Suchergebnisse

The aim of this study was to reveal if there is literature about who's still playing Pokémon Go two years after game launch, and whether players report the AR-aspect as part of the reason they're still engaging in the game. Investigating the phenomenon covered widely by news and social media from this angle could be of interest of public health workers with the ambition to replicate the success. We ran a systematic search resulting in 22 articles included, published between 2016-2018. The results revealed that the main part of the included studies were conducted just around game launch (July 2016) and within the first six months Pokémon Go was out "in the wild". AR was in general not questioned about, and there exists different and vague understandings of what augmented reality actually is. We were not able to identify the typical long-term player engaging with the game, and to what extent AR was a part of the prolonged success. The search also revealed a lack of longitudinal studies (with larger, more representative participant groups) about general social and mental health implications of playing the game. The studies imply a successful combination of several game aspects - whether playing for the adventure and discovering new places, family bonding, general game flexibility, "to pass time", a bit of nostalgia – or just for fun. Further studies are needed to understand of which importance it is to implement an AR- or location-based-feature, the importance of branding, what app/game mechanics appeal to the general and how deeply immersive experiences through a mobile screen are able to affect us, dragging us into an augmented world – and keeping us there. ; M-FOL

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.