I’m sure there are some of you out there who use a file-sharing program such as LimeWire or BitTorrent for nefarious, illicit file-swapping purposes. Come on, fess up.

As you may know, these applications employ peer-to-peer, or P2P, technology to enable quick and easy data transfer between you and other users.

But just because the P2P protocol empowers you and millions of other folks to trade copyrighted content such as movies and music, you should know - if you don’t already - that P2P data transfer technology operates as far more than simple, illegal file-sharing.

For instance, if you play a MMORPG like World of Warcraft, you’re benefiting from P2P all the time. WoW applies the game’s latest patch quietly beneath the surface as you play, employing P2P to ensure that the game is updated as quickly as possible without inconveniencing you.

I’m guessing that you’re really glad you don’t need to stop playing and logout in order to patch the game.

What I’m getting at is that illegal file sharing is now drawing the attention of government bigwigs, who are drafting a new bill called HR1319 - The Informed P2P User Act. This potential law has good intentions: It’s meant to protect you, the user, from jerks who try to access your private files and use your computer’s resources and bandwidth without your knowing. This kind of stuff, unfortunately, happens frequently with files-sharing apps.

But as it’s currently written, HR1319 poses a potential threat to nearly all of your online interactivity. The bill’s broad language equates P2P with file sharing as if they were one and the same. And as you and I know, P2P is only a protocol, not a file-sharing program.

What does this mean for you? Well, if this bill becomes law, you will be inundated with more pop-up dialog boxes than Windows Vista ever dreamed of. It’s possible that you’ll be forced to be informed every time you receive any kind of information sent to you from the Internet - and you’ll need to click the OK button each dang time. This would be a nightmare when browsing the web, can you imagine?

And if that doesn’t sound bad enough, listen up, WoW players: While you’re playing, every time the game tries to patch itself, a dialog box will pop up asking you for permission. Imagine you’re questing with a party, in a boss battle and about to deliver the killing blow, when suddenly a dialog box pops up and bumps you out of the game:

“World of Warcraft wants to deliver data to your computer, do you approve? Click OK to continue.” Meantime the boss slaughtered you and now you’re frickin’ dead, wandering the land in search of your frickin’ body. And imagine that this happens All. The. Time.

A good example of a legitimate use of P2P exists here at PlayWhat. We utilize Solid State Networks‘ ION to accelerate our (legitimate) downloads, one file at a time, in a private P2P network. We love the advantages ION’s peer-to-peer technology offers our users - it’s completely safe, simple to install, and makes our downloads incredibly fast.

HR1319 has potential, you see, but it needs to be rewritten, rewritten and rewritten until the differences between file sharing and P2P are made perfectly clear. For everyone’s sake, only then should it be allowed to pass.

I know I was just talking about a study that proved playing video games does not result in violent behavior. But perhaps I spoke too soon.

As reported by the Daily Mail, the Good Childhood report for the Children’s Society in Great Britain has now concluded that gaming causes not only violence but unstable family life and teenage sex. Gaming is blamed for “family break-up and the lack of a father living at home for the misery of millions of children.”

The report also “linked the spread of early sex and the growing interest of young people in violence to selfish behaviour by adults. Their aggressive pursuit of personal success has pushed the needs of children aside and amounts to the greatest threat to their welfare”.

Of course, the report didn’t limit itself strictly to games, it also heaved some blame around on television and movies, even Shakespeare.

There certainly is no lack of opinions on this subject. I seriously doubt any study could ever discover for certain the mechanics of the dynamic between media and violence. But after seeing the picture above, I’m convinced of something. Not exactly sure what, but it’s something, I’m certain.

Ever peruse the Gaming section of Digg.com? It’s a melange of opinions, rumors and news about video games. Fun to read. Have you noticed how many “Top 10″ articles submitted, and Digged in ridiculous numbers?

Dozens. And it’s usually some schlep spouting off about the superiority of old-school games, inconsequential stuff. I don’t mean to be cruel, but enough already with these “Top (insert number)” lists, no one cares. There’s a reason why there’s so many. It doesn’t apply in all cases, but in most.

Traffic. If you want to generate some blog traffic, write a Top 10 post. For some reason, people love Top 10 lists. When they see a link to one they just have to click it. In trying to figure out why this is so, I dug deep into my psyche and discovered that I, too, am more likely to click on a Top 10 link in favor of a normal news link. I accept that I am one of the mindless horde. But why??

Here are the Top 10 Reasons why you’re compelled to read a Top 10 list:

#1 - It’s easy to read, spelled out in compartmentalized chunks of text that are short enough to appease the short attention spans characteristic of gamers.

#2 - You want to see if the author is wrong. Compared to your vast knowledge, this person’s thoughts will almost certainly be dubious and worthless, and you’re always up for an ego boost.

Okay, so it’s only a Top 2 list. I could write eight more but they’d all derive from the first two, and unlike some bloggers, I strive not to bore my readers. That pretty much sums it up.

Do gamers buy games because they crave violence and gore, or do game publishers churn out violent and gory games because they think that’s what gamers want?

It’s an interesting question. My take is that the enjoyment had with violent games comes from the sense of competition and achievement that arises as a result of the “killing”. Think about it: Do you play shooters because of the visceral thrill of gutting someone and gleefully watching them die in pain? I know some of you will say yes to that. But by and large, killing things in games is rarely about cold-blooded murder as it occurs in real life.

There just happens to be a new study that tests this very hypothesis. Researchers at the University of Rochester rounded up 2670 frequent game players and plopped them all in front of Half-Life 2. Split into halves, they were given either a carnage-producing shotgun or a psychic power that caused enemies to float into the air and evaporate.

Afterwards they were asked how much fun they had playing the game, and whether they liked it enough to play it again. The recidivism rates were much higher among the gamers who played the non-gory version of the game.

Craig Anderson, director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University, sums it up best: “A common belief held by many gamers and many in the video game industry - that violence is what makes a game fun - is strongly contradicted by these studies.

“Furthermore, the research convincingly shows that there is no relation between amount of violence in a game and the enjoyment experienced by the players, once opportunities for satisfying competence needs and autonomy needs have been equated in violent and non-violent games.”

Okay fine, it was the article that spurred my thinking on this subject. But I swear, I already knew the answer.