Education Via Video Games 395
An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired/AP, food stamp recipients will now receive video games instead of brochures and pamphlets, in an effort to educate them on how to get the most benefit. One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."
Burger Time anyone ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Burger Time anyone ? (Score:2, Funny)
Education via video games (Score:4, Funny)
Things I've learned about war from videogames: If you find yourself mortally wounded by an enemy sniper be sure to let him know that he is a faggot.
Word... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Word... (Score:2)
Hrmm.. Wired Access Points, eh...
(no, I'm not Canadian)
Sweet (Score:4, Funny)
Sign me up!
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet (Score:2)
same (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:same (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers probably are increasingly pervasive, even among lower to lower middle class households now. But more to the point of...
"One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."
Assuming that even the poor can get credit (and I can't imagine why not, when I have marginally good credit and get about twenty pre-approved credit card offers a month, and those Rent-A-Center places seem to thrive in poorer neighborhoods), it's just too easy t
Re:same (Score:4, Insightful)
You are apperently employed at the moment. But that could change. Lets assume you are suddenly unemployed, and you have a wife and two kids.
Now that you are suddently and hypothetically unemployed... Flipping burgers at minimum wage will not continue to pay your housing payments and whatever loans (car, student, consumer debt, whatever) that you have, plus food for your wife and kids. Regardless of if you qualify for unemployment checks, your total income is probably still less than the food stamp eligibility requirements [ladpss.org] for your area.
I doubt you, as a self-proclaimed nerd, will sell your computers just because you are suddenly unemployed, but qualify for food stamps.
If you qualify for food stamps, the little cash you have will go that much more toward other living expenses. In that situation, they are a god-send.
The US Bureau of Laber Statistics unemployemnt statistics released this month [bls.gov] shows over 8 MILLION people currently unemployed. I know many geeks who are under-employed and qualify for food stamps, yet don't show up on the unemployed stats. Lots of these people will have computers and other goods, that you think they shouldn't have because of easy credit.
But you are still gainfully employed, unlike millions of others. You ought to be grateful.
Re:same (Score:3, Informative)
Re:same (Score:2, Insightful)
Because God forbid anyone should actually go to the free public libraries that my tax dollars pay for, just to educate themselves and thier children so they can escape poverty, instead of living off the handouts also paid for by my tax dollars.
I would gladly double what I pay in taxes, if I could guarantee that all of it went to fund libraries, schools, and basic research grants, and not one dime went to food stamps.
food vs. computer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:same (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:same (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd change your list to read something like
If you have to live with 8 other people in a two bedroom house to make rent, you're poor.
If your children face the prospect of going to terrible schools, and you don't have any recourse (like even sending them to better schools in the district), you're poor.
If you'll lose your job if your car breaks down because you won't be able to afford to fix it, you're poor.
A crappy Goodwill TV is $15 *at Goodwill*, so you're not going to get much rent money for selling it. And the entertainment / keep kids off the street value a TV provides is so extreme, I don't even consider whether or not you have cable as a reliable indication of poverty anymore (again, at least where I live, in East Oakland)
Finally, if you're poor and trying to make sure your kids won't be poor, buying a PC is not some indication that you're no longer poverty stricken. Hang out at a Goodwill next time some crappy 486 goes on the floor. It's sold in SECONDS.
I'm about 10 degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun, and even to me your post smacks of total cluelessness about the situation that actual poor people are in.
Re:same (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:same (Score:5, Informative)
If you live in the country, you can let your kids play outside. If you live on 98th and Foothill in East Oakland, and you let your kids play outside, there's a reasonable chance that they might die or get into serious trouble. Having a TV to keep them occupied -- and inside -- may not seem like such a luxury at that point.
Re:same (Score:3, Insightful)
And anyone who can afford to buy (and blithely add to the electrical bill with) tv's and computers is not realisticaly poor.
An older computer can be had for free, if you keep your eyes open. A TV can be had for free, or a few bucks at a garage sale.
The poor do need entertainment, like everyone else. A TV and an attenna is damn cheap entertainment, even if the quality sucks. Considering the draw of a TV, the electric bill is roughly about $5 more dollars a month.
Damn cheap entertainment.
Re:same (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, you're so poor you even know how to make a sentence last forever.
(Joke. No disrespect to your situation).
Re:same (Score:2)
If your children face the prospect of going to terrible schools, and you don't have any recourse (like even sending them to better schools in the district), you're poor.
But if no-one's kids went to crappy schools, where would the crappy teachers teach?
Re:same (Score:2)
Re:same (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:same (Score:3, Insightful)
Jackass.
Maybe because you could support them when you had them but your plant got closed down and now you can't. Back when you had that job at the plant, incidentally, was when you bought your kids that X-box.
Maybe because you're Catholic or Muslim and don't believe in birth control.
Maybe your spouse was the primary source of income and died / left you / got mobilized and shipped off to Iraq / went to prison and now you have to support these kids.
Poor is not being able to replace stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the problem about being poor that "rich" people don't get. Not even if they had a "poor" period (typically they claim they had no money while being a student). Why don't they get it? Because they don't need to replace anything in that time. The bed the "rich" kid got from home when he wen't out of the house will last him a couple of years till he finished study and has found a job.
The poor kid's bed is already at the end of its live. Same with washing machines (Is it only in holland that the kid moving out gets the old one while the parents buy a new one?) a tv, a car, furniture, anything.
Poverty really starts to show its teeth when things start breaking down. The washing machine breaks and you don't have the money to replace it, worse you now need to use the laundromat wich is more expensive preventing you from saving up for a new one. It also takes more time, time you can no longer spend improving your lot.
Social services in the Netherlands are beginning to get this. That it may be all very nice to give just enough money to survive and perhaps a little bit more but that it ain't enough for those who can't get out (remember that unemployment is good for business, full employment would mean it is a workers job market. See bubble on what happens then) of their situation. So they now make it possible under certain circumstances to get washing machines, fridges and other household equipment.
The above poster if obviously a "rich" person who doesn't get it. He mentions that having a car makes you rich. He forgets that a car may be essential for having a job. Public transport is great if you work in a office block and work 9-5. If you clean that office then you may find that all the buses stop running after 5. Or that your work is in a factory in the middle of nowwhere and the shift starts at 6. Long before their is anykind of public transport service. Even if your shift neatly fall in public tranportation times that may make it impossible to do overtime if your shift ends 5 minutes before the last bus.
So he got it exactly the wrong way around. Being able NOT to have a car shows your "rich".
So get a cheap old car? Cheap old cars break down more often and consume more fuel. Worse, in high paying jobs you may have "flexible" hours. Factory shifts tend to rely on everyone being on time.
A tv is the only form of information/entertainment the poor can "afford". Go to the library and read a book? Check opening times of the local branch library. Oh the city branch has evening opening times? And how do you get there?
Being poor is constantly being constrained by money for a long time (10yrs+). That is where the real problems occur that are hardest to spot and hardest to get for politicians. "Rich" people just don't get it. They can't, it would be like expecting men to understand the feelings of motherhood.
Sadly goverment is formed by the "rich". Even the "socialist" goverments, just check on how many of even the most socialist parties had to survive at or below the poverty line during they youth for long periods.
So please ignore the above poster. He ain't got a clue, he is just a little rich boy who doesn't realize how good he has it. Being poor is not having no money this month. Being poor is not having enough money for live. Think of it as a company operating at a loss. No problem so long as you can make up for the loss by the profits in the past, kinda like Sun is doing now. But if you never had profits you can't do that. Human beings don't go bankrupt, they just slowly die. Poor people live significantly shorter then "rich" people.
Re:Poor is not being able to replace stuff (Score:3, Informative)
Being able to afford a crap car indicates that you're still quite a long way from rock bottom.
When you can no longer afford that cars running/repair costs, cannot get to work, cannot live in an area with public transport or jobs in walking distance... Only then do you know poverty.
When you hit that rock hard ground level, where the bottom rung of the ladder is several feet out of reach and there is nothing you can do
Re:Poor is not being able to replace stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course I see a couple of these stories and have to laugh at what people consider "poverty". Only one or two have entered the territory I consider "poverty".
In my mind, having cable takes you out of the poverty level. Having a television at all takes you out of poverty. Owning a computer takes you above poverty. Poverty means not being able to afford non-essentials like those items.
I look back and consider myself having come out of poverty around age 9 or 10 when we got a black & white TV. I remember thinking back when I was 5 or 6 and visiting the neighbors how rich they must be for having indoor lighting, plumbing, and this cool TV thing. I was 8 when we got electricity.
Granted times have changed and that was the 80's, but commodities are still commodities. The idea of poverty is that you don't have a commodity based lifestyle, that you will go hungry if you instead spend the money on unnecessary items. As much time as all of us spend on the computer, it just isn't a necessary item to continue living for the majority of the public. It is still a commodity rather then a necessity. Electricity has become more necessary, a phone is generally necessary, water is somewhat necessary, those I would qualify near the upper limits of poverty, but crossing the lines to non-necessary appliances (necessary depending on rural vs urban) means that while you may be less then middle class, you are no longer impoverished.
Even the above poster (who I wasn't singling out by posting at this level, just using it as an example), talks about how they received a washing machine from their parents who then went and bought a new one.
While I was no longer poor and had a washing machine in my house by the time I graduated highschool, there is no way I would have gotten it as a going to college present. Those things are expensive. We did have a computer at the time, but only because it was necessary to my fathers occupation.
I find myself able to get glued to the television easily now, though that is compared to 20 years ago when I didn't have a television. I went to the library. I have over 500 books on my shelves (now, then I had none). I have a bad habit of being a packrat because everything is re-useable for something. I have an infinite level of disdain for any political candidate that pretends they know what poor was like because they only got such-and-such an allowance while going to their Ivy League college after moving out of their parents mansion(s).
In 2003 a single person (roughly, this is just a guideline) had to make less then $8,980 to be considered to be in poverty. 3 people had to make less then $15,260. Spending $100 for a P3 level computer (if they have access to ebay somehow) is a stretch when it means spending 10% of their monthly income when they could eat a little better and maybe get a toy or school supplies for their kid.
Or maybe that would b my priorities and people making that little would rather eat rice and beans 24/7/4/12 and have a cheap computer. Of course, the fact that i visited many of the poorest neighborhoods quite frequently when I deliverd pizza belied that, for the majority at least.
Re:same (Score:2)
I made a joke about having to sell one's stuff (Score:2)
The reality is, if you had your way...
namely, if
a) poverty were defined strictly as having no ability to obtain any kind of sophisticated stuff (car, computers, etc)
and
b) the only way to qualify for assistance was to meet this standard of poverty
then you would have major, major problems across the entire economic food chain.
Let us say that the poor really should sell off their unnec
Re:I made a joke about having to sell one's stuff (Score:2)
You missed an additional effect, this would destroy the second hand market for such things, and so the poor people in question would get mroe or less nothing for these things they were selling anyway.
The only people to benefit would be those who are well off enough to not need to get rid of their posessions, but tight enough to not want to pay for a spare TV for the
Re:same (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone has a TV they could sell for a fiver, and needs the fiver to eat this week, then clearly they will starve next week.
Thus, by your definition, there can be no poor people, except for the minute number in the gap between selling their last saleable capital asset and dieing.
Please god, don't let Tony or Shrub read this. I can just see them cutting benefits by 5 quid/ 10 dollars a year and giving every claiment an 80th hand TV, then claiming there is no more poverty.
Re:same (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone who needed some sort of assistance had to actually go and ask a person or a charity (i.e. a church) for aid every time they needed it instead of sitting around waiting for the checks and the food stamps to come in the mail, there would be MUCH less abuse of the system.
I did volunteer work
Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds idealistic? Yes, it does. But lets also not forget that this UN body last year fed more than 100 million people.
Food Force will be free, either as a CD or as a download from the internet. The WFP is also looking at distributing it in schools as an educational tool
Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups (Score:2)
Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups (Score:2)
Anybody know if they have anything on the benefits of democracy and free markets, nation building, the stark (and usually dreadful) realities of dictatorships and communism, the effect of farm welfare on foreign food markets, etc., etc.? If it's just a bunch of "look at these poor people who through no fault of their own are starving, and look a
Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups (Score:5, Informative)
There could be better ways to do this, since educating using games seems to be a flawed idea.
From http://www.game-research.com/art_myths_of_gaming.
Not long after the birth of computer games the first hopes for the potential of learning through games were expressed. Wouldn't it be great if the enthusiasm exhibited when playing games could be used for good, sound learning? Since then, several commercial games showing various degrees of success have been labelled 'edutainment' - a combination of the two words education and entertainment.
However, neither the education nor the entertainment part has been very successful in these titles- combining the two has turned out to be a tough job. According to the proponents of learning through games the main potential lies in the ability of games to increase motivation through the interactive nature of games, putting the player in control of the learning and the game's options for adjusting the level of difficulty. However, it seems that most edutainment games have problems living up to these reasons for using games in the first place.
In her book Dataspill - Innføring og analyse (translation: Computer games - introduction and analysis) about games Eva Liestøl analyses five different games. She finds that the one game that does not let the player choose his own path through the game world is the edutainment title. She doesn't press the issue but if you look at other edutainment titles, you find the same pattern - educational titles seem to take over the control and narrow down the game universe to make it fit with the intentions of the producer. These intentions are often to convey some specific information about a topic. Closing the game universe and conveying specific information does not fit well with traditional game dynamics, where simple and general rules are the backbone. In stead, educators have to a larger extent turned to the adventure genre, where it is easier to focus on information, but they have found out that even here it is hard to convey the necessary depth of an educational topic.
Furthermore, very few studies have delivered hard evidence that games can be used for learning. Typically the research has been directed at putting learning into games and then assuming that this learning somehow came across to the player. But the ambition should be higher than this. It is not enough to have 'some kind of learning' in games. To truly say that games are great learning tools we must prove - or at least make probable - that games are better than other learning alternatives. And here we are still a long way from the goal - so the dream of games as great educational tools, remains a dream. (- Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen)
Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups (Score:4, Insightful)
So? While important, feeding people is only keeping them alive. One could argue that just feeding them is a good way to establish and maintain a fuzzy, feel-good beurocracy.
It doesn't address the issue of keeping them safe , which is more important and where the UN falls to its knees repeatedly. See the massacre just a couple of days ago.
The UN is not the end-all, freedom and economic development is.
System requirements (Score:2, Interesting)
Athlon 64 3400+ or equivalent processor
512 MB of RAM
Radeon X800 or equivalent video card
Seriously though, if the game works on a P90, then one could expect even the poorest of poor to afford a computer to run it since even much faster machines are practically given away everywhere all the time.
Re:System requirements (Score:2)
Re:System requirements (Score:2)
What over achievers may have is completely besides the point.
I think the obvious question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I think the obvious question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I think the obvious question is... (Score:2)
You can stay alive by eating the frozen bodies of people who died in the initial crash, but attempting to eat the scrawny bodies of those who starved to death before you will just give you protein poisoning.
The very reason *they* died of starvation is that there was nothing left in them for their own body to consume. Nothing left but toxins and proteins that take more resources to digest than they yeild
Re:I think the obvious question is... (Score:2)
Nothing. No one gives a shit if someone getting food stamps dies.:-(
Give a man to fish....Teach a man to fish... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Give a man to fish....Teach a man to fish... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Give a man to fish....Teach a man to fish... (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong. The real lesson to be learned is that you buy 99 boxes of ammo in the beginning, and you hunt until the screen is LITTERED with the corpses of buffalo, bear, deer, rabbits, squirrels, and anything else that moves. Screw the weight limit.
Name of the Game? (Score:4, Funny)
It's not the 80s any more (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I could walk down the street to the Goodwill and drop $10 on an old monitor or a PC, but they wouldn't be pretty. For $100 I could buy a decent P-II system used. That's not too bad for something which I can use to help me get a job. Heck, it's less than some unemployed people I have known spent on beer in a month.
Believe it or not, computers don't all cost $4000, have an "Alienware" logo on them and come with artificially intelligent graphics cards from a company called "Skynet".
Re:It's not the 80s any more (Score:2)
The company was called 'cyberdyne systems' ;) - otherwise I agree with your point..
Re:It's not the 80s any more (Score:2)
Bah! Amatures! When I was unemployed last summer I had a month where I probably spent over $100 a week on alcohol. Anybody that spends less than that just isn't trying hard enough.
Most people don't realize this, but it's hard work being an unemployed bum living off your savings and feeling sorry for your
Re:It's not the 80s any more (Score:2)
If we're truly talking about people who are so poor buying food is a problem, then I *hope* they haven't wasted money on a computer. They should be able to use one at a Library for 'free'.
Why doesn't welfare make them (Score:3, Insightful)
JUUUUUUUST kidding, folks.
Seriously, though.
"Players in the Price Makes Sense have to use their math skills to figure out the best food deal; for instance, that six servings of eggs at $1.20 is cheaper per serving than five servings of chicken at $2.00."
The error in the reasoning here is that 6 servings of eggs probably means more cholesterol than 5 servings of chicken, oh and it's a certainty that 5 servings of chicken fills you up far more than 6 servings of eggs. Based on what fills you up, the 6 servings of chicken at $2.00 is the best deal.
This brings me to the major question of my post... how credible is the "education" this game offers?
Oh, and if I have a Gameboy Advance and I'm on welfare, and this game only plays on the PS2, am I SOL? o_O
Re:Why doesn't welfare make them (Score:2)
the few bucks they would get from the computer aren't that much.
Re:Why doesn't welfare make them (Score:2)
The error in the reasoning here is that 6 servings of eggs probably means more cholesterol than servings of chicken, oh and it's a certainty that 5 servings of chicken fills you up far more than 6 servings of eggs. Based on what fills you up, the 6 servings of chicken at $2.00 is the best deal.
But the eggs are high in essential omega 3 fatty acids that the chicken will lack. ;)
It gets better (Score:2, Interesting)
Another food-game story from the BBC [bbc.co.uk]:
"The game itself is somewhere between a game like Tomb Raider and a lecture from the WFP," explained the game's designer, Mike Harrison.
Those funky, funky people...
Insulting (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because so many young adults played such games as kids, they ought to be able to learn more easily from them, too, said the project's director"
This kind of education game is a good idea for very young children (before the age that cynicism gets the better of them), but adults?? If I was hard up, I would feel very patronised if I received a computer game telling me to store perishables in the fridge.
Even more insulting if you ain't got a fridge. (Score:2)
It now has the option to give people household equipment if replacing old stuff themselves proves to be impossible. Sounds nice? Well not all that much since being able to "save" money is considered an indicator that you are to rich for social services. Lost you job but got say 2000 in savings? First consume the savings then come back.
But programs
Exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Can games teach people stuff? Well, yes. I've learned a lot of history stuff from games like Europa Universalis, or to a lesser extent Civilization. Or at least got the curiosity to read more about that from other places.
Or "Die Gilde" ("Europa 1400 - The Guild" for you 'merkins) gives you a historical report of what happened IRL in that year after each game year. I've learned more late medieval trivia from it than from any other game.
But here's the scoop:
1. It must be fun as a _game_. Civilization was a bestseller in its own right. It didn't need to masquerade as "educational software" to get any sales at all. Ditto for Die Gilde, at least in Germany. Europa Universalis has a steep learning curve, but also got quite a few people addicted on its own merits.
2. Don't lecture or preach. It must first and foremost be a game, not a piss-poorly disguised beating people up with a clue stick. People instinctively resist being lectured.
3. Don't be patronising. Stuff that basically says, "see, we know you're a fscking retard who doesn't know how to put stuff in a fridge. We also know you're an idiot who can't figure out the cheapest crap to buy." serves no purpose other than humiliating someone. If anything, it'll make them resist the lecture even more.
And I'm thinking the same could be applied to software for small children. A game should be written to be first and foremost a _game_, and only incidentally also education.
E.g., there are a ton of _fun_ ways to make someone exercise their maths or logic skills. Economic sim games have done that for ages. Puzzles are also a good means to that end. (And god knows even the worst maths puzzle is still better than yet another "jump puzzle".)
So it's not like they _have_ to be crappy _and_ patronising games to be educational. It's just that the people making them seem to be into patronizing their gamers. And in most cases also utterly unable to make a proper game anyway.
(Obvious HSR reference to get it out of the way) (Score:2, Funny)
"Unfortunately, most of them are still trying to work out how to give the Kerrek a cold one."
not as hard as you'd think... (Score:2, Informative)
buy stuff like a computer,
lose that job,
sidenote: call the benefits line that handles food stamps and get india on the line (as they did in Wisconsin)
get a lousy job and need food stamps
make $24K with 2 kids and still need food stamps (as in Santa Clara county)
take any advantage they'll give you, even, yes, instructional video games
Computers for education (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Computers for education (Score:2)
So they have access to a computer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Our society provides food stamps to help the hunger issue in the United States. Providing food stamps (for food) to the poor seems to be a reasonable way of helping - tax payers and administrators feel good (and approve) systems that buy food, but usually not ones that buy booze, PC's, or provide funds to the poor for discretionary spending. If the food stamps provide some relief, or eliminate food bills, then the poor have more money for computers, a nice Christmas, beer, and other items that generally contribute to better quality of life.
If you believe in helping the poor, and provide the help through food and food stamps, don't complain that they use the little bit of money that they DO have for items that you don't endorse - whether that is bus fare to the public library to access a computer, or a 6-pack of beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Food Stamps (Score:2)
Re:So they have access to a computer! (Score:2)
Food stamps have three main effects. They provide a currency which can be used to purchase heroin or gin, but not (say) books or clothes, they remove any incentive to learn to budget and/or cook, resulting in a diet of junk food, and they provide something easier for forgers to tackle when currency it temporarilly made too hard to copy.
They have no significant effect on people thinking of cheating the syst
Re:So they have access to a computer! (Score:2)
So far as I can see, this has all the failings I listed, plus probably some more related to the technology. Adding technology to a bad social system just results in a bad social system with technological snafus.
Re:So they have access to a computer! (Score:2)
I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but can't help noticing that your pious little lecture goes through quite a contortion to avoid the possibility that people on food stamps may in fact own a computer. Presumably those
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
It's Nitpicking, I Know (Score:2)
Last time I checked, baked beans generally come in cans, and tortillas don't really thaw that well after being frozen. Besides that, does anyone else notice a certain ethnic targeting in the Store It Safe blurb?
One thing not mentioned in the article is any kind of basic food preparation guide. Many meats can cause serious illnes
Re:It's Nitpicking, I Know (Score:2)
Presumably the cans of beans go into the cupboard and the tortillas into the fridge?
Re:It's Nitpicking, I Know (Score:2)
One game. The games for cooking and preperation are seperate, most likely. It's an obvious area for education - I'm sure they didn't miss it :)
Re: Education Via Video Games (Score:2)
I don't know. Maybe I should've asked the lady in front of me at Safeway last week. The pregnant one who was using all her food stamps on milk, cheese, eggs, and infant formula, but managed to pull out a wad of cash to pay for the bottle of champagne she was getting...
Project LRNJ (Score:2)
This game helps you to learn Japanese. It's just so much fun learning this way! For those interested, here is the website:
http://lrnj.com/ [lrnj.com]
One wonders... (Score:2)
Yeah, obviously it should have been written for Playstation. ;-)
Not surprising if you think about it ... (Score:2)
Also, a lot of poor people are poor because they are poor decision makers. This extends into buying food at the corner store for much more than at the grocery store further down the street and to buying prepared foods that are much more expensive then buying the ingredients separately and freezing the leftovers for another day.
So, these people need lots of
Re:Not surprising if you think about it ... (Score:2)
Sure, they might not have a great education (owing to you having to buy one in the US), but you can't say that they don't realise about keeping food. If you've ever been hungry, you realise quicker than any Ph.D ingenious ways to keep food, and where the cheapest stuff is.
You've come to the right conclusion, but you're slightly mislead about poor people :)
You'd be suprised who has a PC these days. (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a few non-profit organizations [reboot.on.ca] out there that help low income individuals, or organizations with obtaining computers.
It's easy as going to a thrift store now and building lowely Pentium system for cheap. Or grabbing parts from the curb. (Done that few times too).
And even if you don't have a PC, most likely you know someone that does,
One wonders?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one that found this particular element of the comment particularly condesending?
Maybe they got a computer because someone out there realized that technological knowledge is important for under privelaged kids to have, and that gaining access to said technology would be beneficial?
Having seen this particular program [crisny.org] at work in my community, I've been impressed. They have the kids learn how to build computers, install all the software, and learn how to use common applications. At the end of the summer, they get to take a computer home with them. Pretty sweet.
I'm also in the same graduate department [rpi.edu] as James, so this is a bit of a shameless plug. However, he's put a ton of time and effort into it, and it is pretty neat that they are providing resources to kids that need them.
Now, these probably aren't your Quake 3 running machines, but who cares.
Just one possible solution...
I can't believe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Being poor is not something that people wallow in. It is simply a state that people find themselves in. Most people do not strive to be poor. If the have a computer, they likely bought / got it prior to their current state of affairs.
Sometimes the effects are gradual. Sometimes there are mass lay-offs that occur that shut down entire towns. Mines, automotive factories, etc. can create instant poverty by closi
chance of getting rich vs chance of getting poor (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are some numbers for the arrogant posters to digest: one third of all recent tax returns (single AND joint filers) have gross incomes of less than $20K, and almost 50% of them are less than $30K.
THe problem is that corporate propaganda has convinced most Americans that they are on the verge of getting rich. But the house always wins, numbkulls.....
Why not take the SAFE way, the prudent way, as they do in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Canada, etc etc, and RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.
Re:chance of getting rich vs chance of getting poo (Score:3, Interesting)
gee tax $0 net income hmm... The rich are rich because they know how to dodge taxes legitimatly. How can you tax me if I make nothing and my corporation buys me a house? I can't give you 60% of the house so you must be SOL.
Thos ewho make 40k -100k shoulder most of the burden of social services whiel those who actually make 100k plus, evade liek crazy.
A bit more adult games... (Score:3, Interesting)
Go to Garage Games and check out Bridge Construction Set [garagegames.com], available both for Windows and Linux.
With many Linux distros that use KDE, you can get several "edutainment" games such as Kiten (Japanese), KVerbos, Klettres, Ktouch, KFlashcard, Kstars.... They are OK, but rather limited. I hope they will become better, one day perhaps KPercentage will have grown enough to teach (for instance) 9 years of basic school math to anyone.
The best educational game I have played though was back in Windows 95 days, a Swedish game developer from my home town Uppsala had made a geography game that fit on one floppy. You could learn names and locations of continents, countries, states, capitols etc, the quiz was usually by pointing and clicking on maps when presented by a name.
I believe they later went on to make the Backpacker series. I have never played any of them, but appearently they are great successes. The sort of game parents can pick up at any supermarket for their kids and not worry about voilent content and so on...
if I ever get the time I hope to do a similar geography game in Java on Sourceforge.
Didn't the poster bother to read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
but the article says:
Entertainment is a greater commodity than food. (Score:2)
Afford food/computer (Score:5, Interesting)
You're kidding, right?
In high school/college I worked summers at a convenience store in my tiny, hick Kansas town. A few of the things I witnessed while working there:
- I saw a lady try and buy dogfood with food stamps.
- I saw a lady purchase two 16oz Pepsi bottles, and insist they be rung up seperately. Each one rung up for about $1.05, and she paid for each one with $2 in food stamps. She then took the change received back from each one and bought a pack of smokes.
- I can't tell you how many times people would try to buy beer with food stamps. The best part was when they'd get all pissed off when we wouldn't do it, and talk about how we couldn't tell them how to spend "their money".
Not to go Right Wing Facists on anyone, but I would guess than 9 times out of 10, people on food stamps don't have a history of making wise purchase decisions.
Food stamps == frag stamps (Score:4, Funny)
Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is hard to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get knocked up at fifteen and you won't have to worry about feeding a child at sixteen.
You can fill out a job application if you can read.
Hanging out with drug dealers will get you shot, either by the drug dealer or the other drug dealer.
No one will hire you if you have an attitude that you don't need to work, or if you can't be bothered to show up for work, or if you can't speak the King's English.
Life is rough. There is no doubt. But you have to be competent to be hired. That is how the whole of civilization works.
Poverty and government assistance are there to get you back on your feet... they are not there to feed you for a lifetime. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people that think that living in the projects and not worrying about an education is an acceptable LIFETIME proposition.
Free education. What do you do with it? Nothing. Free food. Housing is $30 a month. Yes, you have nothing of your own. Yes, the place you live in stinks, and is full of drug dealers... but let I remind you that drug dealers don't work for a living either. They just threaten people and stand around. If everyone is bored and in each other's business, and no one can read or find a way to find a job, then you just have idiots stealing from each other.
Look, if you can't be forced to get your butt to work and get a job like the other 90% of humanity, then you only get JUST ENOUGH TO SURVIVE. You don't get to thrive for failing.
Sorry about the breaks.
Re:You insensitive clod (Score:2)
And who pays your electricity bill?
Re:a computer & broadband "in every pot"! (Score:2)
Re:a computer & broadband "in every pot"! (Score:2)
Nowhere in that post is it advocated to do anything except change the relative taxation percentages.
From each according to his ability, and ... (Score:2)
Why are young men drafted, and not old men? Are we punishing the young men?
Why do we pay social security payments to the old and not the young?
One Law For the Young and Another For the Old?
NOT a troll! (computer & broadband "in every p (Score:2)
Check out my little webpage. Read the links with an open mind.
You guys are hilarious! (Score:2)
Re:Hear me out (Score:5, Insightful)
Such people need at best a training course as to how to save money, and at worst probably need to go hungry for a few days to knock some sense into them. I don't know what the problem is, but it needs to be fixed because it is an epidemic (in America at least).
I live in a poor neighborhood because, well, I am poor. I am getting through college and doing it on a tight budget. I don't worry for the future because I am getting out with a solid chemical engineering degree and have a fair padding of cash from working despite loan payments. I intend to stay where I am exactly long enough to get a job, then go live some place safe.
I live in a shit hole. My apartment is a piece of crap, but the rent is cheap (for Boston). Across the street from me is a massive block of beautiful apartments. These apartments all have rent much cheaper then mine because they are apart of a project. There are these beautiful apartments filled with 'poor' people. Now, the idea would be solid if it wasn't for the fact that they are living like kings while I work hard to make ends meat. My car is a POS rust bucket with no radio that barely runs and can get me to work and back. Half the cars across the street have fucking rims that literally cost more then my entire car. My car doesn't have rims, the wheel bolting is exposed.
Now, not even this would bother me if it wasn't for the fact that I fucking have had to fund the project with my tax dollar. The socialistic systems are flat out broken. I know it is a little cruel, but I wish the capitalist poke in the ass was harsher because these people are just bleeding the system.
Social programs should be reserved for exactly two types of people. People who were born with mental/physical disabilities that do not allow them to go take their share, and people who received mental/physical disabilities through no fault of their own. Everyone else should get just enough food and medical coverage to live, a basic education, and nothing else. Hell, through in a safety net of a year or two for people who get unemployed. If there is not anything wrong with you, you should get your ration of just enough food to not starve. Is that an uncomfortable life? Hell yeah. I have been there. Do something about it. The problem is a cultural problem. Maybe if people were uncomfortable enough the culture would change. Judging by the fucking base rocking my house from across the street right now (7 am BTW) the current method isn't working.
Re:Hear me out (Score:2, Interesting)
Cant.. stop.. must... type reposte...
As a fellow poor person, who worked his way through a CS degree (and masters), I have to disagree with you guys.
The problem is not that poor people are spending their money on entertainment systems before neccesities. This is not something I observed the vast majority of my fellow downtrodden doing during my formative years, although I will admit that it did go on to a small extent.
No, the problem is that poor people exist in the first place.
In a civilized
Re:Hear me out (Score:3, Insightful)
The other half is the chronically poor. Some of those people are poor because they truly are victims and have a
Re:video games instead of brochures and pamphlets (Score:2)
to keep the poor folks from breeding to much right?