It is not a waste of time.

    Games are often viewed as a waste of time, something that does not contribute any real meaning to the user.  Some people even call it plain stupid.  What’s worse than spending seven hours or more of your life each week indulged in Tetris, Angry Birds or Halo?  After all, it is impossible to get those hours back.  Others claim that games do benefit the user in many ways intellectually and socially.  From my experience, when I was still a child playing Tetris and Pokemon on the Nintendo Gameboy, I did not become smarter.  Neither did I improve my social skills.  Instead it appeared to be the opposite as I reflect.  I was more antisocial as my eyes glued into the small screen and I studied less.  All this only lead my parents to hate games which is now understandable.

    To hold the same view today would be incorrect though.  Games have developed far beyond the small screen Nintendo Gameboy into complex machines that enables the player to play with many others around the world if desire.  Designers also incorporate social features into games today to further involve the player with physical movements besides sitting down.  The Wii and the Xbox Kinect clearly demonstrated this well.  The Wii senses your movement with the remote(s) you hold in your hand while the Xbox excel beyond using something like a webcam combined with motion sensing to detect the user’s movements eliminating the use of a controller.  In addition, it takes voice command from the user.  

    All these innovative features open up new realms of gaming beyond the first consoles and Gameboy.  Sports and dance games incorporate these new capabilities into them which allow users to physically move to control their character.  With multi-player and challenge mode everyone in the family can get involve from all ages without feeling too old.  Online games allow players to connect and talk with others from anywhere.

    All these new features of gaming enable the player to develop his/her social and cooperation skills.  My cousins and friends love Halo.  They have to play it almost every night and each time they play lasts for at least three hours .  At times I observe them play and see them all very engaged; even yelling at each others when someone cheated or gets upset.  I do see teamwork and communication skills develop through this game though.  Each player in a team has some skills that he is great at and they work together to conquer the enemy through talking to, trusting, and working with each other.  If they do not encompass teamwork, they will lose to their opponents and this further push them to develop better communication and teamwork among each other.  Other games such as “Dance Central” for the Xbox Kinect keeps the player in shape by requiring the player to move constantly.  It also permits the player to challenge others adding a social aspect to it.We also need to keep in mind that games are not exclusive to game consoles game only.  There are also board games and social word games that develop the player(s) intellectually.

video belongs to IGNentertainment

Who knows what the future beholds for games.  It may even become more social and and interactive to reach a larger audience because solo games do not appeal to light gamers.  But what I do know is that some games are not a waste of time.  I am not claiming that games are the best method for an individual to develop nor do I encourage playing games for a long time.  Other activities exist that possess more capability for an individual to develop, but not everything works for everyone. 

More leaks please!

       WikiLeaks poses a threat to many people and governments in the world.  Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is now one of the most dangerous person in the world, or possibly the most dangerous in the world.  Why is that the case?  Well, if you have not checked out one of WikiLeaks website, you should.  If not, he can easily be found on Youtube along with video clips of a very controversial incidence between the United States military, two Reuters journalist and Iraqis in the suburb of New Baghdad.
       A controversial issue also surrounds Julian himself.  Many people consider him as an ignorant dangerous man who puts too much information online endangering lives and possibly compromising national security.  At the same time there are many who praise and encourage Julian to pursue his mission of information transparency and keeping governments open/accountable.  Personally, I am undecided also.  Julian is exposing too much information in my opinion and this puts many people at risk.  Some information are better kept secret because unveiling them may only do more harm then good.  People might go crazy if they discover some information that seriously affected them in a negative way.  Of course such  things should not have occurred and such information should not exist anyways but the matter of the fact is the world is corrupt in one way or another.
       On the other hand I support his mission to keep governments, institutions, businesses and people accountable for their actions.  Today, corporations and businesses have too much influence on our governments, politicians and media; therefore affecting citizens and defeating the purpose of a government.  The people need to capture their media and voice back to use to keep institutions liable for their actions.
I encourage Mr. Assange and whistle-blowers to continue.  Specifically I request that some whistle-blowers send in information regarding the "Secret War" that occurred from 1955 to 1975.  Let me explain to you why.  The United States' CIA recruited Hmong villagers, led under General Vang Pao, to help them fight against the spread of communist and rescue US soldiers during the Vietnam War.  Many sacrificed their lives and left their families to become "guerrilla fighters" to intercept enemy lines and gear transportation routes.  They were told to fight the enemy without knowing that one day many will be left stranded behind in a war torn country only to be hunted down like animals in the jungle of which used to be their home.  Some were lucky enough to come to the promise land which was then known as the US, but this further separated families and left many behind to pay for the consequence in the form of genocide.  Here is a short clip from Youtube and I warn you of gruesome images: 

       As of today what does the US or UN do?  Nothing.  What the heck!  Why?  As mentioned before it is a "Secret War" and the US plans to keep it a secret.  General Vang Pao, who the CIA recruited to gather thousands of Hmong and train them into guerrilla units, just recently passed away.  For all that he has done for the CIA, costing the lives of so many Hmong and Laotians who fought alongside US soldiers, he was still rejected from the Arlington National Cemetery dedicated to recognizing US combat veterans.  The ridiculous decision by the Pentagon was because space was limited.  In reality, the US wants to keep this "Secret War" a secret.  Even the movie Gran Torino, directed by Clint Eastwood involving Hmong families, actors, and culture try to keep the war a secret.  The movie was subtitled into English whenever Hmong was spoken, but one scene was not subtitled.  That scene consisted of a Hmong woman talking about the "Secret War."  Obviously the intent was so no other ethnicity can hear about it except the Hmong who already knew about it.

"What the heck!"

       Only through transparency of such information by WikiLeaks can we ever hold the government responsible for what they do and not do.

To Have, or Not to Have

What does this “net neutrality“ term floating around in the internet mean?  Freedom of speech? Non-discrimination?  Competition? Government regulation? Innovation?  Its very core principle aims at making all internet content unrestricted and accessible at the same speed.  The purpose is to make the internet a level playing field for anyone who wants to do anything legal.  Recently, congress has ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to impose such regulations.  Many are afraid this will make the internet into a “tiered” playing field for anyone who wants to put their services or contents online.  Proponents for “net neutrality” argue its removal can lead to discrimination, site restriction, and favoritism by internet service providers (ISP’s).  This will definitely hinder innovation as well as competition.

Opponents such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T say "what the heck!"  They claim the regulation clogs the internet and prevents them from offering better services for their customers.  If removed, these ISP’s will be able to create a “fast lane” for certain content that are willing to pay more.  It will better the service of the content provider, the users of the content and the ISP.  It’s a win win situation for everyone so why not?  Theoretically it appears as a sound business strategy and it is.  As Comcast or AT&T, I would fight for the removal of such regulation so I can further maximize my revenue to increase my infrastructure.  They already claimed not to degrade or restrict access to any site to counter fears of discrimination and favoritism.  What the heck. What’s the problem then?

 Let’s put it this way.  “Net neutrality” is removed.  Facebook decides to pay ISP’s more money so it can have a “fast lane” for its users.  This is great news for Facebook users, advertisers and will attract many more users or even cause switch overs.  The problem here is what about other social networks who can’t afford the fast lane service.  They get left behind.  One can argue this as pure competition, but when there is only two major ISP’s does real competition exist?  This places new start-ups at a disadvantaged position because if they cannot offer faster access to their content or service, users will choose those who can.

Remove the regulation and there is no limit to what ISP’s can do and will do.  The bigger picture here is trust between users and ISP’s.  Unfortunately history is not on ISP’s side.  History illustrates that some ISP providers have blocked certain contents and sites before.  It is just hard to trust a profit maximizing business who wants to dominate the market.  Who cares much about users if they are getting money from somewhere else.  Furthermore, who guarantees they will not block or restrict any site?  Once a blocker, always a blocker.  If net neutrality is trashed, more issues can arise.  Politicians can use their money to their advantage by bribing ISP’s.  It is possibly already happening anyways, but this will enable it a degree higher.  To an extreme, ISP's can influence what you choose and therefore what you see.  Should we let the “free market” decide on its own after it has led us to a spectacular recession recently? Or is there even a market?  You choose to have, or not to have.