Another Man Dies After Marathon Gaming Session

loserMcloser writes "Another Chinese man has died after spending three days in an internet cafe for an online gaming marathon session. He apparently fainted and died at the cafe from exhaustion. 'The report did not say what the man, whose name was not given, was playing. The report said that about 100 other Web surfers "left the cafe in fear after witnessing the man's death."'"

Darwin for the Modern Era

[Durrok]

Kinda sad, but really guys there is a reason games/consoles have started reminding you to take breaks. I guess it's better then someone getting killed over ninjaing a drop though...

Re:But is it true?

[sam0737]

I have seen youths died/fainted/got heart attack for playing MMORPG (or other game like Diablo) for N hours/days straight and those did made newspapers headline.

It's not unimaginable that it happened in a Cyber Cafe, it certainly does happen and will happen.

Re:But is it true?

[ptelligence]

I guess there's also a risk of pulmonary embolism with players sitting still for so long.

Re:Mega Kill!!!

[The One and Only]

LUDACRIS KILL!

There's no evidence he's ever done that. "Ludacris" is a rapper. "Ludicrous" is the adjective you want.

Re:Darwin for the Modern Era

[Babbster]

Well, there are a couple of big factors that can cause problems. One, as I wondered about in my OP, is the possibility of chemicals used to stay awake. I don't know what the situation is like in China, so I can't even begin to make an educated guess as to the availability of particular drugs there. And, indeed you're correct about the dangers of sitting in the same position for that long. You can develop a deep venous thrombosis in your leg that can then migrate to your lung, and at that point you're just about SOL unless you can get medical attention quickly. This danger can be magnified by dehydration, which is a possible third problem as 3 days without enough water intake (and, obviously, other nutrition) can result in electrolyte abnormalities, which can also be life-threatening, causing things like kidney failure.

You're right that staying conscious (or, at least, semi-conscious) for 3 days isn't a life-threatening problem by itself. It's the lack of movement, lack of hydration, etc. that can put you into the dirt (or the crematorium, YMMV).

Re:Backfiring of "one child per family" policy

[pablodiazgutierrez]

Exactly. Brutal as it may have been, the policy has helped solve a major humanitarian crisis in the most populated country in the world.

Re:Only one thing to do then ..

[sanosuke76]

Disturbed teenagers? Yes, they'll still get them.

Drug-runners? Yes, they'd keep getting them. In fact, if you were to ban weapons here in the US, they'd become the new pipeline for all firearms, and the ones illegally obtained would become MORE dangerous, not less. It's a felony to possess an illegally obtained semi-automatic rifle, and it's a felony to possess a select-fire AK-47. If you're gonna go, go all out.

Random jerks on the street? They'd still have them. The number of times I have been asked if I was carrying a weapon, either by law enforcement or anyone who I couldn't just lie to about it if I were, has been precisely zero.

Of course, the problem with states like California and New York is that we simply don't have enough guns on the street in the RIGHT hands. States which allow individuals who've passed psychological profiles, proficiency tests, and regular testing/certification in exchange for the right to carry concealed weapons which they've qualified with, tend to have their crime rates go down. This is a reasonably well documented (on both sides of the argument) talking point to research, so I'll let you guys do your own reading on the matter. One pro-gun book to begin your search with is "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. There are, of course, contrary viewpoints which are worth looking into as well, but they'll frequently reference Lott's work, so it's a good general purpose search term to dig up both ends of the argument.

I actually work at gun shows on the weekends in California (just handled the Ontario one yesterday, actually), and you would probably not believe the number of folks who own unregistered assault weapons (not to be racist, but it seems that a quarter or so of the Hispanic guys out there have an unregistered MAK-90 in the closet, and ask me for folding stocks to dress it up with, making it even MORE illegal!) and usually at every show someone will mention an unregistered fully automatic weapon they have at home. These are only the turkeys who talk about it openly to everyone, and go to shows - which I would estimate at maybe 10% of the scofflaws out there. If it's not working in California, one of the "poster child" states for gun control, you can be pretty sure it's not going to work elsewhere. Every time they try to "tighten it up" here, more folks just start ignoring the law, and substantial numbers of the police become less interested in enforcing the laws which are starting to go well beyond what they consider reasonable.

The real answer to a reasonable amount of gun control, would be to restrict the scope of the more onerous and less adhered to laws, to only apply as sentence enhancements for violent crimes (or individuals with a weapons related conviction within the past 10 years). There really is no good reason why the 35yo guy with a clean record who wants to drive out every weekend to punch holes in paper with his AR-10 semi-auto rifle, and never uses it for anything else, should be treated the same as an on-again off-again drug abuser with a history of misdemeanors.

The purpose of guns is to accelerate lead to velocities at which it can travel in a straight line, until intercepted by a target. The designation of that target is entirely up to the shooter. I happen to legally build AK-47 rifles, assemble AR-15's for friends, reload my own ammunition, and own somewhere around 80 guns (yes, I do have records of all of them, I just don't feel like counting for a slashdot poll). None of them have been used in a crime, and I don't foresee that changing at any point.

Re:Only one thing to do then ..

[bint]

I don't know what he was trying to say, but it is not what he said.
- There are a massive number of guns in society.
- Not all are not going to be used as intended. ...or me fail English.