Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Science

Violent Video Games Can Improve Vision 205

Posted by kdawson
from the look-sharp dept.
Ponca City, We love you writes "According to a new study, people who played fighting games on their PCs became up to a 58 percent better at perceiving fine contrast differences, an important aspect of eyesight. The breakthrough is significant because it was previously thought that the ability to notice even very small changes in shades of grey against a uniform background could not be improved. Contrast sensitivity is the primary limiting factor in how well one sees. Volunteers in the study played intensively for 50 hours over nine weeks with either Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2, and the results were compared with another group who played The Sims 2, which is richly visual but does not require as much hand-eye coordination. The improvements lasted for months after game play stopped. The new finding suggests action video games could be used as training devices as a useful complement to eye-correction techniques, since gaming may teach the brain's visual cortex to make better use of the information it receives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Violent Video Games Can Improve Vision

Comments Filter:
  • Have to see (Score:5, Funny)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:36PM (#27383077)
    You've got to be able to see well to pwn enemies with headshots and get first post!
    • Re:Have to see (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vectronic (1221470) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:42PM (#27383115)

      Indeed, but so would any game thats fast paced, requires acute visual discrepancies, and something is at risk, or is rewarded for the ability.

      But, in classic KDawson style... "Violent" games... may as well say "Stabbing people to death improves hand-eye coordination", when the articles starts with "Video games with lots of action, such as the shoot-'em-up variety, can improve your vision, a new study finds.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:45PM (#27383141)

        "

        You dropped this. I though you would want it back.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:34PM (#27383433)

          t

          Hey dude, you dropped this while helping that other guy. I thought you might still want it.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            t

            Hey dude, you dropped this while helping that other guy. I thought you might still want it.

            You spent a long time spell checking that post, didn't you?

          • by guyminuslife (1349809) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @10:45PM (#27383741)

            You wouldn't happen to have seen my car keys by any chance, would you?

            • by johannesg (664142)

              You wouldn't happen to have seen my car keys by any chance, would you?

              I wish I could help you, but I don't play violent video games so much so my eyes are pretty bad :-(

          • Hey his has gone oo far! ha was my you can' jus seal people's leers.
      • by Jurily (900488)

        Indeed, but so would any game thats fast paced, requires acute visual discrepancies, and something is at risk, or is rewarded for the ability.

        He's talking about Doom 3. All you can see there is shades of dark brown and red. Also, the violence helps with the fear factor, which means you'll pay attention to the subtle differences more.

        • by peragrin (659227)

          Actually the older games are probably better finding just two tiny bits and putting your target on them has to be harder than the more modern engines with better scalings.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Clearly, there should be studies done on video games that don't deal with violence at all, but only deal with sex. I want a study done to determine if viewing pornography can improve visual acuity. Sex and sexuality have often been related to blindness (amongst other nasties); it would be good if it can be scientifically demonstrated that sex can actually be beneficial.

        • Hmm, on a somewhat related note, what about people who analyze images and video for a living (I was thinking low quality porn, people desperately looking for "penetration")... but spy satellites, robbery footage, etc...

          As far as sex being proven "good" it already has, there are numerous studies done on people who have frequent sex, and not, and the length of their lives etc, however that could just be because of the cardio (which should be good for your eyes too), rather than the actual act itself, but horm

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by PachmanP (881352)

            The masturbation leading to blindness, is probably a superstition sort of thing, some guy had an orgasm, temporarily making his vision obscured, and he just took it way too far..."luckely I stopped, or it would have been permanent"

            Or some guy was looking for some lesbian softcore and came across something like goatse, and in order to protect him (as brains are wont to do during traumatic experiences) his brain shut down the visual centers. I would correlate that with wanking if you were doing your bidness to an image gallery and halfway through that happened.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by The Iso (1088207)

              Samuel-Auguste Tissot (1728-1797) is the source of the myth that masturbation leads to vision loss. He attributed a host of health problems to masturbation in his 1760 book L'Onanisme, based on the belief (which persisted into the Victorian era) that semen is a vital fluid, and the loss of it weakens a man.

          • by X0563511 (793323)

            Or, he had a particularly earth-shattering orgasm, and coupled with any other health problems, the spike in blood pressure blew out his retinas...

        • by BagOCrap (980854) on Monday March 30, 2009 @07:26AM (#27386273) Homepage

          Clearly, there should be studies done on video games that don't deal with violence at all, but only deal with sex. I want a study done to determine if viewing pornography can improve visual acuity. Sex and sexuality have often been related to blindness (amongst other nasties); it would be good if it can be scientifically demonstrated that sex can actually be beneficial.

          Masturbation and watching pornography can improve your hearing. Listening for any other noises, like the creaking of the door to your room, or footsteps on the floor is a great exercise.

        • I believe there's pretty strong evidence that sex is correlated to creating life.

          I'll leave it up to your judgement if that's beneficial or not.

  • Acecoolco (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:40PM (#27383105)

    Ok, so playing violent video games makes you a serial killer, and improves your eyesight thus making you superhuman?

    Just wait until they add laser beams on top of gamers heads!!!

    We are effing doomed!

  • Net Benefit? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:46PM (#27383145) Journal
    I have a serious problem with eye strain, even when using nice monitors. I'm not alone. Because of this, I have a hard time believing that there is a net benefit in terms of overall eye health. Doing visual-based puzzles or learning how to paint are probably far healthier ways to increase perception of fine contrast differences.

    Also, does anyone have any idea why contrast sensitivity would be a particularly important thing to improve?
    • Re:Net Benefit? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:03PM (#27383265) Homepage Journal
      What do you consider a "nice monitor"? Some 19" LCD with horrible contrast ratio, or an 24" SGI branded CRT going at 180hz? What is your resolution? Too often people complain they have eye strain, then you realize they are trying to look at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor.

      Contrast sensitivity is pretty important. Ask any Vietnam vet. Ask any microbiologist. Ask anyone trying to play Doom 3...
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        then you realize they are trying to look at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor.

        That surely only matters if you're too retarded to enlarge your font size (which you can do even on windoze nowadays, though by default windoze does some dumb shit compared to linux/x11 or macosx, you have to reconfigure it). You should be running at the highest resolution * refresh rate combo your system allows, but just making the fonts bigger. Because an outline font engine will give crisper, clearer fonts at a higher resolution (higher DPI), since there are simply more pixels per letter to work with w

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Mr680x0 (1116783)
          You have a valid point, but spelling Windows as windoze makes people not take you seriously...
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            You have a valid point, but spelling Windows as windoze makes people not take you seriously...

            Well, windows marketers certainly. Nobody else gives a shit.

      • by fractoid (1076465)
        Nothing wrong with 1280x1024 @ 17". I've been using that resolution and screen size (well two of 'em but yeah) for the past 3-4 years, 10-12 hours a day with no problems.

        I have to say I love my new 24" LCD though... makes me sad that I paid $600 each for two 17" a few years back (still going strong, my wife uses 'em now) and it was $300-odd for a 24" 1920x1080 screen...
      • Contrast sensitivity is pretty important. Ask anyone trying to play Doom 3...

        Contrast sensitivity is futile. Put down your input devices. You will be head-shot.

    • Re:Net Benefit? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SwabTheDeck (1030520) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:48PM (#27383489)

      I have a serious problem with eye strain, even when using nice monitors. I'm not alone. Because of this, I have a hard time believing that there is a net benefit in terms of overall eye health. Doing visual-based puzzles or learning how to paint are probably far healthier ways to increase perception of fine contrast differences.

      The reason why FPS games help your contrast perception is rather simple. If you want to stay alive, you have to be able to see the guy moving around that is 3 shades of gray lighter than the dark corner he's hiding in. Because of the required reaction time to be successful (aka shooting him before he shoots you) the game trains you to closely watch for these contrast differences.

      In a visual-based puzzle game like Bejeweled (or any of the zillion color-matching games out there) all the game pieces are already high contrast. You see a field of 5 or 6 different colored pieces, not thousands or millions of colors, like most modern FPS games provide. Hence, the game doesn't train you to look for the small contrast differences. Painting may provide some benefit, but painting is a much slower process than fragging some n00b who's coming around the corner with a rocket launcher. You have as much time as you want to figure out if one color is different than the other. Taking an extra few miliseconds deciding on your next brush stroke for your still life painting isn't going to result in a grenade being lodged in your sphincter.

      • Re:Net Benefit? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymusing (1450747) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @10:15PM (#27383617)

        In a visual-based puzzle game like Bejeweled (or any of the zillion color-matching games out there) all the game pieces are already high contrast. You see a field of 5 or 6 different colored pieces, not thousands or millions of colors, like most modern FPS games provide. Hence, the game doesn't train you to look for the small contrast differences.

        So... you're saying they should make a super-low-contrast version of Bejeweled and it might have a related effect on vision?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by zach297 (1426339)
          You'll also have to have the player's avatar explode if they took a few extra milliseconds.
    • Re:Net Benefit? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mdmkolbe (944892) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @10:37PM (#27383709)

      Also, does anyone have any idea why contrast sensitivity would be a particularly important thing to improve?

      Among other things contrast is an essential part of edge detection which in turn is a key part of how we see shapes. Better contract detection helps with seeing in low light conditions or where the subject is visually obscured. It wouldn't help so much when the subject is just optically smaller (e.g. physically farther away).

      I'm no expert but I suspect a lot of our visual system is based on contrast because there are so many variables that would really mess with the absolute colors. For example, varying lighting or the changes in pupil dilation and retinal sensitivity that happen automatically.

    • I think they mean that video-games help you to get better results from what you see using some "software algorithms" (i.e. using interpolation or extrapolation, the brain can make more accurate predictions about something).

      The problem is that while the brain can compensate "bad input" with software post-processing, it cannot outperform another human, who has perfect vision (thus their eyes generate "good input" for the brain - so there is no need for post-processing).

    • I used to need glasses as a kid, now, 15 years of online gaming later I've had 20/20 vision for over 8 years.

      Of course, that doesn't prove anything, my eyes could've just naturally corrected themselves. Either way though one thing is for sure, staring at a monitor or TV didn't make my eyesite worse like my grandparents always told me it would ;)

      Honestly though I wonder if my eyes ever were bad. When I was a kid and told I needed glasses my eye checks were always at commercial opticians. Eye tests over the l

  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:49PM (#27383161) Homepage

    I find that when playing 3D FPS games for too long, my eyes start having a hard time with depth. When playing the game, the focus point is the same for everything. But when I look out into the room or the real world, there is a kind of shock and discomfort until I get adjusted again.

    But they are probably right about the ability to maintain good eyesight. The fact is, we strain to see all the fine details of things in the distance ... to shoot it or not be killed by it. Eyes are muscles like others and if you don't use them, they get weaker. My laptop display is 1920x1200 and I wish it were finer... most people are like "you can read that?!"

    • Try a Virtual Boy for only 20 minutes...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Alcoholist (160427)

      I find that long amounts of FPS gaming starts to make me dizzy.

      I used to play Starcraft for 8 hours at a time, no problem at all, but after two hours of playing something like MOH or Counterstrike I start to feel a little off and have to take a break for a bit.

      I don't get motion sickness. My screen resolutions are pretty high and the refresh rates are 80Hz+, so I'm thinking it is my eyes. I'm myopic and wear glasses to correct it, and I've always wondered if this has something to do with it.

      • For me it is the contrary. I've played Quake 2 and 3, UT2004, and then some HL2, for ten hours without any eyestrain. Then I started being interested in RTS - but after 3 or 4 hours of Supcom my eyes beg for mercy. It doesn't help that the zoom feature of Supcom encourages you to zoom all the way out and look at tiny squares all the time. That's good use of a dual core processor and a latest-gen videocard. :P
    • by antdude (79039)

      I wonder if this is why I can't see 3D effects in movies, TV shows, etc. because I played too many 3D games with my bare eyes. I recalled I used to be able to see them when I was little (e.g., Captain EO at Disneyland) and before 3D games existed. I watched those three SuperBowl TV ads, Chuck 3D episode, and recently saw two 3D shows at Disneyland's California Adventure. Is anyone noticing this too or just me? :( I also can't see those stereograms and those never worked.

    • Didn't the whole "eyes are like muscles" thing get proven wrong already? Staring at things too far away to read does not make them any easier to read over time, and staring at microscope slides has yet to do the same either.
    • by mdmkolbe (944892)

      But when I look out into the room or the real world, there is a kind of shock and discomfort until I get adjusted again.

      That happens to me after reading a book for a while. If I look up after a few hours of reading, the world looks very blurry. I've never good explanation why (other than wild conjecture).

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        Your lens muscles are tired after being tensioned so long.

        Hold up a 5lb weight for about 2 hours, and feel the fatigue in those muscles... it's the same thing, realy.

    • by w0mprat (1317953)

      I find that when playing 3D FPS games for too long, my eyes start having a hard time with depth.

      Go play paintball.

  • Violent? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jangchub (1139089) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:50PM (#27383167)
    Of course I only read the summary, but why use the word violent? It sounds like this has nothing to do with violence but fast paced complex spatial reaction.
    • Re:Violent? (Score:5, Informative)

      by j01123 (1147715) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:11PM (#27383307)

      Of course I only read the summary, but why use the word violent? It sounds like this has nothing to do with violence but fast paced complex spatial reaction.

      Because /. has an ax to grind with people who make dubious claims about the harm caused by violence in video games. What better way to combat them than to implicitly make dubious claims about the benefits of violence in video games? (Though, to be fair, TFA is actually titled "Playing violent computer games 'can improve vision'".)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 4D6963 (933028)

      Well actually there kind of is a legitimate reason to that. Games such as the Call of Duty series involve enemies wearing camouflage, and sometimes they blend in damn well with what you see them against, mostly when they're in the dark or mostly hidden. If you've ever played a lot of Call of Duty online, you must have realised that careful observation is absolutely crucial in the survival of your player. The sniper in ghillies on the facing hill, the camper in the window, the guy in the shady corner, if you

    • To play /.'s advocate. It could be that the visceral chance of death and the real fear and adrenaline that happens in scary violent games provides better training. I also think the visual queues in fps' relate back to reality much better than some puzzle game. And the very dark hellish levels with low contrast probably help as well. And puzzle games are generally clean, in an fps there could be lots of things moving but only one matters and that trains you to filter/search very rapidly.
      I suppose you could
    • Granted using the word violent is sensational, but the "action" games tested were violent. And the games that would have similar effects are probably mostly violent games. You could probably create a non-violent games that increases the ability to see color contrast, but probably no one would want to play it.
  • corr != caus (Score:4, Insightful)

    by biased_estimator (1222498) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:50PM (#27383169)
    Where are are you correlation != causation people? This has nothing to do with the violence. Go mod Sims 2 so that you can grow a serial murder/rapist, and I bet you won't improve your vision. This title could be misleading.
    • Yes, it will improve your vision. Because you introduced rape into an innocent game, you will be spending your nights running from Jack Thompson, thus drastically increasing the amount of times you need to differentiate between dark contrasts, thus increasing your fine contrast sensitivity.
    • by Cyberax (705495)

      Uhm...

      This study has good controls, so it's more than just 'correlation'.

  • by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:52PM (#27383185) Journal
    Based upon this [visionrx.com] definition and explanation of contrast sensitivity, it may be the horrible lighting that many FPS maps have (I'm looking at you, OAs) that make games particularly valuable for increasing contrast sensitivity. However, it seems that if that were true, the explanation given in the summary for why the Sims isn't as valuable as Call of Duty could be incomplete.

    I would love to see a comparison of different maps within the same game -- one with excellent lighting and no dark corners, and the other with shoddy lighting. I'm willing to bet that there will be a measurable difference.
    • by Bill Currie (487)

      While I'm sure the lighting does have an effect, that's not the reason games such as The Sims wouldn't be as valuable. It's the level of immersion and the (virtual) struggle for survival in violent games that makes them valuable.

      Now, get subtle clues into non-violent games and make the player really feel that failure matters, and then they might be more valuable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Unreal Tournament 2004 is very bright. It has fantastic lighting - eye strain is never an issue.
  • As I remember it, Sims tends to be more brightly colored, with a higher contrast among people and objects. UT and COD typically have people hiding in shadows, so you have to learn to pay attention to low-contrast details. This is a horrible conclusion and the authors should be shot.

    Unless the authors actually made this conclusion and it's the summary that's wrong, not that that ever happens.

    • by crossmr (957846)

      this is a kdawson story and on slashdot no one ever rtfa. With that in mind has anyone tried clicking the links? they could be to www.picklefarm.com and he could just be making this all up.

  • Not suprising (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moniker127 (1290002)
    Someone who's played counterstrike a lot is physically conditioned to react as soon as possible to movement (counter terrorists coming around a corner).
    Is it also news that someone who runs a lot may be really good at running ?
  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:54PM (#27383197)
    ...some interesting results were generated when the group that had been playing "Unreal Tournament 2004" and "Call of Duty 2" then started playing "The Sims 2". Remarked one researcher, "the carnage was truely remarkable".
  • I wonder how much these subjects were paid to play these games for 50 hours a week? Where do i sign up for these game studies? Although it would really suck if i was assigned to the sims group...
    • Although it would really suck if i was assigned to the sims group...

      You mean, you'd rather not play at all, then get paid to play Sims?

    • by langelgjm (860756)

      Sadly, reading comprehension might be a requisite skill for volunteers in such a study:

      "Volunteers in the study played intensively for 50 hours over nine weeks."

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Pfft forget video games, my parents raised me in a cave from the age of 5 to improve my vision in preparation for the inevitable apocalypse. No outside light whatsoever.

    We upgraded the cave 3 years ago for broadband, had to get a box for the router because the blinking lights burned my sisters eyes.

  • Welcome to 1983 (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by DNS-and-BIND (461968)
    They had the same study out in 1983. Watching small objects dart around improves hand-eye coordination, who-da thunk it? The only difference is putting the yellow journalism label "violent video games" on it and getting Slashdot front page coverage.
  • I'm not much of a video game player myself, but I rather suspect that most people who do play video games regularly, especially teenagers with lots of spare time, rack up more than fifty hours in nine weeks; that's about five and a half hours a week.

  • Other Studies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gbrandt (113294) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:32PM (#27383415)

    According to other studies, violent games make people violent.

    Why believe this study and not the others?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrMista_B (891430)

      Objective measurements.

    • Because this study has decent controls.

      Most of the "violent games make people violent" type studies have no controls, or at the very most, poorly planned and implemented controls.

  • Pffft, try Quake3! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cthefuture (665326) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:34PM (#27383425)

    Those games are pretty slow. UT2004 is kinda fast but still not up the twitch action in Quake 3 (or Quake 2 for that matter).

    Back when I played those games my vision and reflexes were enhanced very noticeably. While driving especially I noticed that I could see even the tiniest thing moving or various things that caught be attention. My favorite trick was to grab flies straight out of the air with my hands. It always impressed people. When I stopped playing as much I pretty much lost that ability completely after a few months.

    • Had a similar experience back in college. I was playing about 2 hours a day of UT2k4 with instagib activated and fencing (the kind with swords) for 4 hours a week. My reflexes were noticeably faster than my compatriots, and I had a much easier time picking out and recognizing small details. The place that it was most apparent was actually in my entomology class when we had to go out and collect insects. I had an easier time acquiring specimens simply because I noticed them when others didn't. The faster re
    • by Shivetya (243324)

      My experience after Quake 3 makes me wonder about this "study". Seeing that most games like Quake and such seem to be rendered in full spread of the "dirt" spectrum I wonder how it turned out to be grays? I guess I am a dolt. Shouldn't any color with fine gradients work?

      I think one area where FPS games excel versus games like the Sims and Strategy games is lighting. I remember the first time I played Unreal (original) and the flicker lights and even first "staged encounter" were shockers. I spent a lot

  • Not fighting games (Score:5, Informative)

    by Narishma (822073) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:40PM (#27383455)
    Those are first person shooters, not fighting games. Fighting games are things like Street Fighter or Soul Calibur, not to be confused with beat 'em ups which are things like Double Dragon or Final Fight.
    • by Kingrames (858416)
      I don't believe I've ever seen a fighting game on the PC. When I read "PC Games" in the summary, I assumed, rightfully so, that that was their intended term.
      You can't always assume that the guys writing the summaries or the articles are gamers/programmers/(experts in any field other than their own). I mean they look for buzz words, not more accurate words.
      • Virtua Fighter [wikipedia.org] was ported to Windows.
      • by Narishma (822073)
        Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, Guilty Gear, Fatal Fury... All of those have been ported to the PC at one time or another. And I'm not even talking about the "unofficial" ones you can play with emulators like MAME.
  • by RevWaldo (1186281) * on Sunday March 29, 2009 @10:06PM (#27383585)
    Do they improve peripheral vision? Just sayin'..
    • by mdmkolbe (944892)

      You joke, but it actually sounds very plausible. You should suggest this idea to the researchers.

      Of course the major impact of this article has nothing to do with games so much as that it is overthrowing the prevailing scientific belief that you can't improve your contrast perception. Whether a side-scroller experiment is scientifically interesting likely also depends on what work has already been done on improving peripheral vision. But it doesn't hurt to ask.

  • by Centurix (249778) <centurix&gmail,com> on Sunday March 29, 2009 @10:24PM (#27383653) Homepage

    I can see all the Grues now.

  • FPS in real world. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by w0mprat (1317953) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @10:45PM (#27383735)
    Staring at a flat screen does little for depth perception which is seriously underutilized in such a situation. Although interestingly, ones ability to use parallax to calculate spatial depth, rather than stereo vision, must be massively enhanced, since this is the other way we mentally process our spatial environment.

    So yes, a FPS gamer may do a lot better with depth perception if he/she suddenly lost one eye.

    To give an example, my father was perplexed by the extremely convex side mirrors on his new truck (yes the "objects in this mirror are closer than they appear" kind), which give a great wide field of view yet he would complain the fish eye perspective meant he couldn't judge depth correctly (and this was his excuse for almost backing into things).

    So I climb into the cab and start backing the thing up like I've done it for years.

    He pointed out my childhood and adolescence saturated with 2D screens helped me have zero problems, where he was very much an outdoorsman from a young age.
  • CLEARLY (Score:3, Funny)

    by cybereal (621599) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @11:53PM (#27384167) Homepage

    Clearly, this works because you're selling your eternal soul to satan by ritualistic virtual murder in return for slightly better eye sight!

  • I wonder what effect Touhou Project would have on your contrast sensibility...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHmzO2RI1fs [youtube.com]

  • by Yfrwlf (998822)
    You've got to be a complete idiot to post such an article. Yes, a game must be violent to help your eyesight. A new low for Slashdot.
  • If you don't like the dumbed down version, the actual article can be found here [nature.com]. It is quite readable.

    And it is a crappy summary - as usual. Violence is not even mentioned in the article.

Forty two.

Working...