...is that the Wal-Mart employees can't tell the difference between the two. One has a screen, the other doesn't. One says Wii on it, the other doesn't.
Does Play-Asia count as overseas because it's located in Hong Kong? I did a quick search and it doesn't seem to be on the site (maybe it was before), but assuming it is the same price as the Xbox 360 version (59$) while the US version of the game from the official site has it listed at 49$, were people really trying to save money? Or were they just buying it from non-US based sites for the convenience of it? For example, you're buying 3 other games from the same site, why get a 4th game from the official site when I can save on SHIPPING, and not necessarily the game itself?
On the other hand, shipping costs are typically more expensive from overseas than it would be for regular ground shipping + currency conversion fees (2.5% for my credit card:/). So, maybe people were getting this game for a DRASTICALLY lower price (sites? anyone?) or else why would they go through the trouble?
Main Entry: blog Part of Speech: n Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log
I did not deliberately choose to cite specific articles as that would be biased. How can you say that when I cited Williams & Skoric who mention both sides of the argument?
For the last time, I do not believe that with today's research in regards to violent video games we can come to any solid conclusion. There is evidence to support both sides. It's really frustrating that you aren't reading my comments and I have to say this over and over.
My point is that there is scientific evidence to prove that violent video games may be a cause of aggression (you can't ignore findings. In the studies, they WERE more aggressive. In some studies, they were not. You cannot ignore either!) and I wanted to make that clear as someone said that there was none. It was an ignorant statement and I wanted to challenge it.
So yes, please read the rest of the W & S article (it's very good). Also, read the others and do your own research and perhaps you'll be surprised.
And to make things clear, I myself am not blaming video games because I have been playing violent video games for as long as I can remember and I have yet to kill someone. I do not have enough understanding and have not done my own studies (in the process of one right now, but it is hardly scientific as I am a cegep student) in order to give any conclusion and claim that I'm 'right' because as of now, no one is right because we do not fully understand the psychology of the players. There's lots of other reasons and lots of research to be done. However, that doesn't mean I am not interested in this field to see what researchers have found.
Haha, I agree completely. But I mean, things a little more suspicious than me being a gamer may be considered sufficient grounds.
For example, someone going to school with a hammer (okay, maybe not a hammer but something a little more threatening) a week or two after a shooting will make you look suspicious.
A month after the shooting at my school, my friend just happened to wear a black trench coat (same style as that of the shooter) and a few people just had a bad reaction. Let's not go arrest him! Let's not tell him he can't wear a trench coat! But yes, I think reactions like that are to be expected.
It's the same thing with 9/11...You can't go all racist on a certain nationality/religion just because of a few crazy people. But that reaction, whether it is expressed or not, will still be present in many people's minds right after a huge thing like that.
But I have said many times that although many researchers are stubborn, very smart ones such as Williams & Skoric acknowledge the flaws in research and state many times that violent game play does not conclusively cause aggressive outbreaks such as school shootings.
There are many confounding variables, that's why I'm doing research on it and plan to greatly improve knowledge in this area in the future.
Excuse me, but what does the host of site have to do with the content of the paper? I see no link.
Again, how would advertisements on a site of a hosted document affect the validity of article? Scientists are not webmasters.
However, there aren't any ads on the links I provided...so...what are you talking about?
Perhaps you should read my comments, because I never said and actually, I emphasized the crucial point that the research to date does not prove that video games cause aggressive behaviours. It also does not prove the opposite.
Well I think you're blind, not so much stupid.(If you are in fact talking about my links...) But go ahead and childishly call me an idiot if you wish.
Anyone who has murdered anyone else has likely walked from one place to another. Does that mean walking is indicative of murderous intent
Don't say stupid things, please.
The results suggest that playing violent video games (just like violent television) may increase aggressive thoughts, behaviours, etc.
I do not think you understand how to read a scientific article. It doesn't make you dumb, but don't be ignorant.
A summary is not evidence. And no, I didn't miss the fact that it was a summary of Williams and Skoric's scientific article. Also, stating in the article is not a proper reference.
Perhaps you should read the actual article and read what other researchers have found.
Also, read the other articles and see what they found.
Also, read other articles doing your own research and see what they found.
There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Both sides have significant, scientific data. That being said, you cannot say there has been no scientific research. You also cannot say that it is a fact that violent video games cause aggressive behaviour, cognitions, etc. You also cannot say that it is a fact that violent video games don't cause aggressive behaviour, cognitions, etc. A lot more research needs to be done on this topic, I am not arguing that. But to date, there are no hardcorefacts.
And one last thing, just because one researcher finds something doesn't mean it is right. Unless several studies show the same results, it will not even be considered. Science doesn't deal with individual cases or insignificant findings.
Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.
The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.
I don't know where you are magically getting your information from, but you're wrong.
I am currently conducting research on the effects of exposure to violent video games on adolescents and have long finished my literature review of several scientific articles. Feel free to ask for the pdf files if you want to read them.
These are parts of my literature review including the citations:
A growing number of researchers are drawing links between aggression and violent video games. For instance, the unfortunate event that took place at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado triggered a controversy about video games has led researchers to become more aware of the potential effects violent video games may have had on the tragedy (Slatalla, 1999; Taylor, 1999, as cited in Williams & Skoric, 2005). Other researchers, Anderson and Bushman (2001, as cited in Williams & Skoric, 2005), revealed that there is a positive link between the exposure to violent video games and aggression. Exposure to violent television and video games has also been known to cause self-reported, peer-reported and teacher-reported aggressive behaviour (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Singer & Singer 1983, 1986; Singer, Singer, & Rapaczynski, 1984, as cited in Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004).
(blahblah, things not relevant to you)
An individual's ideas about the appropriateness of aggression as a result of social norms have an impact on response and also in common situations (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997, as cited in Williams & Skoric). This suggests that people's conception of aggression will ultimately influence behaviour in social situations experienced on a daily basis. As a result of exposing themselves to violent and aggressive content, players will be more likely to handle social situations in a more aggressive manner and engage in more arguments. One researcher suggests that being exposed to violent content will activate aggressive cognitions, which in turn will activate aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1990, as cited in Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004).
So yes, there is scientific evidence that gamers who enjoy violent video games may be more violent in comparison to those who do not. I am not saying that any of these statements are conclusive as I am a violent video game player and I haven't shot up my college (and I go to Dawson, by the way, and was present during the shooting in September 2006). However, ignornant statements such as yours and from several other people here on Slashdot piss me off.
Could someone PLEASE explain to me why everyone is annoyingly comparing Windows to Mac and other OS? Windows is updating WINDOWS, it's not updating MAC. You people are impossible to please. "It's not like Mac!" Hmm, maybe because it's Windows? And if Windows didn't try to start to "compete" with other OS, you'd all start a topic saying, "Eh! Microsoft still doesn't know anything! What are they waiting for!?" Just because Mac has had 'better security' since...ever...doesn't mean Windows can't attempt to have it either. If you like your mac, good. Stay with it. And for the people who like Windows, I'm sure they are happy that their company is upgrading.
I totally agree. And honestly, who the hell cares if someone sees you searching for donkey porn, anyway? "Oh, I typed in donkey porn...SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE might know that...So I might be the topic of tonight's party! I'm the guy who searched for donkey porn!" Ooh, how devasting. And if it's because people are scared their wife/husband is going to find out fancy a donkey over them...Well, they deserve to be caught. And even if someone was reading your IM conversations...Wow...What are they going to do? Use it against you in court? Pedophile...
I wonder if people here know about things like StatCounter. Say you searched for 'lolita in leather' and stumble upon someone's site who's talking about lolita in leather...they can find out: your IP, how you found their site (what you searched), your country, your region, how long you were on their site...So whether or not you use google...You can be found out...
I'm not sure why I'm replying to this when it's sort of going off-topic, heh, sorry!
Slashdot Mirror
I have one of the magic copies of Vista, too.
i think they mean Warcraft itself (Warcraft I, II, III, etc...not WORLD of Warcraft)
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft/
...is that the Wal-Mart employees can't tell the difference between the two. One has a screen, the other doesn't. One says Wii on it, the other doesn't.
Does Play-Asia count as overseas because it's located in Hong Kong? I did a quick search and it doesn't seem to be on the site (maybe it was before), but assuming it is the same price as the Xbox 360 version (59$) while the US version of the game from the official site has it listed at 49$, were people really trying to save money? Or were they just buying it from non-US based sites for the convenience of it? For example, you're buying 3 other games from the same site, why get a 4th game from the official site when I can save on SHIPPING, and not necessarily the game itself? On the other hand, shipping costs are typically more expensive from overseas than it would be for regular ground shipping + currency conversion fees (2.5% for my credit card :/). So, maybe people were getting this game for a DRASTICALLY lower price (sites? anyone?) or else why would they go through the trouble?
Main Entry: blog
Part of Speech: n
Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blog
So uh...what do you mean where does one draw the line between two synonymous words?
Mmm, we've got Fido that supports GSM phones (just got myself one from Japan, actually).
Oh, and Fido bills by the second. So I can't say Canada (or at least Quebec) has it that bad.
I'm surprised Ontario doesn't have this?
I don't exactly understand what you're asking but you could e-mail the researchers with any questions if they provided contact info.
I did not deliberately choose to cite specific articles as that would be biased. How can you say that when I cited Williams & Skoric who mention both sides of the argument?
For the last time, I do not believe that with today's research in regards to violent video games we can come to any solid conclusion. There is evidence to support both sides. It's really frustrating that you aren't reading my comments and I have to say this over and over.
My point is that there is scientific evidence to prove that violent video games may be a cause of aggression (you can't ignore findings. In the studies, they WERE more aggressive. In some studies, they were not. You cannot ignore either!) and I wanted to make that clear as someone said that there was none. It was an ignorant statement and I wanted to challenge it.
So yes, please read the rest of the W & S article (it's very good). Also, read the others and do your own research and perhaps you'll be surprised.
And to make things clear, I myself am not blaming video games because I have been playing violent video games for as long as I can remember and I have yet to kill someone. I do not have enough understanding and have not done my own studies (in the process of one right now, but it is hardly scientific as I am a cegep student) in order to give any conclusion and claim that I'm 'right' because as of now, no one is right because we do not fully understand the psychology of the players. There's lots of other reasons and lots of research to be done. However, that doesn't mean I am not interested in this field to see what researchers have found.
Haha, I agree completely. But I mean, things a little more suspicious than me being a gamer may be considered sufficient grounds.
For example, someone going to school with a hammer (okay, maybe not a hammer but something a little more threatening) a week or two after a shooting will make you look suspicious.
A month after the shooting at my school, my friend just happened to wear a black trench coat (same style as that of the shooter) and a few people just had a bad reaction. Let's not go arrest him! Let's not tell him he can't wear a trench coat! But yes, I think reactions like that are to be expected.
It's the same thing with 9/11...You can't go all racist on a certain nationality/religion just because of a few crazy people. But that reaction, whether it is expressed or not, will still be present in many people's minds right after a huge thing like that.
I agree.
But I have said many times that although many researchers are stubborn, very smart ones such as Williams & Skoric acknowledge the flaws in research and state many times that violent game play does not conclusively cause aggressive outbreaks such as school shootings.
There are many confounding variables, that's why I'm doing research on it and plan to greatly improve knowledge in this area in the future.
Excuse me, but what does the host of site have to do with the content of the paper? I see no link.
Again, how would advertisements on a site of a hosted document affect the validity of article? Scientists are not webmasters.
However, there aren't any ads on the links I provided...so...what are you talking about?
Perhaps you should read my comments, because I never said and actually, I emphasized the crucial point that the research to date does not prove that video games cause aggressive behaviours. It also does not prove the opposite.
Well I think you're blind, not so much stupid.(If you are in fact talking about my links...) But go ahead and childishly call me an idiot if you wish.
Anyone who has murdered anyone else has likely walked from one place to another. Does that mean walking is indicative of murderous intent
Don't say stupid things, please.
The results suggest that playing violent video games (just like violent television) may increase aggressive thoughts, behaviours, etc.
I do not think you understand how to read a scientific article. It doesn't make you dumb, but don't be ignorant.
Oh for sure! How can you arrest someone for not doing something illegal?
However, although things seem to have been blown out of proportion, I think people are sort of "on edge" with all the shootings that have happened.
But had he been planning a school shooting, is it not good to be safe rather than sorry?
A summary is not evidence. And no, I didn't miss the fact that it was a summary of Williams and Skoric's scientific article. Also, stating in the article is not a proper reference.
Perhaps you should read the actual article and read what other researchers have found.
Also, read the other articles and see what they found.
Also, read other articles doing your own research and see what they found.
There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Both sides have significant, scientific data. That being said, you cannot say there has been no scientific research. You also cannot say that it is a fact that violent video games cause aggressive behaviour, cognitions, etc. You also cannot say that it is a fact that violent video games don't cause aggressive behaviour, cognitions, etc. A lot more research needs to be done on this topic, I am not arguing that. But to date, there are no hardcorefacts.
And one last thing, just because one researcher finds something doesn't mean it is right. Unless several studies show the same results, it will not even be considered. Science doesn't deal with individual cases or insignificant findings.
Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.
o ric.pdf p df p df 0 1.pdf 0 2.pdf 0 3.pdf
The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcwill/www/CMWilliamsSk
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study5.
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study4.
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%2
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%2
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%2
Like I said, other researchers and myself do not firmly believe that video games are not the primary cause for aggressive outbreaks.
I don't know where you are magically getting your information from, but you're wrong. I am currently conducting research on the effects of exposure to violent video games on adolescents and have long finished my literature review of several scientific articles. Feel free to ask for the pdf files if you want to read them. These are parts of my literature review including the citations: A growing number of researchers are drawing links between aggression and violent video games. For instance, the unfortunate event that took place at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado triggered a controversy about video games has led researchers to become more aware of the potential effects violent video games may have had on the tragedy (Slatalla, 1999; Taylor, 1999, as cited in Williams & Skoric, 2005). Other researchers, Anderson and Bushman (2001, as cited in Williams & Skoric, 2005), revealed that there is a positive link between the exposure to violent video games and aggression. Exposure to violent television and video games has also been known to cause self-reported, peer-reported and teacher-reported aggressive behaviour (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Singer & Singer 1983, 1986; Singer, Singer, & Rapaczynski, 1984, as cited in Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). (blahblah, things not relevant to you) An individual's ideas about the appropriateness of aggression as a result of social norms have an impact on response and also in common situations (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997, as cited in Williams & Skoric). This suggests that people's conception of aggression will ultimately influence behaviour in social situations experienced on a daily basis. As a result of exposing themselves to violent and aggressive content, players will be more likely to handle social situations in a more aggressive manner and engage in more arguments. One researcher suggests that being exposed to violent content will activate aggressive cognitions, which in turn will activate aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1990, as cited in Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). So yes, there is scientific evidence that gamers who enjoy violent video games may be more violent in comparison to those who do not. I am not saying that any of these statements are conclusive as I am a violent video game player and I haven't shot up my college (and I go to Dawson, by the way, and was present during the shooting in September 2006). However, ignornant statements such as yours and from several other people here on Slashdot piss me off.
I agree.
.docx and if you know you're going to be switching back and forth between computers (like I do, just save it as .doc or you can get the handy file conversion tool http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displa ylang=en
But you can save documents in any format. It doesn't have to be
Could someone PLEASE explain to me why everyone is annoyingly comparing Windows to Mac and other OS? Windows is updating WINDOWS, it's not updating MAC. You people are impossible to please. "It's not like Mac!" Hmm, maybe because it's Windows? And if Windows didn't try to start to "compete" with other OS, you'd all start a topic saying, "Eh! Microsoft still doesn't know anything! What are they waiting for!?" Just because Mac has had 'better security' since...ever...doesn't mean Windows can't attempt to have it either. If you like your mac, good. Stay with it. And for the people who like Windows, I'm sure they are happy that their company is upgrading.
Is Slashdot also filled with angsty people that are incapable of taking a joke? Or are you just single...?
I totally agree. And honestly, who the hell cares if someone sees you searching for donkey porn, anyway? "Oh, I typed in donkey porn...SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE might know that...So I might be the topic of tonight's party! I'm the guy who searched for donkey porn!" Ooh, how devasting. And if it's because people are scared their wife/husband is going to find out fancy a donkey over them...Well, they deserve to be caught. And even if someone was reading your IM conversations...Wow...What are they going to do? Use it against you in court? Pedophile... I wonder if people here know about things like StatCounter. Say you searched for 'lolita in leather' and stumble upon someone's site who's talking about lolita in leather...they can find out: your IP, how you found their site (what you searched), your country, your region, how long you were on their site...So whether or not you use google...You can be found out... I'm not sure why I'm replying to this when it's sort of going off-topic, heh, sorry!
I agree. I love Creative and would never buy an iPod. Besides, iPod fails presentation and decor >.>