Violent video games generating violent behavior is a touchy area. Violence outbursts are incredibly complex behaviors, requiring not only the priming for aggression but also and encouragement to act out and potentially some level of training to perform the behavior.
More rapid decision making is a much more basic process. As you point out there was not real improvement to the accuracy or quality of the decisions, they simply occurred faster. This is exactly what you would expect when a person practices a task or skill repeatedly with limited feedback.
Violent video games demonstrably increase what is called an assumption of aggressive affect. They studies I have read on this are funky, but basically people that play a lot of violent games tend to be more likely to assume that others intend to behave aggressively towards them compared to control groups. Like the increased rapidity in decision making, this effect makes some sense. It is a very basic process (more of a perceptual filter than any kind of active behavior), and would be an expected practice effect of playing violent games.
Basically, video games have the same effect as a job that forces you to make lots of decisions really fast. It just exercises the "make decisions" part of the brain, where as reading or watching TV or painting a wall probably doesn't.
This.
Any scenario where an individual is practicing a skill is likely to lead to increased performance of that skill. Most action oriented video games do not require perfect decision making, but the do require that decisions be made quickly (perfect or not). Players receive feedback that encourages rapid decisions and action. In violent games, players are placed in a simulated environment where there are lots of entities trying to harm them. Players also receive feedback that each new entity they encounter will likely behave aggressively towards them, and so learn to respond with aggression.
In this way, violent video games can contribute to violent behavior.
Yes it is... while NASA spent $1 million developing a pen that works in zero-g, the Russians used a pencil!!!
Actually, turns out this was a worthwhile program. Considering we will be carpooling our manned space flight with the Russians for the next several years, it might be nice to be able to write them a check up there for gas and tolls.
The fools never realized that a signature with Space Pencil is not legally binding.
Those measures are put in place mainly by retailers.
Like the MPAA, the ESRB encourages retailers to set aged based restrictions to games with more mature ratings. Their goal is to make sure that laws don't need to be passed, and retailers are being responsible in who they sell violent/sexual games to.
Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distribution to any retailer that doesn't play nice. That is why some people are claiming we need laws.
This is offtopic, but the purpose of those kinds of thrown edged weapons is not really to kill. They are thrown to distract the target and allow the thrower a few moments to either flee from or close the gap to their target. They are intended as a very lightweight nuisance weapon. Unlikely to be lethal on their own if used as intended.
But obviously if it is pointy and metal then you can find a way to kill someone with it.
And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech".
Sure it is. "Freedom of speech" does not imply "freedom from consequences of drunken derogatory speech".
The President doesn't own the US soil, airports, etc. Hell, some Presidents (Clinton) didn't even own their own home.
Of course not, it's an analogy. But, the Federal Government does indeed represent the people that own the property that composes the United States. Plus the Federal Government is explicitly charged with securing our borders.
No suppression of his free speech in this case. He's still got the freedom to speak as far as the US is concerned. We've just asked him never to come onto our property. Any property owner in the US has that right.
The question in my mind is whether Rackspace has the right to be selective about what goes onto their servers. Rackspace is a hosting company, analogous but not the same as a retailer. So do they have the right to be selective about which bits they host in the same way that retailers are selective about what products they sell? I think the answer is and should be Yes.
As to your other post, I have to disagree that not distributing is the same as suppressing speech. I'll try to explain why. This church has plenty of venues to speak freely. Including their own property and any public area. If someone from that church comes onto my property and starts spreading that message, I'm within my rights to ask them to leave. I can't stop them from speaking, but I can tell them not to do it on my property. That is not suppressing speech, and that is all Rackspace did here.
Suppressing speach implies that someone is reaching out and taking active measures to stop another party from speaking.
If you disagree, I'll go ahead and send you some dirty photos of myself. If you fail to re-distribute those, then you will be suppressing my free speech.
Also, if you didn't read the synopsis, it's pretty clear the author is against Rackspace shutting them down so your pro-censorship stance is not popular here.
Was this meant to be ironic? "Your position is unpopular, therefore you are wrong!". Only on slashdot can you find people that believe reading a 1/4 page synopsis gives them moral authority to pontificate on the subject. Do you realize that synopses exist to summarize more complex sources.
Are you serious?
Yes. This is my serious face.
Americans have the right to burn any book they want, this is true (Probably. I haven't researched it so there might be some weird conditions, but it sounds truthy). American businesses also have the right to refuse service to customers that violate contractual agreements. One of the terms the church agreed to was to not spread hate speech. Remember that this is what the discussion is about, not about how evil the Muslims are.
...but while we're here...
burning some bibles would be a significant upgrade from what muslims are usually known for burning.
Christians burn plenty of things too. Their hands are just as bloody as your strawman "evil muslim". You think Christians don't kill people?
But here's the thing, and this point is often beat to death but seems worth reiterating right now: The actions of a small branch of religious extremists do not reflect the views of the rest of the group. Holding all Muslims accountable for the actions of some crazies is as responsible as holding Christians accountable for burning crosses or molested choir boys or the crusades. Which is to say, it's dumb.
And it's clear they define "hate speech" as anything Rackspace hates
Serious?
This church is burning copies of the Quran! If a Mosque decided they want to make a public display of burning some bibles I bet we would all agree that's hate speech.
You can't come down on a business organization for distancing themselves from that vitriol. They didn't stick their nose into anything. They just cut ties to a customer they no longer wanted to service. Happens all the time.
If I'm missing something, feel free to "woosh" me. But...
Declining to distribute is not the same as suppressing. Rackspace is under no obligation to facilitate anyone in distributing their speech. They chose to selectively offer their services to people/organizations that agree to abide by the terms of their service, they define those terms in a service contract.
Walmart doesn't carry porn in their stores or online. Are they suppressing free speech? If you can honestly say yes, then I'm going to take some dirty photos of myself and mail them to you. By your reasoning if you fail to redistribute those then you are suppressing my free speech.
Maybe I'm just old and bitter about having received my primary/secondary education in a very rural part of Maine, but any "book" that requires electricity to read is inherently limited.
And how much is the cost of that electronic textbook's license per student? Probably less than $100, but definitely not free. Plus that electronic license probably won't be recycled for 4-5 years like a paper book might be.
I looked at the numbers a few weeks ago for some textbooks for Grad school. My numbers came close without even the cost of an iPad (in my case a Kindle). I can't imagine it would be economical for 8th graders, who will probably not be extremely careful with those iPads.
For the record I agree with you. Sony cannot reach out and force an update. I've made that argument a few times.
However, they can (and do) release new games and blu-ray's that require these firmware updates to play. Refusing a given firmware update serves to immediately boot you from PSN, and prevent you from using any software released after that update. Even if you are only interested in offline play.
This is something that humans are just hardwired to do. Rapid evaluations of new individuals helps us in evaluating potential threats, and in assessing the credibility and trustworthyness of anyone we meet. It's something that we just cannot avoid doing, it happens very quickly and outside of our awareness. The problem is that these initial perceptions are incredibly difficult to change. One chance at a first impression if you will.
We all do it. Some of us are more aware that we are doing it than others.
But they shouldn't have to. This is an area of out Justice system that sucks. Even though it's an easy win, they still have to pay a lawyer to go into court. Hopefully they will get their expenses reimbursed by the crack legal team that misspelled the word "Dirty".
Right, the act limits the the deployment of Federal troops for law enforcement activities. It still explicitly grants the authority to do so in the event of insurrection. The idea is that federal troops can be used to put down an insurrection but can't be used as a long term occupation force.
We saw the Iranian government shutting down their citizens access to the internet as a means of quashing rebellion. In the event of such a rebellion in the US I would imagine our government being very interested in doing the same. No violation of the act required, it's written specifically to protect the ability to use federal troops to put down rebellion.
The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.
Definitely not true in the USA. Religious politicians may not be very open about it, but we are very much a christian nation defined by christian ideals. American troops aren't necessarily fighting in the middle east to recapture the holy lands, but go ahead and try to get an abortion, marry someone of your own gender, or receive government services on a Sunday.
Our Presidents swear their oaths of office on the Bible. Most of them bring their own.
and last time I checked it didn't require a whole gang of workers to get out the long insulated pole and flip the fuse back in place.
Never worked with Union workers then? Sounds like you'd need at least 5 guys for that job. A pole extender, a fuse flipper, two signalmen to control traffic, and a supervisor to make sure everyone's looking busy.
And yes, here in Quebec we had a month-long outage during the killer ice storm, and the region's cell towers stayed up. Maybe you're slackers in the US, but that was over a decade ago, so it's not like it's a new practice.
Ha! I was in Maine during that ice storm (1998 right?). Our cell towers definitely did not stay up. Maybe you guys are a little more forward thinking than we are.
Can somebody from the USA please explain why riders are legal?
It's such an obviously malevolent concept that it surprises me every time. It serves no other purpose than to sneak in bills (regardless of whether you consider them good or evil) which would have no chance on their own. Well, I guess it can also be used to torpedo bills which would have made it through otherwise. It just completely undermines the democratic process.
Most civilized countries would (and already have) prohibited riders by law after it happened a few times, but it seems in the USA it happens all the time.
Unfortunately it is sometimes the only way to get something done. At times it is the only way to get certain legislation passed when powerful individuals or committees are opposed to it. Senators cannot openly vote on the item if it stood alone, but they can feel free to vote for a combined bill that includes the item and retain plausible deniability that they ever supported it.
It is undemocratic and foul. But then, so is our Congress. Senators can't simply vote for the things their constituents want. They need to trade support like currency in the hope of growing their own individual influence. The idea is that in the end the constituents receive fair representation, but if anyone actually believes that then I think they might be interested in some lakefront property for sale in Pakistan. (too soon?)
In theory we have procedures in place to determine which items get applied to which bill. IMO it is these parliamentary procedures that are abused, not the concept of riders itself. Instead of openly drafting meaningful legislation, parliamentary tricks are played to poison bills or to sneak items through into law. Our recent passing of our Healthcare bills sickened me. I'm not going to comment on where I stand on the concept, but the process and manipulations we went through before it passed was embarrasing.
Slashdot Mirror
Violent video games generating violent behavior is a touchy area. Violence outbursts are incredibly complex behaviors, requiring not only the priming for aggression but also and encouragement to act out and potentially some level of training to perform the behavior.
More rapid decision making is a much more basic process. As you point out there was not real improvement to the accuracy or quality of the decisions, they simply occurred faster. This is exactly what you would expect when a person practices a task or skill repeatedly with limited feedback.
Violent video games demonstrably increase what is called an assumption of aggressive affect. They studies I have read on this are funky, but basically people that play a lot of violent games tend to be more likely to assume that others intend to behave aggressively towards them compared to control groups. Like the increased rapidity in decision making, this effect makes some sense. It is a very basic process (more of a perceptual filter than any kind of active behavior), and would be an expected practice effect of playing violent games.
Basically, video games have the same effect as a job that forces you to make lots of decisions really fast. It just exercises the "make decisions" part of the brain, where as reading or watching TV or painting a wall probably doesn't.
This.
Any scenario where an individual is practicing a skill is likely to lead to increased performance of that skill. Most action oriented video games do not require perfect decision making, but the do require that decisions be made quickly (perfect or not). Players receive feedback that encourages rapid decisions and action. In violent games, players are placed in a simulated environment where there are lots of entities trying to harm them. Players also receive feedback that each new entity they encounter will likely behave aggressively towards them, and so learn to respond with aggression.
In this way, violent video games can contribute to violent behavior.
Yes it is... while NASA spent $1 million developing a pen that works in zero-g, the Russians used a pencil!!!
Actually, turns out this was a worthwhile program. Considering we will be carpooling our manned space flight with the Russians for the next several years, it might be nice to be able to write them a check up there for gas and tolls.
The fools never realized that a signature with Space Pencil is not legally binding.
Those measures are put in place mainly by retailers.
Like the MPAA, the ESRB encourages retailers to set aged based restrictions to games with more mature ratings. Their goal is to make sure that laws don't need to be passed, and retailers are being responsible in who they sell violent/sexual games to.
Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distribution to any retailer that doesn't play nice. That is why some people are claiming we need laws.
This is offtopic, but the purpose of those kinds of thrown edged weapons is not really to kill. They are thrown to distract the target and allow the thrower a few moments to either flee from or close the gap to their target. They are intended as a very lightweight nuisance weapon. Unlikely to be lethal on their own if used as intended.
But obviously if it is pointy and metal then you can find a way to kill someone with it.
And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech".
Sure it is. "Freedom of speech" does not imply "freedom from consequences of drunken derogatory speech".
The President doesn't own the US soil, airports, etc. Hell, some Presidents (Clinton) didn't even own their own home.
Of course not, it's an analogy. But, the Federal Government does indeed represent the people that own the property that composes the United States. Plus the Federal Government is explicitly charged with securing our borders.
No suppression of his free speech in this case. He's still got the freedom to speak as far as the US is concerned. We've just asked him never to come onto our property. Any property owner in the US has that right.
The question in my mind is whether Rackspace has the right to be selective about what goes onto their servers. Rackspace is a hosting company, analogous but not the same as a retailer. So do they have the right to be selective about which bits they host in the same way that retailers are selective about what products they sell? I think the answer is and should be Yes.
As to your other post, I have to disagree that not distributing is the same as suppressing speech. I'll try to explain why. This church has plenty of venues to speak freely. Including their own property and any public area. If someone from that church comes onto my property and starts spreading that message, I'm within my rights to ask them to leave. I can't stop them from speaking, but I can tell them not to do it on my property. That is not suppressing speech, and that is all Rackspace did here.
Suppressing speach implies that someone is reaching out and taking active measures to stop another party from speaking.
If you disagree, I'll go ahead and send you some dirty photos of myself. If you fail to re-distribute those, then you will be suppressing my free speech.
Also, if you didn't read the synopsis, it's pretty clear the author is against Rackspace shutting them down so your pro-censorship stance is not popular here.
Was this meant to be ironic? "Your position is unpopular, therefore you are wrong!". Only on slashdot can you find people that believe reading a 1/4 page synopsis gives them moral authority to pontificate on the subject. Do you realize that synopses exist to summarize more complex sources.
Are you serious?
Yes. This is my serious face.
Americans have the right to burn any book they want, this is true (Probably. I haven't researched it so there might be some weird conditions, but it sounds truthy). American businesses also have the right to refuse service to customers that violate contractual agreements. One of the terms the church agreed to was to not spread hate speech. Remember that this is what the discussion is about, not about how evil the Muslims are.
...but while we're here...
burning some bibles would be a significant upgrade from what muslims are usually known for burning.
Christians burn plenty of things too. Their hands are just as bloody as your strawman "evil muslim". You think Christians don't kill people?
But here's the thing, and this point is often beat to death but seems worth reiterating right now: The actions of a small branch of religious extremists do not reflect the views of the rest of the group. Holding all Muslims accountable for the actions of some crazies is as responsible as holding Christians accountable for burning crosses or molested choir boys or the crusades. Which is to say, it's dumb.
And it's clear they define "hate speech" as anything Rackspace hates
Serious?
This church is burning copies of the Quran! If a Mosque decided they want to make a public display of burning some bibles I bet we would all agree that's hate speech.
You can't come down on a business organization for distancing themselves from that vitriol. They didn't stick their nose into anything. They just cut ties to a customer they no longer wanted to service. Happens all the time.
If I'm missing something, feel free to "woosh" me. But...
Declining to distribute is not the same as suppressing. Rackspace is under no obligation to facilitate anyone in distributing their speech. They chose to selectively offer their services to people/organizations that agree to abide by the terms of their service, they define those terms in a service contract.
Walmart doesn't carry porn in their stores or online. Are they suppressing free speech? If you can honestly say yes, then I'm going to take some dirty photos of myself and mail them to you. By your reasoning if you fail to redistribute those then you are suppressing my free speech.
Witless?
We're just looking out for y'all. Making sure you don't go and sin or do anything un-Christian. It's for your own good. Trust us.
Remember - his crusade is against violent crime.
...in his own backyard. He only cared about what was going down in Gotham.
Maybe I'm just old and bitter about having received my primary/secondary education in a very rural part of Maine, but any "book" that requires electricity to read is inherently limited.
And how much is the cost of that electronic textbook's license per student? Probably less than $100, but definitely not free. Plus that electronic license probably won't be recycled for 4-5 years like a paper book might be.
I looked at the numbers a few weeks ago for some textbooks for Grad school. My numbers came close without even the cost of an iPad (in my case a Kindle). I can't imagine it would be economical for 8th graders, who will probably not be extremely careful with those iPads.
Or a decent ferrier to shoe my horse?
For the record I agree with you. Sony cannot reach out and force an update. I've made that argument a few times.
However, they can (and do) release new games and blu-ray's that require these firmware updates to play. Refusing a given firmware update serves to immediately boot you from PSN, and prevent you from using any software released after that update. Even if you are only interested in offline play.
One of my favorite George Carlin quotes was something to the effect of:
"Think of how stupid the average American is. Now remember that half of them are dumber than that."
This is something that humans are just hardwired to do. Rapid evaluations of new individuals helps us in evaluating potential threats, and in assessing the credibility and trustworthyness of anyone we meet. It's something that we just cannot avoid doing, it happens very quickly and outside of our awareness. The problem is that these initial perceptions are incredibly difficult to change. One chance at a first impression if you will.
We all do it. Some of us are more aware that we are doing it than others.
True, it will probably be really easy to appeal.
But they shouldn't have to. This is an area of out Justice system that sucks. Even though it's an easy win, they still have to pay a lawyer to go into court. Hopefully they will get their expenses reimbursed by the crack legal team that misspelled the word "Dirty".
Right, the act limits the the deployment of Federal troops for law enforcement activities. It still explicitly grants the authority to do so in the event of insurrection. The idea is that federal troops can be used to put down an insurrection but can't be used as a long term occupation force.
We saw the Iranian government shutting down their citizens access to the internet as a means of quashing rebellion. In the event of such a rebellion in the US I would imagine our government being very interested in doing the same. No violation of the act required, it's written specifically to protect the ability to use federal troops to put down rebellion.
The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.
Definitely not true in the USA. Religious politicians may not be very open about it, but we are very much a christian nation defined by christian ideals. American troops aren't necessarily fighting in the middle east to recapture the holy lands, but go ahead and try to get an abortion, marry someone of your own gender, or receive government services on a Sunday.
Our Presidents swear their oaths of office on the Bible. Most of them bring their own.
and last time I checked it didn't require a whole gang of workers to get out the long insulated pole and flip the fuse back in place.
Never worked with Union workers then? Sounds like you'd need at least 5 guys for that job. A pole extender, a fuse flipper, two signalmen to control traffic, and a supervisor to make sure everyone's looking busy.
And yes, here in Quebec we had a month-long outage during the killer ice storm, and the region's cell towers stayed up. Maybe you're slackers in the US, but that was over a decade ago, so it's not like it's a new practice.
Ha! I was in Maine during that ice storm (1998 right?). Our cell towers definitely did not stay up. Maybe you guys are a little more forward thinking than we are.
Ahmed? Is that you?
It's me, Steve. From Explosives! Man I tell you, what a small world this infidel internet is.
Can somebody from the USA please explain why riders are legal? It's such an obviously malevolent concept that it surprises me every time. It serves no other purpose than to sneak in bills (regardless of whether you consider them good or evil) which would have no chance on their own. Well, I guess it can also be used to torpedo bills which would have made it through otherwise. It just completely undermines the democratic process. Most civilized countries would (and already have) prohibited riders by law after it happened a few times, but it seems in the USA it happens all the time.
Unfortunately it is sometimes the only way to get something done. At times it is the only way to get certain legislation passed when powerful individuals or committees are opposed to it. Senators cannot openly vote on the item if it stood alone, but they can feel free to vote for a combined bill that includes the item and retain plausible deniability that they ever supported it.
It is undemocratic and foul. But then, so is our Congress. Senators can't simply vote for the things their constituents want. They need to trade support like currency in the hope of growing their own individual influence. The idea is that in the end the constituents receive fair representation, but if anyone actually believes that then I think they might be interested in some lakefront property for sale in Pakistan. (too soon?)
In theory we have procedures in place to determine which items get applied to which bill. IMO it is these parliamentary procedures that are abused, not the concept of riders itself. Instead of openly drafting meaningful legislation, parliamentary tricks are played to poison bills or to sneak items through into law. Our recent passing of our Healthcare bills sickened me. I'm not going to comment on where I stand on the concept, but the process and manipulations we went through before it passed was embarrasing.