Two Harvard researchers have concluded that there's no data to support the notion that violent video games cause the kids who play them to act out violence in real life, contrary to the vast majority of media outlets that would have the public thinking otherwise. The $1.5 million study, which began in 2004, closely examined 1,200 children after bouts with violent games like Grand Theft Auto and not-so-violent titles like The Sims.
Psychologists Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson found that for most kids, playing these games was nothing more than a stress reliever. Sure, some children displayed a playful aggressiveness after hours spent with a violent game, but this was no different than what children experience after seeing a martial arts action movie.
No, we find much more creative ways of wasting money. This study had to happen, considering the amount of attention violent video games get in the political arena.
Rock me mama, like a wagon wheel Rock me mama, any way you feel
1.5 million down the drain. There goes the salary of the scientist who cured Cancer or AIDS or something. Love this country.
1.5 million doesn't even come close to that. It's sadly chump change in the world of academia. That said there is a lot that's wrong with this country's priorities and how we spend research money.
They will never make a cure for AIDS (technically, a cure for HIV) open to the public.
Why?
Because a cure is not profitable. We live in America, afterall, where capitalism reigns supreme.
I know I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but ever wonder why someone like Magic Johnson is STILL alive after all these years? Perhaps because he is RICH enough to be able to AFFORD a cure...
So yes, I'm pretty much saying that it is highly possible that there's already a cure for HIV.
[=[_]=] You know it seems the more we talk about it [+[_]::] It only makes it worse to live without it, but let's talk about it GamerTag: Sensei Ukyo | AIM: flypshady | MySpace: myspace.com/flipshady
There's nothing conspirational about it. I have a slightly different take though. A big part of the problem is we've turned medicine into big business. None of these businesses want to spend the money on finding a cure for cancer or aids because people would be able to take it and be done with them. They'ed much rather provide treatments, which they can dole out expensively, over the course of years as their charges continue to work and earn more money to spend on medicine and procedures, safe in the knowledge that people will either choose to pay or die. Essentially it's a lot more profitable for them to farm patients for as long as they can.
"I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation." --George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 2525 | Location: Fontana, California, United States | Registered: Mon May 02 2005
No, I was saying that that's probably the view of pharmaceuticals - if there's a cure, that's it... game over man, game over. But if you can prevent people catching it, there's still a chance to make money as X disease can still be contracted and treatments are needed. Cynical? Yes. That's business I guess
I think I may have missed something though...
Would you want a guy who crawled through a sewage tunnel as a mate?
Wherein a corporation has become such a huge conglomerate that it is both a massive polluter and a supplier of pharmaceuticals. The implications that can be gathered are that it's more profitable all the way around for the same company to intentionally give us cancer, asthma and other environmentally triggered maladies so that it can then sell us treatments for that cancer and those maladies.
Forums 
