A topic which has come under some debate recently is how the new MP3 players affect the pedestrian's concentration. In the article quoted on the right, a journalist makes it clear that these MP3 players are a viable threat to road safety since you lose a sense in a dangerous environment. However a counter article from another journalist has slated the orginal simpy pointing out, since when was listening to your car radio considered unsafe? After all its the same concept.
Both articles were printed by The Guardian and a direct link to both of them can be found in the sidebar.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Violent Videogames: Individual Presentation
Case study notes
17 year old Warren Leblanc repeatedly stabbed 14 year old Stefan Pakeerah with a claw hammer and a knife after luring him to a Leicester park in 27 February 2004. In the investigation that followed, it became evident that Warren was obsessed with at the time Rockstar Game's latest release, Manhunt. The game rewarded the player for killing people in the most horrific ways, and portrayed them in the most gory way as possible.
This fuelled an already heated debate which questions the morality of violent video games and bought the UK very much into the mix. On one side they promote anti-social behaviour and can be linked to what many consider a massive degenerative teenage culture. However on the other, it is questionable how these games can affect a user's behaviour in the 'real world' & more importantly money.
Rockstar Games has been in the media spotlight ever since it first released its first controversial game series, Grand Theft Auto. Rockstar have continued to raise the contorversy by releasing the Manhunt game mentioned above, and most recently Canis Canem Edit, with most of the game centred about bullying. Needless to say they have been taken to court several times and in some cases successfully sued however no unilateral action has been taken by the watchdog bodies who classify the games. This could be to do with the fact that Rockstar games made $12.5 billion in ONE YEAR in America alone! Rockstar games is part of a franchise and is owned by Take That Interactive, a company made a gross profit in 2006 of around $216 million.
When your making that much money, one you can afford to play the legal system however you like and two no one is going to argue.
And so the standoff continues....
17 year old Warren Leblanc repeatedly stabbed 14 year old Stefan Pakeerah with a claw hammer and a knife after luring him to a Leicester park in 27 February 2004. In the investigation that followed, it became evident that Warren was obsessed with at the time Rockstar Game's latest release, Manhunt. The game rewarded the player for killing people in the most horrific ways, and portrayed them in the most gory way as possible.
This fuelled an already heated debate which questions the morality of violent video games and bought the UK very much into the mix. On one side they promote anti-social behaviour and can be linked to what many consider a massive degenerative teenage culture. However on the other, it is questionable how these games can affect a user's behaviour in the 'real world' & more importantly money.
Rockstar Games has been in the media spotlight ever since it first released its first controversial game series, Grand Theft Auto. Rockstar have continued to raise the contorversy by releasing the Manhunt game mentioned above, and most recently Canis Canem Edit, with most of the game centred about bullying. Needless to say they have been taken to court several times and in some cases successfully sued however no unilateral action has been taken by the watchdog bodies who classify the games. This could be to do with the fact that Rockstar games made $12.5 billion in ONE YEAR in America alone! Rockstar games is part of a franchise and is owned by Take That Interactive, a company made a gross profit in 2006 of around $216 million.
When your making that much money, one you can afford to play the legal system however you like and two no one is going to argue.
And so the standoff continues....
Web 2.0?
When I first heard the title 'Web 2.0', it seemed like a vague attempt to advertise a new private intranet system. It is in fact, when put into its broadest definition, the concept of a second generation forming within the internet which facilitates the collaboration and sharing between users. Confused yet?
Here is a different way of putting it:
This is the basic principle that works with all websites on the internet:
Author makes a website
Author adds content to the website
People view the website
The Web 2.0 concept simply underlines that now this is the new principle that a growing number of modern websites follow this principle:
Author makes a website
Author adds content to the website
Users view the website
Users interact with each other through the website
Users change the website content
Author moderates the website
This can apply to many different website types, blogging being the most familiar one and the second being open-source information sharing websites such as 'Wikipedia.com' and the controversial site 'Youtube'.
This has been underlined as the improved version of the internet but in my opinion, wasnt this what it was designed to do in the first place?
The definition of the internet as published in the oxford dictionary is:
'An international information network linking computers, accessible to the public via modem links'
The sharing of information between computers. Whether it is now done through social interaction now is irrelevant, it is still the sharing of information. I definitly think calling it Web 2.0 is a little over the top.
I do see the issues that arise concerning these new freedoms on the internet but I certainly don't think it should be hailed as a second coming!
Discuss.
This is the basic principle that works with all websites on the internet:
Author makes a website
Author adds content to the website
People view the website
The Web 2.0 concept simply underlines that now this is the new principle that a growing number of modern websites follow this principle:
Author makes a website
Author adds content to the website
Users view the website
Users interact with each other through the website
Users change the website content
Author moderates the website
This can apply to many different website types, blogging being the most familiar one and the second being open-source information sharing websites such as 'Wikipedia.com' and the controversial site 'Youtube'.
This has been underlined as the improved version of the internet but in my opinion, wasnt this what it was designed to do in the first place?
The definition of the internet as published in the oxford dictionary is:
'An international information network linking computers, accessible to the public via modem links'
The sharing of information between computers. Whether it is now done through social interaction now is irrelevant, it is still the sharing of information. I definitly think calling it Web 2.0 is a little over the top.
I do see the issues that arise concerning these new freedoms on the internet but I certainly don't think it should be hailed as a second coming!
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)