Slashdot Mirror
America's Army 2.0 Available for Linux and OS X
Time Doctor writes "Linux and Mac gamers will be happy to hear that America's Army 2.0 is out of private beta, and available via mirrors at 3DGamers and HappyPuppy, among others. See this news post on the AA site for the gameplay changes." We covered the release of the Windows version of AA 2.0 a couple of weeks back, as this free FPS recruiting tool continues toward its goal of "providing civilians with an inside perspective and a virtual role in today's premiere land force, the U.S. Army."
all the articles so close togeather?
Finally, the US government has made a recruitting tool for all of the Linux gurus too! :)
Frankly I'm a bit surprised that an entity of the U.S. Government would have published a game on a non-Microsoft platform, but kudos to the Army for it!
Now I'll just have to see if it will run on my laptop...
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
fwiw, I had trouble getting the download link to work with either IE or Safari in OS X--the link would not present the contextual menu to me that gives the option of "saving to disk", required on this particular download.
However, I found that using the "download manager" in Mac Classic IE worked--I had to chose a previous download, and then change the pointers to the game download info.
--
$tar -xvf
Is there any kind of devkit or plans for a devkit? One of the things that adds life to a game are the user created levels. I know I wouldn't be playing Ravenshield these days if all I had access to were the stock maps. This extends to other games as well. If this thing is to have a decent life expectancy then there needs to be some kind of dev kit for user mods.
In Republican America phones tap you.
If you think our freedom is something that was just given to us, then you are both naive and ungrateful.
Have a chat with your grandfather about how much freedom costs; I'd be willing to bet he is very well aware of the price our soldiers pay to keep people like you safe and stupid..
Will the source be released? If so, this could be fun to play with to create great games for Linux. Games like Postal 3 (for linux!), Grand Theft Auto 4 (for linux!), you know those great anti-establishment games that we all love to play. :-)
~ kjrose
I wonder how much of today's Army is "grunt work" versus "tech work". Ground combat is what ultimately the fight is about, but doesn't the overall success of the U.S. Army come from its use of technology and (more importantly) excellent logistics?
So linux is no longer un-american eh? ;-)
Finally, I can have a go at it
Maybe the army has to recruit some more IT-personnel...
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
Now I have a game more stimulating that Photoshop and dreamweaver to play on my Mac!
Pretty Pictures!
God bless America for brainwashing lots of kids and young teens to join the army with a game that glorifies the army and violence. Let those young kids have fun in co-ed showers and bend down to "get the soap" and then get sent to Iraq and get killed...
God bless America and technology...
Interesting now that they released a version for Linux. Now the USA can recruit an army of Linux users along with a massive army of Linux Penguins to go in and clean them out. ;)
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
The army's been starting to switch some things to Linux
I don't want combat troops that know Linux - their muscles are probably too atrophied to carry an M16.
(runs for cover)
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
~~~
Not all Linux users' muscles have atrophied. Pydance and StepMania are physical exercise games that both run in Linux.
Thread over; parent loses!
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Thank you for your service. We appreciate it.
Fact: nationalism has only been around for about a hundred and fifty years. France was first, when Napoleon invaded Egypt (great start, huh?). I suggest the writings of Renan and Gellner for a history of nationalism and its pros and cons.
Basically, nationalism caught on very quickly, and has a foothold on world psyche to the point that people can't even fathom a person without a nation. We don't know if it'll work yet. We don't know if it's a Good Thing yet (look what it's done to the Jews (among others)).
The reason I'm wasting my time typing this is to point out that you've fallen for the exact same "nationalistic drivel" that your accusees have-- yours is just pointed in another direction. The "facts," as you call them, can only be known by eyewitnesses, and even those are biased. We won't "know" what happened for twenty or thirty years, minimum, just because it'll take the scholars that long to filter out facts from "facts." So please don't spout off your "facts" until you've personally interviewed the majority of Iraqis and asked their opinions. Please don't say "fact" unless you were there when the switch was thrown on the news station, and unless you personally verified the veracity of the NEWS. Otherwise you're pushing propaganda, the same as all of us will be until the truth has time to float to the top.
FYI, you stupid shit, the US hasn't fought a defensive war -- a war to defend our freedom -- since the Revolutionary War. Every other war we have either initiated or joined in in a hostile basis. All of those soldiers fought and died for the alterior motives of various Presidents, politicians, and special interest groups -- not to preserve our freedom, despite what you may have been brainwashed into thinking.
Of course Freedom isn't free. Ideally, in an anarcho-capitalistic world, it takes money to pay law-enforcement agencies to protect us from random criminal acts. However, you cannot preserve Freedom or increase Freedom by murdering thousands of individuals (which is all that war is).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The actions of the military consist of the murder of men, women, and children. You can say it was "collateral damage" or "during war", but that doesn't change the fact that murder is murder.
Hitler, WWII: Caused by the short-sighted and ignorant actions of the victors of WWI. WWII was made inevitable by the politicians who set up the treaty after WWI.
WWI: WWI would have been forced to resolve peacefully, as it was at a standstill, had not the US intervened. Btw, the British weren't "good guys". They formed an illegal blockade around Germany, and were starving millions of civilians. Meanwhile, the US was sending weapons to them on the Lucitania, the sinking of which (for that reason) we later used to justify our entry into the war.
Somalians starving: I don't see how the plight of starving people can be solved by murder. In fact, pretty much all starvation and other miseries of the world are caused by The State.
Taliban, Afghanistan, WTC, and terrorists: The US is only a target of terrorism because of our imperialistic invasion in everyone else' business. Fanatical religious nutcases wouldn't give a shit about the US if we weren't interfering in everyone else's business.
In short: All of the problems that The State claims we need military force for were in fact caused by The State, or the combined effect of several States (which are nothing more than geographical blocks of centralized power). The solution is not for these various power-blocks to demolish eachother and murder the opposing State's citizens, but to eliminate The State.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Democracy is a beautiful thing.
No, actually, Democracy is not a beatiful thing. Democracy creates a situation where the best liars will compete with one-another for the priviledge to steal from and exploit the taxpayer (that is, for the priviledge to be the net receiver of taxes).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Can't do it. Socialism doesn't work on a large scale. Too many assumptions about the benevolence of human nature. The State, to steal your capitalization, exists because people on a large scale are stupid, mean, greedy and selfish--it's a metaview of humans themselves. To turn a political debate into a philosophical one, you can't get around this. There are just too damn many of us in too small an area, and it's hardwired in.
Yeah, it's a sophomoric argument, but I like it.
Basically, you're being childish. I bet you didn't even realize it, but that's how just about everybody reading your posts feels right now. Whatever your age is, you're a little kid, and people don't usually outgrow that. You have my sympathy and pity.
Now if only they could make it not suck.
defensive. Retaliation is also justified, but only against they who initiated the aggression. "Japan" did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Specific air-force officers of Japan, under the orders of the leaders of Japan, bombed Pearl Harbor. Retaliation against those specific individuals -- and only those specific individuals -- would have been justified. Murdering those not involved -- as we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and any other initiation of violence -- was not justified.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
If we have to choose between the evils of various forms of The State, the least harmful form would most likely be monarchy. See Democracy: The God That Failed
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Please see For a New Liberty -- The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Read it...and it says pretty much what I'd understood the libertarian platform to be. It's a scenario I would give anything to avoid. Right now the police at least have to give lip-service to treating everyone equally. If privatized to the degree it discusses in the link, the poor would have no protection at all. No thanks, I prefer civilization.
"Big corporations do whatever they want"? Yea, sure. That's bullshit. Firstly, there would be private law-enforcement, so they couldn't violate the non-aggression axiom without being held accountable. Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "whatever they want"? Last time I checked, anyone who bought MS software agreed to their licenses. No-one's forcing you to buy software from MS, or to buy from OEM's that pre-install MS. Goto Linux.org. There are plenty of vendors that sell Linux pre-installed (Craigweb even offers to install the distribution of your choice).
Libertarianism is about property rights. Respecting property rights results in greater prosperity for all and a higher overall standard of living. As for all the individuals you think need help, individuals would be welcomed to help them in an anarcho-capitalist world. Without the government stealing 20%-50% of people's income, you'll find that people may be more generous with charity (and their money will go to efficient, productive operations, not wasteful inefficient State non-sense).
As for your self-proclaimed righteousness, how exactly is The State helping anyone? The State has caused all sorts of disasters in international affairs. As for the "needy" individuals that you say The State helps -- namely, the poor -- all it really does is create an unhealthy attitude of dependence and entitlement. Minimum wage laws, for example, merely illegalize jobs at below minimum wage rates, which otherwise would have existed, thus benefitting union workers at the expense of young and inexperienced individuals. Welfare, for example, creates demand for laziness and ungainfulness. In NY, a woman on welfare with two kids gets $32,000 dollars in non-taxable money. What woman in her right mind would go out and get a job when she can get $32k for nothing? We can have exactly as much welfare as we're willing to pay for (namely, we create unemployment via welfare).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
as the article said, law-enforcement agencies would likely protect the poor anyways. It provides good reputation. Likewise, not only would individuals have protection, but store, street, and apartment owners would have protection for their businesses. They would be protected simply by living on the land of those who pay for protection, for the sake of their business.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
logically impossible. Such an argument is self-contradictory and thus self-defeating. No thinking person could possibly accept such an argument. I need say no more.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
as for your self-righteousness, your position boils down to the traditional socialist line. You claim to be a philantrophist because you use other people's money -- that you stole -- to help those you deem in need. Sorry, the motives for thievery and robbery do not change the fact that that's what it is. If I steal from you, it doesn't matter whether I'm stealing from you to buy food for a starving person or buy myself a CD. It's still stealing, and I should go to jail.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
in other words, because you cannot come up with any logically consistent counter-argument to my moral statement, you resort to ad hominem attacks.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
...providing civilians with an inside perspective and a virtual role in today's premiere land force, the U.S. Army.
Oh? So the game provides you with thousands of innocent civilians to kill? Or does it offer you leisure time to get some feedback from the locals?
I hope not. I hate it when fun little fantasies get complicated by reality. Hopefully all the bad guys look like Osama or Saddam.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
A true fundamental axiom is indisputeable. The non-aggression axiom fits that category (and from the non-aggression axiom can be derived the homesteading principle, and all the other facets of libertarianism:
It is illegal to initiate violence against anyone else.
This axiom is indisputeable by argumentation. Simply by arguing, you verify this argument. For if you didn't accept it, you wouldn't bother arguing, but would simply assault or murder all those who disagreed with you.
Fundamental aspects of libertarian economics (Austrian Economics) are also indisputeable, such as the axiom that man acts to replace a less satisfactory situation with a more satisfactory one, or the axiom that all individuals have a certain degree of time preference (a preference for goods now, as opposed to in the future).
I suggest you take a look at For a New Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard. Libertarianism is very much oriented towards reality. Anyone who reads Mises.org could easily see that. Articles discussing an important problem with any State (the need to tax, which always distorts the free market and reduces wealth by redirecting investment from fruitful free-market entreprise to wasteful government operations like the export of murder on a mass scale):
Taxes and Distortion
Hidden Taxes
The Myth of Neutral Taxation
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
1. is there a linux torrent for AA 2.0 ?
2. is there an archive with linux exes for those who have the win version ?
seems not, please prove me wrong.
kthxbye.
is usually because they make a product the consumer buys. Which means that -- considering the desired quality, price, and value -- the customer likes it. Or maybe they're rich because they invested their money well, thus funding fruitful and productive private enterprises, which ultimately must serve consumers. Possibly they just inherited it, which means their parents (or their parents parents, etc) did one of the above things well. In any case, they will have to do something with their money. Even if it's just sitting in a bank, it is being invested by the bank. Most likely, it will be invested; if they make poor investment decisions, they will be punished by the loss of money, that money which will flow to those who make more intelligent investments.
The point is, rich people have a "boss" as well, at least if they want to continue making money and stay rich: consumers. They also have to satisfy employees, for otherwise employees will go to other business'. If they fail to serve the consumer, they will lose market share and lose money; if they fail to treat their employees well, the future of their company will be at stake. They will keep the money they've already earned or inherited, but it will slowly wither away unless they do something productive.
Even for those who inherit their money, there is nothing wrong with this, unlike what most flaming liberal nutcases will say. Individuals work hard not only for themselves, but also to set up the security and comfort of their children and those they love. Sorry, but I'm not working hard so that the parasites that the government feeds can get 50% of my money (that's why intelligent individuals put their money in some kind of trust). Just as I earn my money, so should I be allowed to decide who it goes to.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I believe the game engine supports vehicles...why no vehicles? I got over q3 about 3 years ago...
PS: Does anyone else think the commercial for MS' game, Rainbow Six, is fucked up? "Freedom isn't free". Iow, to be free, we need to murder lots of people in other countries. What abhorrent bullshit.
I'm sure that you'd also hate to see what it looks like when they make sausage.
War is ugly business. War is an abomination to God and man. War is also unfortunately sometimes necessary. Some of the people in this world are BAD people. Some of the people in this world think nothing of killing innocents. The only way to stop people like that is with force. Monsters we are, lest monsters we become.
To be honest, I was against the war in Iraq, but Saddam is/was a monster and the world as well as the people of Iraq are better off without him.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
even if you have such a shallow one-dimensional belief about the way people operate (which is on par with the belief's Sade held), that hardly means that libertarianism doesn't work. Quite the opposite, it means that Statism can't work. On the free market, money does not grant individuals the harmful powers that The State has (the territorial monopoly on the initiation of violence). If they fail to do whatever it is that got them the money in the first place (good investing, serving consumer well), they will cease making it, and their money will slowly deteriorate. They have no real ability to abuse their power in any significant way, as if they initiate violence against other's, free market law-enforcement agencies will arrest them, and they will be trialed in private courts and punished.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Retaliatory force against those who initiate violence is fine with me. What's not fine with me is the murder of innocent civilians because it is convenient to kill large blocks of people. If someone robs from me, I don't get to nuke all of the city.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
a defensive war means a war fought against those invading your country. It does not mean taking the war to their country. During the Revolutionary War, we didn't go to Britain and murder British citizens. What you describe is a pre-emptive war, which is really no different than me saying "I think you're going to hit me, so I'll just kill you now". That's not acceptable. As for WWII, that was made a certainty by the way we handled the ending of WWI ("the war to end all wars"). WWI, btw, would have been resolved in stand-still, had not the US become involved. Finally, WWI -- and all wars, indeed -- are only possible due to the centralized power constituting a territorial monopoly on the initiation of violence known as The State.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Firstly, Libertarianism makes no assumption that people are inherently good. It would work better than any other system even if people were only inherently evil, crooked, selfish and corrupt. Obviously, any system will work better if most people are good. The point of libertarianism is that it doesn't require dubious assumptions about the "goodness" of people to work. Secondly, the unhampered free market isn't a magic bullet. It's not some garden of eden. It's simply the best system available for respecting individual's property rights. It also happens to be the best economic system, but that is aside from the point.
Witness bans on the homeless sleeping outside. Even with todays' frameworks, this happens. When law enforcement, courts, etc. are privatized, this type of problem will only be exacerbated.
The "problem" is with the homeless people who refuse to get a job. Sorry, but no-one has the right to tresspass on anyone else' property, homeless or not. Of course, absent a State, there wouldn't be assinite labor laws which illegalize jobs. In an unhampered free market, almost all unemployment would be voluntary.
In a free market, the poor would have to pay for the services they get, just like anyone else. Irrelevant of the perceived need, no-one has the right to obtain the service of someone else without compensating them what they'd accept of their own free will for that service. That is slavery. Simply because someone happens to provide the service of a room to sleep in, or a meal, or medical services, does not mean that we get to enslave them for "the greater good" (a bunch of subjective non-sense). If the poor want room and board, they'll have to pay for it. Of course, you make the dubious assumption that no-one would allow the poor to sleep on their property, or help them out. This is contradicted by the reality of what we see today, where people contribute to homeless shelters, even though the government steals up to 50% of their income.
Irrelevant of your subjective opinions on the overall good, no-one has the right to steal from anyone else.
In a libertarian scenario, Bill Gates, with his $30 million salary, could...[bribe everyone and get away with murder]
First of all, we'd have to question if Bill Gates could even exist in an unhampered free market. Remember, he's made his money via government-granted monopolies (patents and copyrights). These would not exist in the free market. Even so, let's assume someone making $40mil in the free market. That doesn't mean that such a scenario as you describe would be possible. First of all, that assumes that the only concern people have is a monetary concern, and completely dismisses any moral concerns individuals may have. Secondly, any private police officer who took a bribe would risk being charged with a crime in a private court by the protection agency he works for. He's also risk being labelled a co-conspirator by any private prosecution (or crime-insurance) agencies and trialed in a court. Thirdly, even if the absurd scenario you suggest could happen, it is nothing that is unique to an anarcho-capitalist sytem. It could just as easily happen right now.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Putting power that is limited only by wealth in the hands of the almost limitlessly wealthy guarantees that the wealthy can do whatever they want to do with impunity.
This simply is not true, namely because the "limitlessly wealthy" have to get their wealth from somewhere. They would be just as subject to the non-aggression axiom as anyone else. If they had someone tortured or murdered, then by the estoppel approach and proportionality, they would be subject t
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Er, I'll reply later on. I just finished typing a response when fucking Galeon crashed.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The following links may prove informative on the real Abraham Lincoln:
Confronting the Lincoln Cult
The truth spitter
Rethinking Lincoln [mp3]
The Real Lincoln [mp3]
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen