This article is fairly entertaining, but even more so are the reactions to it. Why did so many find it odd? Apparently everyone who read it focused on their own topic of interest, be it gay relationships, roleplaying, online games or hobbits. Gaming is a world in itself, with its lingo, culture, quirks and since "the sims" has now attracted public notice.

I am a woman in my 30s with a professional degree, career etc. ...and a gamer. The term still has such stigma that I am reluctant to tell people outside my social circle.

In 95 when still in school I met a bunch of great, well-read creative types from various locales in the US through text-based online roleplay channels. We became friends and 10 years later we still meet every year, interact online. The games aquired graphics and became more immersive and more complex but the article is right that it's the social community that attracts people to them, not the pretty graphics. I am now engaged to a wonderful man I met... online of course.

So back to the topic, why is this article odd? Some people like their entertainment pre-scripted on TV or in movies, or in books. It's still drama and imaginary; why is it ok to chat at work about last night's "desperate housewives", or re-hash "da vinci code" over and over, but I'm too embarassed to chat with the other gamer at work of the great floating castle I saw in the virtual world. The former involves sitting passively by the TV to watch the mid-life crises of fictional characters in middle-america (ho-hum); the latter exploring an evolving world with my friends, meeting other people, writing our own dang stories.

Why is the first considered a necessary fix (pun intended), the second a geeky, embarassing hobby for nerds. At least with geekdom attaining wider acceptance in society (due in part to movies like the matrix, lord of the rings, bringing fantasy to a wider audience) the gap has narrowed in the last 10 years but it's still palpable.

The truth is people over 50 constitute a full 20% of people playing online games, and that demograpic is quickly increasing. Since the sims many women have discovered the social aspects and have jumped on. Every possible genre and setting is now already out or in development. The tired stereotype of the 15 year old in mom's basement is (finally) dying a slow death.

Like the internet with its youtube and file sharing is forcing traditional TV to reinvent itself, gaming is forming virtual, social communities and changing how we interact with our peers. Virtual currency is now often worth more than that of many third-world countries; by last average you can earn about 2-3$ US an hour in them. Countless people now earn comfortable salaries off second life selling virtual, well, everything.

Soo the only odd part about the article is perhaps focusing on the gay aspect of online relationships. But the broader topic of the gaming demographics might have appealed to more. There are really interesting articles out there on how basic notions as real vs virtual are evolving.

Wow.

The most basic rule of electronic document management states that whatever documents are not strictly internal must be converted to pdf format, which is view-only and (almost) tamper-proof.

I have seen multiple cases of people surfing the web and stumbling upon internal documents due to poor network security, lack of firewall, etc. But documents for public perusal are usually first converted to pdf or some such format that is a snapshot of the final document, instead of the actual word or excel spreadsheet. The point being exactly that, to hide the sometimes too-convenient markups that friendly word tracks for us.

Interesting find... it's mind boggling how unprofessional the autor was. Its one thing to discreetly insert personal opinions or ideas, quite another to use terms like 'losers'.

And yes the iraqi businessman quoted said what myself and any number of people could have told you way back in 2003: economic measures mean squat when you're being occuppied by foreign forces.

Imagine your community being invaded for a foreign power (not easy I know but for the sake or argument). I think we would be resentful too, no matter the number of dollars pushed our way or how friendly they tried to be.

It is against the law in Quebec, Canada to advertise to kids under 12, period.

The point of course is to protect the kids. I have always found that basic common sense and am always surprised to see the ads for kids on other tv chains.

Even in snazzy, popular cell phone tv commercials with the whole family proudly showing their phones, the little girl you see has a normal phone in hand, to make sure the publishers err on the side of caution I presume. Still it sends a strong message to those paying attention.

Wait, what ads DO they play during saturday morning cartoons? Those aiming the parents that the marketing firms know are never very far from their kids.

The parents are the ones who make the purchases obviously. Why target kids at all then? Many recent studies show the marketing firms are getting better the last few years: they have perfected the science of showing kids how to whine and bug their parents until they give in and buy the toy.

The same studies also indicate that kids have unprecedented power and influence over their parents purchase decisions. Notice that ALL ads for minivans and such family vehicles include smily, happy kids cheering mom and dad on.

I am not advocating forgetting our kids in a corner, left to play with pots and pans but in a society obsessed with performance and productivity, we are now transfering that legacy to our poor kids who will grow us disapointed to find out that yes, they are unique and special... just like everyone else.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/marketers_target_kids.cfm