they do only get two years, the surviving two from the Blazer need to get their licenses revoked. That doesn't actually stop them from driving, but it does mean that they can't legally drive, and therefore will get in more trouble with the police.
Though, personally, in addition to jail time, I'd send them to rehab. And not that pussy kind of rehab that celebrities go to all the fucking time. I mean real rehab, one where they don't get let out until they can go five years without a craving.
... okay, maybe 5 is a little extreme, but dammit, I'm tired of fucking dumbass mother fuckers who get jail time and then simply let back on the streets, just so they can do the same shit over again that got them landed in jail in the first place.
 
Re: In today's news...

Kusanagi said:
No. They were drugged up, and they killed someone - WHO he was doesn't matter, the fact that they killed him does.
Click to expand...

You are right. I'm sure the only reason I heard about this was because of who he was, but his death doesn't mean any more than that of another person.

Still his final act deserves praise, and I agree that those idiots should be given more than 2 lousy years.
 
Re: In today's news...

The beginning to an article in the Oct. issue of Game Informer. I would try to find it on GI's website, but apparently, they still have the September issue up in September. Silly GI.
ANYWAYS.
California's trying to get another silly bill passed.

Enemy of the State

by Matt Miller

What does the law say?
The California bill demands that violent video games be marked with a two-inch square label on the front of the box. Retailers that sell those games to minors would be liable for up to $1000 per violation. Take a big game on its release date and a bad sales clerk, and that could add up to a hefty chunk of change.
The law eschews the ESRB rating system, and demands a separate set of descriptors be applied. It describes a violent game as one in which “the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” The bill also details what it means by each of those words and extends its description to include characters with “substantially human characteristics.”
According to the bill, a game falls under the law if “a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find it appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors… it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors… or it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
If some red flags are popping up as you read those descriptions, you’re not the only one. The ESA has some problems as well.​


ALSO: found a couple of things by Miller on the website, pertaining to the Bill.
-
You must be registered to see the links

-
You must be registered to see the links
 
Re: In today's news...

Consider the fact the 'zombies' of Left 4 Dead would be considered in this kinda bill (which considering the backstory, could be stretched to Resident Evil's Las Plagas, Dead Space's Necromorphs, and pretty much any Call of Duty fanatic) I can see this being quite worrisome. Ah, politics >,<

EDIT: I got ninja'd.
 
Re: In today's news...

" it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

Well, I'd say that that covers about 95% of games excluding indie games.

More seriously, apart from the part about violence, that's unreasonably open ended. And "community standards" is just complete bullshit.
 
Re: In today's news...

The ESRB should work if we were dealing with competent consumers. It is fairly the same as movie ratings.
E=G, E10=PG, T=PG13, M=R, AO=NC17
What's more, if you look at the ESRB's panel on the back of the box it tells you why it was rated this way, from things like language and violence to sexual and drug content.

This would at best ignore, at worst invalidate the ESRBs system, and make a two tiered system: Violent or Not. This ignores the fact that, much like alcohol you can just get someone else to get you what you want. It also ignores that fact that parents should be by and large responsible for the upbringing of their children. I once read a story of a man who let his five year old son play GTA 4 only to find that the kid refused to steal cars or harm civilians, and in fact was only interested in police and ambulance missions.

There is nothing that can be done to keep any item out of the hands of a determined consumer. If it is something they truly desire, or truly require, they will find a way to get it. Better that restricting access to these things and making them taboo, and as such interesting, would be to continue the ESRBs work and get people informed.
 
Re: In today's news...

The only thing that surprises me there was the part about a specific label for "sexually assaulting an image of a human being". Has that ever even happened? I can think of some games where sexual assault by characters other than the main character was implied and used as a plot device, but I can't think of any cases where the main character did anything like that or where it was shown at all. It seems on the surface to be the same old fear mongering to make games seem worse than they are. I guess I'm not surprised after all!

I am curious as to why the SCotUS decided to take this one up. It's very established that games are protected free speech, since the Miller test requires that speech be pornographic in nature to be ruled obscene. It's not like the "Think of the children!" arguments California is using are new either, so it's hard for me to see why they would take up this case when there is already settled precedent. Maybe somebody more legal savvy than I am knows why, because it seems confusing.
 
Re: In today's news...

I never understood why anyone would bother with an age limit on games. All this will do is get kids to bring someone older with them and then they will play it no matter how they restrict sales.

I'm European, America (More specificly, the people shouting the loudest there) never really made sense to me anyway.
 
Re: In today's news...

America has turned into a clusterfuck because no one wants to be responsible and every one wants to be rich. This has lead to what I have heard called a litigious society, where everyone sues everyone over everything. This, in turn, has lead to some dick moves: companies trying to remove all liability from themselves by treating consumers like retards, lawyers trying to make a buck by encouraging and carrying these lawsuits, consumers suing over every fucking thing. Maybe this has lead the government to believe that we are retarded and easily led on, or maybe they're in bed with someone. Maybe both, who knows?
 
Re: In today's news...

Shit. That just turned Dragon Age into a violent video game and put it on par with shit like Grand Theft Auto, because that's prolly the kind they are protesting. Bah

D:
 
Re: In today's news...

That's not an issue of Americans not wanting to be responsible or wanting to be rich(?) so much as how our country deals with business misconduct that impacts others. Typically a government tends to either put regulations in place designed to prevent unwanted behavior or allow the threat of litigation to act as a disincentive instead. The idea with the latter being that if there is a constant threat of being sued when a business does horrible things that hurt people, that it is in their financial best interest to make sure they don't. Consumers suing over stupid shit and lawyers facilitating it is just one of the inherent parts of that system. It wouldn't work at all if people didn't sue or if there weren't an abundance of lawyers to assist in those lawsuits.

Do note that I'm not saying this is a great way to go about it. I'm just saying that there is a reason it is the way it is. Personally, I find it incredibly distressing how our legal system favors those wealthy enough to afford expensive lawyers while frequently leaving the poor without recourse or how it allows companies to use their pooled resources to bully individuals in the legal system. People suing because a bird attacked them outside a fast food restaurant and frivolous things like that never bothered me though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top