around the corner PC World - Software giant has failed to comply with the terms of its March 2004 ruling, EC says. World - a realm or domain: the animal world; the world of imagination.. There is a old saying sony removes Dutch PSP ads seen as racist
(AP) AP - Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. has removed billboards for the new white version of its PlayStation Portable video game player following complaints of racism, the company said. Sony also apologized. Dutch - archaic. A Germanic people. This is worth your time also another Overhyped Weak Link Between Video Games And Violence qkslvr writes in with the latest academic research claiming to show the link between video games and violence. Amusingly, it claims this is the “first” study to prove video games desensitizes people to real-life violence. There are a few problems with this. First, it’s not the first study to claim such a thing. Just seven months ago, we linked to a study that made nearly identical claims. And, second, it doesn’t actually seem to prove that at all. Just like the last study, all it really showed is that (shockingly!), people get slightly (and perhaps temporarily) desensitized if they see two similar things in a row. If you see a lot of violence, seeing more violence isn’t going to get your heart rate pumping nearly as much. That’s not surprising at all. That’s barely a finding worth reporting. That doesn’t even remotely suggest that because your heart rate doesn’t beat as fast, you’re now going to run out and start attacking people. However, that doesn’t stop the folks who did this study from spinning it into being a much bigger deal. They claim that seeing violence makes people “numb” to it, as if they don’t care about violence they might participate in. Most people know the difference between real violence and fake violence on the screen. That’s why youth violence keeps dropping as video game violence becomes more popular.
But, the researchers don’t stop there. They want everyone to know that this is a big problem, claiming that violent media is “a powerful desensitization intervention on a global level.” The researchers then go in for the (figurative!) kill: “It (marketing of video game media) initially is packaged in ways that are not too threatening, with cute cartoon-like characters, a total absence of blood and gore, and other features that make the overall experience a pleasant one. That arouses positive emotional reactions that are incongruent with normal negative reactions to violence. Older children consume increasingly threatening and realistic violence, but the increases are gradual and always in a way that is fun. In short, the modern entertainment media landscape could accurately be described as an effective systematic violence desensitization tool.”
Unfortunately, their study shows none of that (and seems to paint video game marketing with an unfairly broad brush that doesn’t seem particularly accurate). All it shows is that if you’ve been playing violent video games, immediately afterwards if you watch some violence on TV, it doesn’t get your heart pumping nearly as much. They don’t bother to look at how long this lasts. They don’t bother to look at how it actually impacts how the person feels about violence… and they certainly don’t look at how this makes the individual act. They don’t bother to see how people would react to real violence happening in front of them (only TV violence from movies and TV shows). All they note is that the violence isn’t as shocking. That’s like saying if I was listening to loud music for a while and then put on more loud music, it wouldn’t be as shocking as if I simply turned on loud music after listening to quiet music. There’s nothing surprising, or even worrying there, but that doesn’t stop the researchers from blowing it out of proportion in a way that will surely be misused by those with a political agenda. Link - a unit in a transportation or communications system. More information might help you throwing Away Privacy In The Blink Of An Eye While we’re on the topic of folks in Congress being inconsistent in their views, Declan McCullough has written up a piece questioning Representative Joe Barton on privacy issues. He’s repeatedly fought hard for privacy rights and making sure that individuals’ data are secure, but as soon as the election season “for the children” pandering started, he was one of the first in line. His proposal is to require ISPs to retain data for the sake of tracking down child pornographers and child predators. That’s a noble goal, obviously, but it raises a lot of questions about why ISPs need to be burdened and (more importantly) why everyone else’s privacy must be weakened. As McCullough notes, once that data is out there, it will be used for a lot more than just tracking down child predators. Whether or not the law allows for it, the rights to protect that data will continually erode. At the same time, just having that data available means that those who have access to it (or figure out how to have access to it) will misuse it or lose it. That’s practically guaranteed. So, for someone so interested in protecting our privacy, it seems that Rep. Barton is working hard to wipe out an awful lot of privacy in one simple move. Throwing - the maximum displacement of a machine part moved by another part, such as a crank or cam. I also heard that %keyword%








