I think the reason is partly technical. Games are by definition interactive. Interactivity requires logical rules that can be expressed in programming. But there aren't any good programming solutions for social or intellectual interaction. Gaming AI is still in its infancy, even if people are working to change that. Right now it's much easier to model objects colliding than people being social or intelligent.
Games' focus on guns, cars and jumping can surely be attributed to a range of reasons, including tradition and male domination, but I think it's primarily because there's no way of realizing anything else in code yet. We're still waiting for an AI revolution that can match the graphical revolution we've seen in the last decade.
Psychology studies of the effects of playing video games have found emotional responses and physical reactions associated with reinforced violent and anti-social attitudes. It is not clear, however, whether these markers are associated with increases in one's preferences for anti-social behaviors or whether virtual behaviors act to partially sate one's desire for actual antisocial behaviors. Violent or criminal behaviors in the virtual world and in the physical world could plausibly be either complements or substitutes. A finding of one versus the other would have diametrically opposing policy implications. I study the incidence of criminal activity as related to a proxy for increased gaming, the number of game stores, from a panel of US counties from 1994 to 2004. With fixed county and year effects, I can examine if changes relative increases in gaming in an area are associated with relative increases or decreases in criminal activity. For six of eight categories of crime, more game stores are associated with significant declines in crime rates. Proxies for other leisure activities, sports and movie viewing, do not have a similar effect. For confirmation, I also find that mortality rates, especially mortality rates stemming from injuries, also are negatively related to the number of game stores.
There is no epidemic of youth violence in America.
The whole concept is a lie manufactured, distributed and perpetuated by the media. Kids are not killing each other more frequently than they used to. In fact, it turns out the opposite is true.
Overall results of the study found that although violent video games appear to increase people's aggressive thoughts (which it would not be surprising that people are still thinking about what they were just playing), violent games do not appear to increase aggressive behavior.
This as true for both correlational and experimental studies. Also it was found that studies that employed less standardized measures of aggression produced higher effects than better standardized measures of aggression. In other words, better measures of aggression are associated with lower effects.
"It's a natural behavior and it's surprising that the idea that children and adolescents learn aggression from the media is still relevant," says Richard Tremblay, a professor of pediatrics, psychiatry and psychology at the University of Montreal, who has spent more than two decades tracking 35,000 Canadian children (from age five months through their 20s) in search of the roots of physical aggression. "Clearly youth were violent before television appeared."
The BBFC has accepted there is no proven link between anti-social behaviour and violent videogames - but said more research is required to conclusively rule any connection out.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but no, a majority of games aren't violent. ESRB lists 10000+ E-rated games, 3700 T-rated games and 1200 M-rated games. E-rated games can only contain "minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence".
A surveillance program (not quite the same as the UK one, but still) was recently fought back here in Sweden. It was mainly a protest led by bloggers, both liberals and leftists, who forced the government into an embarassing crisis as big media and people in general noticed what was happening. The government finally was forced to make big changes, and more importantly, they were taught an important lesson. Perhaps now they fear us, the people, a little bit.
It is possible to fight someone like this. So why aren't people doing just that in the UK? Take it to the blogosphere and the streets. If you don't protest loudly, I'm sorry to say you deserve what you get.
I'm not claiming that killing children is the US goal. Quite obviously it isn't.
I'm just wondering if not killing children is the US goal.
You can hide among children as a terrorist, sure. But you can also claim there's sure to be terrorists who hid among the civilians you just bombed. I would like to believe the US military doesn't, but they're not completely trustworthy.
"Villagers and the UN insist that 92 were killed, including as many as 60 children. Locals say that the US and Afghan troops who came into the village looking for a Taleban commander, with US air support, used excessive force... Local people say that US forces bombed preparations for a memorial ceremony for a tribal leader. Residential compounds were levelled by US attack helicopters, armed drones and a cannon-armed C130 Spectre gunship."
If you can track people in buildings, you'd think you'd be able to tell if they're children.
I can definitely agree with this from a non-US perspective. Unions here aren't at all as bad as what you hear about US unions. Sure, they do cause some problems and wield a worrying amount of political power sometimes, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Right now I'm self-employed, and as far as I see it that's the only way to be 100% sure your boss will look out for you. Otherwise, I'd say worker organization is necessary to even the playing field.
Also make sure to read some criticism against The Shock Doctrine. It's full of errors and outright lies. Take a look at this video series, for example. Yes, I know it's Cato, but give it a chance. I was skeptical at first, but now I don't think Klein is someone I want on my side at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea to be able to store solar energy this way? Even with solar-driven steam turbines, you can't generate any power at night and afaik, there's no effective way of storing energy. Making hydrogen to run fuel cells at night or when extra power is needed wouldn't really compete with any power source, only supplement them.
Decreasing CO2 levels will have more benefits than a cooler climate, as many articles and studies will tell you. It would lower ocean acidification, for one thing.
They've seemed to have capture the dark edge of Max Payne. Now let's see how they handle the strong, humorous archetypes from the games without making them silly stereotypes. The Italian mobsters were caricatures in the games, but lovable caricatures that were as fun to shoot at as to listen to.
Also, there's a hint of bullet time in the trailer, but I wonder how much of it is needed for the film to feel like a true Max Payne. If used right it could be just right, but it's another thing that easily becomes stereotypical.
Pretty cynical. If we can divide up Antarctica in a peaceful and orderly fashion for the benefit of science and mankind, we should be able to do the same with the moon. I know Antarctica is a work in progress, but still.
I've mostly seen pretty uninspiring pinup art from Shirow lately. It's a shame, really. Not that I mind sex, but I prefer it as a part of a story and not just as scanntily clad babes with futuristic guns.
This seems too simple to me. Can they distinguish between actions and action potentials? It would make sense that the choice of pressing the button would appear before it's pressed. Imagining something and doing it could be similar in the brain. Do they detect the possibility of pressing the other button, or for that matter not pressing any button?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone put skates on a football?
With antimatter shovels, duh!
Yeah, that would be like having a Brit playing an American. Preposterous!
Also, "Sulu" isn't a very Japanese name, AFAIK.
I think the reason is partly technical. Games are by definition interactive. Interactivity requires logical rules that can be expressed in programming. But there aren't any good programming solutions for social or intellectual interaction. Gaming AI is still in its infancy, even if people are working to change that. Right now it's much easier to model objects colliding than people being social or intelligent.
Games' focus on guns, cars and jumping can surely be attributed to a range of reasons, including tradition and male domination, but I think it's primarily because there's no way of realizing anything else in code yet. We're still waiting for an AI revolution that can match the graphical revolution we've seen in the last decade.
Psychology studies of the effects of playing video games have found emotional responses and physical reactions associated with reinforced violent and anti-social attitudes. It is not clear, however, whether these markers are associated with increases in one's preferences for anti-social behaviors or whether virtual behaviors act to partially sate one's desire for actual antisocial behaviors. Violent or criminal behaviors in the virtual world and in the physical world could plausibly be either complements or substitutes. A finding of one versus the other would have diametrically opposing policy implications. I study the incidence of criminal activity as related to a proxy for increased gaming, the number of game stores, from a panel of US counties from 1994 to 2004. With fixed county and year effects, I can examine if changes relative increases in gaming in an area are associated with relative increases or decreases in criminal activity. For six of eight categories of crime, more game stores are associated with significant declines in crime rates. Proxies for other leisure activities, sports and movie viewing, do not have a similar effect. For confirmation, I also find that mortality rates, especially mortality rates stemming from injuries, also are negatively related to the number of game stores.
Video Games, Crime and Violence by Michael R. Ward, University of Texas at Arlington - Department of Economics
There is no epidemic of youth violence in America.
The whole concept is a lie manufactured, distributed and perpetuated by the media. Kids are not killing each other more frequently than they used to. In fact, it turns out the opposite is true.
CAUTION: Childen at Play - The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games
Overall results of the study found that although violent video games appear to increase people's aggressive thoughts (which it would not be surprising that people are still thinking about what they were just playing), violent games do not appear to increase aggressive behavior.
This as true for both correlational and experimental studies. Also it was found that studies that employed less standardized measures of aggression produced higher effects than better standardized measures of aggression. In other words, better measures of aggression are associated with lower effects.
Researcher Finds Scant Evidence Linking Violent Games With Aggressive Behavior
"It's a natural behavior and it's surprising that the idea that children and adolescents learn aggression from the media is still relevant," says Richard Tremblay, a professor of pediatrics, psychiatry and psychology at the University of Montreal, who has spent more than two decades tracking 35,000 Canadian children (from age five months through their 20s) in search of the roots of physical aggression. "Clearly youth were violent before television appeared."
Taming Baby Rage: Why Are Some Kids So Angry?
The BBFC has accepted there is no proven link between anti-social behaviour and violent videogames - but said more research is required to conclusively rule any connection out.
No evidence connecting games and violence, says BBFC News
Video games are violent, per the majority.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but no, a majority of games aren't violent. ESRB lists 10000+ E-rated games, 3700 T-rated games and 1200 M-rated games. E-rated games can only contain "minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence".
I think I may have found one more difference in the new universe.
I woke up on the day of the accident with a goatee, which of course means I am my evil twin in this universe.
A surveillance program (not quite the same as the UK one, but still) was recently fought back here in Sweden. It was mainly a protest led by bloggers, both liberals and leftists, who forced the government into an embarassing crisis as big media and people in general noticed what was happening. The government finally was forced to make big changes, and more importantly, they were taught an important lesson. Perhaps now they fear us, the people, a little bit.
It is possible to fight someone like this. So why aren't people doing just that in the UK? Take it to the blogosphere and the streets. If you don't protest loudly, I'm sorry to say you deserve what you get.
Aye, true, but thar be a mighty fine an' buxom bunch o' wenches on the intARRRnet!
I'm not claiming that killing children is the US goal. Quite obviously it isn't.
I'm just wondering if not killing children is the US goal.
You can hide among children as a terrorist, sure. But you can also claim there's sure to be terrorists who hid among the civilians you just bombed. I would like to believe the US military doesn't, but they're not completely trustworthy.
I wonder if this technology will decrease or increase incidents like this:
Harrowing video film backs Afghan villagers' claims of carnage caused by US troops
"Villagers and the UN insist that 92 were killed, including as many as 60 children. Locals say that the US and Afghan troops who came into the village looking for a Taleban commander, with US air support, used excessive force... Local people say that US forces bombed preparations for a memorial ceremony for a tribal leader. Residential compounds were levelled by US attack helicopters, armed drones and a cannon-armed C130 Spectre gunship."
If you can track people in buildings, you'd think you'd be able to tell if they're children.
I can definitely agree with this from a non-US perspective. Unions here aren't at all as bad as what you hear about US unions. Sure, they do cause some problems and wield a worrying amount of political power sometimes, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Right now I'm self-employed, and as far as I see it that's the only way to be 100% sure your boss will look out for you. Otherwise, I'd say worker organization is necessary to even the playing field.
Also make sure to read some criticism against The Shock Doctrine. It's full of errors and outright lies. Take a look at this video series, for example. Yes, I know it's Cato, but give it a chance. I was skeptical at first, but now I don't think Klein is someone I want on my side at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea to be able to store solar energy this way? Even with solar-driven steam turbines, you can't generate any power at night and afaik, there's no effective way of storing energy. Making hydrogen to run fuel cells at night or when extra power is needed wouldn't really compete with any power source, only supplement them.
A faster camera movement? News photographers who capture certain spinning politicians perhaps?
Decreasing CO2 levels will have more benefits than a cooler climate, as many articles and studies will tell you. It would lower ocean acidification, for one thing.
Why is parent modded funny? It's an actual idea to combat global warming.
Probably not a good idea, but still.
He'd be against seizing your laptop at the border. God, being the ultimate omnipotent Big Brother, already knows what's on it.
They've seemed to have capture the dark edge of Max Payne. Now let's see how they handle the strong, humorous archetypes from the games without making them silly stereotypes. The Italian mobsters were caricatures in the games, but lovable caricatures that were as fun to shoot at as to listen to. Also, there's a hint of bullet time in the trailer, but I wonder how much of it is needed for the film to feel like a true Max Payne. If used right it could be just right, but it's another thing that easily becomes stereotypical.
Is it just me, or are all the wiki pages missing?
Better yet, send some of the emails from nations on the terrorist list. That'll keep them busy.
Pretty cynical. If we can divide up Antarctica in a peaceful and orderly fashion for the benefit of science and mankind, we should be able to do the same with the moon. I know Antarctica is a work in progress, but still.
I've mostly seen pretty uninspiring pinup art from Shirow lately. It's a shame, really. Not that I mind sex, but I prefer it as a part of a story and not just as scanntily clad babes with futuristic guns.
This seems too simple to me. Can they distinguish between actions and action potentials? It would make sense that the choice of pressing the button would appear before it's pressed. Imagining something and doing it could be similar in the brain. Do they detect the possibility of pressing the other button, or for that matter not pressing any button?
...until someone develops an artificial womb, I guess. I seem to remember that there are scientists working on something like that.