I think it's the human need to believe that we are seeing or have created something new under the sun.
When in actuality, we aren't. We haven't.
Technology: it is the ultimate panacea WHILE simultaneously being the ultimate scapegoat, if you use media as your cue (talk aboutta paradox!). Which is why it's best not to do that. Many in the media strike me as having deeply Luddite sympathies (even reflexively so), even subconsciously.
Or maybe their tendencies are not Luddite but rather ARE toward looking for every explanation but the most rational one (or for trying to oversimplify what is, in actuality, a pretty complex thing [how kids get so screwed up]).
Right. That's why the porn industry is having such a *hard* time staying afloat.
Numerous studies have shown that men are visually aroused. Of course they can be aroused intellectually or can be aroused by being challenged, etc. etc. etc. But the fact remains that men usually get their rocks off based on a woman's physicality. Men may not require the ultimate-in-attractiveness woman to become aroused, of course; sometimes *any* woman will do.
oft-mentioned enjoyment of fat women during the renaissance as compared to our current heroin-chic
Rubenesque women were the norm in art, etc. because their largesse suggested wealth. There's no data that I'm aware of that indicates that men were aroused more by this type of woman at that time. It may be true; it may not. It may differ from man to man (most likely).
Point: what society deems attractive may or may not dictate (and to various degrees) what any particular man finds stimulating. Life is not the Parisian catwalk.
Now, how this has to do with "desensitization." It suggests that one can be sufficiently desensitized to something yet not fully immune to various neurological forces that are at play.
In short, I think it's too simplistic to say that: video games --> desensitization --> dehumanization. One can withstand a significant degree of "desensitization" (in double quotes b/c I'm a bit suspicious of the term) without having this necessarily lead to deHUMANIZATION which is certainly present in any folks knocking off large groups of other folks (though of course these kids didn't do that).
---
I'm with you 100% re: parenting. An ounce of prevention and all of that...
a boy who grows up in a nudist family won't think anything of seeing naked women
Such a hypothetical kid (don't you guys all wish you were him!) would probably not be *alarmed* to see a naked woman, nor would he think it was particularly UNordinary to do so in his nudist setting.
However, same kid would still be affected by such a visage in the same way that a non-nudist-colony kid would -- that's programmed in the neurons, er, somewhere.
Totally silly to blame a few kids going *bonkers* (or perhaps intending to do the same) on an inanimate object, namely object code.
I even hate this line of questioning (and I'm not remotely a gamer so it's not like I'm defending gaming out of desire to protect my own personal habits/preferences). I hate it b/c it allows the kids to potentially carry on with the illusion that they themselves were not and are not 100% to blame for their own actions.
And, yes, at ages 15, 16, 18, you are responsible for your own actions. Even if you've got "absentee parents" and the rest of your life has sucked the big one, you are old enough to know right from wrong and thusly you are old enough to choose one in lieu of the other.
That's not to say that there aren't things existentially *wrong* with American culture -- I personally think it's important for kids to have a parent at home particularly during *the formative years* -- but those aspects of culture are part of being an American: where choice and free will are implied and no legislation intrude.
You need only spend a day or so in a city like London slurping up their television news programmes (sic!) to gain a whole new appreciation for just *how much* cotton candy American news programs are and just how uniquely US-centric they are.
I don't think you can blame it all on the media, though; to some degree perhaps they "create an appetite" for a certain type of news but if the public wanted Liberian President Charles Taylor (and that *whole* sordid mess over there), they'd surely get it.
And that's actually the beauty of the British press -- when they go tabloid, they really go tabloid (see the Sun, some of their TV programs, etc.); but when they do mainstream "serious news," they do just that.
Oh well, another bidness destined to go off-shore; at least we don't have to worry too much about the implications of losing spammers' profits(?!) in the ol' GDP.
With a network of five cameras on each court, linked into complex computer technology used to analyse the movement and behaviour of the ball, Hawk-Eye will allow the BBC's commentary team to replay shots through 360 degrees, examine players' choice of shot selection and
look at contentious line calls.
Hawk-Eye has been at the vanguard of TV sports technology.
Originally designed as a method of judging contentious lbw decisions in cricket, it has been adopted by the BBC for coverage of the world's biggest tennis event. It lends more firepower to the armoury of commentators and viewers alike, granting them more detailed statistics, tracking the power and accuracy of every serve, volley and lob that takes place.
From 2nd link: Hawk-Eye uses dedicated cameras to track the players and ball with high accuracy. Principally, this is used to provide the conclusive answer to whether a ball was in or out. Hawk-Eye takes the skid and compression of the ball into account and can achieve accuracies of up to 2-3 mm. As well as resolving the controversial incidents, Hawk-Eye also brings a new range of statistics which have never previously been available. These help to analyse the strengths & weaknesses of each player and provide a fresh insight into the game.
I saw this at work during the Queens Club tourney (sponsored by Stella Artois) in London and while I don't recall a call being overturned *because* of this system I DO RECALL line judges looking up to the folks in the boxes (who had the benefit of the info provided c/o Hawk-Eye) to affirm that a call was correct or not.
The advances in technology that have led to the installation of sensors on the courts (?) that can immediately indicate if a ball is IN or OUT and thus provide the backup to a judge's call OR the successful and irrefutable challenge to the same has been terrific.
The same technology can be used to show where a majority of a player's first serves are landing, second serves, returns, etc. and thus make for more interesting and informative sports commentary.
I first saw this at work at the Queen's Club (the precursor to Wimbledon in London -- on grass). Of course another technology that's been around a bit longer enables the ability to see that Andy Roddick's serve was at 149 mph. Many also agree that the development (technological advance) of raquets is what enables Andy and others (to some degree) to be such power hitters. No doubt, tennis is the most muscular it's ever been.
It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
I have long had--perhaps undeservedly--a deep and abiding faith in the genius of the American people.
But you can expect a PR campaign unlike any seen since The Matrix Reloaded's when this date comes nigh. There will be strenuous efforts to illustrate to the American people "all the lives that have been saved" because of the Patriot Act's existence.
The only interesting question is who will be in power at that point? As it seems clear to me that _this_ (that is, who is *behind* the act) is the determining factor as to whether or not Republicans will support it.
There is NO way on God's good earth that if Gore had won '00 and the PATRIOT Act had been born under his tutelage that conservatives wouldn't have been shouting from sea to shining sea about the encroachment to privacy this act represents.
That was one of the first moments I understood the difference between conservative and Republican.
By a wide margin, I identify more readily with the former than the latter (and in fact it's sad to me to see folks [including conservative commentators], even folks such as Ashcroft, who *so* abhorred the encroachment on liberty such measures represented now turning heel and supporting the same--merely b/c they are the ones holding the purse strings & the power).
Will the American public be reluctant to be snow-jobbed by this inevitable PR campaign? Or will there be a linger of distrust--especially if WMDs are never found in Iraq? Will common sense prevail? Stay tuned.
There's already been a push for this here...
on
Twist on DNA Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.
The questions this begged for me when the statement came out from the WH:
1.) Arrested for any crime? Even non-violent crime?
2.) Would anybody who was arrested be required to submit a DNA sample or merely could his/her DNA sample be accepted for CODIS?
The state and local backlog problem has two components:
"casework sample backlogs," which consist of DNA samples obtained from crime scenes, victims, and suspects in criminal cases,
and
"convicted offender backlogs," which consist of DNA samples obtained from convicted offenders who are incarcerated or under supervision.
The answer to the first question appears to be:
A criminal case arises when the government seeks to punish an individual for an act that has been classified as a crime by Congress or a state legislature. Thus this would include collecting DNA from drunk drivers, etc., folks for whom there's really not a good investigative reason to collect their DNA, generally.
It may not pass right away here, but I'd be really surprised if it doesn't eventually. Already DNA samples are collected from suspects. However, AFAIK those samples (collected from suspects) *cannot* be kept in the national DNA DB b/c that DB is supposedly only convicted criminals.
DNA collection is one of the encroachments on civil liberties that scares me the most because SO many people are so unaware of any potentially nefarious results from it (eugenics being the most tame) and simultaneously are so WOWED by how DNA evidence solves cases that they will willingly submit to this new rule WHEN said initiative hits stateside in earnest.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, dude.
I think it's the human need to believe that we are seeing or have created something new under the sun.
When in actuality, we aren't. We haven't.
Technology: it is the ultimate panacea WHILE simultaneously being the ultimate scapegoat, if you use media as your cue (talk aboutta paradox!). Which is why it's best not to do that. Many in the media strike me as having deeply Luddite sympathies (even reflexively so), even subconsciously.
Or maybe their tendencies are not Luddite but rather ARE toward looking for every explanation but the most rational one (or for trying to oversimplify what is, in actuality, a pretty complex thing [how kids get so screwed up]).
- extremely socialized nature of human sexuality
Right. That's why the porn industry is having such a *hard* time staying afloat.Numerous studies have shown that men are visually aroused. Of course they can be aroused intellectually or can be aroused by being challenged, etc. etc. etc. But the fact remains that men usually get their rocks off based on a woman's physicality. Men may not require the ultimate-in-attractiveness woman to become aroused, of course; sometimes *any* woman will do.
- oft-mentioned enjoyment of fat women during the renaissance as compared to our current heroin-chic
Rubenesque women were the norm in art, etc. because their largesse suggested wealth. There's no data that I'm aware of that indicates that men were aroused more by this type of woman at that time. It may be true; it may not. It may differ from man to man (most likely).Point: what society deems attractive may or may not dictate (and to various degrees) what any particular man finds stimulating. Life is not the Parisian catwalk.
Now, how this has to do with "desensitization." It suggests that one can be sufficiently desensitized to something yet not fully immune to various neurological forces that are at play.
In short, I think it's too simplistic to say that: video games --> desensitization --> dehumanization. One can withstand a significant degree of "desensitization" (in double quotes b/c I'm a bit suspicious of the term) without having this necessarily lead to deHUMANIZATION which is certainly present in any folks knocking off large groups of other folks (though of course these kids didn't do that).
---
I'm with you 100% re: parenting. An ounce of prevention and all of that...
- Should guns not get the blame for killing people rather than video games?
How can you hold an inanimate object responsible for something it would not have been capable of doing of its own volition?The problem is not guns. Nor is it video games. The problem is youth or adults who are unfit for society.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
- a boy who grows up in a nudist family won't think anything of seeing naked women
Such a hypothetical kid (don't you guys all wish you were him!) would probably not be *alarmed* to see a naked woman, nor would he think it was particularly UNordinary to do so in his nudist setting.However, same kid would still be affected by such a visage in the same way that a non-nudist-colony kid would -- that's programmed in the neurons, er, somewhere.
Totally silly to blame a few kids going *bonkers* (or perhaps intending to do the same) on an inanimate object, namely object code.
I even hate this line of questioning (and I'm not remotely a gamer so it's not like I'm defending gaming out of desire to protect my own personal habits/preferences). I hate it b/c it allows the kids to potentially carry on with the illusion that they themselves were not and are not 100% to blame for their own actions.
And, yes, at ages 15, 16, 18, you are responsible for your own actions. Even if you've got "absentee parents" and the rest of your life has sucked the big one, you are old enough to know right from wrong and thusly you are old enough to choose one in lieu of the other.
That's not to say that there aren't things existentially *wrong* with American culture -- I personally think it's important for kids to have a parent at home particularly during *the formative years* -- but those aspects of culture are part of being an American: where choice and free will are implied and no legislation intrude.
You need only spend a day or so in a city like London slurping up their television news programmes (sic!) to gain a whole new appreciation for just *how much* cotton candy American news programs are and just how uniquely US-centric they are.
I don't think you can blame it all on the media, though; to some degree perhaps they "create an appetite" for a certain type of news but if the public wanted Liberian President Charles Taylor (and that *whole* sordid mess over there), they'd surely get it.
And that's actually the beauty of the British press -- when they go tabloid, they really go tabloid (see the Sun, some of their TV programs, etc.); but when they do mainstream "serious news," they do just that.
we have a few less servers to worry about
Emphasis on the "few."
Oh well, another bidness destined to go off-shore; at least we don't have to worry too much about the implications of losing spammers' profits(?!) in the ol' GDP.
Pretty sure that the 9th Circuit is the most overridden court in the country...
Check this out:
- With a network of five cameras on each court, linked into complex computer technology used to analyse the movement and behaviour of the ball, Hawk-Eye will allow the BBC's commentary team to replay shots through 360 degrees, examine players' choice of shot selection and
- look at contentious line calls.
Hawk-Eye has been at the vanguard of TV sports technology. Originally designed as a method of judging contentious lbw decisions in cricket, it has been adopted by the BBC for coverage of the world's biggest tennis event. It lends more firepower to the armoury of commentators and viewers alike, granting them more detailed statistics, tracking the power and accuracy of every serve, volley and lob that takes place.Here's the story on it and here's a link to more about the the Hawk-Eye tennis system.
- From 2nd link: Hawk-Eye uses dedicated cameras to track the players and ball with high accuracy. Principally, this is used to provide the conclusive answer to whether a ball was in or out. Hawk-Eye takes the skid and compression of the ball into account and can achieve accuracies of up to 2-3 mm. As well as resolving the controversial incidents, Hawk-Eye also brings a new range of statistics which have never previously been available. These help to analyse the strengths & weaknesses of each player and provide a fresh insight into the game.
I saw this at work during the Queens Club tourney (sponsored by Stella Artois) in London and while I don't recall a call being overturned *because* of this system I DO RECALL line judges looking up to the folks in the boxes (who had the benefit of the info provided c/o Hawk-Eye) to affirm that a call was correct or not.The advances in technology that have led to the installation of sensors on the courts (?) that can immediately indicate if a ball is IN or OUT and thus provide the backup to a judge's call OR the successful and irrefutable challenge to the same has been terrific.
The same technology can be used to show where a majority of a player's first serves are landing, second serves, returns, etc. and thus make for more interesting and informative sports commentary.
I first saw this at work at the Queen's Club (the precursor to Wimbledon in London -- on grass). Of course another technology that's been around a bit longer enables the ability to see that Andy Roddick's serve was at 149 mph. Many also agree that the development (technological advance) of raquets is what enables Andy and others (to some degree) to be such power hitters. No doubt, tennis is the most muscular it's ever been.
It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
I have long had--perhaps undeservedly--a deep and abiding faith in the genius of the American people.
But you can expect a PR campaign unlike any seen since The Matrix Reloaded's when this date comes nigh. There will be strenuous efforts to illustrate to the American people "all the lives that have been saved" because of the Patriot Act's existence.
The only interesting question is who will be in power at that point? As it seems clear to me that _this_ (that is, who is *behind* the act) is the determining factor as to whether or not Republicans will support it.
There is NO way on God's good earth that if Gore had won '00 and the PATRIOT Act had been born under his tutelage that conservatives wouldn't have been shouting from sea to shining sea about the encroachment to privacy this act represents.
That was one of the first moments I understood the difference between conservative and Republican.
By a wide margin, I identify more readily with the former than the latter (and in fact it's sad to me to see folks [including conservative commentators], even folks such as Ashcroft, who *so* abhorred the encroachment on liberty such measures represented now turning heel and supporting the same--merely b/c they are the ones holding the purse strings & the power).
Will the American public be reluctant to be snow-jobbed by this inevitable PR campaign? Or will there be a linger of distrust--especially if WMDs are never found in Iraq? Will common sense prevail?
Stay tuned.
- DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.
White House seeks to expand DNA databaseThe questions this begged for me when the statement came out from the WH:
It may not pass right away here, but I'd be really surprised if it doesn't eventually. Already DNA samples are collected from suspects. However, AFAIK those samples (collected from suspects) *cannot* be kept in the national DNA DB b/c that DB is supposedly only convicted criminals.
DNA collection is one of the encroachments on civil liberties that scares me the most because SO many people are so unaware of any potentially nefarious results from it (eugenics being the most tame) and simultaneously are so WOWED by how DNA evidence solves cases that they will willingly submit to this new rule WHEN said initiative hits stateside in earnest.