Apple’s iPad has pioneered the field of tablets and exceeded expectations of user satisfaction, according to an internationally recognized authority on media tablets and e-readers.

Roger Fidler, program director for digital publishing at Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri, found that iPad owners report higher rates of satisfaction the longer they use the tablet, which is very unusual, especially for computers and other electronics.

“It’s unusual for new technology devices,” Fidler said. “In most cases, satisfaction tends to drop off significantly after about 13 weeks. That clearly is not the trend with the iPad.”

In his first study last fall, Fidler found that 94 percent of the 1,600 surveyed were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their iPad.

Fidler’s follow up study this spring found that nearly 70 percent of the 561 respondents were more satisfied than they were last fall.

Fidler has been conducting surveys of iPad users since last fall to understand how the tablet is used in daily life and how it may influence journalism and news consumption in the future.

“While the iPad is designed for consuming all kinds of media, it has become clear that leisure reading of news and features is very popular with owners,” Fidler said. “The iPad’s ultra-thin, lightweight nearly magazine-size screen is more conducive for reading than laptop computers and other mobile devices. The screen size seems to be one of the main reasons for its sustained user satisfaction.”

The majority of iPad owners use their tablet at home throughout the evening from their couch or easy chair, according to Fidler’s study. The complete results can be found online.

Fidler’s next step is a study this summer to gauge satisfaction with all tablets on the market. The results will be available in the fall.

The findings of a Yale University study show a correlation between adolescent sexuality and the frequency of punishment. The study found that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adolescents are 40 percent more likely than heterosexual adolescents to be punished by school authorities, police and the courts, according to a recent article in “ScienceDaily.”

The study, which will be published in the journal “Pediatrics” in January 2011, includes the experiences of 15,000 middle and high school students over a seven-year period. Subjects were surveyed about their sexuality and about how often they engaged in different degrees of “misbehavior.” From there, the frequency of punishment was measured, specifically how often behavior resulted in school expulsion, police stops, juvenile arrest, juvenile conviction, adult arrest and adult conviction, according to the study’s abstract.

The abstract concludes that “Nonheterosexual youth suffer disproportionate educational and criminal-justice punishments that are not explained by greater engagement in illegal or transgressive behaviors,” and adds that “Understanding and addressing these disparities might reduce school expulsions, arrests, and incarceration and their dire social and health consequences.”

According to “Science Daily,” the study’s lead author, Kathryn Himmelstein, said that LGB adolescents were 50 percent more likely to be stopped by the police. Further, adolescents who reported being attracted to members of the same sex – even if they did not label themselves as LGB – “were more likely than other teens to be expelled from school or convicted of crimes as adults.”

What’s more, lesbian or bisexual female teens seem to get the brunt of it, reporting “twice as many police stops, arrests and convictions as other girls who engaged in similar behavior,” Himmelstein said. And it turns out that the LGB adolescents studied engaged in fewer violent activities than the heterosexual adolescents studied.

Himmelstein added that “The painful, even lethal bullying that LGB youth suffer at the hands of their peers has been highlighted by recent tragic events. Our numbers suggest that school officials, police and judges, who should be protecting LGB youth, are instead singling them out for punishment based on their sexual orientation.”

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — By now, we’re more than used to videogames getting a bad rap in the media and scientific studies, but occasionally one shows the benefits. Researchers at the University of Rochester have discovered that people who play action videogames often make crucial decisions faster, and that those decisions are no less accurate than those who don’t game.

“It’s not the case that the action game players are trigger-happy and less accurate: They are just as accurate and also faster,” said Daphne Bavelier, one of the authors of the study. “Action game players make more correct decisions per unit time. If you are a surgeon or you are in the middle of a battlefield, that can make all the difference.”

For the study, researchers tested 18-25 year olds who don’t normally game. Half of the subjects played 50 hours of fast paced shooters like Call of Duty and Unreal while the other played slow strategy games like The Sims. After the subjects played the games, they were asked to perform simple tasks (both auditory and visually) and make decisions as quickly as possible. Those who played action games were roughly 25% quicker at making these decisions, while still being correct the exact same percentage of the time as those who played the slower strategy games.

Bavelier explains that Action video game players’ brains are more efficient collectors of visual and auditory information, and therefore arrive at the necessary threshold of information they need to make a decision much faster than non gamers, the researchers found. “Decisions are never black and white,” she said. “The brain is always computing probabilities. As you drive, for instance, you may see a movement on your right, estimate whether you are on a collision course, and based on that probability make a binary decision: brake or don’t brake.”

Men may generally be considered more tech savvy than women, but a new study shows that these days, women know gadgets, and its the men who are behind the curve.

A new study conducted by Retrevo, a company that matches consumers with compatible electronics, found that although men are confident about the latest gizmos, women are actually more astute when it comes to deciphering tech lingo and devices.

“There’s a myth that men are more technical than women,” said Andrew Eisner, Retrevo director of content for Retrevo. “Now we’re finding in consumer electronics that more women are carrying the ball.”

Debunking the long believed myth, only 17 percent of women who were asked what “1080p” meant answered incorrectly, while 25 percent of men did so, according to the study.

1080p is the abbreviation for a high definition video mode.

Educational programs like the Women in Technology Project, at Vermont Technical College, are committed to encouraging young women in middle school and high school to study math, science and technology. (Media credit/Vermont Technical College)

The study revealed that only 55 percent of women consider themselves “extremely tech savvy”, while a whopping 79 percent of men believe they are.

More women than men in the study knew that “MB” stands for megabytes.

This new trend may affect who the industry targets, according to Vipin Jain, president and CEO of Retrevo.

“Every single component of the CE industry has been affected by the recession and is trying to figure out how to make money in the new economy. Our Gadgetology report suggests that women might be the answer,” he said in a statement about the study.

Indeed, the study also found that more women than man would give up caffeine over their computer.

Said Eisner, “Anecdotally we hear about women being the keepers of the camcorder and camera and the laptop.”

Although Retrevo found that more women than men think tech jargon makes it more difficult to shop, the data clearly show that those same women are buying and using gadgets at least as much as men are.

“Advertisers would be very wise to direct advertisements at women,” Eisner said. “So go get ‘em.”

The video game industry today is awash with scientific studies claiming any number of effects, from aggression to desensitization to violence, and while the spin often seems negative, as of late some hope has arisen.

Today, a new study is claiming that driving simulation games ellicit a “higher aggressive response” than do violent games.

Drs. Simon Goodson and Sarah Pearson of the U.K.’s Huddersfield University assembled their data by monitoring heart rates of participants playing Project Gotham Racing, a 3D table tennis game, and an unspecified first person shooter.‚  ‚ The racing game definitively produced higher heart rates and brain activity levels than that of the shooter.

Why the researchers did not disclose the specific two unnamed titles is odd, but the fact that the data was collected on an Xbox 360 narrows the limits of possibility at least a bit.

The study was summarized as such:

“Research has suggested a link between videogame violence and aggression using cognitive and physiological evidence. However, previous researchers have made sweeping generalisations about the nature of videogames. Using the latest hi-definition console both cognitive (BSPAQ) and physiological (ECG EEG & Respiration) measures were taken of participants playing a violent shooting game a driving game or a 3D table tennis game.

Results suggest that rather than a game containing graphic violence a driving game had the
greatest impact on the participants. Given the high levels of realism in modern games a re-evaluation of the relations between videogames and violence is needed.”

Unless these British researchers got their hands on “The Pacifists’ guide to shooting,” these conclusions seem logical.‚  ‚ Some of my most frustrating and ire-ridden gaming moments have been during a Need for Speed or Race Pro session, that’s for sure.

via GamePolitics

Video games in mainstream media news almost always speak exclusively of two things; the crazy, cross generation popularity of the Wii, and the rampant violence and aggression such games exhibit and seemingly promote.‚  Hardly ever do published and noted scientific conclusions regarding video games shed positive light on the medium, but today a glimmer of hope for progress shines through.

First person shooter gamers have been saying it for ages, claiming their reflexes and ability to line up headshots in a split second actually filter into real world proficiency, well today the scientific web emporium Nature has the science to back it up.

Researchers at the University of Rochester and Tel Aviv University have found that action-oriented video games can improve players’ vision and that such games offer players the chance to improve their contrast perception by as much as 58 percent.

Not only are action video games effective at improving aptitude, they are expected to even act as treatment to certain vision related ailments according to Daphne Bavelier, professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester.

“Video game training…may become a useful complement to eye-correction techniques that are routinely used in the clinic to improve eyesight.”

The groups’ conclusions were rigorous and definitive as the study subjected its participants to two game-related scenarios.‚  One section played Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2, two famed action and reflex type games, while the other played the casual and passive The Sims 2.

And after 50 hours of game time over 9 weeks, the group playing UT:2004 and Call of Duty 2 showed a 43 percent improvement in their ability to distinguish between shades of gray. Students in the second group showed no improvement.

“When people play action games, they’re changing the brain’s pathway responsible for visual processing. These games push the human visual system to the limits and the brain adapts to it, and we’ve seen the positive effect remains even two years after the training was over.”

This study excites me as now I have another sword to wield in my arsenal of nay-sayer weaponry.

via GamaSutra.

Blast Magazine kicks its Kinky Stuff section into overdrive with this well-done article on the adult film industry. It’s not just sex and videotape — it’s a billion-dollar business.

Editor’s note: As we look towards our second year in publication, you’ve seen us hit on adult issues and kinky topics. That will expand as you see articles like our coverage of Hustler’s “Not the Brady’s XXX” Brady Bunch porn spoof. Our coverage is tasteful at all times, and we offer this article to show out objectivity on the subject of pornography.

This article originally appeared in PLoS Medicine, the peer-reviewed medical journal of the Public Library of Science. It has been edited by the Blast Magazine staff for our readers. The full-text article is available here with all citations and references.

By Corita R. Grudzen and Peter R. Kerndt
Edited by Elizabeth Raftery/Blast Magazine staff

The United States adult film industry produces 4,000–11,000 films and earns an estimated $9–$13 billion in gross revenues annually. An estimated 200 production companies employ 1,200–1,500 performers. Performers typically earn $400–$1,000 per shoot and are not compensated based on distribution or sales.

But the industry is a breeding ground for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, and some legislators are demanding safer sex practices in adult films to prevent the spread of such infections.

Los Angeles County is the largest center for adult film production worldwide. In 1988 the California Supreme Court found adult film production to be protected as free speech under the First Amendment, since such films were not considered obscene based on prevailing community standards. Unlike other legal but highly regulated activities such as gambling and commercial sex work in Nevada, the adult film industry was legalized in California through case law, not by statute, and has for the most part escaped governmental oversight.

Regulation of the industry has been limited to prevention of child pornography, meaning performers can not be under the age of 18. Adult film production companies are required to have a Custodian of Records to document and retain records of the age of all performers, to enforce the age entry restriction.

Adult film performers engage in prolonged and repeated sexual acts with multiple sexual partners over short periods of time, creating ideal conditions for transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). These practices include sex acts that involve simultaneous double penetration (double-anal and vaginal–anal intercourse) and repeated facial ejaculations. Such high-risk practices are on the rise, according to an article published in the Los Angeles Times. At the same time, condom use is reportedly low in heterosexual adult films—approximately 17% for adult performers, according to a recent New York Times article. In 2004, reports show, only two of the 200 adult film companies required the use of condoms for all penile–anal and penile–vaginal penetration. Performers report that they are required to work without condoms to maintain employment.

These practices lead to high transmission rates of STDs and occasionally HIV among performers. After four performers contracted HIV in 1998, Sharon Mitchell, a former adult film performer, founded Adult Industry Medical (http://www.aim-med.org), a clinic to counsel and screen performers monthly for HIV. It was expanded later to include other STD testing. The testing program began as an effort to reduce transmission of infections through early diagnosis, treatment, and “quarantine” should a performer test positive for HIV. Performers are required in most cases to pay for all screening tests, and to sign a consent form that permits disclosure of their test results to other performers and producers before filming. Both of these practices are explicitly prohibited under California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations. HIV-positive female performers are permanently excluded from participating in adult films.

Performers may also be exposed to HIV and other STDs outside the workplace, such as in commercial sex work through escort services or through the use of intravenous drugs.

But while the current practice of periodic HIV and STD testing may detect some disease early, it often fails to prevent transmission. The most recent HIV outbreak occurred when three performers who had been compliant with monthly screening contracted HIV in April of 2004. At that time, a male performer who had tested HIV negative only three days earlier infected three of 14 female performers.

Vivid Entertainment Group, one of the largest producers of adult film in the US, temporarily implemented a condom-only policy after the HIV outbreak in 2004 but has since reversed this company policy. Although some companies may voluntarily decide to be condom-only, it is unlikely that this industry will establish safer working conditions for employees without external regulation.

Other STDs are also highly prevalent in the industry. Among 825 performers screened in 2000–2001 study, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had chlamydia, and 2% overall had gonorrhea. Some might argue that this program of STD testing keeps rates of HIV and other STDs lower than in other sex-related industries, and in fact, a recent study of prostitutes in San Francisco found 6.8% and 12.4% positivity rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea, higher than rates in the adult film industry.

Between January 2003 and March 2005, studies show, approximately 976 performers reported 1,153 positive STD test results. Of those, 722 (62.6 %) were chlamydia, 355 (30.8%) were gonorrhea, and 126 (10.9%) were coinfections with chlamydia and gonorrhea. Less is known about the prevalence and risk of transmission of other STDs such as syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, hepatitis B or C, trichomonal infection, or diseases transmitted through the fecal–oral route.

Even with the PCR testing currently used within the industry, a recently infected performer can test negative during the window in which they are highly infectious and go on to transmit the virus to others. A meta-analysis suggests that condoms are 90%–95% effective in preventing HIV transmission. When looking at HIV exposure risks by site, receptive anal sex has the highest risk at 80 instances of transmission per 10,000 exposures, higher than needle stick injuries (10–50 per 10,000) [13] or receptive vaginal penetration (10 per 10,000). Pre-existing infection with other STDs also increases the risk of HIV transmission.

Some critics have voiced concerns that the somewhat idealized portrayal of unsafe and unprotected sex in adult films may influence viewer behavior, in the same way that detractors say smoking in mainstream films romanticizes tobacco use. Health officials have suggested that portraying condom use onscreen could increase condom use among viewers, thereby promoting public health.

In contrast to heterosexual adult films, homosexual-targeted productions more consistently require condoms. Due to the large number of HIV-positive performers, there is no requirement for HIV testing and condom use is the norm. Despite the ubiquitous use of condoms, homosexual adult movies are popular and profitable for production companies. In fact, there is some evidence that homosexual male audiences would not tolerate movies with unsafe sex, likely due to their proximity to many with HIV in the homosexual community. Some homosexual audiences regard watching sex without condoms as “watching death on the screen,” according to a report in the Los Angeles Times Magazine.

Regulation of Sex-Related Industries Legislators can look to Nevada for a model for the successful regulation of a legal sex-related industry. Since the institution of mandatory condoms in Nevada’s brothels in 1988, not a single sex worker has contracted HIV. Workers must be repeatedly tested for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia to maintain a state health and work card. Other countries such as Mexico and Brazil also enforced condom regulations in the sex industry.

Occupational Health and Safety

In California, every employer is required to ensure that employees have a safe working environment. Employers must protect employees from blood-borne pathogens and not discriminate against employees that complain about safety and health conditions. Companies are required to prevent workers from coming into contact with blood or other potentially infectious material, including semen and vaginal fluid, and to provide post-exposure prophylaxis. Universal precautions, which assume all material is potentially infectious, are part of the blood-borne pathogens standard.

In the health care setting, it is hard to imagine a clinic or hospital not providing and requiring its employees to wear gloves or other personal protective equipment. If a health care worker has a needle stick or other potentially infectious fluid exposure on the job, systems are in place to rapidly and effectively treat the employee to prevent transmission of HIV and other infectious diseases. Although a legal industry, adult film has allowed consistent exposure of its employees to HIV, hepatitis, human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and other diseases without liability or worker recourse.

Cal/OSHA has recently made recommendations specific to adult film to protect performers from acquiring sexually transmitted infections. This includes the use of personal protective equipment (condoms and dental dams) as barriers, simulation of sex acts post-production, and ejaculation outside the partner’s body. Cal/OSHA also requires a procedure for exposure incidents when an employee has contact with potentially infectious material. The employer must provide a medical evaluation and follow-up at no cost to the employee.

Attempts at External Regulation

Mandatory reporting in California is required for chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV, syphilis, chancroid, non-chlamydial non-gonorrheal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has monitored the industry to assure that performers receive adequate treatment and follow-up for STDs and has endorsed external regulation of the industry that would require condom use, STD screening, and education to prevent STD transmission.

Response from California legislators has been limited. In 2004, Assemblyman Paul Koretz, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment, sent a letter to 185 adult film production companies urging them to adopt condoms or face legislative action.

Two years later, this letter has had little to no effect and the adult film industry continues to produce the great majority of films without condoms. In October of this year, a multi-stakeholder meeting was convened at the University of California to readdress the issue of worker safety. A group of 65 participants including performers, industry executives, state and local health officials, and legal representatives spent the day debating the controversies and difficulties of mandated STD screening and condom regulation. Concerns were raised about the industry going underground or moving out of state should there be a state but no national requirement. Many present felt it would be difficult to regulate small production companies that distribute their films primarily via the Internet. There was an emphasis on the need for a multi-faceted solution that involves the extension of existing worker protection to this industry with better enforcement, the organization and potential unionization of performers, increased public awareness, and thoughtful legislation.

While some argue that adult film will go underground if condoms become mandatory, it is hard to imagine that a legal multi-billion dollar industry would disappear. Distributors and production companies have become so entrenched in Southern California that it seems unlikely that they would move to another location or go clandestine. Adult film is now so accepted and widespread that it cannot easily escape regulation, especially now that is so readily accessible on the Internet, cable networks, and in most major hotels. Unfortunately, the growing popularity of adult film has not translated into safer working conditions for performers. It is unethical for industry executives, legislators, and consumers to continue to enjoy the profits, tax revenues, and gratification of adult film without ensuring the safety of performers.

Corita Grudzen is a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Peter Kerndt is the Director of the Sexually Transmitted Disease Program in the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.