3 ₪ ωнεи ωaя мєєτs vϊđεo gaмεs
Why are war video games so popular now? "If it's not realistic, it's not worth playing," is a quote in the article. Do you think realistic war games desensitive people to the horror of war or is it just fun? What do you personally think of war video games?
War video games: good or bad? This is just like an example for the first journal [With the GOOD, comes the BAD]. Video games -- I would say are so popular now because it is realistic. Most of the people who play war video games are either children in elementary or teens in high school. Why? Because I said so. [No im kidding =P] Its because the characters in the game are so realistic, we can relate to them and feel like its us that is in the game. Why don't we -- teens -- play older games like... say Pokemon or Mario or something. We don't play those games anymore because they are "lame" now. They are "old and stupid". "If it's not realistic, it's not worth playing" -- the article is right. If the game isn't realistic, it isn't as much fun. If you can't relate to the characters, you can't enjoy it as much as you can with a realistic game. I personally prefer games that are somewhat realistic and somewhat not; car racing for instance. So now we come to the topic of WAR video games. War games have characters that are very much like a real soldier or fighter. They can move their body parts like; ducking, sitting, lying down, standing, etc. Unrealistic games cannot do that. Games like Mario and Pokemon just move around, jump, and attack using fake ammo. That's no fun. That's not real.
So, I think that war games do desensitize people but that is not always true... sometimes its just for fun as well. Even though playing war games and hearing about real war is not the same thing, people still know that there is a difference. They do know what the horrors of war are. And they do know that it is not the same as they played in their games. So personally, even though war games are (no fun to me), I think that they aren't wrong either. Because people don't depend on what they learn from the war games, they depend on what they are brought up as. So even if they played a game that includes people killing other people, I don't think that it gives people the wrong idea about the horrors of war.
2 ₪ Λи ipođ cℓassяooм
What if you didn't have to go to seminars at all and you could do all your learning using your iPod? The article suggests that iPod video lectures are effective for '"kinesthetic learners", who tend to be hands-on, active, and require frequent breaks." Do you think that you would learn well using an iPod? Why or why not? An advocate for "v-casting" through the iPod says that: "It's more interactive and more self-directed." Do you think that Mary Ward, with its commitment to self-directed learning, should embrace such technology for education? What are some advantages or disadvantages?iPod -- The latest music and video technology in the hands of... well, a lot of people. Putting aside the fact that they are pretty convenient, versatile, and fun to have around; we must not go over board with it. I mean, using it for education? The whole point of having an iPod is to have fun with it, enjoying it, and listening to your own music (or what ever you are listening to...). If we were to use iPods for education, it wouldn't be the iPod anymore. It'd turn into "Oh-that-thing-that-has-boring-lectures-and-people-talking-to-us-in". Plus, having to get every single student an iPod would cost dearly (which would be a good thing for the Apple company but that is a totally different topic).
Personally, I don't think that I would learn better using an iPod. Why? Many reasons (that actually make sense and are simple). First of all, iPods might be fun and efficient but they are not very healthy for our ears. Some people blast their volume so high; that other people around them can also hear. That can be pretty annoying to some people. They can damage our ears in the future and are not the best option. Secondly, even if there are some people who "kinaesthetic learners", doesn't mean everybody is one. Just because a couple of people have a harder time sitting in class and staying put, doesn't mean that others do. I mean, I wasn't even sure what that word meant until now (that i looked it up ;P). Along with that, I think that being present in a class and being pushed to pay attention and have a teacher looking over your shoulder (...sometimes) is better than giving a student total freedom. Taking our school for an example -- if you just take a look in the halls during school, you will see A LOT of people hall walking. And not just one day or just switching areas -- but everyday, all the time... Hall-walking (Like, you know that is a fact). Also, iPods -- how ever convenient and clear they are -- can not replace teachers. They can't answer questions right there and then. Moreover, if iPods were to be used for "education purposes", updating every one of them and inputting information into every person's would take a huge lot of time -- and in my opinion, I don't think it would be worth all the trouble. Not forgetting the fact that we would be depending on a technology to teach us what we should be learning from teachers. So, I don't think using iPods for Ward would be wise and even though there are or may be advantages by it, we must not forget the disadvantages. Especially if there is more harm than relief.
Why are war video games so popular now? "If it's not realistic, it's not worth playing," is a quote in the article. Do you think realistic war games desensitive people to the horror of war or is it just fun? What do you personally think of war video games? 
