Another Man Dies After Marathon Gaming Session 486
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."'"
But is it true? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lack of truthiness here.
Wonder why.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean geez I have hard enough time playing xbox for more then an hour without having to at least get a bottle of water. How do they do it ?
Do you think when he died he dropped any loot ?
Re:But is it true? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there is an overabundance of truthiness here. What's lacking is truthfulness.
Re:Wonder why.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really an epidemic (Score:5, Insightful)
Real problems could include: chronic disease, car accidents, criminal violence,
I think it's more of a problem that 100 people fled the scene than one guy dying from his compulsive personality disorder.
How appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.
Re:And I thought ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Darwin for the Modern Era (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had VERY long gaming sessions, even ones where I (quite foolishly) remained sitting for 12 hours in a row. But, one of the reasons I've never gone much longer that is that there were warning signs that I should quit, from yawning to blurred vision. There's no doubt in my mind that people who die in this fashion suffer symptoms long before they keel over, and at the very least there are the symptoms that everyone suffers when they need sleep (like, you know, falling asleep).
Of course, there's plenty of blame to throw around to others as well. How about the staff of this cafe? What could possibly possess them to let this guy keep going? What was he ingesting in order to remain awake for that ridiculous period of time, and why didn't they either stop him ingesting it or stop serving him? Heck, after 24 hours I'd probably call an ambulance on spec! But, it's China, so who knows how people react...still, just the process of one human caring about the welfare of any other should have caused some reaction.
To reiterate my original point, though: Now that it's over, it's probably just as well that he's gone. Not only was he dumb as a half-bag of rocks, but the fact that he could do this to himself in a public place tells me that he's probably better off dead than living in his community.
Chinese != Korean (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't happen here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we have a lot less to escape from.
hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
People here are laughing about this guy because he neglected sleep and nutrition to compete in this contest. They are saying "darwin award." Where was this same sentiment when Microsoft caused students to do the same thing for a different contest?
Health should come before work and play, people! Your job is worthless if you are dead or ill from a terrible lifestyle. Don't let your boss force this behavior on you, and don't let companies like Microsoft force it on students.
Re:Marathon session (Score:2, Insightful)
Man, what times
And can the Internet really you? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would definitely be more relevant to know whether he was using any stimulants to stay awake.
Re:But is it true? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux games (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they may not be the latest fancy 3D games, but classic games have something the latest games totally lack: gameplay.
Re:How can this happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
24 hours? lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you telling me you can't see the difference between a voluntary competition (hint: its kinda fun to pull an all-nighter every now and then... I have a wife and 2 kids and if I come across a fun project, I still do it from time to time) and a man who was either incapable of determining his tolerance or chose to ignore it (most likely the latter)?
And I suppose you would have people oppose the voluntary fund raiser Up till Dawn [stjude.org] as well? I mean, think of the college students that will be kept up all night and have to go to class in the morning!
Re:Not really an epidemic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How can this happen? (Score:1, Insightful)
Backfiring of "one child per family" policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But is it true? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's lucky for me I suck at hand-eye coordination things. So no FPS marathons for me. Even so, I had to smash all my Civilization and Rise of Nations discs.
I notice a lot of people taged this story "darwinaward". Smug assholes. Like they never did anything stupid, compulsive, or self-destructive.
Re:Only one thing to do then .. (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it into Slashdot terms: it would be like the government outlawing encryption to prevent terrorists from communicating. If they're talking about blowing up a building do you really think they are afraid to have a copy of PGP installed on their computer? Nope. All outlawing encryption does is take it away from the people who were originally using it for non-illegal purposes, or make criminals out of those who refuse to give it up even if their original actions were perfectly legal. Same applies to guns.
Re:Only one thing to do then .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals are always preaching about evolution, but they never seem to want to let it happen.
Re:Only one thing to do then .. (Score:2, Insightful)
- accidents (mis-handling, misuse by curious kids finding it)
- impulsive use (e.g. in a rage)
- another person using your gun against you
So yeah, gun control is really useless.
Re:Only one thing to do then .. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) It is assuming that people are rational beings and that all actions are well premeditated. It's pretty well known by now that people are irrational [blogspot.com] (hey, how's that for a slashdot audience, this is a blog entry by the gmail creator!). Basically, in a surge of emotion (think domestic fights, a depressed / severely stressed kid (say a highschool shooting)), if one can easily have access to guns (by opening the local cabinet, going to a store, etc.), they can cause massively more damage, significantly more easily.
b) That the massive number of guns going around in a society will always be used by the people they were intended in the way they were intended. This is patently not true, as demonstrated by kids getting access to their grandfather's gun, or various people we (the west) have massively funded and provided guns to (think Bin Laden and the Mujahideen's in Afganistan vs the Soviets, or Saddam versus the Iranians).
There's also, of course, a moral argument. The only primary purpose of the gun is to kill. The whole protection stuff is completely secondary; a gun 'protects' by killing, or threatening to kill. I, personally, think that society has an obligation to protect its citizens, and banning a device the purpose of which is to kill is a good idea.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And monkeys kill people. If you give them a gun. (to quote eddie izzard)
Re:Only one thing to do then .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you trying to say that responsible gun owners/users are massively in the minority? I contest your statement that they're in the minority at all, let alone 'massively' in the minority. The BBC reports here ahref=http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtmlrel=url2html-15758 [slashdot.org]http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml> that, in the US, there are some 60 million gun owners with some 200 million guns. If the majority of gun owners didn't use them responsibly, we'd be in pretty dire straits indeed.
Re:Only one thing to do then .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Firearms accidents are very rare. Of course one accidental shooting is one too many, but you are more likely to drown, be poisoned, or die in a fire, than be killed in a gun accident.
Someone in a murderous rage who doesn't have a gun will grab a knife, a baseball bat, whatever. (Did you know that the U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than the total murder rate of the U.K. or Japan?)
Now, picture some big strong guy in a murderous rage with a knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other, coming after someone you love. Do you wish your loved one had a gun?
(Yes, you might wish they had a phaser set to stun. Here in the real world however, the best way to stop someone intent on an act of great violence remains a firearm. That's why cops carry them. Mace and stunguns work for shit; unarmed self defense is better than nothing, and will teach you strategies for avoiding trouble, but even a black belt can get killed by somebody bigger and stronger with a weapon.)
Proper training prevents this. Your gun is locked away if it's not on your person; if it's on your person, you shoot an attacker before they get close enough to take your gun away. A gun is a distance weapon, after all. (And if they manage to get up right close to you before you get your gun out, and take it away from you that way, then they could just as easily put a knife in you if their intention is to kill you.)