Florida University spends $434,000 taxpayer money on video game teaching abstinence only.

This game is being developed with a government grant. So abstinence only training, which has been proven not to work, is still around. That is close to half a million on one video game that looks extremely creepy.

From RH Reality Check:





The RH Reality blogger explains more.



Another blogger also has a critique of this video game. Do not miss the video at this link.

University of Central Florida developing abstinence game



Many of us were wondering a few months ago why there was still abstinence only funding available. In fact it appeared to be one of the bipartisan tactics. And stuff like this video game is an end result.

Who put the abstinence only funding back in the health care bill?



It seems to me that the close to half a million being spent on that ridiculous game could have been put to much better purpose in many ways.

I am seeing my taxpayer money used in ways I would not have believed a few years ago. It is being used to give money to religious schools, including 8 Catholic and one evangelical, that became charter schools to get public money to survive financially. I am seeing it used to send poor and disabled children to private religious schools....on the pretense they can't get a good education in public schools.

And now I see this ridiculous game, and I feel like screaming.

Well, at least it will keep a few programmers gainfully employed.

:shrug:

I don't have direct knowledge of this project, but have worked on similar ones. I do know some of the people involved.

Projects like this are development projects aimed as much - or more - at developing the technology as they are in delivering a polished product. Delivery of the game for use in schools is still part of the experiment. Flashy graphics takes second seat to character behavior and ability to create teaching moments.

Don't think of it as the kind of game you buy and play at home. It's not supposed to be competing with Halo for consumer dollars. It is supposed to be a teaching tool, used under the guidance of skilled counselors. Frome the UCFToday web site "The game is intended to be played in after-school and youth outreach programs run by trained teachers and counselors. It will be designed to improve girls’ skills in responding to peer pressure to engage in sexual behavior." (ref http://today.ucf.edu/ucf-gets-434k-nih-grant/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ucf-gets-434k-nih-grant ) In other words, it provides counselors, sex education teachers, etc, a teaching tool that puts girls in an environment where they can fail safely while learning appropriate behavior. Having said that, remember that this still a research project, so part of the research is to study the effectiveness of the technology as a teaching tool. Personally, I have no idea if this specific application is an effective target or not, so do not offer an opinion on it.

Technology development is really the name of the game here. There are so many uses for this! UCF / IST was working with the Haberman Foundation to develop a similar game to assist in screening applicants for the qualities that correlate to successful inner city school teachers (Habermans' STAR Teachers, see http://www.altcert.org/ ). Not sure how far they got with this, but you can see the class-room like look and feel of the demo in the video allows you to put teachers in a virtual classroom and throw situations at them. It may also be useful for therapists to teach anger management, overcome fear of public speaking, assertiveness training, job interview skills, negotiating skills, working through trauma, etc etc etc .... All under the guidance of a therapist or teacher. Think for amoment and you can probably come up with your own examples -- any time you may want to learn a social skill with no penalty for failing as you learn.

I know of other researchers interested in games like this as teaching tools. For example, it turns out a significant percentage of airliner crashes are due to pilot error where a junior co-pilot see a more experienced and respected pilot screwing up, but does not say anything. The junior crew member defers to the more experienced one. Would it be helpful to train air crews in simulators like this where junior crew members learn how to intercede when a senior pilot makes an error? Or teach the senior pilot to listen? It's an open research question, but possibly a life saver. And this technology is perfect for it.

In the end, the technology will develop to the point where the commercial gaming industry will pick it up. Then you'll see the flashy graphics and high-end production qualities.

Contrary to what some are posting, the girls playing the game do not have to wear body suits. The body suit is worn by an actor (or puppeteer, if you prefer) who plays the role of the virtual students in the game. The technology here is that you can have one actor playing multiple roles in the game by "jumping in" to the skin of the different avatars representing the virtual actors in the game. The puppeteer may be remote, like in the UCF lab while the game is being used anywhere. Years from now, the human actor may be replaced by intelligent agents, each having their own personality.

For more info: http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=0024004107a42ec8a01289848d7ab0769&subject_id=0024004102975ad83011b2b83251c08df

Full disclosure: Charlie Hughes was my thesis adviser. Try as you might, you will not find a more intelligent, honest, friendly, and giving person. Rest assured, if he is spending your tax dollars, they're being spent wisely.

http://tfninsider.org/2010/07/22/another-texas-district-kisses-abstinence-only-goodbye/

It's a faith-based program that just does not work.

It is not okay to me that they are spending almost half a million of tax money to push it.

It's outrageous.

Because they are. The technology, once developed in this narrow domain you abhor, transfers seamlessly to a host of domains you embrace.

I'm not reading in the limited amount of information available to us that this is part of an "abstinence only" program. It may be, but it is possibly an adjunct to other programs. You would know better than I what programs are available in Fl schools.

Yes, it is part of funding for abstinence only teaching.

Just like this 800,000 for this clown doing dumb things in the name of abstinence.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/24/818391/-Abstinence-Only-Sex-Ed-Still-Lives.-Thanks,-Hatch,-Lincoln,-and-Conrad

There is 50 million still alloted.

According to the abstract for the grant proposal (see NIH site http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7940719&icde=4830050 ) this is a two-year project. The first goal of the second year is "(1) feasibility and value of adding a peer group resistance skill building game (SBG) to a standard sex education curriculum, ... " Clearly not intended to be abstinence-only.

It's research to see if this tool is a beneficial addition to existing programs. Now, having said that, it's hard to say if the existing program is a comprehensive one at the target school. A 2007 survey by UF showed wide variance in sex ed programs across the state, with abstinence only programs more likely in north Florida than in central or south Florida. ( see http://news.ufl.edu/2007/11/05/sex-ed/).

We all agree that abstinence only programs fail, but comprehensive programs can include respect for abstinence as a viable choice, and certainly include the message that young women have the right to say no (see AIDS Research Institute, UC, San Francisco's "Abstinence Only vs Comprehensive Sex Education" report http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf, and IPPF Framework for Comprehensive Sex Education http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/CE7711F7-C0F0-4AF5-A2D5-1E1876C24928/0/Sexuality.pdf ). If this had been headlined as "UCF Game Empowers Latinas to Take Control of Their Own Bodies" there would have been a lot less outrage and a lot more happiness all around. I suggest that is a more appropriate headline.

Where did the "abstinance only" label for this program come from?
1. Not from the primary sources.
2. The phrase doesn't appear in the Fox news story reporting on the primary sources.
3. The phrase first appears in blogs covering the Fox story covering the primary sources. These same blogs, by the way, that introduced the misconception that the players wear the full body motion capture suit.
4. The phrase is then propagated in blogs covering the blogs covering the Fox story covering the primary sources. Only now it's "faith based."
5. The blogoshpere echo-chamber repeats ad nauseum.

There's still no direct evidence that this was intended to be part of an abstinence only program. The statements made by those doing the research state the exact opposite.

Wrong on that. Parental responsibility and student responsibility come into play here. Abstinence only is very strong throughout Florida....proper methods of safe sex are not always taught.

I could argue with you all day, but how can you defend spending almost half a million dollars of taxpayer money on a very poorly designed game with a mostly religious theme....when teachers are losing their jobs and the economy is tanking???

Latinas can be just as responsible as any other group. It is insulting to them to think they can not.

I will not defend spending that much money on a game to teach a religious concept.

I do NOT like your attitude toward bloggers. It makes me suspicious. I respect most bloggers far more than I do the usual media. Most of the real truth lately does NOT come from the main media sources. They are falling down on the job and spouting talking points for both parties now....which I find to be basically the same.

I'm big on accuracy - hence my persistence here. I'm actually big on trying find agreement, but that can involve some discussion back and forth. Maybe it's a good time to see what we agree on.

Things I'm quite sure we agree on:
1. Abstinence only sex ed is doomed to fail.
2. Abstinence only sex ed is typically driven by a faith-based agenda.
3. Bloggers can be an essential source of information, and a welcome counterweight to main stream news outlets.
4. Accuracy - to the degree that it can be achieved - is essential to item 3.

Things I'm pretty sure we can agree on:
5. In this specific instance, at least one blogger has a major factual error in their coverage of this article in that the girls playing the game do not don full body suits. A human puppeteer does so in order to role play characters in the game.
6. Other bloggers have perpetuated that error.
7. Regardless of the use of this technology for this specific application, the technology may be useful in other teaching or therapeutic domains. For example working with autism, the previously referenced medical student example, PTSD victims, etc.

Things we may never agree on:
7. This specific application is not intended for abstinence only sex ed. I've given some links as evidence that is is not. If you can find information relating to this specific application to support that it is I would genuinely, openly take it into account.
8. This specific application is not faith based. This pretty much goes hand in hand with the previous. Hard to find objective evidence either way. I know because I've known the people doing the project for years. They are as far away from faith-based as polar bears and penguins.

Sounds like an ok list?

Their research projects include: "how to deselect poorly performing teachers," "alternative teacher certification," "obtaining a quality teacher for each student so that no child is left behind," their (tm) "Haberman-Star Teacher Online Prescreener".

I mean, gaming is big with kids and it could be a great teaching tool to help kids practice saying 'no'. But seriously the suit does creep me out. Couldn't they save about $400k and skip the suit, just make a teaching game that helps children practice saying 'no'. Or spend $50k on the game and then the rest of that money on 9 educators who could travel throughout the state teaching both the value of saying 'no' and what to do when 'no' isn't enough.

I have no issues with abstinence education ONLY if it's taught hand-n-hand with safe sex.

.

Develop really addictive video games that will keep students so busy they won't have time for sex. Better yet, we already have some of these on the market.

:sarcasm:

And we wonder why we're fucked up as a species...

I think that is weird in itself. Plus it just sounds odd and a tad racist.

Here is the press release:

http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=0024004107a42ec8a01289848d7ab0769&subject_id=0024004102975ad83011b2b83251c0c35

"A new computer game with life-sized avatars and real-life scenarios aims to help Latina middle schoolers resist peer pressure and say "no" to sex.

Anne Norris, a University of Central Florida nursing professor, and Charles Hughes, a UCF computer science professor, will work together with UCF's Institute for Simulation and Training during the next two years to develop the game with a $434,800 grant from the National Institutes of Health.

"Our ultimate goal is to reduce pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease among the young Latina population," Norris said.

.."Norris cites many reasons for focusing on young Latina adolescents, age 12-15. Low-income Latinas have higher teen birth rates and higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases than their white peers. The best time to teach girls abstinence and peer-resistance skills is during middle school -- those approaches are less effective once girls become sexually active. And many Latina girls may lack role models who can help them learn how to resist peer pressure."

that they don't want the Latin Americans reproducing. I mean, Lawds no, can't have them become a majority somewhere down the road. Sheesh!

The way they phrased the press release.

:hi:

that is being targeted here. She has discussed the problems of this particular population in dealing with this issue.

Since she is currently a counselor dealing with middle school kids, perhaps you're just out of touch.

Last I looked, which was just this weekend, gaming is the thing with kids.

Like a lot of educator-developed efforts for kids, this one may not be the best--in terms of being a great game.

But, what's new about that?

I am not sure how to take that, suzie.

I'm not a real big supporter of abstinence only education. But I am kinda big on what works.

My relative pointed out that she was not allowed to talk about birth control with students. But she did venture to ask mothers of 3 times pregnant latina middle schoolers if they'd thought about it.
The response was that "our religion does not permit that". If abstinence only education can assist the girls that my relative was dealing with to raise the age of first sexual experience, then I'm for it.

If a game-type video, which is designed to be used by staff in after-school programs along with a real adult, can help, then I'm for it.

We'd probably have many other disagreements about various "populations" and what works, madfloridian. I've seen programs that targeted a specific "population" of troubled kids who were likely to drop out of school/had dropped out that worked successfully at raising the reading and calculation level of the kids by training high school grads to work with them. And by keeping anyone who'd ever been a classroom teacher far away.

Seemed like a good program to me because it worked. I imagine you'd disagree.

And I love this praise for Beck from WFLA radio.

http://540wfla.zipscene.com/events/view/2338548-glenn-beck-s-american-revival-at-ucf-arena-orlando

"Detail:

Glenn Becks American Revival Tour at UCF ARENA, Saturday, March 27th! All day conference designed to enlighten & empower people who believe in the principles of our founding fathers! Get your tickets now!

Glenn Beck is one of America's leading radio and television personalities. His quick wit, candid opinions and engaging personality have made The Glenn Beck Program the third highest rated radio program in America and Glenn Beck, one of the most successful new shows on the Fox News Channel. His unique blend of modern-day storytelling and insightful views on current events allowed him to achieve the extraordinary feat of having #1 New York Times bestsellers in both fiction and non-fiction. Beck is also the star of a live stage show, the publisher of Fusion magazine and the editor of GlennBeck.com."

Many of us were really surprised that Beck would be allowed to hold a convention there.

Guess it makes the game not as surprising.

:shrug:

:rofl:

That's about the truth.

it's like golf.

the winner scores the least.

:rofl:

is privately funded by people who waited until they were married to have sex, is voluntary, and is only taught by people who will sign affidavits that they waited until they were married to have sex.

Next time you run across someone spouting off about abstinence only education, ask them if they waited. 99% of the time - they didn't.

Devise all the games they want, but fund them privately.

:hi:

who had never used drugs? While I think abstinence only programs are not good public policy, I don't think that only those who actually haven't made errors can give advice about how to avoid errors. On the contrary, I think the opposite tends to be true.

LOL, really. So early on you get a shot of one of the characters in the game and their head is twitching like they have a terrible, uncontrollable palsy. Then, at the end the reporter is wearing the motion capture suit (Sweet Jesus, WTF?) required to "play" the game and their avatar's head is turning all the way around like their neck has been snapped and at least one of their arms is impossibly backward and appears horribly broken.

It was delish.

PB

:hi:

They sure know how to appeal to kids:

"Hey, I'm here from the government, and I'd like to intervene in your personal life in the most intrusive way imaginable. The first thing we need to do is to have you dress in this really dorky outfit and play a video game so bad we are letting you play it for free."

The real problem is that the game teaches girls how to deal with boys the same age who want to make out, but doesn't address the problem of the older boy with a Trans Am and beer.

:argh:

What a pair of assholes.

There are many in the House also who pushed to get this funding back.

chomskey honks.

But then again, anyone who actually believes in "abstinence only" isn't exactly up with the times, are they? It's almost as if they just discovered computers.

And not just Latinas, for other ethnicities, she says.

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2010/07/26/daily4.html

"The University of Central Florida was awarded a $434,800 National Institutes of Health grant that will allow researchers there to develop a game using life-size avatars and real-life scenarios to promote sexual abstinence among Latina middle schoolers.

.."“Our ultimate goal is to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease among the young Latina population,” Norris said.

After the game is developed, it will be tested on a small group of Latina girls. Their progress will be studied three, six and nine months after they start playing the game.

If the game is successful for the Latina girls, Norris plans to develop a similar game for boys and girls of other ethnicities.

Read more: UCF gets $434K NIH grant - Orlando Business Journal"

Wonder how much taxpayer money she will get for that?

It really is heading backwards.

Didn't really think this was going to turn out as badly as it has!


:eyes:

when much of what they want takes us backwards. Forget all about science and take the bible literally. The worst harm in this is to women.

Needs to stop.

12-15 year old group at risk of several pregnancies, whose parents don't want them to hear about contraception?

We should not use taxpayer funds to cater to those whose views on contraception are most likely religious.

I am sorry, but that is going backwards in time. It's a dangerous view that leads to not using condoms and bringing more danger.

I can respect their wishes, but I don't want them to get taxpayer money.

Do Democrats not even stand for birth control anymore?

I think that girl who has 2 or 3 kids while still in middle school is going to end up costing a bunch of taxpayer money--as are her children. Actually, I don't think--I know.

And condoms, that's fine, but the girls we're talking about are probably not going to be receptive to birth control at their age--if their parents disapprove because of their religion. If we can raise the age at which these girls have first sexual experiences, even by a year, perhaps they'll be more receptive to learning about birth control.

And the parents of 15-16 year olds are often more receptive to kids getting information about contraception than those of 12 year olds.

But I'm sorry, madfloridian, I don't think this is about some ideological purity test about being a Democrat, but about dealing with whole varieties of kids.

I don't think that any of us really knows what will work with the kind of teenager--of various ethnicities--that gets pregnant.

A lot of them are simply school failures--I don't know that talking about condoms would change their rate of pregnancies. Because they simply want out of an educational world that is very painful to them.

Figuring out how to reward them for not getting pregnant--let's give them some fancy Ipod/Iphone/electronic whatever for the years they don't get pregnant, getting them out of school and into the work world earlier, all might work a whole lot better than any kind of abstinence or birth control education. But since that's not likely to be adopted as policy, at least the people in this group are trying--even if their video game ends up being inadequate.

And $432,000? If 2 girls have 1 less baby each during the middle school years--the grant funds have been well spent.

http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/81072/400k-federal-money-develops-virtual-abstinence-trainer/

"Players don a full body motion capture suit to play the game, and once playing, will be approached by a young male "of similar age" and asked to "make out" or approached with some other "sexual innuendo". And all of this should be available for... some girls, somewhere in spring of 2011.

This was one of those news stories that, when I read it, was so torn between being angry and fascinated that I just knew I had to share it. Truly, this is one of the most unpredictable uses for video games. And not only that, but it's being funded by our federal government. WHAT? Just incredible. Just... incredible."

How would such a stupid waste of time and money be marketed? For profit? Whose profit?

Would it make the list of state-approved "curriculum" for adoption, so that state funds could be spent to purchase it?

Is giving up vital instructional time so that students can spend school time and resources playing a video game designed to condition their behavior going to be a mandate coming to a school near you?

How low can we go?

And I believe there are long-standing rules about how much can be made on anything produced with federal funds.

How would such a stupid waste of time and money be marketed? For profit? Whose profit?

Would it make the list of state-approved "curriculum" for adoption, so that state funds could be spent to purchase it?

Is giving up vital instructional time so that students can spend school time and resources playing a video game designed to condition their behavior going to be a mandate coming to a school near you?

How low can we go?

In fact I had not thought of it.

Someone should profit, shouldn't they?

is granted without an eye on future profits. Perhaps creating, or opening, a new market?

and we're supposed to believe that it's designed to be profitable?

What DO you believe?

What purpose DO you believe this video game is designed for?

kids avoid an extra pregnancy during their adolescent years, it will have paid off the cost of the grant.

What seems likely is that, like many other efforts aimed at at-risk kids, this may be a well-intentioned, but not very well-produced, effort.

I can tell you there are much cheaper and more reasonable ways.

I can not believe you think that.

with early teen pregnancy. There's a much higher risk of producing a low-birth weight child, which can be rather expensive. Very possibly a low-birth weight child who will show up as a special needs child by the time he/she reaches school age--very costly.

The early teen mother with 2-3 kids by age 15 is likely to cost us all some money, because her kids are much more likely to be abused, to end up in foster care, to end up institutionalized, to end up imprisoned. Those are all fairly expensive results. I mentioned 2 kids--that's only $200,000 each--I think it's pretty easy to see that taxpayers might have to easily spend that on 2 children born to early teen mothers.

around $190,000--and that was in 2005 medical costs.

So, I don't think that in 2010 it would take much more than two adolescent pre-term pregnancies to equal the entire cost of the grant.

I stand by what I said earlier.

and prevent more adolescent pregnancies?

1. A comprehensive curriculum covering human anatomy, sexual function and health, stds, statistics about conception, full information about birth control, how it works, and where to get it, statistics and case studies of adolescents who conceived, what their choices were, and what limits those choices placed on their lives, and counseling to encourage responsible sexual choices, or

2. A video game about abstinence.

Which is the better investment?

Your choice is making the assumption that the UCF game is intended for an abstinence only program. We aren't that far in the conversation yet, because nobody has provided evidence that it is. Nobody associated with the project is claiming it is intended for an abstinence only program (in fact the opposite is true).

Nobody associated with the project has a history of advocating abstinence only education. The cv of Dr. Norris lists literally dozens of surveys on condom awareness and use among African American and Hispanic use ( see http://www.nursing.ucf.edu/faculty/CV/norris.pdf). Her abstract for one paper includes the line "all effort must be made to reach out and encourage condom use among youths in clinic, hospital, and school settings." (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8355899 ). This is clearly someone not advocating abstinence only.

Your first choice includes the phrase "counseling to encourage responsible sexual choices." How would you do that? You might give the students some hypothetical situations. Maybe do some role playing. That's what this game is about -- it's a tool to role play and discuss hypothetical situations (ok, technically, this is research to see if such a game serves as an effective tool for these discussions). That's what the grant proposal says; the first goal of the second year is "(1) feasibility and value of adding a peer group resistance skill building game (SBG) to a standard sex education curriculum, ... " (see NIH site http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7940719&icde=4830050 ).

Again, if anyone provides information that this project is intended for use in abstinence only programs, please bring it forth. So far there has been only assumptions, and condemnation based on the assumptions.

Which do you think will prevent more pregnancy; choice 1 or 2?

Since this specific game is a part of choice 1, there is no choice 2. The game supports choice 1. The point of the research is to see if choice 1 can be improved with tools like this. It may help, or it may not. Either way, this research is an attempt to improve a teaching philosophy of comprehensive sex ed that you (appear to) support.

it is almost laughable. And it is costing almost half a million of taxpayer money!!!

And they are trying to bog me and this thread down without addressing the taxpayer cost and the quality.

Really missing the point.

How many of those would cost a half a million of taxpayer money in 2010?

Just to put the taxpayer cost in perspective.

Missing the point, repeatedly.

... which was that this is another foray into the failed faith based abstinence only arena.

Now that we have better agreement what this thing is and isn't, substantive discussions on cost, value, effect etc make sense. IMHO, we should always ask if something is a good use of money.

The abstract describes how the money is spent ( http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7940719&icde=4830050 ). The cost is for a research study, not just game development. In addition to developing the technology, they develop content (using focus groups and participants from the target group), coordinate with the sex educators test the game, conduct the game (30 participants), perform follow up interviews 1, 3, and 6 months afterward, and analyze the data to evaluate effectiveness. That doesn't mean the money's worth it, but that's where it's going.

From a (selfish) Florida resident point of view, there is a benefit. Portions of a university's budget are paid from the state budget. Some of the money brought in by this Federal grant are used to offset a portion of the professors salaries, which theoretically reduces the load on the state. In the long run, professors bringing in grant money brings the potential to reduce state budgets.

From a US taxpayer perspective it depends more on if one thinks the project will be successful. I'm hopefully optimistic, for several reasons. First, Dr. Hughes is good at developing and running research programs. He gets results. Second, I'm going to trust that Dr Norris, having about 20 years experience with this population, knows what she's doing. Third, this technology is showing promise in other therapeutic and educational areas. Fourth, research can succeed in surprising ways. Even if this specific attempt doesn't have the hoped for result, it may provide insight into how to create and use the technology in another area and become successful there. The history of scientific progress is full of serendipitous events. Ultimately, the only sure test of judging if the money was worth it is to do the research and see if the results justify the cost. That's just the nature of research.

Trying to bog you down in this thread? No. Trying to portray this project accurately so people can make informed decisions regarding it? Definitely.

of this grant as "abstinence only" seems to exist in the minds of some bloggers, madfloridian, and you.

The approach that you prefer sounds nice on paper, but are you really going to talk to the girls that I used to deal with--the school failures who got pregnant at 14,15--about "what limits those choices placed on their lives"?

Your idea might "reach more students", but that doesn't mean it would be more effective in preventing pregnancy among that group of girls, which means that it wouldn't necessarily be the better investment. A better investment might be to target those girls who already had one pregnancy and provide them with the information you've described to try and keep them from having a 2nd or 3rd pregnancy while they are still in the teenage years. And to provide them with job orientation skills.

Your #1 also might not be the best approach with another group that is highly likely to have early sexual activity and early pregnancy--those who've been previously sexually abused.

I haven't seen that generic programs always work with specific groups of kids--and often with the most at-risk groups, so I don't know that your #1 would be even be a good investment.

But in an age when kids are having "text sex", I have to think that working with gamers is at least a step in the right direction.

I'll stick to Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. There now no one can see I never support the private sector over government. I just proved that Bioware makes better video games than the government.

Disgusting, wasteful, irresponsible and reckless with the safety of children.

would be just TOO expensive and might actually teach the kids something....

... and getting tremendously aroused.

"Let's make out, girl!" says the computer generated teenage boy...

Wearing girl's clothes and squeezed into the motion capture suit, the lawmaker says "Oh yes, let's!."

for $435,000, we could put every high school student in Florida in a pair of Army glasses and completely eliminate the problem of them having sex altogether. They calls 'em birth control glasses for a reason, kids.

which develops computer graphics for gaming
this story is slanted to make it look as though UCF is blowing money on video games while in fact it is using the money to train software developers in cgi
we are hollywood east now in orlando and just like the u of california system our university system is intended to train our students and make them employable

if you want to worry about wasted tax money worry about USAID spending your tax dollars to train workers in other countries while americans go unemployed

Abstinence only is pushed by the religious right, and they have gotten huge taxpayer funds to pay for it because they are persistent.

learn by making crap at least they learned
what good does the USAID spending 22 MILLION bucks to train people in other countries to do jobs americans are wishing they had do?

Not a good idea to give public money for religiously themed projects.

But then I have noticed lately that folks at this forum don't seem to care about that much anymore. We fought Bush when he catered to religious groups...but now we don't.

every religon is revered
except christianity

I was raised Southern Baptist, but left because they preached holy war from the pulpit in 2003.

I don't think taxes should be spent to push religious themes.

Sorry.

.

Class of '70

When UCF was honored to have Glenn Beck hold his convention there....I realized things were different there.

:hi:

Here's an example of nearly the same technology being used to train medical students to communicate with patients.
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/vegroup/vp/papers/johnsen-presence2006.pdf

There is literally world-class talent at UF in this area.