US Military Builds MMO Earth Simulator

Choose your weapon... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-02-23 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Which do you think will win the War on Terror--guns or minds?

It makes sense that they'd do this. After all, there have to be a few people at the Pentagon who understand that you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint, and that they'd do well to have a simulator that allows them to get a feel for the social environments where terrorist organizations have the best luck in recruiting. The more they understand the role society plays in terrorism, the better they'll be able to counteract it.

Break recruitment, and you're dealing with a handful of international criminals rather than a terrorist network.

--

Obliteracy: Words with explosions

Re:Choose your weapon... by segment · 2004-02-23 03:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

The more they understand the role society plays in terrorism, the better they'll be able to counteract it Firstly my two cents... You have Santa who controls the presents delivered around the world for millions of kids, and then ... Osama who controls the world's terrorists? Give me a break.
You're forgetting that it would not be in the military's best interest to live in a Utopia because the world would not need armed forces. Aside from that, when it comes to the US military, put your filtered Americanized book down and learn the truth for once. If you look at the majority of conflicts in this world, you would know the US played a major role through clandestine actions. Take the cold war for example. The United States engaged Russia to implode. Certainly their researchers had to have known about the nuclear factor that would come out of it concerning a splinter of countries with nukes. It would be moronic to think the collapse of the Soviet Union would make their arms disappear. So what do we have now, nukes on the black market. Irrelevant here, but you should know the role of the MIC (mil. ind, complex) a bit better from an outside perspective before you believe that the army is doing this in order for all of us to sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing...".
The ambitious project aims to help the US Army plan future conflicts which are unlikely to involve set-piece battles and instead be smaller in scale. Translation, lets simulate different combat scenarios here, so we'll know how to fight/kill (INSERT YOUR TERM HERE), when the time is appropriate.

--
MoFscker
Re:Choose your weapon... by BillFarber · 2004-02-23 03:28 · Score: 5, Flamebait

As somebody who has worked in the Pentagon and with the policy makers (though not one myself), here is a big FUCK YOU to you and your total lack of knowledge as well as to the mods who gave you an insightful. I was in that building during the Clinton admin and the current Bush admin, and it is FULL of people doing their absolute best to protect you and the United States no matter who is in the White House. You may disagree with the admin, or the way the people in the Pentagon do things, but 99% have the best interests of the U.S. in mind.
How dare you sit at your keyboard and accuse them of being "shadow employees of weapons dealers".
I say again, FUCK YOU
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint
Like hell you can't - it's all too easy to make someone stop hating you at gunpoint. Just pull the trigger. It ain't pretty, it ain't nice, it's hard to do thoroughly, but it works despite protests over its obvious brutality.
And remember that Osama bin Laden comes from a family of billionaires, and Mohammed Atta's father is a millionaire.
"Violence never settles anything" is such a dumbass, incorrect cliche. Ask the ancient Carthaginians if violence ever settled anything. But only ask after the Romans are through destroying their city, salting the earth, and putting the entire population into slavery. That "violence" sure settled that the Europe and the Mediterranean basin area would evolve from Latin roots instead of Phoenician ones.
Ask the six million Jews that Hitler gassed if violence ever settled anything. They're dead. That's pretty damn settled, now isn't it?
If "violence never settled anything", people wouldn't use it!!!!. And it sure as shit get used all the damn time.
Hiding from the real world because you don't like it isn't going to make it better.
Re:Choose your weapon... by cHALiTO · 2004-02-23 03:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, it's nice that for once they at least TRY to understand people from other cultures. However, I'm not sure a simulator is the best way to do it (no, I didn't RTFA.. yet, I'll do it when my boss leaves the office :).

I'd send some anthropologists to do that job, but hey, that's just me.

--
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Re:Choose your weapon... by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-23 03:30 · Score: 2, Funny

you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint
Well, duh! Of course holding someone at gunpoint doesn't stop them from hating you.
It's when you pull the trigger and splatter their brains all over the place. *That's* when they stop hating you.
Sheesh! Wadda they teachin' youse kids in skool dese days?

--
--- Ban humanity.
Re:Choose your weapon... by BillFarber · 2004-02-23 03:34 · Score: 2

No, I wasn't paid to be "respectful and eloquent". I had no interface with the public.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 03:36 · Score: 2, Informative

The point of military tactics has always been to let the other guy die for *his* country.

Or would you prefer we fight w/ no clue as to what we're doing. Is a bloodbath preferable?
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 03:36 · Score: 2, Funny

As somebody who has worked in the Pentagon, shouldn't you be a bit more respectful and eloquent
When you get right down to it, the job of the folks in the Pentagon is to blow things up and kill people.
With that in mind, I admire the restraint displayed by the grandparent poster... :-)
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they can't understand the real people, what makes you think the programmers are going to understand them well enough to recreate them?
Re:Choose your weapon... by Jameth · 2004-02-23 03:46 · Score: 1

"you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint"

I see that you believe in life after death, as corpses tend to be unemotional.

Note: I'm not recommending genocide as a means to end hatred.
Re:Choose your weapon... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-02-23 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Awww, c'mon. What of the sudden rash of Chechen suicide widows? Y'know, the wives of the guys who had their brains splattered all over the place by the Russians. They should've killed them at the time, too.
...and the children, as too many of them would grow up and want to do nothing more than avenge their parents' deaths...
And the brothers and sisters...
And the best man from their wedding...
And their drinking buddies...
Hold up a sec--you're gonna need another clip or two.

--
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Re:Choose your weapon... by Drantin · 2004-02-23 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

read a bit of Starship Troopers, eh?

--
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
Re:Choose your weapon... by BlackHawk-666 · 2004-02-23 04:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

So how come it is that the best way to protect americans is always to bomb the shit out of some other country thousands of miles away?
China 1945-1946, 1950-1953
Korea 1950-1953
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-1969
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Vietnam 1961-1973
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-1973
Peru 1965
Cambodia 1969-1970
Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2003
Iraq 1991-2003

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Re:Choose your weapon... by dave420-2 · 2004-02-23 04:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any idiot can kill someone - it takes brains and dedication to talk someone over.
If the US is fighting for democracy and justice, it has to play by the rules, otherwise its demonstrating a massive love for hypocrisy. Killing people because some people were killed is only going to make things worse. By your logic, there would be peace in the middle east by now.
Just because it's easy, doesn't make it right. Your argument is very immature, and short-sighted.
This "war on terrorism" is more than people fighting people, but ideas fighting ideas. You can't shoot an idea.
Re:Choose your weapon... by BlackHawk-666 · 2004-02-23 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

They're not trying to understand other cultures, but rather understand how best to attack and kill other cultures.

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

> you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint

Like hell you can't - it's all too easy to make someone stop hating you at gunpoint. Just pull the trigger. It ain't pretty, it ain't nice, it's hard to do thoroughly, but it works despite protests over its obvious brutality.

Different issue. You can stop someone hating you by killing them, but for every person you kill, more will begin to hate you. The only way to stop people, in the plural, hating you, using violence, is to kill everyone who doesn't support your policy of mass murder. That's not going to do much for the future of the human race.

That's why the "war on terror" will never be won with military power. Even the evil terrorist bastards you kill were the parents, siblings, or children of someone who will hate you for killing them. And for every evil terrorist bastard we've killed recently, they've also killed or wounded dozens of innocents: how much love do you think they're going to have for us for that?
Re:Choose your weapon... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-02-23 04:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ask the six million Jews that Hitler gassed if violence ever settled anything. They're dead. That's pretty damn settled, now isn't it?
Why yes, indeed it did settle that matter. In fact, I can't recall hearing about a single bit of pain, suffering or conflict related to Judaism since. No, I can't think of a single person, family, nation, or Holocaust survivor who feels that things weren't settled by Hitler's actions. Not one, anywhere.
Of course, had Hitler managed to completely wipe out the Jewish race and faith, then yes, there wouldn't be an Arab-Israeli conflict today. Total genocide does make for neat, tidy endings, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you have spineless sympathizers who fail to see the necessity of eradicating those who are at odds with you.
If "violence never settled anything", people wouldn't use it!!!!. And it sure as shit get used all the damn time.
If violence settles things, why the hell do we keep coming back to it? You'd think violence would have settled our differences centuries ago. What happened--was it an outbreak of accursed peace or something?
Violence only succeeds when you completely eradicate your opposition. If you don't, all it does is breed hatred amongst the survivors. Unless you track down and kill every last person who opposes your will, you're going to have to deal with those who hate you because you've destroyed their lives and families. Is this what you're advocating--the wholesale slaughter of every terrorist, their families, and all those who cared about them? Think you can keep up the pace?
I invite you to register for a free Slashdot account. Even a pseudonym lends credence to one's comments.

--
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Re:Choose your weapon... by DevilM · 2004-02-23 04:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

No, fuck you... I don't need people to invent enemies so they have someone to protect me from. I've read Michael Moore's book and while I don't agree 100%; there is a lot of shit to answer for. When you all can learn to engage the public without making shit up and using scare tatics, I change my opinion.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

As somebody who has worked in the Pentagon and with the policy makers (though not one myself), here is a big FUCK YOU to you and your total lack of knowledge as well as to the mods who gave you an insightful. I was in that building during the Clinton admin and the current Bush admin, and it is FULL of people doing their absolute best to protect you and the United States no matter who is in the White House.

As someone who happens not to be a citizen of the United States, here is a big FUCK YOU to you and your belief that the protection of the United States is the most important thing in the world. IT IS NOT. If God appeared before the world, and gave everyone a vote as to whether he should destroy the United States of America, or wipe out the rest of humanity instead, the USA would be a sea of glass within seconds.

As a spokesman for the world outside the USA, may I cordially request you get your fucking heads out of your fucking arses and take a look around you? How the FUCK do you figure that your "national security" is so important that "protecting yourselves" against a vague and unspecified threat is the only justification you need to drop cluster bombs on third world hospitals?

For what it's worth, I'm not a hardened anti-American zealot. Yet. But if America wants me to hate it, it's damn well going the right way about making sure I do.
Re:Choose your weapon... by ceejayoz · 2004-02-23 04:26 · Score: 1

By your logic, there would be peace in the middle east by now.

Yes, indeed there would be. Nuking the place into glass certainly would cause peace in the region.

In fact, it might even be a good idea.
Re:Choose your weapon... by siphoncolder · 2004-02-23 04:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

These are actually 2 very good arguments. The parent to this poster (the AC) posts that violence DOES work, and he's right - but only to an extent. His point about the Romans & Carthaginians is very apt, and proves the point exactly - that violence solved the dispute, but that's because it was COMPLETE AND UTTER destruction of not just a subset of people, but an entire culture. They didn't just take out the military - they took out civilians, too. With a passion, they took out men, women, children, the elderly - no mercy for anyone. That's how that was solved.

That's the problem: the US & other like-minded states lack the lack of heart & conscience to do what the Romans did. They're not into genocide, they're not into complete and utter violent domination of cultures. That's what they stand for - everyone getting along, and removing those who don't want to get along.

As the parent rightly mentions, you can't just kill the one person - you have to kill them all. I'll go out on a limb here and say that we will never see the entire Middle East wiped out of existence by any military force.

The approach of working smarter and not harder fits better with the goals set out in search of a free world. Bullets work, but since we don't want to do that anymore and because we really probably CAN'T, this might be a better approach.

--
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Re:Choose your weapon... by lwsimon · 2004-02-23 04:28 · Score: 2

Hmmm.... Lets see..

Any idiot can kill someone - it takes brains and dedication to talk someone over.
Well, that's just the problem. The people we are fighting have neither the brains nor the determination.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Vaystrem · 2004-02-23 04:29 · Score: 1

" Which do you think will win the War on Terror--guns or minds? ... The more they understand the role society plays in terrorism, the better they'll be able to counteract it."

The problem with your statement is that this initiative is incapable of acheiveing either end. It will not be able to simulate the behavior or individuals or even groups of individuals beyond what the article mentions as crowd reactions (probably to falling bombs).

It will not give insight into how terrorists operate or how they operate or where they are or even how they might attack. Conceivably this program would be capable of simulating the actual impact of a suspected terrorist action. There was lots of news recently about Al-Queda possibly hijacking an oil tanker or some other ships, well this program could probably demonstrate the ecological impact of something like this - but nothing more.

I would believe that existing analysts would be able to game out possible targets & impacts already without requiring such a simulator - as nice as it may be to have.

This initiative is also incapable of 'winning the war on terror' it is a military simulator on earth scale - and that is it. It is not capable of simulating capital flows and other investments so that we could determine exactly how Al-Qeada is funneling money. Since it will not be possible to accurately simulate individual behaviour within it - it is also impossible to simulate communications networks so we can find out how terrorists communicate and where they meet etc.

All this is - is a giant war game - that's it. Any other claims to usefulness are bullshit. It gives the US military a way to game out conflicts in pretty 3d. Look for them to model Taiwan and area after they've finished modeling the middle east. Just an educated guess.

P.S. Go watch War Games.
Re:Choose your weapon... by the_mad_poster · 2004-02-23 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea, and we know there's never any backlash or circular problem as a result. After all, it's not like the muslims started, no the christians started! No, you started it! Nuh uh, you started it!

Yea, of course not, this violence hasn't been going back and forth between Western and Middle Eastern cultures for the last millenium, no. Each time violence erupted, it sure settled things.

There are two reasons you're not a social scientist: 1) You have no clue how psychology, social anthropology, etc. contribute to the collective behavior of a society and 2) you're an idiot who's confusing settlement between two individuals and entire societies. Go ahead - argue that you can just nuke entire societies out of existence. I dare you.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Choose your weapon... by dave420-2 · 2004-02-23 04:30 · Score: 1

And the US troops who are doing the figting have what, exactly? They're doing no better.
Re:Choose your weapon... by voss · 2004-02-23 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative

You got the quote wrong...

The correct quote is "violence never solves anything".

Violence may wipe people off the face of the earth but it does not solve problems. Sure rome destroyed carthage but their politics never let them have
long-term peace and the cost of their military might eventually bankrupted them.

While the Republic of Venice did fight some wars their politics allowed them to find solutions that were much less costly than wars. Venice as a small state still lasted over a thousand years from the height of byzantium to the coming of Napoleon.
Re:Choose your weapon... by forlornhope · 2004-02-23 04:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Your russia comment is a straw man. Of course they knew the arms wouldnt dissapear. It was a calculated risk. It was play against one large country that you will(it was only a matter of time before some hardliner got in and descided that Europe needed to be under the control of the USSR) fight one day and the world will end, or break that country up and take your chances against the many smaller nations that wont be able to stand individually against your military. I dont know if that calculated risk is paying off, only time will tell with that.

Also, your argument about the Utopia is a bit suspect as well. Even if the military wanted no wars anymore Im sure they wouldnt get it as there will always be greedy people in the world who want more than their share(including the people who control that same MIC). Conflict is a fact of human existance, and the only way to hold on to what you own is to be willing to defend it.

Though, I would have to admit that you are right that the MIC does have a vested intrest in conflicts continuing around the world as opposed to the US seeking diplomatic solution. But I must say that 8 years of Clinton diplomacy has left the world in shambles and Im sure that 8 years of Bush warmongering will leave the world even worse off. What we need is a happy medium where the world can agree on a course of action with out the influence of a profit motive, but that will never happen. Hmm, maybe I should run for president. ;-)

--
"We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 04:35 · Score: 1, Funny

No, fuck you... I don't need people to invent enemies so they have someone to protect me from. I've read Michael Moore's book and while I don't agree 100%; there is a lot of shit to answer for. When you all can learn to engage the public without making shit up and using scare tatics, I change my opinion.

Oh man, I could have gone all day without someone citing Michael Moore as a reference for anything. His theory is if you make enough wild accusations, some will stick. I've seen horoscopes that were more accurate -- and the ones I read are in The Onion.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Wellspring · 2004-02-23 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Blame America school of foreign policy isn't terribly accurate. More importantly, from an American policy-maker's point of view, who cares? If everything that goes wrong is our fault anyway, then we might as well pursue our national interest like everyone else.

Blame America is based on a unique variant of American exceptionalism: that we're uniquely evil-- that China, or the USSR, or Syria have no control over their own destinies becasue it's all Our Fault. History was pretty bleak before we came along; I like to think we've had a good impact overall, but we're not omnipotent.

The civil war in Sudan had nothing to do with us, or the violence in Rwanda, or the Kurd separatism in Turkey. Where we have been involved (Afghanistan, the Korean Penninsula, Taiwan, Eastern Europe) there is a good defense to be mounted.

Either way, the idea that the military creates global chaos so that it can justify its own funding is ill-conceived claptrap. Why not prop up the Soviet Union to keep the Cold War going?

War and chaos and death is a reality of the human condition. Even if all weapons were somehow destroyed, people would get boards with nails in them and start the whole thing over. The US military is trying to think of clever, weird ways to approach conflict to make it more decisive and with fewer dead innocents. Three cheers for that.
Re:Choose your weapon... by johnjay · 2004-02-23 04:51 · Score: 1

I agree with you that having a simulator that "allows them to get the feel for social environments" can only be a good thing. But it seems that this is an expensive way to go about it. Why model the whole Earth? It seems that all you really need are good models for how people act ("all you need", nice understatement), and an accurate geography of big cities that the U.S. army might be involved in the near future. The important things from the army planning point of view are: people & crowds in hostile environments, and urban geography.

That being said, you need to model are Tehran, Damascus, etc. and the type of people who live there. You don't need a model of the entire Earth. You don't need to know how the Scots are going to react to U.S. invasion. Because there are a lot of places that U.S. military is never going to be involved in the forseeable future.

"The whole Earth" idea is probably either a spin that the BBC used in order to make the news exciting, or something that the There wanted to put forward to advertise it's cool software. Come to think of it--definitely advertising on There's part. They'd be fools not to advertise the project this way. It's not technically false, they just won't ever get funding to do the whole Earth.

I doubt this model will ever get more detailed than two-dozen cities. That's plenty hard enough.
Re:Choose your weapon... by cherokee158 · 2004-02-23 04:53 · Score: 1

I agree.

I'd prefer butter to guns any day, but I've lived long enough to see the value of the both the military and wargaming. It's easy for a bunch of overfed geeks to sit behind their monitors and cry about man's inhumanity to man...but the truth is, those same geeks have the luxury of being overfed because we are the most militarily powerful nation on a planet where weaker billions starve.

Is there a better way? Maybe. But for billions of years, this has been nature's way of deciding who gets to live at the oasis and eat and mate. It makes a whole lot of sense to try to be the best at it.

We can and should aspire to more peaceful solutions. But until one of you aspiring nobel prize winners comes up with a better idea, I'll keep my sabre sharpened...
Re:Choose your weapon... by BLAMM! · 2004-02-23 05:00 · Score: 1

And me without my mod points. This is probably the most insightful post I've seen this week.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Kallahar · 2004-02-23 05:10 · Score: 1

If you kill someone, then their family and everyone they know now hates you. You can't kill them all because the more people you kill, the more people will turn against you.

Killing millions of jews sure worked for hitler. Problem solved eh?

Israel/Palestine have been using violence for decades. It hasn't solved anything because it's a never ending cycle of revenge.
Re:Choose your weapon... by siphoncolder · 2004-02-23 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

This is probably the most insightful post I've seen this week.
High praise for a Monday.... ;)

--
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Re:Choose your weapon... by dave420-2 · 2004-02-23 05:15 · Score: 1

Or just stop sending Israel $1bn every year...
Seriously, killing people to stop them killing people is the most ridiculous idea ever. Any victory would be hollow, proving the protagonists' ideals to be hollow also. Oh, wait...
Re:Choose your weapon... by Pxtl · 2004-02-23 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Give them a decade - once they round up all the orphans and lost friends from the recent carnage, they'll come back a hundredfold and convert the entire middle east into Taliban-style fundamentalist warlords, and then you can really see what happens when you blow up a country.

Doesn't matter how neatly you do it - conquest involves killing many people. There is no way that doesn't have bad aftereffects. Put yourself in their shoes - even if you didn't like your ruler, if the ruler didn't actually kill anyone you know or opress anyone you know, and in fact most of your poverty was caused by trade embargoes, and then someone comes along and blows up your family because some other country pissed them off and they had a vendetta against your ruler, what would you do? You can't deny that's how it would look to an average Iraqi right now. Whether its true or not is beside the point.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 05:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

>Killing people because some people were killed is only going to make things worse.

That's an interesting statement considering the US still executes people for crimes in some states.

>This "war on terrorism" is more than people fighting people, but ideas fighting ideas. You can't shoot an idea.

Neither can you take an idea off someone. In fact doing so is usually what compels them to violence to protect that idea.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 05:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

You're forgetting that it would not be in the military's best interest to live in a Utopia because the world would not need armed forces.

ok, flamebait, I'll bite.

Ludicrous statement - mankind has proven that since inception, no matter how much the libs think (or try to mandate) otherwise, mankind won't tolerate Utopia (in so far as everyone is nice, fair, and all things tolerant to everyone else so that we are all one big happy human family and weapons are not needed). Invariably, somebody decides he can better his position by taking advantage of all the unarmed, believing suckers and -snap!- no more Utopia (see Marx, Lenin, etc... )

Therefore, while you're statement may be true, it's ridiculous because Utopia is, by humankind's historic example, unattainable and impossible. Hence, the world does need armed forces. And, in my case, I want as many of the best, most devestating weapons surrounding me and mine as possible so as to deter and/or kill the other guy (preferably before he kills me [read: preemption]).

Trust, but verify : Peace through strength. The only things that work. Thos who believe otherwise are already dead.

(mod- because I'm a stinking, rabid conservative)
Re:Choose your weapon... by brennan73 · 2004-02-23 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Right. So, good luck talking al Qaeda over - I'm sure you'll be able to convince them, through logic and reason, that Sharia isn't really a good system of government, and that women should have full rights as citizens. Oh, and that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy of Jews plotting against them.

Not every conflict demands a gun, but nor can every conflict be settled by a friendly conversation over tea. His argument may be immature and short-sighted, but yours is breathtakingly naive and at least as dangerous as that of the shoot-firsters.
Re:Choose your weapon... by skavj_binsk · 2004-02-23 05:43 · Score: 1

The roman/carthaginian war is an appropriate example. Motivated by greed for resource-rich sicily, the punic wars lasted about 150 years. This war (or perhaps it was a preemptive defensive conflict) drained the treasuries of both powers, and was fought by the politically and economically disenfranchised underclasses.
Rome's empire-expanding aggression produced short-term economic benefit, but contributed heavily to its long-term decline by producing an economy built on territorial expansion and human suffering. Fingers are pointed at climate change and massive trade deficits, but equally at the burden of maintaining the enormous army required to inflict empire-prolonging violence upon the conquered territories.
Furthermore, it's a false analogy because the current hatred is not between superpowers but between us and individuals whose extremism is motivated in part by our inhumane policies abroad. "Pulling the trigger" against enemies like this simply polarizes every moderate who knew them.
Violence doesn't solve anything, it just delays the problem.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Pxtl · 2004-02-23 05:46 · Score: 1

Actually, his earlier stuff was good - back during the Clinton era, before the campaign to dethrone Bush at all costs made the political left abandon their credibility in favour of screaming like loonies.

Read his '96 book called "Downsize This!" for a good, fact-checked, less rant-ish version of Moore. Its actually quite entertaining and insightful. I can see how he got famous - I'm just dissapointed in how badly he's handled it now that he is.
Re:Choose your weapon... by brennan73 · 2004-02-23 05:47 · Score: 1

Right. And talking things over with Hitler, calmly pointing out the flaws in his reasoning, sure worked to stop the Holocaust. I mean, no need to wage war on Germany, just kindly but firmly express disagreement with Nazism. Problem solved, eh?

People who think there's never a need for violence boggle my mind. Violence doesn't solve everything, but it's damn sure required sometimes.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Didian · 2004-02-23 05:52 · Score: 1

Ask the ancient Carthaginians if violence ever settled anything.

If you're going to quote Heinlein, you might at least give him credit (Starship Troopers).

--
"You despise me, don't you?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Re:Choose your weapon... by dave420-2 · 2004-02-23 05:58 · Score: 1

That's an interesting statement considering the US still executes people for crimes in some states.
Which is seen as barbaric by most western countries...
Neither can you take an idea off someone
You can take an idea off someone - it's called convincing them otherwise. Show them the lies in their minds are just that - lies - and their beliefs wither away. They cease to subscribe to whatever crazyness they did before. You are left with one fully-functioning, alive human being, and your morals are intact. It's an inability to prove your point articulately and effectively which leads to violence.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Tackhead · 2004-02-23 06:02 · Score: 1

> Violence only succeeds when you completely eradicate your opposition. If you don't, all it does is breed hatred amongst the survivors.
Unless you track down and kill every last person who opposes your will, you're going to have to deal with those who hate you because you've destroyed their lives and families. Is this what you're advocating--the wholesale slaughter of every terrorist, their families, and all those who cared about them? Think you can keep up the pace?
Well, there's only one way to find out: ask a Carthaginian if the Romans could keep up the pace.
One of my favorite rants came from someone who wrote:
"200 years from now, I want their children's children's children's children to cower and cringe in fear whenever they hear the sounds of jet engines overhead because their legends tell of fire from the sky.
I want them to hide in dark caves and holes in the earth, shivering with terror whenever they hear the roar of diesel engines because the tales of their ancestors talk about metal monsters crawling over the earth, spitting death and destruction."

What that poster wanted was revenge. I'd go one step further. I want peace. And against fanatics - by definition immune to reason - the only way to achieve peace is through superior firepower.
For peace, they must abandon their fanaticism in God and Prophet -- and the only way to do that is to demonstrate, time and again, that neither their God nor Prophet can help them. We can tell them that their God and Prophet are lies, and it'll shake some of the weaker ones into the civilized camp, but it will do nothing against the fanatics. For the fanatics, we must show them. They must come to the conclusion that their God and their Prophet are lies of their own accord, and face the implications of that simple fact full-on.
When they have come to that conclusion, whether they choose to join civilization, or whether they choose to meet their God by walking for miles across the radioactive fused-glass plain where once their meteorite stood, is up to them.
All it takes is one man with the launch codes, the legal authority, and the will to use them.
All it takes is one man with the courage to stand up and say "Enough! Carthago delenda est!"
Re:Choose your weapon... by dave420-2 · 2004-02-23 06:03 · Score: 1

Insightful? Give me a break!
I agree that not all conflicts can be solved by talking. This one can, however.
The US has systematically pissed off the muslim world for decades, and now their chickens have come home to roost. Instead of admitting the US's shoddy foreign policies and greed for oil have lead them to this, they react like a scalded child, and lash out at the perceived aggressor.
Just because it's difficult to solve a problem with words doesn't mean it's not right to do so.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
If Bush stops going on about god every 5 minutes and pulled the US troops out of the middle east (and stopped giving Israel $1bn every year), Al Qaida would have less to argue about. It's very easy to stop this conflict - it's called talking. Your inability to see that is both immature and frightening.
Re:Choose your weapon... by sangreal66 · 2004-02-23 06:06 · Score: 1

I can tell from your post that you don't much venture away from your computer as you obviously have never met someone with even an ounce of pride/arrogance.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2004-02-23 06:09 · Score: 1

This is only partially true; violence and/or annhilation is really only the only option if there is a huge disparity in perceived trust levels. If we trust an entity enough to believe that they're not going to take advantage of our good faith, we're generally open to negotiation (case in point, palestine & israel, n. korea, Libya's disarmament claims vs. Iraq's, etc...)

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:Choose your weapon... by sangreal66 · 2004-02-23 06:11 · Score: 1

Violence only succeeds when you completely eradicate your opposition. If you don't, all it does is breed hatred amongst the survivors. Unless you track down and kill every last person who opposes your will, you're going to have to deal with those who hate you because you've destroyed their lives and families. This is completely and utterly untrue. Did the Union eradicate the confederates? Did the allies eradicate the axis? Did the Texans eradicate the Mexicans?
Re:Choose your weapon... by Tackhead · 2004-02-23 06:11 · Score: 1

> Awww, c'mon. What of the sudden rash of Chechen suicide widows? Y'know, the wives of the guys who had their brains splattered all over the place by the Russians. They should've killed them at the time, too.
>
> ...and the children, as too many of them would grow up and want to do nothing more than avenge their parents' deaths...
Nits grow up to be lice.
- John Brown, when asked to comment on his unorthodox approach towards the elimination of slavery.
Re:Choose your weapon... by rsborg · 2004-02-23 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Blame America is based on a unique variant of American exceptionalism: that we're uniquely evil-- that China, or the USSR, or Syria have no control over their own destinies becasue it's all Our Fault.
Pardon me, but that's bullshit. Blame America says we're uniquely evil simply because we're uniquely powerful. What other country has significant numbers of armed forces around the world? What other country spends anywhere NEAR as much as the US does? What other country effectively controls the worlds oil supply (either economically or militarily)? What other country has more nukes than the rest of the world combined (and then claims that other countries don't have the right to pursue nuclear technology)? The US is the ONLY remianing superpower.
And I hope you remember what they say about power and corruption...

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:Choose your weapon... by glesga_kiss · 2004-02-23 06:17 · Score: 1

That's why the "war on terror" will never be won with military power.
bullshit. It's not going to be won with negotiations (how many more decades should we have let the UN posture and fret about Iraq?)

What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?
Re:Choose your weapon... by kahei · 2004-02-23 06:18 · Score: 1

Which do you think will win the War on Terror--guns or minds?

Why do you assume you'll win?

--
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2004-02-23 06:20 · Score: 1

Pulling troops out of the Middle East now would just encourage terrorism, since that was the point behind most of Al-Q's attacks anyways. Appeasement didn't work in World War II, and only ended up making things worse in the long run.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:Choose your weapon... by voss · 2004-02-23 06:24 · Score: 1

The Pax Romana was 180 years out of a 1000 year Roman civilization. The Punic wars predated the Pax Romana by 200 years, in between they had nearly constant bloodshed, it was the desire to see the end of the wars that led to the ascension of the empire and the collapse of the republic.

However Romans failure to settle differences with its neighbors except by war eventually led to their destruction. Maybe the appropriate saying is not "violence never solves anything" but instead "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

The cost of maintaining their army did eventually bankrupt them.
Re:Choose your weapon... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-02-23 06:25 · Score: 1

Are you familiar with phrases such as "The South shall rise again" and "Remember the Alamo"? Familiar with neo-Nazi skinheads and other echoes of WWII that still haunt Europe today?
Yes, time will heal many conflicts. Time will also often cause these wounds to fester. Consider the continuing wars rooted in religion--conflicts rooted in differences of opinion over 1000 years old. Consider ethnic strife, such as that between the Serbs and Croats. Too many families were fractured during the years of fighting; there is so much hatred brimming there that without constant monitoring and international intervention, the ethnic war would most likely continue to play itself out for generations to come.
While you may not share the feelings of these people, and while time often mends the wound, the hatred can linger for ages. There do exist people who quite earnestly hate northern states, Germans, Mexicans, et cetera--based on hatred from conflicts that are generations old. These divisions continue to cause strife in our world.

--
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Re:Choose your weapon... by darkonc · 2004-02-23 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

How dare you sit at your keyboard and accuse them of being "shadow employees of weapons dealers".
Even the employees of weapons dealers can have the best of intentions.
I'd expect that most (or at least many) of the people who work in the pentagon have the best of intentions, but they've gown up in an environment where might makes right and they have the most might. It's not generally the best crucible for peacemakers.
To paraphrase Einstein:
The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that it's going to get us out of it.
The leaders paradox is that the kinds of people who are willing to fight for power tend to be precisely the kinds of people that you don't want in power.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Ondo · 2004-02-23 06:28 · Score: 1

The parent to this poster (the AC) posts that violence DOES work, and he's right - but only to an extent. His point about the Romans & Carthaginians is very apt, and proves the point exactly - that violence solved the dispute, but that's because it was COMPLETE AND UTTER destruction of not just a subset of people, but an entire culture. They didn't just take out the military - they took out civilians, too. With a passion, they took out men, women, children, the elderly - no mercy for anyone. That's how that was solved.

But there are many situations that were solved with violence, but without complete destruction. The conflicts of World War II are over. We won't be fighting the Germans and Japanese again any time soon. Of course it took more than just violence - the post-war diplomacy was very important, but violence was a needed component.
Re:Choose your weapon... by tassii · 2004-02-23 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
The point here that everyone seems to be missing (including the US Gov) is that terrorists fall into 3 basic categories:
1. The Sheep: These are those who are lead around by the noses and don't know any better. An example of this would be people that actually believe the 71 virgins crap (which was created by the man who institutionalized the concept of the Assassin) and the extremist "schools" that teach hate to children. The Sheep tend to be illiterate.
2. The Desparate: These are those who have lost all, real or imagined, and have nothing to lose. They are ideal for recruitment as suicide bombers.
3. The Manipulative: These are those who take #1 and #2 and manipulate them for their own power. Osama is a good example. He and his lieutenants manipulate the passages of the Koran to suit their needs and objectives, tricking the Sheep and the Desperate to carry out attacks.
Violence will only solve #3. It will not solve #1 or #2. Only education and active peace will fix that.
--
"I drank what?" - Socrates
Re:Choose your weapon... by teromajusa · 2004-02-23 06:40 · Score: 1

If they have neither brains nor determination, how are they managing to fight us? We have the weapons, the wealth, and the political influence, they have nothing but their brains and determination. Pretending that your enemy is stupid and weak isn't going to help you win.
Re:Choose your weapon... by teromajusa · 2004-02-23 06:50 · Score: 1

Nuking the place into glass certainly would cause peace in the region.

Peace in the region, yes. The rest of the world would probably be engulfed in conflict, but thats ok, we can keep nuking until everyone is dead and we have permantent peace, right?
Re:Choose your weapon... by ceejayoz · 2004-02-23 06:54 · Score: 1

Or just stop sending Israel $1bn every year...

Allowing the surrounding Arab nations to wipe out every Jew in Israel?

Sorry, but I think my approach is more fair.
Re:Choose your weapon... by wideBlueSkies · 2004-02-23 07:05 · Score: 1

Please mod parent as insightful. He's hit this nail on the head.

wbs.

--
Huh?
Re:Choose your weapon... by lirani · 2004-02-23 07:07 · Score: 1

The person who is now dead doesn't hate you, but their friends, family, and community do. And then they'll sit on your bus with a bomb strapped to your chest.

Escalation, genius.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Jzanu · 2004-02-23 07:10 · Score: 1

The amount a nation spends on developing, equipping, and maintaining its military forces is a factor of the size of its populace and range of national interests. That the US, by its size alone among the modern industrialized nations (Russia excluded as it is currently involved in conflicts to maintain its borders against internal resistances) must spend the most money on military. This is not to establish the US as the most militaristic though, that is estimated by a combination of the factors of wealth, productive capacities, labor force, and current percentage military spending accounts for in the expenditure of its collected taxes. America is then the obvious target of all who are against the industrialization of their environments simply because of this greatest amount spent and most obvious presence when forces are stationed in other nations. Do not confuse potential of force in the military sense with power as encompasses the influence and trade aspects present in diplomacy of the true sort.

No superpower can exist any longer, there is no ongoing rivalry as was the case in the Cold War; rather what exists at the present time is that the current dominant figure in the midst of powers that will immanently overtake it in influence on the global scale is the US. This system is that which, whatever the distinctive factors become among future allied forces of proponent and opponent, will remain accurate to a significant degree. Oil is integral primarily to the US and the third tier nations that can not operate industrial facilities from nuclear or other means of generation of electricity either due to political instability, political hampering, or inadequate levels of current industry. The amount of nuclear weapons a nation possesses is irrelevant, the single factor with respect to true power of diplomatic influences, the only power that can be carried out for decades without irreparable harm to the citizenry, is the possession of the facilities to produce nuclear weapons and the facilities to launch nuclear weapons. Do not forget that if used, escalation kills everyone so numbers do not matter as much for power. As to corruption, it is a natural quality of all government from the blaring obvious dictatorship to the aristocratic republic; more obvious when immense quantities are involved rather than by its true indicator of percentages. In general, do not base assertions on incomplete analysis.
Re:Choose your weapon... by teromajusa · 2004-02-23 07:15 · Score: 1

"For peace, they must abandon their fanaticism in God and Prophet"

Forcing people to give up their religion is the quickest way to make people hate you, and hate you for a long time. You like history references, I'm sure you can think of a few examples. If you are trying to say that there is something about Islam which prohibits Muslims from living in peace with other religions, you don't know much history after all.

"When they have come to that conclusion, whether they choose to join civilization, or whether they choose to meet their God by walking for miles across the radioactive fused-glass plain where once their meteorite stood, is up to them."

Your idea of civilization is very very far from what I would call civilized.
Re:Choose your weapon... by TOGA!+TOGA+TOGA! · 2004-02-23 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you use OPEC well to illustrate that the US still has weaknesses. Lots of people claim that the US has total economic power over the rest of the world. However, as you point out, while the US has considerable power, this power only exists so long as people of other countries buy our products or otherwise participate in our economy.
Re:Choose your weapon... by smackjer · 2004-02-23 07:37 · Score: 1

Yes, and it's so blatantly obvious that our strength has set us well on our way towards peace. /sarcasm

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Choose your weapon... by tumbaumba · 2004-02-23 07:38 · Score: 1

That's why the "war on terror" will never be won with military power.

I think what you really want to say is 'The "war on terror" will never be won'. I really don't understand how someone can think that "war on terror" can be won by some means. There never was nor will be peace on Earth and any attempts to install one doomed to fail. Faced with this realization many people ask themselves question 'what am I to do?' Anyone dare to suggest answer.
Re:Choose your weapon... by mr100percent · 2004-02-23 07:49 · Score: 1

then you're not getting the whole picture. People are fighting back, throwing grenades at soldiers, etc.
People are angry because they had their houses raided, they lost family members during the bombing of Baghdad. There are estimates that over 7000 civillians died. People driving home in their cars were blasted by missiles from US helicopters. This is not a pretty war. If we keep walking over the Iraqis, not allowing free elections, and abuse them like we do now, of course it will be bad.
Why do you think the average Iraqi is so angry at us? Go read some Iraqi blogs
Re:Choose your weapon... by siphoncolder · 2004-02-23 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of note: Germany's destruction WAS complete and utter. They had no chance to survive through the war, plus the fact that their leader died (suicide) and the dwindling resources of the Reich as a whole, both financial AND material (i.e. metal to make weapons with, gas, etc) - they couldn't wage war as they had been doing, and therefore could not fulfill their goal of world domination. As for conquest: it WAS conquered. And taken over, and regulated, for MANY years by the Allies.

Japan was forced to concede through mass destruction and fear of further retribution on the same scale. Japan was in it for the long haul - they would go down with the sinking ship and make life miserable for their enemies. However, when it became clear that they wouldn't be given a chance to (think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 2 loud messages), they gave up.

Of final note: the 2 World Wars were wars between countries. That made targeting the enemy easy: Germans/Japanese. Either you killed Nazi's/Japanese, or you conquered/contained German/Japanese civilian populations (taking a villiage, etc). Also, Germany and Japan were the aggressors in those cases. In the case of Iraq, or the War Against Terrorism, the US is viewed as the aggressors, and the distinction of "conquer a country" isn't clear - they're trying to pussyfoot around the civilians who aren't part of the conflict directly (who may later turn against US forces), and the resources in the region remain. Iraq had no goal but to be left alone, although they didn't like to get along politically. The people of Iraq aren't being conquered, and they're not being targeted as the enemy, so you're usually missing a large contingent of people that could turn on you. As for the War On Terrorism, that works in an entirely different way - the enemy isn't located in one area of the world, and they have no allegience. You have to pick them off one person at a time - a particularly daunting task, since now you don't even HAVE the option of going in and decimating a population or conquering a country. You can kill one, but the terrorist population grows like cancer in the blood.

The recent Iraq situation was handled really half-assed and badly - they should have waited for a really strong reason to go in and really conquer Iraq. Now all the US & coalition forces have done is made a mess from an already murky situation. The reasons for and methods of violence in Iraq and the "War on Terrorism" hardly run parallel those of the 2 World Wars.

--
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Tackhead · 2004-02-23 07:57 · Score: 1

> Forcing people to give up their religion is the quickest way to make people hate you, and hate you for a long time.
Sure. And at the moment, it's still easier and cheaper to undermine their memes by selling stuff to them, rather than killing them. Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy, and all that lot. It's cheaper and safer to defuse a bomb than to haul it somewhere deserted and blow it.
If the campaign of cultural imperialism fails to win their hearts and minds, they will eventually find out we have other methods of dealing with them.
Re:Choose your weapon... by drinkypoo · 2004-02-23 08:21 · Score: 1

The US is the only active superpower, but china appears to be getting ready to become active. Unless they adopt a more progressive view of the world they may lag on per capita productivity, but there are enough Chinese to make that irrelevant. Clearly China's technological prowess is puissant enough for them to rejoin the party.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Choose your weapon... by Nykon · 2004-02-23 08:46 · Score: 1

"...the ultimate goal is to model the entire Earth using existing terrain data and a super-accurate physics model"

Hasn't this been done before?

--
"It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
Re:Choose your weapon... by msoftsucks · 2004-02-23 09:06 · Score: 1

North Korea has a larger standing army, spends more GDP per year for military hardware (so much so, that their population is starving), and is the most repressive regime on the face of the world, that it puts China and Russia to shame. More have died in North Korean prisons than in the gulags of Stalin. They currently have nuclear weapons, and have missles that can reach the US. How much longer do you think it will be before Kim Jong Il wants more and decides to take it from the US? Do you think that maybe regimes like this are abit more evil than the US? Being powerful does not mean that you are inheritantly evil. It is the actions, lack of freedoms, the politization of religion, and the mass killings that make you evil.

--
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Re:Choose your weapon... by ccmay · 2004-02-23 09:30 · Score: 1

Forcing people to give up their religion is the quickest way to make people hate you, and hate you for a long time.
Bingo! That's exactly why I hate the Muslims. It's time they had a taste of what they have inflicted on the rest of the world for 1400 years now. Wahabbism in particular must be snuffed out from the face of the Earth.
About 80% of wars and conflicts taking place in the world today are taking place where the Muslim world meets the rest of us. They are unable to live in peace with their neighbors, and need a pitilessly administered lesson to help them learn how.
-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Re:Choose your weapon... by macshune · 2004-02-23 09:32 · Score: 1

This is why we need a militia instead of a standing army. I realize it's a pipe dream, but we shouldn't send folks off to fight other people's wars just because they (most of 'em) want to be able to afford college. If someone wants to wage war, then they should be willing to fight & possibly die in that war. In this light, conscription sounds good because a senator's son has a chance of going off to war and so this would, in turn, possibly cut down on the number of wars fought (they don't have most of the deferrments they used to via-a-vis the draft).

Conscription, of course, infringes on liberty, whether you are a classical republican or a believer in classical liberalism (what we pretty much are today). I wish we could increase the number of guardspeople and reduce the standing (mercenary) army's numbers...if for no other reason than to not sequester our warriors on bases, away from view.

Speaking of which, I have a problem with the continual removal of the realities of war from the American people. When the dead are repatriated, let all eyes be cast on them and questions asked about the value of the conflict they gave their life to. It seems during this conflict, the sacrifices of soldiers only exist as news briefs and running tallies. This is wrong and is the antithesis of most of the founding fathers' vision for the United States.

*gets off soapbox*
Re:Choose your weapon... by pmfp · 2004-02-23 09:45 · Score: 1

Are you claiming that North Korea is matching the USSR's roughly 70 million disappeared? I didn't know they even had that many in NK.

--

"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
Re:Choose your weapon... by pmfp · 2004-02-23 09:51 · Score: 1

Iraq gave money to the families of palestinan suicide bombers and hosted various terrorist organizations, al-Aqsa among others. Many camps have been uprooted there.

--

"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
Re:Choose your weapon... by pmfp · 2004-02-23 10:09 · Score: 1

I'd expect that most (or at least many) of the people who work in the pentagon have the best of intentions, but they've gown up in an environment where might makes right and they have the most might. It's not generally the best crucible for peacemakers.

I happen to have the priveliege of being in contact with numerous people who has ties with or worked in the pentagon. Most of those are current or former military personnel, mainly Special Forces.

With that said I know that your claim of their upbringing is bullshit. They are a very smart group of people that puts their duty to the US, outlined in the various policies and assignments, first hand.

Might doesn't make right, but if you don't have any might at all it doesn't really matter how right you are, you have to be able to stir things up one way or another.

The leaders paradox is that the kinds of people who are willing to fight for power tend to be precisely the kinds of people that you don't want in power.

Those who can, do. Those can't do, teach. Those can't teach, teach the teachers. The Pentagon folks do.

--

"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
Re:Choose your weapon... by brennan73 · 2004-02-23 10:35 · Score: 2

You. Are. Out. Of. Your. Mind.

Al Qaeda and bin Laden, simply put, wish to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate. They want it to stretch through the entire Middle East all the way to Spain. (go here if you actually want to read a bit about this). They want to drive the Jews into the sea in Israel. The sort of Sharia they advocate, with Afghanistan under the Taliban being Exhibit A, is *profoundly* oppressive towards women, non-Muslims, gays, etc. etc. If you really believe these fascists are freedom fighters, you're completely insane, and/or wilfully blind.

I didn't say "they hate us because of our freedoms" - I said that if we wish to oppose them, we cannot do so peacefully. I stand by this: these are people whose goals *must* be opposed, and who will never listen to reason. I know it's easier to put words in my mouth, but try and resist, please.

God forbid people like you ever get your hands on the levers of political power. Luckily, so long as people vote in the West, you won't.
Re:Choose your weapon... by teromajusa · 2004-02-23 10:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Historically, Islam has been far more tolerant of other religions than has Christianity. The intellectual freedom enjoyed by the Islamic world meant that they preserved the great works of antiquity, like Plato and Aristotle, while christians abandoned them because of their pagan origin. Up until this century, Muslems, Christians and Jews lived together relatively successfully. The current violence and disorder is more a product of the end of colonialism than religious differences.
Re:Choose your weapon... by InadequateCamel · 2004-02-23 10:41 · Score: 1

Pulling troops out of the Middle East now would just encourage terrorism, since that was the point behind most of Al-Q's attacks anyways.

Leave the soldiers there to encourage peace and stability in the region (leading to increasing casualties and skyrocketing local hostility towards the US invaders and, ultimately, against the US) or pull out and engage in diplomatic approaches to promote stability (allowing those you have infuriated to express that anger towards the diplomatic process and, ultimately, the US)?

Sending troops to invade a sovereign nation with NO justification hardly endears people to your point of view. The poster's point is that American belligerence and aggression has encouraged terrorism, and so to attack them until they are peaceful is "like fucking for virginity". This Catch-22 would have been avoided if the US government didn't squander international goodwill by lying to it's citizens and the world so it could bomb Iraqis and send Americans to die in the pursuit of oil.

My 2 cents
Re:Choose your weapon... by darkonc · 2004-02-23 11:38 · Score: 1

With that said I know that your claim of their upbringing is bullshit. They are a very smart group of people that puts their duty to the US, outlined in the various policies and assignments, first hand.
What I said doesn't exclude them being intelligent, or following orders. On the other hand, getting ahead in the military, however, requires putting those first two ahead of expressing wisdom.
I think that it was Eisinhower who made famous the phrase: Walk quietly and carry a big stick
Unfortunately, the US now seems to have abandoned the first half of that maxim, and is only doing the latter. This bodes ill -- both for the world at large, and -- in the long term -- for the US.
The Pentagon folks do.
What they do, they do very well. What they don't do, they just don't do.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Lando · 2004-02-23 11:40 · Score: 1

Not that I agree with your statements...

Just wanted to point out that the US gives or used to give about 10 billion a year in the late 80's early 90's if anything I would expect that number to have risen... $1 Billion is a bit low...

Anyone have a link for the 2004 budget? Maybe we could look into it further..

--
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Re:Choose your weapon... by HiThere · 2004-02-23 12:36 · Score: 1

Well, this depends on which century you are looking at.

The Muslim religion was relatively peaceful until Tamerlane the Mongol killed most of them off. Since then, though, when they haven't been fighting someone else, they've been fighting each other. The christians played a part in that, with their episodic crusades. Just the thing to give to a culture that is recovering from having most of itself wiped out by barbarians from the east. The western branch largely escaped that paranoia inducing period by being almost out of communication with the eastern branch. So they are *relatively* peaceful. (Also a bit tribal, and given to using those outside the tribe without mercy, but that's normal human behavior.)

Yes, you are right, they preserved an ancient heiritage when the christians were the kind of arrogant know-nothings that most politically powerful Muslims are right now. And this is proof that religions can swing in either direction over the centuries. But it sure isn't because of the religion. Christianity preaches love and tolerance, and more mass slaughter has been done in it's name than in the name of any other religion. (Unless you count the Mongols, or one more recent whom it is conventionally forbidden to name as acting on religious grounds.) The Koran explicitly orders good Muslims to use whatever means are necessary to convert the heathen, yet they historically have lived in peace with them more often than christians have. (They were, however, pretty good at converting them. See, you get this really great break on your taxes if your religion is the same as the ruler's. Worked pretty well, and didn't raise visciously bad feelings.)

What's really going on is power politics. The Muslim religion is a kind of a loose power block, with both liberal and conservative wings. But it's the reactionaries that have the megaphone (not necessarily the power, but a part of the power). And certain christian groups are backing them because they support an overlapping agenda for political actions (e.g., anti-birth control). But not directly (which would hurt their rep among the populace). But when an international organization holds a meeting, the Muslims and the christians will both have delegates that espouse the more reactionary views, and support each other. (Check it out...I could be wrong. But I think my facts will bear as much examination as is feasible.)

But there's a Muslim proverb one should remember:
"Three things one should never trust: The horn of an ox, the hoof of a horse, or the charity of a Mullah."

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Choose your weapon... by HiThere · 2004-02-23 12:52 · Score: 1

I'm not really convince that the government would be willing to accept a policy that had a good chance of working. That would require the fair and just treatment of people as individuals. Which is quite difficult after you've just been bombing the cities where their children or parents were living.

Would it be just if a non-combatant whose parents had been killed demanded the prosecution for murder of the crew of the plane that bombed them? Why not?

A situation has been created where just treatment is impossible. So people will need to be restrained by force if you don't want them to attack you. Can you do this without hurting more innocent people?

The time to have started working smarter was before the initial bombing, but perhaps that was done for other than the stated motives.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Zenmonkeycat · 2004-02-23 13:20 · Score: 1

So America has never done anything bad in the past? America is infallible and therefore perfect? All those terrorists hate America just because America is Good and they are Evil?
Not to offend anyone, but that is a crock of steaming horseshit. I live in America. I was born here, I've lived here all my life, and chances are good I'll die here. I love this country, and I love the freedoms that I enjoy here. I vote in every single election I can get my ass down to, and I keep up with politics nearly as well as Wolf Blitzer.
But I also know my history. I've studied what has happened in the past, and I know what the US has done. We've done great things, such as entering World War 2 and helping free half of Europe from the clutches of a violent antisemitist megalomaniac. We've dropped thousands of pounds of food and medical supplies on countries from Afghanistan to Somalia to Haiti to Germany, and saved huge quantities of lives. And we've done horrible things, things like giving weapons to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein so they could try to kill people we didn't like at the time. We've firebombed towns full of innocent people, simply to damage the morale of a country we later freed. We put thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because there was a small chance a few of them were spies.
America is a wonderful place, full of wonderful people who want to do good things. But to believe that this country is perfect and infallible is to ignore history, and instead believe fantasies.
Whether we like it or not, whether the reasons are valid or not, our policies have created hatred. Once we realize that, we can figure out ways to present ourselves to the world so they don't want to kill us.

--
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Re:Choose your weapon... by bigmattana · 2004-02-23 15:52 · Score: 1

Blame America says we're uniquely evil simply because we're uniquely powerful.
I love seeing people on Slashdot argue about things that don't even exist except in their mind... as if "Blame America" were actually a known concept. Maybe there is a book by this name that I haven't heard of. Seriously, this is how one guy sees an argument. You argue with it like it actually exists in more than the minds of people of have a loosly connected worldview, then you go on to say pretty much imply exactly what the parent post said.
Re:Choose your weapon... by lwsimon · 2004-02-23 15:55 · Score: 1

Obviously, they do not, as they don't "talk it out" with us. Thank you. You just refuted your own argument.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:Choose your weapon... by torpor · 2004-02-23 21:39 · Score: 1

The stupidity of this situation is that all the money that's being pumped into it could be used for *other peaceful purposes* that would do far more good to repair the American Image in the eyes of the world than any computer simulation would.

You think, if I'm on a Holy Jihad to bring down the Beast, I give a shit about whether its making computer simulations of me and my land? No.

But, if I hear that "The Beast" has put million$ into a water processing facility to encourage growth and local development, I might be less prone to flying things into American property for the damage of it.

The American Military Machine will constantly justify its own existence, but in actual fact whats needed is for it to justify its own demise, and the only way to do that is through Active Peace-making. This won't happen.

This simulation program isn't a means to prevent war, its a means to fight a better war. What the money and resources should be being spent on is water programs.

Water is the only peaceful weapon.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Choose your weapon... by Lord+Kano · 2004-02-24 02:10 · Score: 1

Which do you think will win the War on Terror--guns or minds?

A change in international policy is the only way to "win" the "War on Terror".

If you travel the middle east and ask people what they don't like about the USA, like the reporter who created the documentary "Searching for the Roots of 9-11" did, you'll find that even countries that are friendly (or at least neutral) about the US are full of people who don't like the fact that we support Israel in every conflict that they have in the region.

It's a bit unfair to charge the Pentagon with the task of ending a confict without giving them an opportunity to have any effect on its causes.

What people are failing to recognize is the mindset of the enemy. Usually in a war people are fighting for something tangible, money, land, or both. These people are fighting for their place in heaven. If they were fighting and dieing for a plot of land, several years of making no progress might be enough to get them to come to the negotiating table. How do your prove to the entire middle east that Mohammed Atta is not in heaven? How do you show people that they aren't making any progress? You can't.

You have to approach this problem differently. It would take a president with an awful lot of testicular fortitude to stand up to the Pro-Israel/Pro-Oil lobby and anounce that we will end ALL AID to the middle east if there are any more acts of violent by any side.

Break recruitment, and you're dealing with a handful of international criminals rather than a terrorist network.

Exactly! Convert their base into people who aren't so eager to die killing Americans.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Choose your weapon... by glesga_kiss · 2004-02-24 05:57 · Score: 1

Iraq gave money to the families of palestinan suicide bombers and hosted various terrorist organizations, al-Aqsa among others. Many camps have been uprooted there.
Woopie do. Name a Middle Eastern state that hasn't funded terrorism. The "Iraqi" terrorist camps were in Kurdish regions, outwith Saddams control due to the no fly zones. Get a clue. Saddam was the enemy of Islam. It's like Monica and Hillary, they each hate each other but still like fucking the same guy. Just because they are both enemies of you doesn't mean they are allied together. Their hatred and mistrust of each other predates the creation of your country.
On the other hand, the USA was the principle fund raiser for the IRA, costing the lifes of countless civilians. Cheers guys. Can we invade you now? Also, the USA has trained just about every South American war criminal in terrorist and espionage operations. What exactly is your point, caller?
Re:Choose your weapon... by pmfp · 2004-02-24 07:02 · Score: 1

Name a Middle Eastern state that hasn't funded terrorism.

That doesn't make it right for others. Regarding where the terrorists were located, islamic terrorists' vists to Baghdad before the fall of the regime have been documented. It was not just an occational pleasure trip.

You are however right in that a joint enemy doesn't always unite elements. Saudi and al-Qaeda is another example of that.

On the other hand, the USA was the principle fund raiser for the IRA, costing the lifes of countless civilians.

True, and it's probably not good. Though I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to know why the US supported the IRA. It's not like the US hate the brits.

Cheers guys. Can we invade you now?

Cheers at yourself, I'm a swede. You're free to try.

Also, the USA has trained just about every South American war criminal in terrorist and espionage operations.

You're just spitting out propaganda. Don't bother listing the cases of regimes supported by the US, you have proven yourself unable to handle an objective discussion. I am the last to claim that the US is perfect and always does the right things. I am, however, going to point out for you that the choice hasn't always been between good and bad, but between more or less evil. It's about which direction to move and how the world will react to that. Hints: Cold War, stabilization, proxy wars.

What exactly is your point, caller?

Can't read either? The answer to his question:
"what does Iraq have to do with terrorism?"

--

"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
Re:Choose your weapon... by glesga_kiss · 2004-02-25 03:25 · Score: 1

That doesn't make it right for others. Regarding where the terrorists were located, islamic terrorists' vists to Baghdad before the fall of the regime have been documented. It was not just an occational pleasure trip.
That's just not true. There isn't any evidence that Iraq's leaders supported terrorism, other than the one-off one you citied re. Israel. In no sane persons mind would that justify invading Iraq ahead of many other countries that are still supporting terrorism post 9-11.
Iraqi terrorist links just don't exist. 9-11 and the war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq. Other than creating more anti-US sentiment, which cannot be good in the War On Terror (tm).
You are however right in that a joint enemy doesn't always unite elements. Saudi and al-Qaeda is another example of that.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Saudi is anti-terrorism. Most of their support comes from there. Officially the state denounces them, as it would fsck up their international relations.
Though I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to know why the US supported the IRA. It's not like the US hate the brits.
Many Irish do however. And there are a lot of Irish-Americans over that way! Basically the conflict arrises over Great Britans rule over Northern Ireland. Sadly it comes dowb to religion again, Irish Catholics vs. the British Protestant monarchy.
You're just spitting out propaganda. Don't bother listing the cases of regimes supported by the US, you have proven yourself unable to handle an objective discussion.
Google for "School of the Americas", a CIA training camp. I'm not uncapable of an objective discussion, I just don't have the time or inclination to produce links etc. After all, this is just another pointless internet discussion!! ;-)
My biggest complaint is that we have proof that Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9-11. I cringe every time he mentions "terror" in relation to Iraq as in my mind he is pissing on the graves at the WTC, using their deaths to further his agenda. Just count how often "terror" is used in speaches and quotes, despite Iraq having what are probably the weakest terrorist links in the region. The whole thing is based on a lie.
And WMD? Excuse me, but there were many people pointing out the flaws in the inteligence prior to war. MPs resigned over it here in the UK. And they seek to blame inteligence now? With this whole debacle, Bush has manage to take the USA from much international respect and sympathy to probably it's lowest in history. All in just under two years.
Re:Choose your weapon... by Guppy06 · 2004-02-27 17:33 · Score: 1

"No, fuck you... I don't need people to invent enemies so they have someone to protect me from."

So... do you vote? If so, how do you avoid voting for such people?

Gigantic Quake server by Mick+Ohrberg · 2004-02-23 03:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh MAN, imagine the MASSIVE deathmatch games you could play! Or even better - BF1942!

--

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Re:Gigantic Quake server by Chris_Stankowitz · 2004-02-23 03:08 · Score: 1

More like a gaint SecondLife server.
Re:Gigantic Quake server by kinnell · 2004-02-23 03:19 · Score: 1

imagine the MASSIVE deathmatch games you could play! Or even better - BF1942!
Or even "Global Thermonuclear Warfare"

--
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Re:Gigantic Quake server by AndroidCat · 2004-02-23 03:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Quake? I want to watch people's faces when the system announces that North Korea has launched a zergling rush.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Gigantic Quake server by agentforsythe · 2004-02-23 03:33 · Score: 1

Or even "Global Thermonuclear Warfare"

Heh, I actually watched that film a few days ago.
Re:Gigantic Quake server by H1r0Pr0tag0n1st · 2004-02-23 03:53 · Score: 1

"How a-bout a Nice game of Chess?"

--
Americans could not be more self absorbed if they were made of equal parts water and paper towel. -Dennis Miller
Re:Gigantic Quake server by mikeee · 2004-02-23 04:25 · Score: 1

Not to worry. If there's anyplace on the planet that knows how to stop a zergling rush, it's South Korea.

So... by physicsboy500 · 2004-02-23 03:03 · Score: 2, Funny

None of this is real?

So that,s residual self image

--
The original generic sig.

Re:So... by gabec · 2004-02-23 03:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Right-o. And they're keeping the servers on the ... (dun dun dun...) thirteenth floor.
Re:So... by Eccles · 2004-02-23 04:34 · Score: 1

None of this is real?

Well, if you read the article (stop laughing!), you'll see a screen shot of people riding rocket-powered hoverboards. No, I don't think it's real. (Are they modelling "Treasure Planet" or something?)

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Deep Thought by Black+Rabbit · 2004-02-23 03:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Isn't this the flipside of building the Earth 2 to solve the Great Question of Life, The Universe and Everything, for which the answer is 42?

Re:Deep Thought by burns210 · 2004-02-23 03:29 · Score: 1

Ya, hardcoding the answer into the program would REALLY save computational time...
Re:Deep Thought by Speare · 2004-02-23 03:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Not exactly-- Earth2 was just a replacement for the first Earth computer. The Earth we're standing on is the computer which was commissioned by the mice and predicted by Deep Thought to solve the Great Question. The Golgafrinchans crashed into it after boot-up and knocked the computation a bit early on, but the Vogons destroyed Earth (er, wioll haven destroy it*) five minutes before the Question could be retrieved.
(ref. vis. Dr. Dan Streetmentioner)

--
[ .sig file not found ]
Re:Deep Thought by zx75 · 2004-02-23 04:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not quite... it just means that our process just made a recursive call to itself.

I wonder what the stopping condition is? And I sure as heck don't want to be around when the garbage collector comes to destroy our objects because the reference broke.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:Deep Thought by johnjay · 2004-02-23 04:23 · Score: 1

From what I heard, the lead architect of the Norway project was assigned to Africa for this version of Earth. His fjord-garnished vision should give that continent a nice baroque feel.

Although geologists will have some trouble explaining fjords without glaciers...
Re:Deep Thought by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-23 17:34 · Score: 1

" Isn't this the flipside of building the Earth 2 to solve the Great Question of Life"
Dude, isn't Life one of the first games you learn to program in C++? It shouldn't be TOO hard to just make it 3D.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Why do we need another Earth ? by dapyx · 2004-02-23 03:04 · Score: 3, Funny

BBC reports that the US military is creating a second Earth The first one already got blown up by the Vogons?

--
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.

Oh crap by LNO · 2004-02-23 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I hope they don't model my apartment, or else anyone can login and find out where I've hidden my porn.

Re:Oh crap by richie2000 · 2004-02-23 03:23 · Score: 1

It's under your bed, in that brown cardboard box with stains.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Oh crap by Brando_Calrisean · 2004-02-23 03:33 · Score: 1

C:\work_data\ or /home/LNO/work_data

--
Don't call me a cowboy, and don't tell me to slow down!
Re:Oh crap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 03:34 · Score: 1, Funny

Oh my God, it's full of porn!

i wonder the level of detail by millahtime · 2004-02-23 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I wonder if they will simulate in extreme detail. Like all the nude beaches in Europe or the Playboy mansion. If terrorists attack the Playboy Mansion during a party they have to know how to handle that. If so, I wonder if they are taking resumes.

--
Evolution or ID?

Dup? by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-02-23 03:05 · Score: 2, Informative

You mean like this story here?
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04 /02/18/ 2330228
Which talked about stuff from here
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/ 01/16/ 1951256

The Sims by parawing742 · 2004-02-23 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Now if they would just make the earth data available as a plug-in for The Sims, I would never have to leave my computer again!

Re:The Sims by mangu · 2004-02-23 03:30 · Score: 3, Funny

If you put your computer by the door, can't they just slide the pizza under the door? And drill a hole in the door where they can deliver the Mountain Dew.
Re:The Sims by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2004-02-23 03:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone really ought to merge The Sims with Battlefield 1942.

Meet new people! Pimp out the neighbohr's teenage daughter! Strafe your boss' car! Curse each day about not respawning next to your car and watching your son drive of with it instead! WOOT! And you gain valuable military experience as well!

--
Hate me!
Re:The Sims by Eccles · 2004-02-23 04:38 · Score: 1

It's effectively happened, and in fact if you follow some links from the BBC article, you can read bits about slave auctions, child prostitution, and the like in the Sims Online.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Psychological impact by Space+cowboy · 2004-02-23 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

If as they mention, soldiers will be ultimately trained using this system, it's inevitable that commanders and people not-on-the-ground will start to treat the theatre-of-operations more like a game - that's just how humans are wired. I'm not sure that blurring the distinction between war and games is really such a good idea...

War is terrible. Games are fun. Ne'er the two should meet. IMHO.

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:Psychological impact by Mick+Ohrberg · 2004-02-23 03:07 · Score: 1

"Good morning Dr Falken. [...] Would you like to play a nice game of chess?"

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Re:Psychological impact by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-02-23 03:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Already combat training takes on gaming aspect with tools like the MILES, the classic sandbox and tools like Major H's Tac-Ops

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/taco ps 4.html

"TacOps 4 is the commercial version of "TacOpsCav 4", an officially issued standard training device of the US Army. It is a simulation of contemporary and near-future tactical, ground, combat between United States (Army and Marine), Canadian, New Zealand/Australian and German forces versus various opposing forces (OPFOR), simulating the Former Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc. Various civilian units and paramilitary forces are also included."

Gaming doesn't blur the distinction anymore than the training to take orders and it's "Us vs. Them" does for a soldier.

Since 1942 the US Army has trained at Ft. Irwin in wargames. Commanders already see the theatre of operations as a game, thats how they deal with the massive amounts of people, equipment and casualties they will deal with. At the lower level, situtations have been gamed for hundreds of years and numerical values have been established to units, ships and fortifications have been in use since at least the 1750s.
Re:Psychological impact by Greger47 · 2004-02-23 03:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I'm sure that's deliberate.
It's much easier to get your troops to take part in the nastiness of war if they are trained to think it's all a game...
/greger>
Re:Psychological impact by Illserve · 2004-02-23 03:17 · Score: 1

No matter how much training a soldier receives, when real bullets start whizzing over their heads all that "it's a game" crap goes right out the window. The primitive brain will continue to know the difference between real and virtual until we move to total immersion.

The easier way to get soldiers to think it's a game is not to train them ahead of time, but to build a shell around them that distances them from the real sensory input. Power armor, heavily enhanced vision, etc. You put a barrier between them and the reality of the situation and now the primitive fear responses have a harder time figuring out how close to death you are.
Re:Psychological impact by AndroidCat · 2004-02-23 03:24 · Score: 1

As for people not in the theater treating operations like a game, I think we're way way late for that. The worst of this moderization of pushing pieces on a board is that the rules can (and will) be tweaked quckly during planning for real world actions and possibly made more "comfortable". Too high a body count? Let's turn down the enemy's morale a little. Their equipment can't be that good, let's fix that. Our new expensive hardware will work perfectly the first time because defence contractors never make misteaks.
This could be useful, but they need to mount big signs over all the consoles: The map is not the territory!

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Psychological impact by talmage · 2004-02-23 03:28 · Score: 1

>War is terrible. Games are fun. Ne'er the two should meet. IMHO.

Like in
Ender's Game ?
Re:Psychological impact by Space+cowboy · 2004-02-23 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative

The first few paragraphs are interesting :-) I've seen some of the s/w the military in the UK was using about 10 years ago when I used to work in the Defence division of Logica. The quality was simply awful. I don't doubt it's MILES better now (pun intended :-) but that doesn't negate that I consider it a problem...

Gaming doesn't blur the distinction anymore than the training to take orders and it's "Us vs. Them" does for a soldier.

I disagree. If you join up, you know the risks involved. There are many reasons for someone to join the armed forces, but fundamentally everyone knows the deal. You do as you're told. You might get killed. You might have to kill others. That's no real problem for a human - the veneer of civilisation is a very thin one, and we can easily regress into the 'kill or be killed', 'fight or flight' primitive responses. No problems there.

If however, you start to present these lethal environments as a game, you're making a flank attack on the soldier's psyche. You're saying "this isn't real", when it patently is. You're lowering the barriers for doing things that even soldiers do not do. ("Shall we waste the villagers ?", "Sure why not, let's see what happens"). People do things in games that they would never countenance in real life, even in real-life battle, even if it's simply to see what the programmers have in store for you if you do...

Your last paragraph is talking about game-theory. I have no problem with viewing a conflict using game-theory - this is a mathematical model to count losses and victories, a way to count the cost; I'm all-for ways to count the cost.

Using game-theory is very different from treating war as a game, one is a deplorable attitude, the other is responsible accounting. Troops die in war, and you may sacrifice company A so that B,C,D all get through. Fine, this is war. Sorry they died, but it was necessary. Unless you have a cost model, you can't even say it was necessary...

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Psychological impact by kevlar · 2004-02-23 03:41 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that blurring the distinction between war and games is really such a good idea...

Yeah, but people are going to do this anyway. This is the reason why we have civilians as President and in Congress... so that they know the difference between a game and war. Those who think that war would be "a fun thing" are not the ones making the decisions.
Re:Psychological impact by roman_mir · 2004-02-23 03:50 · Score: 1

Garry Kasparov said that chess is the most violent sport.

I think games like chess appeared because of wars, not the other way around, so games and wars have been connected for a long long time now.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Psychological impact by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-02-23 03:56 · Score: 1

MILES and I should have referenced this, is the gaming hardware the DoD uses for wargames. It's basicly Laser-Tag.

http://www.lewis.army.mil/wrtsc/Fort_Lewis_TSC_f il es/TADSS_files/Miles_files/new_miles.htm

http://www.ets-news.com/miles2000.htm

The gaming of situtation does not change the military because they already simulate and game combat and have for decades. Lethal environments have been simulated on bases and in the field for years and years.

From simulated US attacks on Israel where the IDF fights back, to the Crucible Gradution Exercises for Marines to Fort Irwin and fighting OpFor to the tank and helicopter simulators to practicing close quarter battle, it's been gamed and this Sim is simply an extention of it.
Re:Psychological impact by vt0asta · 2004-02-23 04:00 · Score: 1

No matter how much training a soldier receives, when real bullets start whizzing over their heads all that "it's a game" crap goes right out the window.

I whole heartedly agree with your post, except...

The primitive brain will continue to know the difference between real and virtual until we move to total immersion.

The total immersion would have to filter out, watching your buddies power armor, enhanced vision, thingy getting blown up into a crater. Some would consider tanks (power/reactive armor, powerful enhanced optics, etc) the same as what you just said. When you are in a tank line, and out of nowhere the tank next to you is touched off into a cloud of fire and smoke, good ole primitive brain comes back and explains to you the reality of the situation...

--
No.
Re:Psychological impact by DarkSarin · 2004-02-23 04:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

no, I disagree. The gp is correct.

I personally think that one of the best treatises on the matter is Ender's Game. In case you aren't familiar with the idea, Ender is trained in the latest military action/theory using a simulation, but what he isn't told is that the simulation is really just a control interface to give REAL soldier's orders.

The idea is that Ender would not have won the battle the way he did if he had known it wasn't a game (because there were sacrifices no one would really make that had to be made to win). Yes, I realize that it's *just* a book, sci-fi at that, but the social commentary is interesting, useful, and very important. Card did a wonderful job of making a very important concept accessible to pretty much anyone--war CAN be NECESSARY, but sometimes the sacrifices we make in war are very difficult.

I have seen some comments on this discussion that are very anti-war. I agree with the sentiment that when possible, war should be avoided. I disagree, however, with the concept that war is so evil that we should never fight one. To those who feel that war is NEVER justified, I have to say that I respect your willingness to believe such a high ideal, but I don't believe that you really accept the implications of that statement.

You see, if you state that war is never justified (because violence is wrong), what about personal defense? Are you justified in defending your own person? If you are, then what about you and say, five of your friends. If you are all attacked, should you defend yourselves? Yes? Then what is the difference between this and a battle or war? All war is, is someone attacking another person, and that person choosing to defend themselves. (Yes, I realize that it gets much more complicated than that, but I am talking about basic premises here).

Personally, I feel that you must either say that no one should defend themselves from attack (thus suffering rape, murder, theft, etc without argument) and war is never justified, OR you must accept that there are times when personal defense is justified, and therefore war (being NATIONAL DEFENSE) can be justified.

All that said, I did not serve in the military because I felt that I was not properly suited to the military mindset. (read: I don't like taking orders!)

mod me up, mod me down, I'd rather you replied intelligently.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Psychological impact by swillden · 2004-02-23 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

War is terrible. Games are fun. Ne'er the two should meet.
To achieve that you're going to have to turn the clock back to pre-history and start fixing it there. Games have always been about war, whether individual or group conflict, and military training has always been done with games. The essence of any good game is conflict, and warfare is obviously conflict taken to its most extreme level. In that sense war is the best game ever invented, unlimited conflict between people who are intelligent and supremely focused.
I'm not trying to glorify war, because it truly is terrible, but there is a fundamental connection between war and games, which are really a microcosm of war.
For this reason, soldiers have always used wargames to prepare for war. Whether it's wrestling, footraces and javelin-throwing, jousting, field maneuvers against an OPFOR or computerized versions of any of the above, the only way to really prepare for war is to practice, and although individual fighting skills can be practiced to some degree without actually creating a contest, learning how to fight effectively requires the enactment of battles. Real battles are too expensive, of course, so soldiers use games which to the participants become almost as engrossing as a real war would be.
War and gaming are intimately related in another way as well. To some extent, good commanders have to be able to treat real war as though it were a game. Good commanders must really, truly care about the individual men they command, both because that caring creates loyalty that is critical to unit integrity and because commanders who don't care tend to waste their men. On the other hand, a good commander must also be able to view the conflict abstractly, like a game, so that they can expend their men's lives when necessary. Overly cautious generals kill more of their own men than overly aggressive generals. The best commanders in history are those who've been able to achieve a remarkable balance between caution and audacity while simultaneously inspiring their men to do things that no sane person should be able to do.
The subtext of your comment, though is "I don't want the soldiers and their commanders to think war is fun, because then they'll want to go to war all of the time". I understand where you're coming from, but that notion makes no sense, either.
In the first place, soldiers always understand better than anyone else exactly what the cost of war is, and the field commanders are up to their elbows in it. The rear echelon element also gets a good second-hand taste of it, plus they were all field commanders at one time and had plenty of years to think about, if not experience, the horror. All good soldiers are interested in going to war to test themselves, to find out if they're really up to the challenge, but given a choice between going to war and resolving issues peacefully, they'll choose not to fight.
But soldiers don't get that choice, at least not in any country I'd want to live in. They are asked for their professional opinions about what may or may not be achievable, but the the decision as to whether or not to go is in the hands of civilians, most of whom do *not* have the same understanding of war.
In summary: If you want to make sure that the military can achieve victory in the shortest possible time and with the least possible damage, let them play the games and get prepared. If you want to make sure that they never have to go to war, keep the *civilians* away from the wargames so that they don't get hooked on the fun of war.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Psychological impact by Tagren · 2004-02-23 04:25 · Score: 1

What are you whining about? I always respawn when I die in a game so. Pfft. n00B!
--
Re:Psychological impact by Space+cowboy · 2004-02-23 04:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only thing I'd point out is that most of the time, countries are not at war, which is why we have war-games. If field-commander X has had all his training tightly integrated to a computer-simulation that looks sufficently similar to a computer game that (s)he can't tell the difference, then when a real war comes around I believe problems will arise due to that.

I don't know if it's clear or not, but I wasn't arguing against wargames. I'm all for them: the military have to practice, in order to successfully practise. I was arguing against the use of an environment similar to a gaming one as a teaching tool. IMHO they should get out there and do it, not sit in front of a computer. I wonder if the computer will simulate the trucks getting mired in mud because someone drove it too fast... etc.

[Not aimed at you in particular, just on reading responses :-]I'm aware of the military's needs, the connections between games and war (or more generally, conflict) and the works of Orson Scott Card :-) In retrospect I ought to have signed the original comment 'Ender' or possibly Bean.

ATB,
Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Psychological impact by TheUberBob · 2004-02-23 05:05 · Score: 1

ender's game is also about child psychology in a very very dysfunctional society. in fact I think the main focus of the novel is growth and understanding of Other and self, not war itself, (card isn't a war/hard-sci-fi writer)...and Ender is traumatized for millenia (if i remember correctly) for his participation in the xenocide. As to self-defense, that's a standard claim, one that ignores the history of US agression, the US supporting the violation of human rights. We would not 'NEED' this system if we weren't already at war for profit over people. Read the times op-ed today by Noam Chomsky, not something u see every day... "It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. " i wholeheartedly agree.

--

All your preview button are belong to Hello Kitty.
Re:Psychological impact by Minna+Kirai · 2004-02-23 05:09 · Score: 1

The idea is that Ender would not have won the battle the way he did if he had known it wasn't a game (because there were sacrifices no one would really make that had to be made to win).

No, not really. It was easy- trivial in fact- for him to find the solution. It was the enemy civilians he was killing after all; "sacrifice" should mean giving up your own men; it's hardly appropriate to use that word for killing the other guy.

All the military commanders watching Ender lead the final battle knew what was needed to win. They just couldn't order it done, because detonating civilians was illegal. By placing Ender ahead of their forces, they deflected responsibility for breaking the laws of war from themselves.

Yes, I realize that it's *just* a book

It's not a book, it's a 49-page story. There is *also* a book by the same name, but it came later, and muddles the message.
Re:Psychological impact by DarkSarin · 2004-02-23 05:19 · Score: 1

I am familiar with both the story and the book, and I was referring to the book. If you pay attention in the book, Ender does sacrifice human lives that the adult generals wouldn't have done (or couldn't have due to socio-political pressures). Yes, the point of destroying the home world was also important, but tagential to the point I was trying to make.

Should have been more clear.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Psychological impact by DarkSarin · 2004-02-23 05:32 · Score: 1

Notice that I did NOT claim that the US, in its current situation, was justified in using the self-defense claim.

Rather, I am stating that you CANNOT write off all war as unjustifiable unless you are also willing to admit that personal self-defense is not justified. This is the position of the Quaker movement, and I admire their staunch beliefs. I also disagree, but that is a very personal decision.

As far as 'pre-emptive strikes' (one of the justifications for the current mess, though not the only one, and of at best questionable validity) are concerned, I am not arguing either direction. I can see both the concern and the justification. I wouldn't want to have to make the decision without a high degree of certainty that the enemy was truly a threat. Even in that case, I would hesitate to call for armed force.

I would agree with Chomsky's assessment as you have quoted it, but I DO also believe that self-defense is a justified position. That does not mean that I believe the government is always telling the whole story when they cite security concerns. It also doesn't mean that I think that Bush was wrong. I think he made a mistake in how he approached the whole issue--I would have kept the focus on Osama bin Laden and pursued that route. (Of course I don't have the military intelligence that the president has access to).

I think that one of the mistakes that some reporters, and many laymen, make is that of assuming they can peice together the whole story. This is the SAME exact mistake that the CIA makes. We don't have the whole story, and likely never will. Therefore, we must be extremely cautious when dealing with foreign powers.

Personally, I deplore violence for its own sake, but justify it in self-defense. That means that if this country were attacked on our own soil (anything else is debatable in the seriousness of the attack), I would want us to defend ourselves.

Okay, I think that I am starting to ramble, so I'll stop writing.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Psychological impact by Minna+Kirai · 2004-02-23 05:35 · Score: 1

the veneer of civilisation is a very thin one, and we can easily regress into the 'kill or be killed', 'fight or flight' primitive responses.

Tee hee hee! "Veneer of civilisation"?? What's that? War is the key sign of civilization! No primitive culture has ever waged or even comprehended warfare. The idea of two groups of armed men going to fight each other just baffles them. Primitives are too selfish to act like a soldier. Without the sublimation of the individual to the group that is the hallmark of civilization, men simply will not risk their own lives for abstract future gain.

A primitive may fight or murder; but war belongs solely to civilization. (This has been confirmed by recent interviews with New Guinean tribesmen, who are members of the 2nd-most primitive surviving culture)

You're saying "this isn't real", when it patently is.

You've got a severe reality-disfunction, it seems. Or is "patently" another word which, like "literally", has suffered a popular inversion of defined meaning?

different from treating war as a game, one is a deplorable attitude, the other is responsible accounting.

Tee hee. Where do you think games come from? They were originally created to represent war. From chess to football, all games are at their core a safe rehearsal for eventual violent battles.
Re:Psychological impact by The+Only+Druid · 2004-02-23 05:55 · Score: 1

Tee hee hee! "Veneer of civilisation"?? What's that? War is the key sign of civilization! No primitive culture has ever waged or even comprehended warfare. The idea of two groups of armed men going to fight each other just baffles them. Primitives are too selfish to act like a soldier. Without the sublimation of the individual to the group that is the hallmark of civilization, men simply will not risk their own lives for abstract future gain.

I have to disagree here with you for several reasons. First, you'll never find an anthropologist who will use the word "primitive" as a nominative: the word 'primitive' for anthropologists is strictly an adjective relating one level of advancement in one area to another, since its entirely insulting to any individual or people to dub them 'primitives'.

Second, you'd better believe there was warface before "civilization". Notably, the beginnings of the black slave trade were in the ongoing wars between tribes in Africa: the gross majority of blacks sold into slavery from Africa in the first decades of the Trade would have otherwise been slaves to their victors. Similarly, the Maori (to reference New Zealand, since you brought up it's neighbor) waged regular war, tribally, against each other often resulting in annihilation of a given tribe.

--
"Stumble before you crawl"
Re:Psychological impact by Minna+Kirai · 2004-02-23 06:05 · Score: 1

the adult generals wouldn't have done (or couldn't have due to socio-political pressures)

So again, the generals knew what had to be done, but choose to let another do it to avoid responsibility.

This highlights an interesting behavioral difference in the warfighting behavior between optimistic and pessimistic groups. (By "optimistic"/"pessimistic" I refer to how confident they are of eventual victory).

In any kind of war, it is known a-priori that some of your own men will die, even if you're victorious.

An optimistic opponent, feels they will win regardless of tactics, and thus minimizing losses of their own forces is important. They're disinclined to acknowledge that losses will be suffered, and especially refuse to predict which individual men will die. The commander sends each solider out to risk his life, but acts and plans as if all of them can make it back.

A pessimistic group (one that either has a trend of losing in the past, or who faces tough odds in the present) acknowledges that they might not be victorious either, which in some ways can be equivalent to a total loss of forces. They are more willing to send troops on what is undeniably a suicide-mission. (As per Japan 1944 or Palestine 2000). While acknowledging the truth of the situtation is in some ways admirable, it can quickly develop into a cultural pathology, where troops are ordered to their deaths as a sign of devotion, rather than to perform a truely effective last mission.

Since differential optimistic/pessimistic force-protection behavior is culturally ingrained, patterns can remain in place for a while even after the overall odds shift. This may be what had happened in Ender's Game. The terrestrial military was maintaining the optimistic tradition (which in the USA goes back centuries), and could not order space-sailors on suicide runs themselves. But by passing command to an outsider (whether a savant or AI doesn't matter as long as it's not part of the establishment), they evaded this responsibility.

*As Clarke pointed out in Venus Prime (another short scifi story needlessly extended to a book), the unforgiving conditions of interstellar travel make the distinctions between survival and death more easily predictable, allowing hard choices to be made long before the actual time of death.

** The USA government recently refused to face such hard choices about the dangers of space travel, when they decided to gamble on a successful shuttle landing rather than investigate possible damage. If they had determined the STS's wing was unusable, it might've been necessary to wait 5 weeks for rescue. The whole crew couldn't last that long that, but 80% of them could've...
Re:Psychological impact by Minna+Kirai · 2004-02-23 06:16 · Score: 1

First, you'll never find an anthropologist who will use the word "primitive" as a nominative:

I agree with that sentiment, but was merely continuing with the verbage from the post to which I replied.

Second, you'd better believe there was warface before "civilization".

You're insulting both those groups by calling them uncivilized. The Maori were as civilized as any island-dweller can be by 1100 CE, and Africa of 1800 had certainly many major civilizations in it.

Slavery is another hallmark of civilization- the existence of a dedicated servitor-class is part of the professional specialisation that complex societies entail.
Re:Psychological impact by Space+cowboy · 2004-02-23 06:17 · Score: 1

First off, the attitude of your post is both arrogant and condescending, not to mention that you're wrong.

"Veneer of civilisation"?? What's that? War is the key sign of civilization! No primitive culture has ever waged or even comprehended warfare.

A veneer is a thin layer of one substance, generally of higher quality than the bulk substrate on which it is layered. The most-common form is a high-quality wood over chipboard. The 'veneer of civilisation' was supposed to be an obvious reference - civilisation is the "thin layer" due to its recent emergence, the beast within being the bulk substrate due to its longevity and primitive beginnings. The inference is that it doesn't take much to remove the civilisation from the man, and engage in kill-or-be-killed, fight-or-flight responses.

Chimpanzees engage in genocide against other rival chimpanzee groups. They will scout the area, and organise into a single group to attack and destroy their neighbours. It's been caught on camera ("The natural world", IIRC. A BBC production with Sir David Attenborough narrating. I remember him saying it was the first time such an event had been seen. It was the first time they'd seen them hunt for meat as well, they thought chimps were omnivores but only opportunistic meat-eaters). Sounds a lot like warfare to me. A single goal, organisation, planning, synchronised attack, definite singular goal, strategic advantage gained on a win...

You've got a severe reality-disfunction, it seems. Or is "patently" another word which, like "literally", has suffered a popular inversion of defined meaning?

From: dictionary.com "patently" is an adverb to mean unmistakably. Synonyms are obviously, evidently, manifestly, apparently, plainly. Seems I'm not the one with the reality dysfunction

Tee hee. Where do you think games come from?

Ah, well on this one you've missed my point altogether. You see, I'm talking about game-theory in that paragraph, not games. There is a huge difference, in fact they're only vaguely related. Here's a hint: game theory is not the theory of playing games, it's the understanding behind what constitutes an abstract 'win','lose', or 'draw' in abstract circumstance. It's the mathematics that define how you can come to a conclusion about whether you have 'won' or 'lost'. If you're really interested, I suggest googling it.

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Psychological impact by DarkSarin · 2004-02-23 06:48 · Score: 1

Interesting. I wasn't up on the latest info about the STS.

I agree that the generals were passing the buck. I would also argue that the ingraining of optimistic views was so deep that to break them would have probably driven the generals mad. Of course, what they did to Ender wasn't good either, and it shows in some of their behaviors.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Psychological impact by SEWilco · 2004-02-23 14:09 · Score: 1

If the simulator is hooked up to a public game server, there will be plenty of rampaging hordes to practice on. Hook in a Sims interface and civilians will be wandering around, doing silly things that Sims players do...and adding a flavor of unexpected civilian behavior which the military programmers wouldn't add. Charge a minor fee and offset the expenses.

First of a kind? by thehe · 2004-02-23 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Will this make the US the first dual-world superpower in history?

peeved by DarkHelmet · 2004-02-23 03:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm so glad to be living in the US, just to know that my tax dollars go towards making a version of The Sims on crack.

But the part that pisses me off is that they won't let me pl

--
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i

Re:peeved by zalas · 2004-02-23 03:58 · Score: 1

Apparently they won't let you finish the sentence either. Ah... the joys of mind control :D

Huh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 03:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

And yet, even with this technology, nothing will beat ACTUAL, REAL experience of the REAL world. No amount of virtual training will compensate for complete lack of awareness of the rest of the world. This is, IMO, the wrong thing to do at this point. We should be giving money and influence for the diplomatic corps so more people actually WANT to do the job.

If you don't understand another culture, talk to people who do. The gov't ignores those people, and just decides that it will decide things with an imaginary, "faith-based" approach. It doesn't work, guys!

Re:Huh.... by strictnein · 2004-02-23 04:08 · Score: 1

How exactly do you simulate a whole city/country/planet of living and breathing people, except for on a computer?

Build all the plywood cities on all the military bases you want, but until you can fill them with people they'll always be lacking greatly.

--
Casual Games/Downloads
Re:Huh.... by carlmenezes · 2004-02-23 05:23 · Score: 1

True :) Though I seriously wonder how something like this will help with threats like, say, insects or rodents injected with a bio-weapon and let loose against US troops.

--
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.

Virtual Wars? by p_millipede · 2004-02-23 03:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Now all we need to do is convince the world's military, terrorists, militia's etc. (anyone who might be interested) to hold all their confilicts in this virtual world and just let the outcome of virtual wars be accepted as if it had really happened (minus the loss of life).

Obviously, we'd need to make sure the Americans aren't using cheats. Just imagine the standard procedure before entering combat. Press tilde, type 'AmericaRulesOK 1' followed by '/god', '/allweapons' and '/allammo'

Re:Virtual Wars? by nukem1999 · 2004-02-23 03:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

let the outcome of virtual wars be accepted as if it had really happened (minus the loss of life)

If both sides were trusting and trustworthy enough to follow those rules, there wouldn't be a need for war in the first place.
Re:Virtual Wars? by lay · 2004-02-23 03:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Pretty much useless, if you ask me.

What are the UN for? Isn't it supposed to serve the purpose of finding peaceful solutions for conflicts? At least in theory...

It boils down to the point of pure animal instinct: until you realise that your instistence in trying to win is going to inflict some serious phisical harm on you, there is no way in the world you, as a human, will stop fighting to get to the top of the food chain.

You could say "OK, and we just accept it as final", but if you lost, I bet you'd get the little guns again and call the simulation void...

--
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon
Re:Virtual Wars? by Quantum+Jim · 2004-02-23 03:34 · Score: 1

There was actually a Star Trek episode about this very idea. Basically, two worlds were involved in a bloody war. Somehow a deal was struck that they would continue the war with computer simulations, and the outcome would be accepted. The problem was that war became so easy that the two nations remained in this state for over two hundred years! Kirk destroyed the computers so that the two worlds finally had an incentive to stop their conflict: mutually assured destruction.

I'm not saying that the Pentagon's idea is bad, but that it raises a lot of interesting questions.

Postscript: Darn! xleeko beat me to it!

--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome

BBC huh by millahtime · 2004-02-23 03:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

This may a little off subject but why does the BBC report first about the US Militarys earth simulator?

--
Evolution or ID?

Re:BBC huh by Troed · 2004-02-23 03:30 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Yeah I cannot understand why.

But Pilger reminds us that the genocide did not begin at 'Year Zero' with the Khmer Rouge, but with the secret and illegal American bombing five years earlier, which killed 600,000 people and was the catalyst Pol Pot was waiting for.

http://pilger.carlton.com/

--
it's in my head
Re:BBC huh by millahtime · 2004-02-23 03:36 · Score: 1

"US == Warmonger"

Is there anything wrong with being a warmonger? I would if I could but I can't so I won't.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:BBC huh by mpk · 2004-02-23 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hoo, looks like someone's spouting what they've been fed by right-wing commentators..

It's on the verge of libellous to suggest that the BBC is deliberately and routinely biased against the US. I presume that you've never analysed the news coverage which is presented to you in any kind of critical way, or you'd figure out that "loving to trash the US" means something completely different to "reports both sides of a story rather than automatically following some kind of uncritical "Whoop, go US! U-S-A! We rule!" stance. The latter stance is the point of view of the Fox Newses of this world.

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. During the Iraq war the BBC was angrily accused of bias by both anti-war activists and pro-war folk like the government. If you're being accused of bias by people on both sides of an argument, you're doing pretty well.

The recent hoohah that led to the resignation of both the Chairman and Director-General of the Beeb resulted from one point in a live discussion between a presenter and a journalist that was broadcast at 0607 one morning and never repeated. That point was found to be untrue (heh, well, technically untrue) and top people in the BBC resigned. Doesn't sound like systematic bias to me.

(What moderator decided the post I'm replying to was "Insightful"? Yeesh.. if unsubstantiated regurgitated sniping counts as insight..)
Re:BBC huh by mpk · 2004-02-23 03:59 · Score: 1

Just to be clear, I was following up to a followup to the original query, which people might have missed. *That* was accusing the BBC of being anti-US (for no readily apparent reason, as if anyone's read the story quoted it's just reporting the facts, not editorialising)
Re:BBC huh by transient · 2004-02-23 05:15 · Score: 1

I don't know if they were first to report it, but I read the BBC first, so that's where I saw the article.

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re:BBC huh by HoldmyCauls · 2004-02-23 05:35 · Score: 1

Hi, you must be new to the US of A!

'Round here, the gov'mint does whatever it damned well pleases with our tax dollars. No one complains because no one knows about it. Sometimes, mediums in a nuther [sic] country find out, but since they're usually just commie Frenchies or wussy Brits, no one b'lieves 'em, or if a one does, we know it's our dooty to play along because if it's fer ahr military, it must be for e-radicating injustice 'n' such.

Lets us all keep focused on important stuff like our dash-mounted DVD players 'n' IMs and e-mails about pissing monkeys and wimmin with big hooters!

--
Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
Re:BBC huh by retinaburn · 2004-02-23 16:02 · Score: 1

perhaps because all the U.S. news are focused on the 'shock and awe' happy time shiny news (Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, and friends). Action figures now available, collect them all !

The question is.... by Rican · 2004-02-23 03:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Would I be able to "create" myself as a Wood Elf Druid chick even though I'm a 250lbs guy in real life?

--
Rican

Want a free iPod?

Re:The question is.... by lwsimon · 2004-02-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Ha!!! This is pretty funny :) Mine's a Human Ranger chick... and i weigh 270 :)

--
Learn about Photography Basics.

The map is the reality by rpg25 · 2004-02-23 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The detailed simulation will be drawn from a real-world terrain database and will be drawn to the same scale as the original.

Um, what is that supposed to mean?

Echoes of Jorge Luis Borges, who wrote in a story about a map of the world that was as big as the world itself....

Re:The map is the reality by Derek+Pomery · 2004-02-23 03:23 · Score: 1

I'm sure they are just referring to the scale between things.
Unlike, say, Ultima where cities were a short walk apart.
Running from New York to San Francisco would take a while.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
Re:The map is the reality by ideonode · 2004-02-23 03:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Not just Borges. Lewis Carroll and Umberto Eco have also written about a map of the world on a 1:1 scale.

I discussed this with folk a little while ago, here
Re:The map is the reality by Anders+Andersson · 2004-02-23 05:23 · Score: 1

It's a nonsensical statement. If something is made to scale, it means that the relative proportions of the objects in the model reflect those of their real-world counterparts, and that the scale (between the model and the original) can be indicated as a numerical ratio, say 1:1,000.

The expression same scale appears to go beyond that, and suggest that the scale is indeed 1:1, i.e. the model has the same size as the original. This is of course only possible when the model has a physical representation, such as a printout. A computer model has no physical size, and thus no well-defined scale, even when it's a scale computer model.

I put the expression in the nonsense bin next to the one with the "10 kilowatt per year" and similar utterings...

Why bother. by glen · 2004-02-23 03:09 · Score: 3, Funny

Why spend all that money?

We already know the answer is 42.

Re:Why bother. by travdaddy · 2004-02-23 03:29 · Score: 1

Yes, but the purpose of Earth is to find out what the question is!

--
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet

So when... by MoonFacedAssassin · 2004-02-23 03:09 · Score: 2, Funny

...can I sign up for beta?

--
I am a meat popsicle.

Interaction by absolut_kurant · 2004-02-23 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

If putting a bullet in someone's head isn't "interaction" I don't know what is...

--
Yes.

The Point? by Alan+Livingston · 2004-02-23 03:10 · Score: 2, Offtopic

Perhaps I've become an old curmudgeon, but what exactly is the point of There? Clicking on their "What is There" buttons gives the following blurb:

There is an online getaway where you can hang out with your friends and meet new ones--all in a lush 3D environment that's yours to explore! Check out the pictures below for just a glimpse of what you'll find in There. Then sign up for a free trial and see it all for yourself!

Maybe it's just me but everyday I open up the door I enter a "lush 3D environment". (Ok, not so lush. I live on Long Island -- part of the New York metro area.) But it's immensely more satisfying than any online experience.

Re:The Point? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-02-23 03:32 · Score: 1

But it's immensely more satisfying than any online experience.

And your point is...what? That you'd rather go outside than play a game? So because Long Island is a 3d environment you don't play anything because it can't rival reality?
Re:The Point? by Alan+Livingston · 2004-02-23 03:55 · Score: 1

Is it a game? I admit I didn't go too far beyond the "What is There" blurb, but it didn't strike me as a game. It had the look and feel of an online singles bar.

If it actually is a game, perhaps they need some marketing guys to look at their web page.
Re:The Point? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-02-23 04:13 · Score: 1

Nice description...online singles bar. That's pretty accurate for at least part of the game. Or environment. There are also games (racing type, paintball, cards), exploration (it's a large world), commerce (design and buy/sell items) in addition to the large social aspect. You can build or buy a house too (not my thing but a number of people do this). One guy even built a space station. I suppose it's what you make of it.

human interaction by KillerCow · 2004-02-23 03:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

the US military is creating a second Earth.... the emphasis in the artificial Earth will be on human interaction rather than conflicts involving lots of military hardware.

Riiiiiight. Why would the military whant to model the earth for combat training? It's clearly for human interaction. Or did they mean squad-level interactions?

Re:human interaction by lay · 2004-02-23 03:24 · Score: 1

You mean there is still chance of me getting a girlfriend on this second earth?

Where do I get my visa?

--
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon

Mr. Gehorsam by cyberm_acc · 2004-02-23 03:11 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Mr Gehorsam said the world being created will not be a game but instead will be a "massively multi-user persistent environment" that will model real world physics as closely as possible.

Gehorsam is German and means dutiful, obedient, submissive (taken from leo.org) So it's like calling the evil guy "Mr. Evil"

Using the RFID chips implanted ... by burgburgburg · 2004-02-23 03:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

in each of our skulls over the last 30 years, they'll be able to instantly track us and view our interactions, private moments, etc.

When they later place us into the pods, there will only be a brief moment in time lost as we switch to a virtual existance.

Re:Using the RFID chips implanted ... by millahtime · 2004-02-23 03:18 · Score: 2, Funny

WHo really wants to track me. I wake up, go to work, go to the bathroom, back to my desk, eat lunch, back to the bathroom, back to my desk, go home, sit in front of my computer and tv all night. Who wants to track that? Hell, I don't even want to track that.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:Using the RFID chips implanted ... by the_weasel · 2004-02-23 03:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Huh. When did you get out of the Pod?

If they are tracking my private moments they will get a lot of lying on the couch after dinner with the top button of my jeans undone, watching television.

I am basically jamming the signals with massive waves of mediocrity.

--
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -

Military toys by rotomonkey · 2004-02-23 03:11 · Score: 1

Why does the military always get to beta test the cool gaming setups?

Re:Spending out of control by Jotaigna · 2004-02-23 03:12 · Score: 1, Interesting

so how many hospitals, text books for schools and environmental research does this giant Quake server costs?. You can put a price in dollars, but surely cant in terms of the damage is doing to your society. War is so destructive that just prepairing for it is bad for all of us.

--
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."

Re:Kuwait City by giminy · 2004-02-23 03:12 · Score: 1, Redundant

I was about to say the same thing. The US military planning to attack the actual enemy is somewhat unheard of in this day and age. This could be a paradigm shift in the way pre-emptive strikes operate...

--
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,

Obligatory "Pinky and the Brain" reference by Xaroth · 2004-02-23 03:13 · Score: 1

And the Number 1 reason Chia Earth is better than Real Earth......

FREE T-SHIRT!

--
That green slime had it coming.

Guess this answers the question... by hussar · 2004-02-23 03:14 · Score: 1

...of what to do with a flash mob cluster after you've finished running Linpack on it.

--

Bureaucracy loves company.

Neal Stephenson connection... by RareHeintz · 2004-02-23 03:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does this bring to mind, for anyone else, that nifty piece of software Hiro had in Snow Crash ? I mean, of course, the model of Earth updated in real-time with satellite imaging data, etc...

Eerie.

OK,
- B

--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated

Re:Neal Stephenson connection... by jafuser · 2004-02-23 03:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's the first thing I thought too...

From Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson
There is something new: A globe about the size of a grapefruit, a perfectly detailed rendition of Planet Earth, hanging in space at arm's length in front of his eyes. Hiro has heard about this but never seen it. It is a piece of CIC software called, simply, Earth. It is the user interface that CIC uses to keep track of every bit of spatial information that it owns - all the maps, weather data, architectural plans, and satellite surveillance stuff.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:Neal Stephenson connection... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-02-23 03:35 · Score: 1

Nice way to work in the referral link, Brad.

Grand Theft auto... by millahtime · 2004-02-23 03:14 · Score: 4, Funny

I wonder if they can give the detail of Grand Theft auto. They I could play dropped down in Iraq going after Sadam and Bin Laden. I could steal a tank and run them over. Maybe get some Iraq hookers. Grand Theft Auto Iraq.

--
Evolution or ID?

infinite regression by ch-chuck · 2004-02-23 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Um, in order to really do it accurately, the model would have to include the military base, building and facility in which the earth II simulator resides, and the model would have to have a model of that etc to infinity - like what you get with two mirrors.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Peace sells.. but who's buying? by Channard · 2004-02-23 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

.. when destruction could be so much more fun. I wonder how far the sim will allow people to take this. Will players be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons, or will the scenarios be strictly regulated. If the former, I suspect there'll be Clans set up to see who can cause the most destruction to the virtual world. And what would happen if significant parts of world got nuked? Would it be reset, or would the simulation continue? Now, I'm off to watch 'The Thirteenth Floor' so I can completely break my brain.

We've got to blow up Earth I first... by lxt · 2004-02-23 03:16 · Score: 1

Well, the US military have yet to destroy the first one yet :)

Mod parent up by Hakubi_Washu · 2004-02-23 03:16 · Score: 1

As a german I can support that translation. It should be noted!

This could be funny... by Darken_Everseek · 2004-02-23 03:16 · Score: 1

From TFA, "Mr Gehorsam said the world being created will not be a game but instead will be a "massively multi-user persistent environment" that will model real world physics as closely as possible.

A sample of life in There's game world
The emphasis in the artificial Earth will be on human interaction rather than conflicts involving lots of military hardware."

So we're basing 'human interaction' on an MMO game? How exactly does someone model "h4h4h4h4h4!! r0x00r3D ur @$$!!!" into -human- behaviour?

Re:Spending out of control by KarmaMB84 · 2004-02-23 03:17 · Score: 1

I'm don't think the Constitution forbids the military from spending its budget which is given to it by Congress as it sees fit (until Congress or the Pres says no I imagine).

The Constitution didn't even include income taxes originally. The 16th Amendment gave Congress that power in 1913.

Now we know how it began... by ScottGant · 2004-02-23 03:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Morpheus said that he didn't know what year it was, but some time early in the 21st century the war with the machines takes place...at least now we know how the Matrix is started.

Ok, that was an obvious observation. But they're making an online world that mirrors our own world. It reminds me some years back when I went to Siggraph in Chicago and Virtual Reality was the "next big thing". Someone showed a demo on a virtual world where you could walk in, pick up a book and flip through it. Someone remarked wouldn't it be cheaper just to buy a book...

So wouldn't it be cheaper to build a fake city with actors playing a part for the people being trained to interact in? Be employed by the US Army for acting in a simulated city so they can better understand how to weed out terrorist and help people in need, yet do so in a safe environment. Also, working with actors trained themselves in certain ways AND with the ability to actually "think" would be WAY better than AI in a game.

Just a thought, but probably a stupid thought on my part.

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Re:Now we know how it began... by spoonyfork · 2004-02-23 03:59 · Score: 1

... how to weed out terrorist and help people in need ...

Who are the terrorists again? So that my aim is true, how can I tell if someone is a terrorist? Oh, and could you quantify who the people in need are, and how I am supposed to tell the difference between them and the terrorists. I want to make sure I am blowing up the correct people... to protect them from the terrible secret of space.

--
Speak truth to power.
Re:Now we know how it began... by Smidge204 · 2004-02-23 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem with the book analogy is scope.

It is definately cheaper to print a book than create a virtual world to intereact with a virtual book. Especially at that time.

It might be cheaper to build a fake city and staff it with actors than to build a virtual world. But considering the state of the art right now in VR worlds, it likely won't be.

It's definately cheaper to build an artificial world to model the entire planet than it is to build a fake planet and staff it with actors. Not to mention where you're going to put it and what you're going to make it out of... (Chia-Earth, anyone?)

It's all about scope and purpose.

The biggest problem I can see is keeping the model up to date. Geography, cities and populations are always changing. If their intent is to have a virtual world that can be used to study the real world, they're going to have their work cut out for them. Frankly, I can think of better things to spend money on.
=Smidge=
Re:Now we know how it began... by proj_2501 · 2004-02-23 04:06 · Score: 1

It's kind of hard to improvise with special effects and explosives without ACTUALLY killing off the actors.
Re:Now we know how it began... by ScottGant · 2004-02-23 04:22 · Score: 1

This is very true, I suppose I used the wrong term there.

I was trying to be general. If X wants to simulate a world where they can find and weed out Y so that Z and X can live in peace without Y going around suicide bombing themselves along with X and Z. Also to see if they can help Z get back on their feet (even though it may be because of X that their off their feet).

But the question wither X should even be messing around in Y and Z's world wasn't thought out by me...which I think is the ultimate problem.

If you are X, Y or Z, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation about X, Y and Z was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way a fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused X, Y or Z, or their families, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Re:Now we know how it began... by ScottGant · 2004-02-23 04:24 · Score: 1

Fake bullets, blanks...fake blood, simulated explosions, Miles gear like the Army uses in training...etc etc.

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Re:Now we know how it began... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-02-23 04:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

We can use President Bush's terrorist definition:
1) Is brown
2) Mistakenly refers to God as Allah
3) Hates freedom

He talks about #3 all the time even though it makes no sense. When Bin Laden was working with the CIA to free Afghanistan from the Russians, he liked freedom well enough. The Army of God has killed 3 people and injured over 100 in 4 bombings (Olympic Park, 2 Women's Clinics, and a Gay Bar). They fail tests #1 and #2, so Bush never mentions them.

-B
Re:Now we know how it began... by Wateshay · 2004-02-23 06:43 · Score: 1

Well, Bin Laden's idea of freedom is his freedom to subject you and everyone you know to an oppressive fundamentalist regime where you have no freedom (especially if you're a woman). I don't know about you, but in my book that's "hating freedom" (at least the type of freedom that I want for myself and everyone else, and am willing to die/kill others to protect).

As for "The Army of God", it's a matter of scope. If they'd bombed the World Trade Cente, bombed two embassies, bombed a nightclub, bombed a Navy ship, and hijacked four planes to use as missiles that destroyed the World Trade Center and severely damaged the Pentagon, killing thousands of people in the process, I think Bush would be mentioning them a little more often.

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Re:Now we know how it began... by Theolojin · 2004-02-23 07:42 · Score: 1

He talks about #3 all the time even though it makes no sense. When Bin Laden was working with the CIA to free Afghanistan from the Russians, he liked freedom well enough. The Army of God has killed 3 people and injured over 100 in 4 bombings (Olympic Park, 2 Women's Clinics, and a Gay Bar). They fail tests #1 and #2, so Bush never mentions them.

er, sorry. your facts are incorrect. there were two groups fighting against the russians. one group was comprised of native aghanis and the other was comprised of foreign fighters (read mercenaries). the cia aided the afghani fighters, not the foreign fighters.

this is /. so the following link will probably have an extra space in it...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle .a sp?ID=5443

--
Life is short; think quickly.
Re:Now we know how it began... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-02-23 08:23 · Score: 1

From the link (after space was removed):
"Fact: The CIA trained absolutely no one in Afghanistan, or in neighboring Pakistan, neither in the tactics of terror or even in how to use the Stinger missiles provided to the Afghans."

Then why were two retired CIA agents on the History Channel talking how they spent years training resistance fighters in Afghanistan? One guy told a great story. They agents had insructed fighters on how to build bombs (according to you, after checking IDs and excusing foreigners). For PR reasons, they didn't want the fighers to use car bombs, then and now a staple of "terrorist" attacks. The agent heard there had been a car bombing and went to a resistance leader to yell at him. The leader defended the action saying "No...not car bomb...mule bomb."

The facts are that Ronald Reagan provided weapons and support to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in 1984, months after he killed hundreds of Kurds using American helicopters. Until we admit these things, we're destined to do it again.

-B
Re:Now we know how it began... by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-23 17:31 · Score: 1

Not only that, but there's a lot of things you can do in a virtual world you can't do in the physical world.
You can't blow up a bus of people in the real world and do it as exactly as you might be able to in a computer game.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:Now we know how it began... by Theolojin · 2004-02-24 04:53 · Score: 1

The facts are that Ronald Reagan provided weapons and support to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in 1984, months after he killed hundreds of Kurds using American helicopters. Until we admit these things, we're destined to do it again.

no, ronald reagan did not supply weapons to bin laden. the cia provided some weapons and *logistical* support to native afghani fighters. bin laden had personal wealth and the wealth of saudi arabia to arm his fighters. there were *two* groups fighting the russians in afghanistan. the first, of course, was made up of native afghani people. the second was made up of foreign arabs who were furious with russia for daring to attack/invade a muslim country. giving support to one does not require (necessarily) giving support to the other.

the real mistake in american foreign policy was the mistaken notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. in the 1980's the enemies of iraq were also enemies of the united states. the united states foolishly assumed, then, iraq was its friend. this mistake will not be made again - at least under the current president.

--
Life is short; think quickly.

Super-accurate physics for...what again? by NewbieProgrammerMan · 2004-02-23 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

"While combat will be part of the game, 'the emphasis in the artificial Earth will be on human interaction rather than conflicts involving lots of military hardware.'"

Yes, I expect you do need a lot of super-accurate physics to figure out the various aspects of "human interaction," like....um....well...simulating football games and handing out relief packages. ????

Maybe they're talking about military tactics or something when they say "human interaction," but to me it seems like they're trying to say "no, really, it's not a military-oriented project." Come on people, this is the Army. If this system is mainly for military purposes, then just come out and say it, ok? Really, we pay you guys to worry about situations that involve "lots of military hardware." There's no need to pretend that you're really trying to solve world hunger or something.

--
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']

Re:Super-accurate physics for...what again? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-02-23 03:43 · Score: 1

They're hyping the super accurate physics because they get it for free. There already has a really nice physics model (I'm a member of There and have been since beta). They didn't put in the physics for the Army. There already has flying craft, driving craft, and weapons. Paintball guns to be exact. There even has outer space - if you go up high enough the Earth eventually vanishes.

Anyway, while the physics model may not be necessary for what they're doing, they may as well tell you about because it sounds good. It's like my minivan. I don't really need 38 cupholders but I always point them out to the passengers :)

Watch out for Kirk Logic(tm) by xleeko · 2004-02-23 03:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Yea, we could convert all of our conflicts into computer simulations, install disintegration booths, the whole nine yards.

... but then William Shatner would drop by and screw up the whole thing. Then he would sing "Lucy [pause] in the Sky [pause] with Diamonds" just to rub it in.

- Dave

Hitchhiker's Guide by aldousd666 · 2004-02-23 03:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Didn't the Golgafrinchans (sp?) try this once? All we got out of that deal was '42'

--
Speak for yourself.

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide by SmackCrackandPot · 2004-02-23 03:59 · Score: 1

Don't forget the Norwegian fjords's. Slartibartfast got an award for those.

Too late by ParadoxicalPostulate · 2004-02-23 03:18 · Score: 1

I remember watching the short video clips of the "Shock and Awe" operation in Iraq. I can't seem to find it at the moment on Google.

Sure looked like a video game to me. Point, click, and BOOM.

Office buildings? Homes? Hospitals? No, those are merely designated targets, blips on a map.

There = Evil by richie2000 · 2004-02-23 03:18 · Score: 3, Funny

There mandates the use of MSIE to access There.

Evil. Evil, I say!

This claimer: Having MSIE bundled with Windows poses no problem for me, I see it as they include Notepad instead of Word and Calculator instead of Excel. So why not let them include Internet Explorer instead of a real browser? However, I dislike sites that require it. It's like mailing around text files that need Notepad to read... Rude.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free

Re:There = Evil by mbbac · 2004-02-23 04:19 · Score: 2, Informative

The bad thing is that the McAfee site requires MSIE. I was helping my brother try to rid his computer of tons of adware so we naturually go there only to be refused since we were currently using Firefox.

It's like McAfee doesn't want to do business with you if you aren't running a well-tested virus vector.

--
mbbac
Re:There = Evil by jamesbulman · 2004-02-23 07:46 · Score: 1

I believe the There interface is built around ActiveX and uses a whole bunch of stuff proprietry to IE, which is why it is dependent on it. So even if they didn't server side detect the browser and shut everyone else out it wouldn't work anyway.

Not that I'm defending what they've done...

A new earth? by maiden_taiwan · 2004-02-23 03:19 · Score: 4, Funny

The mice will be furious!

Someone has to make this joke by lay · 2004-02-23 03:20 · Score: 1

Just immagine when people from the virtual Earth start interacting with people from real Earth! This would be amazing!
You could have a paralel slashdot in another earth where people could post and discuss! And you could have it the other way around too! Just immagine some inhabitant from Virtual Earth posting on slashdot on the Real Earth!
Can you see the possib$%#GFDID NO CARRIER

--
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon

Games... by Metal_Demon · 2004-02-23 03:20 · Score: 1

Why isn't this in the games section? We all know that the only thing the army does these days is make videogames.

Seriously if they spent less time making/playing games and more time killing people and breaking shit all our soldiers would be home by now.

Disclaimer: I'm a military man, and I'm half joking.

--
Trust Your Technolust

Re:Games... by CAlworth1 · 2004-02-23 04:10 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I'm a military man, and I'm half joking.

Which half - that you are a military man, or that all they do is make videogames?

Or that they make half video-games and that you are half a military man....

Sorry, please blame my lack of sleep for the above...

Sims by lcde · 2004-02-23 03:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Heh, see even the US goverment plays SIMS games :D

--
:%s/teh/the/g

Ender Wiggin could not be reached for comment. by *weasel · 2004-02-23 03:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

The nastier questions begin at the point at which an 'earth simulator' like this could have the control mechanisms tied to reality unbeknownst to 'pilots' within the sim.

You thought you were running through the sim... you had no idea you just took a UAV on a live mission and actually killed 2 dozen people. Missions take place, with perfect human guidance - and not even the soldiers involved knew it actually happened.

Worse yet - consider the game world altering the appearance of targets. Your strike deep in the Tora Bora mountains may have been a cover for an FBI raid on a militant compound in Colorado. The four phillipino terrorists you just greased with an armed unmanned terrestrial rover... well who in the hell were they?

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"

Re:Ender Wiggin could not be reached for comment. by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-23 17:39 · Score: 1

" The nastier questions begin at the point at which an 'earth simulator' like this could have the control mechanisms tied to reality unbeknownst to 'pilots' within the sim. You thought you were running through the sim... you had no idea you just took a UAV on a live mission and actually killed 2 dozen people. Missions take place, with perfect human guidance - and not even the soldiers involved knew it actually happened."
I suggest you rent the movie Toys with Robin Williams.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

My Earth Simulator Character by WormholeFiend · 2004-02-23 03:21 · Score: 1

will my Sims character be able to make my SimCity character make my Pentagon MMO character play a game of America's Army?

That would be cool.

Re:Proof at last! by Sabalon · 2004-02-23 03:21 · Score: 1

Time to run some more hot water in the bath!

Well.... by Dachannien · 2004-02-23 03:21 · Score: 1

...they're hardly being original!

Hrm by BenBenBen · 2004-02-23 03:22 · Score: 5, Funny

The detailed simulation will be drawn from a real-world terrain database and will be drawn to the same scale as the original.

They're going to need a bloody big monitor.

--
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"

But I keep hearing the voice... by abb3w · 2004-02-23 03:23 · Score: 4, Funny

...of Terry Gilliam saying "It's only a model".

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

More money down the drain? by PorscheDriver · 2004-02-23 03:23 · Score: 1, Troll

Sigh. Why does the US spend Billions every year figuring out to kill people, and do bad stuff? The money that Bush intends to spend on getting to Mars, could educate, feed, and clothe every single person on the planet. (Source : The internet) Sorry, maybe I'm slightly off-topic, but I'm fed up of seeing "US military to spend $49 Billion making WMD-proof cheese" type stories...

--
"This is your life, and it's ending one second at a time."

Finally building the WOPR by j3ffy · 2004-02-23 03:23 · Score: 1

I hope no kids sportin' 8'' floppies will be able to dial into it.

Old Steven Wright joke by Darth23 · 2004-02-23 03:24 · Score: 2, Funny

I have a map of the US.

It's actual size.

It says "One mile equals one mile"

----------------- Witht he simulated Earth have simulated civilians who never get wounded when bombs fall in the wrong place?

--

-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

Re:Old Steven Wright joke by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-23 03:32 · Score: 1

Witht he simulated Earth have simulated civilians who never get wounded when bombs fall in the wrong place?
No.
They citizens get killed, but they do come back as mindless zombies who thirst for the lifeblood of others.
Although I hear players can't tell the difference.

--
--- Ban humanity.

Solution... by lxt · 2004-02-23 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Solution: Send Earth II building and computer to The Moon.

Re:Solution... by Proud+like+a+god · 2004-02-23 03:48 · Score: 1

Hmm, how would they model real world physics of things like tides etc in real time without the rest of the solar system?

Risk? by physicsboy500 · 2004-02-23 03:24 · Score: 1

So will the wars in this world be fought by horses, cannons, and soldiers? Will it use the d6 algorithm to fight them?

With GW in office we may need to model the moon and upgrade to the v2210!

--
The original generic sig.

Finally! by Repvblic · 2004-02-23 03:25 · Score: 1

Good to see Magrathea is back in business! Lime-jello world populated by horny amazons, here I come!

Great! Invest more! by leehwtsohg · 2004-02-23 03:25 · Score: 1

This is really great. How about they invest $300B, build a really super-duper high resolution 3D virtual reality 2nd earth, and move there ?

I'd be willing to pay a large percentage of my income for its upkeep. Inside there'd be no need to keep up with the Kyoto protocol, and we can set up global warming to whatever they want! Or, we could even set up an extra flat-earth version for those that are really hard to convice.

I'm drowning! by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Too. Many. Hitchhiker's. Guide. Comments.

*gurgle*

Anyway, the truly cool would be making Harsh Realm comments.

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:Spending out of control by 0123456 · 2004-02-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Of course the Constitution was intended to prevent the creation of a standing army in the first place...

Maybe this is what happened to Duke Nukem by PourYourselfSomeTea · 2004-02-23 03:26 · Score: 1

This is what they meant when they said that "current screenshots do not reflect the reality of Duke Nukem Forever"!

Earth is dying! by lay · 2004-02-23 03:30 · Score: 1

US Military has now confirmed : Earth Is Dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Earth community when the US Military confirmed that the Earth Simulator was build due to the fact that the Earth will be uninhabitable by 2050. Coming on the heels of a recent National Academy of Sciences report that the average temperature has risen yet again, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The Earth is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Galaxy-Wide species diversity test.

You don't need to be an expert to predict Earth's future. The hand writing is on the computer simulation: Earth faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Earth because Earth is dying, EARTH IS DEAD! Things are looking very bad for Earth. As many of us are already aware, Earth continues to lose species.
Extinction flows like a river of blood.

The rainforest habitats are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their area. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time species black rhino and tiger only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Earth is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Earth leader Bush states that there are 7000 species left. How many mammals are there? Let's see. The number of mammal versus amphibian posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 mammal species. Rainforest reptile posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of amphibian posts. Therefore there are about 700 rainforest reptiles. A recent article put mammals at about 80 percent of the species market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 mammal species. This is consistent with the number of mammal Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of the rainforests, abysmal slash and burn agriculture, the drug war and so on, Columbian rainforests went out of business and was taken over by Brazilian rainforests who sell another troubled rainforests to international logging interests. Now Thai forests are also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Earth has steadily declined in wilderness and species. Earth is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Earth is to survive at all it will be among human dilettante dabblers. Earth continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. The simulation confirms it. For all practical purposes, Earth is dead.

--
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon

Ultimate risk by 4lex · 2004-02-23 03:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Let's just choose ugly maths for the Earth Simulation. As we already know, if their maths are too perfect, we risk being overtaked!

(In which case, of course, we, as calculations, would have to welcome our new real overlords).

--
My journal. Mainly about freedom.

Please don't kill me! It was an accident! by glpierce · 2004-02-23 03:33 · Score: 1

If they make a minor coding error, the US may end up third-world and Afghanistan may be a superpower in the simulation. Imagine trying to explain that to your superior officers.

--
G

Way too ambitious by Operating+Thetan · 2004-02-23 03:34 · Score: 1

The entire world modelled with realistic physics?

Expect this to be 6 years late, with missing features such as building interiors, massive lag and riddled with bugs

--
Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing

Re:Way too ambitious by lay · 2004-02-23 03:42 · Score: 1

This, IIRC, was posted on slashdot and it kind of relates to your post.
The author argues among other things that complete simulation is not necessary, just simulation of certain parts that are being viewed.
The argument is different, of course, but it illustrates the point.

--
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon
Re:Way too ambitious by Operating+Thetan · 2004-02-23 04:06 · Score: 1

TBH, I'm not looking at the coding/computer power aspect, but simply the building time necessary for the content-try making a realistic model of the street you live in(including buildings) in a level editor. Then multiply it by several million. The bugs/physics comment is a reference to the huge amount of testing that such a large play area will require

--
Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing

Re:Technology != success by dave420-2 · 2004-02-23 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's what I'm talking about. It seems every time you post something that could possibly be talking about a negative side of the US (especially the military) - some joker mods you down or off-topic.

Stop saluting, put the flag down, turn off Fox and get your own brain back. The US military isn't as great as the US media and hollywood portrays it. They have no regard for human life or peace, yet America thinks they can't do a thing wrong.

Need I mention the fiasco in Iraq? US soldiers killing US/allied soldiers? Grenade attacks? Spooked troops shooting their comrades? Patriot attacks on friendly aircraft? Attack helicopters shooting blocks of appartments? US flags being waved everywhere? US soldiers killing Iraqi police? The list goes on. Wake up! Think about it for 2 seconds... if they're so good, why do they keep screwing up all the time?

of course ... by Wordsmith · 2004-02-23 03:36 · Score: 4, Funny

... this could be used for the best game of Populous EVER.

Re:of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 08:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Peter Molyneux said in an old issue of Amiga Power that there's a cheat for Populous that he's never used and never told anyone about. All these years later he has never spoken up about it.

You fools! You've played right into his hands. He's just been waiting for this to happen :(
Re:of course ... by drinkypoo · 2004-02-23 08:30 · Score: 1

Populous has been hacked, cracked, trained and whacked. The whole game fits on, IIRC, one 880kB Amiga floppy disk. I sincerely doubt it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:of course ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 09:01 · Score: 1, Interesting

Huh? Are you calling me a liar or Peter Molyneux? I'll scan the magazine in if you'd like.
Re:of course ... by drinkypoo · 2004-02-23 13:30 · Score: 1

Peter. Great game designer, but I don't believe everything he says just because Populous is his child (even though it is one of the best games ever). I have a hard time believing no one would have figured it out by now.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Easy way to memorize maps by vlm · 2004-02-23 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Imagine "Blackhawk Down" set in 2005.

What if the troops have no idea how to get home when their chopper is shot down or the natives put up another barricade?

A 3d environment like this is a very effective and fast way to memorize the map and layout of the city.

Also good for convoy training, preparing for ambush training, etc.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Easy way to memorize maps by CountBrass · 2004-02-25 00:23 · Score: 1

Except of course that they would have built up the wrong muscle-memories.
Brain-to-muscle: Baddy in sight let's kill him.
Muscle: Ah to do that I twitch the mouse and hit the mouse button.
Brain: Argh what are you doing! You're holding an M16 not a fucking mouse you dumb muscle!

--
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.

vacation by david_594 · 2004-02-23 03:40 · Score: 1

On the positive note i will atleast be able to visit all those places i never had the time(or $$$) to visit before.

this is such old news. by LostCauz · 2004-02-23 03:42 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.there.com/sanfranciscochronicle.html

Combat is human interaction by fudgefactor7 · 2004-02-23 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

If the US army is behind this, then you can guarantee that there is a strategic element behind the decision making that went into OKing this project, much like America's Army.

Perhaps this will all turn into a real-life version of the episode of Star Trek (original series) that had a centuries old war all played out on computer...and the citizens in the killed areas would disintigrate themselves as it was more clean (and real bombs have the habit of destroying the structures--which is never fun.)

Re:Kuwait City by DaHat · 2004-02-23 03:48 · Score: 1

On the contrary, don't you think the US Mil has battle plans for the invasion and conquering of most of the nations on earth? After all... you never know when an ally might become an enemy.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

But... by gamgee5273 · 2004-02-23 03:52 · Score: 1

...can I import my neighborhoods from "The Sims" into it?

Is "human interaction"... by humungusfungus · 2004-02-23 03:53 · Score: 1

a war department euphemsim for "people killing each other with their bare hands"?

--
No sig.

Or by trifster · 2004-02-23 03:54 · Score: 1

the could have EA scale sim city to sim earth and add in "the sims" to the mix. Let the gamers of the world do the simulating. All recorded on army game servers.

This model has more uses than merely military by Catbeller · 2004-02-23 03:56 · Score: 1

Okay, here we have a model of the earth.

Now, overlay that with the current location of every wired node. Every cell phone. RFID tagged people and materiel. Biometric scans. Current locations of police cars, aircraft, automobiles, when tracking tech becomes mandatort. Current locations of known dissidents, troublemakers.

Mix in with Total Information Awareness of everyone. Real time video surveillance a la London. Really GOOD realtime satellite video and radio monitors.

Shake well...

And you have a system where a person can sit down with a cup of coffee, and be able to wander the earth with a mouse. Who's that guy on that street corner with a protest sign? Click. Current financial info, address, physical movement recorded for n years, communications history. Any criminal history? Click. Any friends? Click click. Where are they? Click click.

Seems he's an agitator. Click. Sending be-aware report to HSA. What's his IRS status? Click.

Best assign him to the Tracking list. Can't be too careful. And let's record movements of his buddies, too.

Hmm, the guy used to write anti-L. Ron Hubbard screeds. I'm a Scientologist. Best let my local manager know about this guy.

Click. Wander the world. What's up in Sidney today? Any anti-American protests going on? There! Click-clickety-click... good thing we share everything nowadays... can't be too Secure in our Homelands...

*
Picture thousands of people using this thing, from cops, cult insiders, the FBI, and the military, all using different authorizations
for their own purposes.

As for the cult thing, the Church of Scientology in Clearwater now has the entire downtown area video cameraed -- really good cameras -- and they have a situation room staffed with watchers 24-7. Not paranoia; motivated people are watching us now.

The TIA program, driven underground tho still alive, paired with modelling inreal time will turn the entire planet -- eventually -- into a prison. The only places without tracking tech will be the rooms where the watchers watch us -- and the homes and offices of the people who give them orders.

Re:This model has more uses than merely military by Tackhead · 2004-02-23 06:20 · Score: 1

> The TIA program, driven underground tho still alive, paired with modelling inreal time will turn the entire planet -- eventually -- into a prison. The only places without tracking tech will be the rooms where the watchers watch us -- and the homes and offices of the people who give them orders.
The trivial solution to any problems posed by this scenario is to get a job working for those who give the orders.

Bullshit by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-02-23 03:57 · Score: 1

"While combat will be part of the game, 'the emphasis in the artificial Earth will be on human interaction rather than conflicts involving lots of military hardware."

Bullshit. Money is not spent in the government for toy simulations unless they have primary military focus. Use your heads. This is going to be a giant video game for the brass to play with, just before they throw a few hundread thousend uniforms at some "-stan" or another. Lose a few bodies here and there, who cares. We learned in Viet Nam that the American public will just continue feeding our children to the death machine rather than be marked as "comunist".

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:Bullshit by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-02-23 04:16 · Score: 1

Yes, I know it's "Communist". Thank you for your time.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Camp Check! by servognome · 2004-02-23 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Stay away from my terrorist camp spawns. I've been here for 84 straight hours leveling up.

--
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73

Re:Technology != success by The+Unabageler · 2004-02-23 04:01 · Score: 1

you give a bunch of kids guns and they're going to screw up no matter how many times a seargeant tells them they're a 5 foot queer pile of shit from texas.

there's a cynical sarcasm to my comment, in case you have trouble hearing my voice.

--
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'

mod parent up! by proj_2501 · 2004-02-23 04:01 · Score: 1

now!

Technological Inertia. by Nadsat · 2004-02-23 04:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Regarding all the talk of "get Bush out of the office, and make the world a better place." While Bush does need to go ASAP, projects such as this Earth simulator necessitate understanding of a finer point: Technological Inertia.

Just becuase we can do something, does not mean that we should. We ought to categorically oppose all technology used for the sake of automated control (red light cameras, airport profile scanning, etc). Unfortuantely, because we can do it, we do it anyway... obsessive-compuslively sticking our fingers in the electric socket despite conditioned responses warning us otherwise. As the Beatles said in Yellow Submarine "I can't help it I'm a born lever puller."

Slowly this automated control enters and enters and we adjust and become accustomed... and whether or not Bush is in office doesn't matter, for we have already become a prisoner in our own minds and houses.

--

The Custom Mary

Not first. by Bazzargh · 2004-02-23 04:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Read this - a press release from the US army STRICOM dated Nov. 19th. 2003 - there was probably some other US coverage at that time. The article's a bit more informative than the beeb one actually, as it shows the size of the There contract ($3.5m - which I guess puts it as something between 6mo. and a year, depending on the team size - its interesting that There haven't even put a press release about it), and that the Army are funding this speculatively - there is no group that actually wants this for training yet.

The beeb is reporting it because they read the article on Homelan Fed last week. There's more coverage here

IE's influence There by blueworm · 2004-02-23 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative

I noticed that if you go to www.there.com with Mozilla 1.6 and click the "Free Trial" button it loads the page correctly and then quickly takes you to a page explaining that you must use Internet Exporer. If you press the stop button before the refresh the page will show up just fine.

Re:IE's influence There by blueworm · 2004-02-23 04:11 · Score: 1

Ok I was a little to quick to post, looks like they require a javascript function only supported by IE :(

Reminds me of Umberto Eco quote: by ogma · 2004-02-23 04:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

"...in that Empire, the Cartographer's art achieved such a degree of perfection that the Map of a single Province occupied an entire City, and the Map of the Empire, an entire Province. In time, these vast Maps were no longer sufficient. The Guild of Cartographers created a Map of the Empire, which perfectly coincided with the Empire itself. But Succeeding Generations, with diminished interest in the Study of Cartography, believed that this immense Map was of no use, and not Impiously, they abandoned it to the Inclemency of the Sun and of numerous Winters."

Well... by NeoTheOne · 2004-02-23 04:11 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our machine overlords...I mean I AM the One...

Human Interaction by AdeBaumann · 2004-02-23 04:12 · Score: 1

Mainly for human interaction? Ah, I see... they want to try an approach they've never tried on the "real" earth so far.

--
I gave up sigs almost a year ago.

See you on your own by j0n4th4nb34r · 2004-02-23 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe Violence settles the argument in the short term. But to settle all your arguements your gonna have to kill 6 billion people because for each person you kill your gonna piss 10 more off.

--

MacOS X, I've upped my standards, Up Yours...

Re:See you on your own by Performer+Guy · 2004-02-23 12:45 · Score: 1

The Germans, Italians and Japanese weren't convinced by talk, they were convinced by crushing military defeat followed by reconstruction, propaganda and show trials.

The recipe is clear, now if it weren't for all the idiots getting in the way of sensible action we could actually come through this without mushroom clouds over U.S. population centers some day.

Ender's Game by Vaystrem · 2004-02-23 04:15 · Score: 2

"War is terrible. Games are fun. Ne'er the two should meet. IMHO."
I'm sure someone else will point it out but this wonderful book by Orson Scott Card really comes down to this.

It make so much sense though doesn't it? Currently UAV's are remotely flown why not place the pilots in an immersive 3d environment giving them access to all kinds of terrain data from various perspectives they otherwise wouldn't have access to?

The further step, and the step Ender's Game takes, is that as weapons become increasingly capable of being operated remotely, and the simulations are being done inside an immersive game - how can you tell if your are destroying a virtual city / or an actual city?

There was also a rather good Seaquest DSV (yes the show on the whole was very poor) espiode about this as well where people were actually destroying the world but thought they were playing a game.

Food for thought.

SWEET!!! by Tibor+the+Hun · 2004-02-23 04:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Now I'm so glad I passed my Special Forces training for America's Army last night!
Where do I sign up?

--
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.

IE required for trial of "there" by CanadaDave · 2004-02-23 04:15 · Score: 1

IE required. Now I really wish Firefox could identify itself as IE. "We've noticed that you're currently using a non-supported browser. "Please switch to Internet Explorer v. 5.0.1 or later to continue. "You can get the latest version of IE free at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.asp. "After downloading and installing Internet Explorer, please launch it and go to: http://webapps.prod.there.com/register in order to continue the registration process (you should cut and paste or write this link down for when you're ready to return)." You do not need to switch your default browser settings."

Magrethea by boristdog · 2004-02-23 04:16 · Score: 1

THAT should be the name of the earth-simulator.

Not enough water? by jafiwam · 2004-02-23 04:18 · Score: 1

So will this Earth Simulator let me pound it with comets if there is not enough water?

What if I get sentient bugs before sentient mammals? The bugs never seemed to want to build space-ships...

Conflict Mediation by jockeys · 2004-02-23 04:20 · Score: 1

Hooray! Finally, the world will be able to solve its problems in a forthright and logical fashion, namely, the leaders of the conflicting countries duking it out in an arena. Everyone wins! Bin Laden gets to play online from the comfort of his anonymous hut. (shack, hovel, whatever.) And Bush wouldn't have to go any further than the nearest QuakeCon or Frag3 convention to find our nation's next Audy Murphy or Alvin York. Now, the REAL conflict begins: Should our leaders decide the fate of our nations with Q3 or UT? *grins* I for one would proudly take up "arms" in the GLF (geek liberation front) and battle online for our country. But, hey, then I'd be some kind of patriotic hero instead of a geek, huh? :-D

--

In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.

Re:sigh by aldousd666 · 2004-02-23 04:21 · Score: 1

Though my post was technically redundant, the previous mentions of it weren't on the static page at the time I clicked on 'reply' so I don't see why I should be flamed for that. Sorry about that.

--
Speak for yourself.

Mod parent up. by khasim · 2004-02-23 04:21 · Score: 1

"By your logic, there would be peace in the middle east by now."

I can't think of any better example of the flaw in that "logic". Congratulations.

Re:Mod parent up. by SoSueMe · 2004-02-23 05:19 · Score: 1

Just wait a while. They're not finished yet.

Just Like in Snowcrash! by shatteredsilicon · 2004-02-23 04:23 · Score: 1

I am sure this idea came straight out of Neal Stephenson's book Snowcrash...

OpenSourceTerrain modelling by Lord+Satri · 2004-02-23 04:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Of very related interest is http://vterrain.org , a great open source terrain modelling. It uses remote sensing and geomatics data. It is also related to http://www.openplans.org/, the Open Planning project.

--
Animoog.org

Re:OpenSourceTerrain modelling by VirtualSquid · 2004-02-23 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for the plug, Alexandre. As a not-for-profit in the public interest, TOPP/VTP needs all the help it can get.

This news about millions of dollars going to There.com is both good, and disappointing. It's good in that any increase in the funding and attention for modelling the earth is, in general, a good thing.

It's disappointing in that There.com is a highly secretive, closed, proprietary environment, which guarantees that none of these millions of taxpayer dollars will actually bring the public closer to having a model of the earth.

-Ben Discoe, Project Manager, VTP

PSYCHOPATH by DOCStoobie · 2004-02-23 04:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Does anyone remember the article on keeping troops "battle ready" for days on end?, well keep those cocktails away from this NUT JOB.....

Fuel question by TobiasSodergren · 2004-02-23 04:30 · Score: 1

This second world, is it by any chance powered by clusters of humans?

Re:Fuel question by d474 · 2004-02-23 08:01 · Score: 1

That is exactly what I'm thinking. The other possibility is that it isn't used for training only humans, maybe it's going to be used to train an AI.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.

How to Log On: by johnthorensen · 2004-02-23 04:31 · Score: 1

1. Break into the Pentagon.
2. Dodge robotic tank under development by DARPA.
3. Stumble breathlessly into Rumsfeld's office.
4. Jump out the window.

If this doesn't make sense, try reading this

Ban the Bomb! by cybergrue · 2004-02-23 04:33 · Score: 1

Save Earth2 for Computerized warfare.

Number One Priority? by bottlerocket · 2004-02-23 04:35 · Score: 1

The oil-rich Kuwait City is the first place modeled? That tells you something about the American military's priorities...

--
where the comment ends and sig begins

propaganda warfare and stating the obvious by Spetiam · 2004-02-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Maybe they're talking about military tactics or something when they say "human interaction,"

they're probably trying to figure out how political, economic and natural geographies influence populations' loyalties and interests. previously, the battle for "hearts and minds" relied on underground newspapers, broadcasts and leaflets, and were targeted according to personal judgements. here, propaganda warfare meets the information age.

so, really, it is a study in human interaction...with a military orientation, of course. a very smart move.

Who determines "the best interests of the U.S."? by khasim · 2004-02-23 04:45 · Score: 1

Rather than seeing all those wonderful humanitarians in the Pentagon, I see a bunch of people who's wealth and careers DEPEND upon "defending" us from "enemies".

And when you look at it like that, it's very easy to understand why we have so many "enemies" out there.

The Soviets are now our friends, but we need a BIGGER military budget to deal with the "threats". How does THAT make sense?

Newsflash: What is good for the retirement plan of some General at the Pentagon is NOT necessarily good for the average US citizen.

Best interests? by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-02-23 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Problem is, everyone has a different idea of what "best interests" means. Joe McCarthy certainly had the best interests of the US in mind. So did communists. They just had different best interests.

J Edgar Hoover had the US best interest in mind when he framed Martin Luther King, Jr with forged audio tapes of bogus conversations.

McCarthur had the US best interests in mind when he tried to start WW III with Red China.

The generals who had plans in the early 60s to fake terrorist attacks in the US and blame it on Castro had the US best interests in mind.

Oliver North had the US best interests in mind.

Poindextor and TIA had the US best interests in mind.

I myself don't particularly appreciate other people having my best interests in mind. They don't know my best interests and they don't care.

And that includes you. To all you and your ilk who have my best interests in mind, I say FUCK YOU, I can decide my own best interests.

--
Infuriate left and right

Re:Best interests? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 06:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

"You may disagree with the admin, or the way the people in the Pentagon do things, but 99% have the best interests of the U.S. in mind."

Read this part again.

"I can decide my own best interests."

But you couldn't defend yourself against an attack by a foreign power, could you?

sim-earth by SirLanse · 2004-02-23 04:50 · Score: 1

They are making it out of paper-mache and will lure people to it with offers for free t-shirts. When everone is there, they can TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Come Pinky we have work to do.

This is Game news! by tchdab1 · 2004-02-23 04:50 · Score: 1

Why is this headlined under Tech/IT - it's the best gaming news in weeks. We get spinoff of the military's efforts to accurately model a huge gaming environment. CP World.

Deja Vu? by darth_silliarse · 2004-02-23 04:51 · Score: 1

There is no spoon...

--
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan

Re:Harsh Realm anyone? by DDX_2002 · 2004-02-23 04:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, I can't believe nobody's commented yet on this, because it sounds an awful lot like the Realm. Sure, Harsh Realm got cancelled pretty fast, but c'mon, we're geeks - we're supposed to remember stuff like this.

Omar Santiago could kick Patton's ass while outplotting Machiavelli simultaneously. Great character, good show, but it really only showed what it could do on the new york episode where we finally see what made the Realm the realm.

Allegedly coming to DVD this year (as is Millennium), though Scott Bairstow's recent history wouldn't help speed its release.

--
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.

Re:Harsh Realm anyone? by quintinie · 2004-02-23 05:00 · Score: 1

-- Tom Hobbs is recruited into Harsh Realm, a virtual world controlled by the military, to kill General Omar Santiago, who has taken control of HR. He finds Dexter, meets Mike and his crew, encounters a VC (Virtual Character) version of Sophie and tries to rescue her from Santiago's clutches -- Ahh the memories... will look forward fo the dvd box.

Re:Eh? by IvanR · 2004-02-23 05:04 · Score: 1

Yes, that would be WWII Online. The terrain data is half scale, so towns are closer than they would be in real life. Right now there are over 650 different cities modeled, and that's only covering a portion of the entire European Theater.
How big is WWIIOL?
WWIIOL compared to other MMO games

EarthBrowser. by Dr.+Zowie · 2004-02-23 05:08 · Score: 1

EarthBrowser is a rendered Earth along the lines of the browser in Snowcrash.

Earthbrowser isn't a simulation, so I suppose it's quite different from the military's project -- but it is a very nice take on the user interface for such a thing.

World Map by smchris · 2004-02-23 05:10 · Score: 1

Oh, sure. But will the greedy bastards share it with flightgear.org?

Simulations by bckspc · 2004-02-23 05:11 · Score: 1

According to our simulation, when we arrive in Baghdad after a brief and lossless march from Kuwait, the people will lay down their arms and celebrate our victory. They will sing praises to us and offer us their women, and will show us the way to the hiding places of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar.

The weapons of mass destruction will be found exactly where we thought they were, along with extensive documentation about Saddam's long history of collaboration with al Qaeda.

The war will be short and the occupation brief. Our troops will then leave the country in peace, with democracy safely installed and all ethnic tensions resolved in a simple power-sharing agreement enshrined in a secular Constitution.

Democracy will then spread from country to country, ushering in a new era peace and access to Middle Eastern oil.

Yes you can by DigiShaman · 2004-02-23 05:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

"This "war on terrorism" is more than people fighting people, but ideas fighting ideas. You can't shoot an idea."

Yes you can. Just shoot the human that holds on to such ideas. Or...scare them into giving up. It worked on Japan in WWII.

Now, whether or not you feel this was moral is up for you to decide and debate.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by Pxtl · 2004-02-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Your right. Thank you, Pentagon, for saving the US from invasion by Panama, Peru, Cambodia, and all those other little teeny-weeny buttfuck countries that couldn't launch a paper airplane at us much less an invasion.

Not on my shores? Not on my ass.

Riiight by mog007 · 2004-02-23 05:51 · Score: 1

Mod me troll if you want, but isn't it funny that their intention is "human interaction", yet the first model is Kuwait? I think it's funny.... and a big friggin lie.

*Adjusts tin foil hat*

--
Learn something new.

BBC by ericlp · 2004-02-23 06:03 · Score: 1

BBC = Baathist Broadcasting Corporation.

Already exists. by Dr.+Zowie · 2004-02-23 06:04 · Score: 1

(I already commented somewhere else but as usual it was more than 5 minutes after the article got posted, so it's buried).

EarthBrowser is a close analog to Hiro's software, except that it really exists.

dot hacked? by shadowcabbit · 2004-02-23 06:05 · Score: 1

All right, raise your hand if you think the next headline about this virtual world will be "'Pluto Kiss' Virus Destroys World".

(for mods who don't get the joke)

--
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...

Ghandi, Help! by the_REAL_sam · 2004-02-23 06:09 · Score: 1

I'm reminded of that old pink floyd song, "dogs of war" - "one world, and it's a battleground.."

How would he have approached dismantling the military industrial complex?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.h tm

--
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer

Re:Choose your weapon... Choose your enemies. by darkonc · 2004-02-23 06:11 · Score: 1

it's all too easy to make someone stop hating you at gunpoint. Just pull the trigger.

Yeppers... That sure stops them hating you (in this world, at least -- can't say much for the afterlife). But then of course, there's their friends and family.
And their friends and family
And so on, and so on....

Although murder and genocide can stop the victims from hating you, it tends to generates enemies among the survivors.

Force of arms won't stop people from hating you. It won't even make them respect you.. The best it can do is make them fear you. If you make people fear you, they'll bow down while you have that gun pointed at their head, but damned if you know what they'll do once you turn your back on them.

With 300 million of you and 6 billion of them, that's about 20-1 odds... I really doubt that murder and mayhem and threats are going to carry the day on this one (no matter how you want to justify it). You'll just go on making more and more enemies until somebody gets around to dropping your own grenade down your shorts while you're not looking.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.

Sounds like a typical PHB decision by melted · 2004-02-23 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why would anyone need this and how this is supposed to improve the interaction of personnel any more than real excercise is beyond me. Sure, launching rockets and stuff is cheap in a simulator, but they will NEVER make it as accurate as the real life, by definition. Thus the soldier mostly trained in the simulator (for cost reasons) will be unprepared for the real action.

I'd rather see my tax money invested into helicopters that don't crash into each other and cannons that can't do "friendly fire".

Re:Sounds like a typical PHB decision by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-23 17:44 · Score: 1

But keep in mind where all the cool stuff comes from.........the military. Imagine if because of them sinking money into this, a whole new level of immersion is developed for MMORPGs. Welcome to virtual reality 2.0
Think of how the world could be changed then.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Ender's Game by Minna+Kirai · 2004-02-23 06:21 · Score: 1

The further step, and the step Ender's Game takes, is that as weapons become increasingly capable of being operated remotely,

No, Ender's Game did not take that step. In that fictional word, Ender was commanding real troops on real interstellar battlefields. He was giving out orders, but the weapons were operated by direct physical contact.

It would've been more a more realistic depiction of future technology if there had simply been computers running the battlefleets, but that would've drained some emotion from the story. The fact that Ender was sending human soldiers to give up their lives was an important element.

I'll have to disagree with the premise behind this by khasim · 2004-02-23 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure, you'll never convince Osama that he's wrong. So what? He's one person and he will eventually get old and die.

But you CAN work to establish and support governments that are NOT based upon religious teachings and that DO have rights for women. If you do that, al Queda and other organizations like them will die within a few generations because no one will WANT to be a part of them.

The problem is that it will take a few generations and none of the politicals in the US are willing to put effort into a program that will solve the problem for their grand-children. It's MUCH easier to take a "tough on xxxxxx" stand and advocate violence.

Most people don't remember enough of their history to know that even the "greatest Democracy in the world" (the US) started out without rights for women or blacks and so on. It took us many generations to get to the point we're at now. Don't expect instant solutions to complex problems.

So you're correct in "good luck talking al Qaeda over - I'm sure you'll be able to convince them, through logic and reason, that Sharia isn't really a good system of government, and that women should have full rights as citizens."

But that is just one facet of the whole problem. And it is NOT a major facet. Estimates of al Queda membership before our invasions was about 1,000 individuals. Many of you had graduating classes that were larger than that.

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by BillFarber · 2004-02-23 06:38 · Score: 1

You're right. Some pissant guy leading a two-bit group from a "buttfuck country" like Afghanistan could never lead an assault on the mainland U.S.

moron

Way to go ! by Liquid+Len · 2004-02-23 06:40 · Score: 1

Ok, so let's see:
- Koweit City area: circa 17820 km^2
- Earth land area: circa 1.5x10^8 km^2
So, if I'm not mistaken, this gives about 0.01% of the job completed... Way to go, guys !

Or this joke/fear by CrazyJim0 · 2004-02-23 06:55 · Score: 1

What happens when the people on virtual earth decide to make their own virtual earth...

--
God spoke to me

Re:Spending out of control by dclydew · 2004-02-23 06:55 · Score: 1

If you can't see the fnords, the can't eat you.
.

--
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey

Nuclear war-games. by Craevenwulfe · 2004-02-23 07:01 · Score: 1

With reference to this in the book "Sorcerers apprentice" the author was telling about how generals actually started to cry when they lost forces in the wargames. They thought of their troop positions in the game as actual real people and were saddened by their loss.

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by cherokee158 · 2004-02-23 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think there is a profound misunderstanding of the role of the Pentagon here. The Pentagon does not initiate hostilities. Our elected politicians do. If you don't like war, don't vote for a warmonger. But don't harp on the professionals whose job it is to win wars. Because as soon as some misguided politician starts one, you can be darn sure the best way out of it is to win it.

Would you like to play a game? by -dhan-101 · 2004-02-23 07:08 · Score: 1

just have all the people play tic-tac-toe until they figure out there's no way to win!

Gaming and persuading people to kill... by 2marcus · 2004-02-23 07:22 · Score: 1

"Gaming doesn't blur the distinction anymore than the training to take orders and it's "Us vs. Them" does for a soldier."

I would actually argue that Gaming might be a part of the toolkit of blurring the distinction... along with training and bonding soldiers together and all the rest of it. And interesting study I've heard referenced several times talks about how during World War II and before many soldiers intentionally shot to miss... unfortunately, I have not been able to find a properly reliable reference to this study, so here is the best one I could located on short notice:

"David Grossman, a Military Psychologist and an expert in the art of Kilology (training to kill), reveals shocking evidence by reporting that the same military training which creates killing machines out of relatively harmless boot camp recruits, are identical to the trainings our kids are getting from certain video games and movies. He explained that the U.S. army had a big problem. The soldiers were not shooting to kill. During World War II only 15 - 20% of soldiers shot to kill. One method of training used to correct this problem is known to as "Operant Conditioning." U.S. soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pops-up in their field of view. That is the stimulus. David Grossman said that 75 to 80 percent of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of stimulus-response training. By the Korean War 55% were shooting to kill And by Vietnam over 90% were shooting to kill."

http://www.centurionministry.org/mind/television .a sp

Good by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2004-02-23 07:28 · Score: 1

Maybe now they can do their PK-ing in the MMO instead of in RL, and we'll ALL be better off.

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Edit: Gaming and persuading people to kill by 2marcus · 2004-02-23 07:48 · Score: 1

Erg. Please, ignore the webpage I cited in my previous post, I read some more of the page and it almost made me throw up.

The following still isn't what I would call a reputable reference, but maybe it is closer.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98gl .h tml

But it is also controversial:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03 au tumn/chambers.pdf

Which foreign power? by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-02-23 07:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

FYI, I spent 4 years in the US Navy. How about you?

As for attacks by foreign powers, can you specify which ones? Is Castro bothering me? Is there some reason I don't know that Cuba has to be quarantined but not China?

How about Iran, whose current govt only came to power because they finally got fed up with the govt which had been foisted on them by the US?

How about the many central American countries who had govts controlled by US banana companies and backed up by US Marines?

I dare say 90% of the foreign relation problems the US govt has are the direct result of something the US govt has done, allegedly on my behalf.

I am sick and tired of people in power, non-elected people, doing things on my behalf, and when the inevitable backlash comes, they start new nasty programs on my behalf.

--
Infuriate left and right

Human interaction......with what? by d474 · 2004-02-23 08:16 · Score: 1

This idea that they are using this Earth Simulation for studying human interaction with other humans.... cover story.

They already know and understand the dynamics of human interactions to acceptable levels with the combat simulation systems already in place. You have to ask the important question: Why the need for a whole earth in a computer? Humans can manage global strategy without a simulation of the planet in a computer. So why do they need one now? Isn't it obvious?

AI.

They need a testing ground for R&D of current AI prototypes. Let's just hope that once it get's perfected, the AI stays in the simulation.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.

Re:Human interaction......with what? by chollowayss · 2004-02-23 08:41 · Score: 1

sounds like a little movie I saw once... The Matrix. we're all fucked.

--

"The next generation of interesting software will be made on a Macintosh, not an IBM PC." -Bill Gates

You must be kidding by ccmay · 2004-02-23 08:25 · Score: 1

The US has systematically pissed off the muslim world for decades

The Muslims be damned, every one of them.

How have we pissed them off? We have prevented them from completing Hitler's mission to kill every Jew, and we have not yet adopted Sharia law.

Bin Ladin and his ilk have made themselves perfectly clear on this topic. There will be no peace until the world lives under Sharia. Fine. It's us or them.

I want my government to kill every advocate of Sharia law, everywhere in the world.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

You are a God-damned motherfucking liar. by ccmay · 2004-02-23 08:54 · Score: 2, Flamebait

Al Qaeda is not fighting to put sharia in place, they are fighting to "liberate" oppressed Muslims that the US has been hurting for years.

Bin Laden et al., as is well known, have made it clear that jihad will continue until the entire world lives under an Islamic Caliphate enforcing Taliban-style Sharia law.

I say we take them at their word, and kill anybody who advocates Sharia, anywhere in the world. We need to treat the Wahhabbis as the Romans treated Carthage.

I want every Wahhabbi imam in the world to live in fear that the CIA will cut his throat in the dark of night. I want the corpses of these Wahhabbi cockroaches to choke the Nile, and the Tigris, and the Rhine and Thames for that matter. We kill them now, or they will kill us later. There is no middle ground.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

Re:You are a God-damned motherfucking liar. by Pros_n_Cons · 2004-02-23 16:38 · Score: 1

I think the U.S. (or someone) had a general that would bury the muslim fighters in pig guts to instill fear in them. After all it is the only thing they are afraid of we have to use it to win
Put bags of pigs blood on israeli busses, put it at check points in iraq, if these twisted people want to blow us up, going to hell is thier price. see how long they play this game when we bury thier remains in pigshit and bacon bits. It's harsh but effictive.

--

-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller

Re:Ender's Game by Vaystrem · 2004-02-23 09:08 · Score: 1

I think you need to re-read this book again - the big plot turn in the end was the final "test" and after the successfull destruction of the simulated 'bugger' homeworld. Everyone is all whooping and hollering and he doesn't get it - it is only then revealed to him by Mazer Rackham that it wasn't a simulation that it was the real battle.

Give war a chance by ccmay · 2004-02-23 09:21 · Score: 1

But to settle all your arguements your gonna have to kill 6 billion people because for each person you kill your gonna piss 10 more off.

What arrant nonsense. Only a coddled campus pseudo-intellectual could believe such horse shit.

Your statement is totally falsified by the continued existence of the nations of Germany and Japan.

We can win by destroying the madrassas and killing the imams who spread Wahhabist/Salafist poison. Also, we should destroy Saudia Arabia and take over control of Mecca and Medina, only allowing access to Muslims who renounce jihad and Sharia.

Most people don't want to die. If we make it clear that anybody anywhere in the world who advocates Sharia law is in mortal danger, whether via smart bomb or a Ghurka knife across the throat, and then follow through with the extermination of ten or twenty thousand Wahabbai imams, the rest will get the message. Wrapping the corpses in pig skins might help too.

It's a shame that we will have to keep a boot on the throat of the Muslim world for the foreseeable future, but it was their choice. So be it.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

Re:Give war a chance by j0n4th4nb34r · 2004-02-23 11:04 · Score: 1

"Your statement is totally falsified by the continued existence of the nations of Germany and Japan."
The nations of Germany and Japan still exist yes. However they are certainly not run by those who perpetrated attrocities during world war 2 to which I assume you are referencing. There is now a new generation of citizens which was not involved in the conflict and hence will find it much harder to remember.
It's a shame that we will have to keep a boot on the throat of the Muslim world for the foreseeable future, but it was their choice. So be it."
I don't know where your privileged position to rule the world has come from, maybe it is the arrogance that allows Western governments to gloss over the attrocities that they ever so often perpetrate themselves in conflicts.

--

MacOS X, I've upped my standards, Up Yours...
Re:Give war a chance by Vess+V. · 2004-02-23 16:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can't you follow a simple argument? With his examples of Germany and Japan, he was refuting the othe poster's claim that you can't stamp out evil because resentment for you from the peers of those you killed will propagate.

The existance of the Japanese and German populations who do not subscribe to Nazism, do not hold Hitler in high regard, and do not hate us for the elimination of both, precisely support the grandparent post's argument.

What exactly were you trying to provide a counterexample to?

Hear, hear! by ccmay · 2004-02-23 09:46 · Score: 1

Amen. Fuck the ungrateful cockroaches. The lowliest private on a foot patrol in Iraq is doing more for humanity than your average ivory-tower parasite, no matter how many letters come after his name.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

Fuck you, wanker by ccmay · 2004-02-23 09:54 · Score: 1

the protection of the United States is the most important thing in the world. IT IS NOT.

Guess what, we ARE the world. The most ambitious and hardest-working people from every country in the world have left their shit-heel countries behind and are now building the future in America. They left behind the lazy, the corrupt, the elitist, the incompetent, the petty tyrants and idle nobility, all the dregs and scum of their respective pest holes. They are building the best country in the world, that leads the world because it deserves to.

The democratic vote of the citizens of the United States is a better indication of the feelings of decent ordinary people everywhere than a vote of the UN General Assembly. The UN is a club of dictators and tyrants, and I don't know why we should ever again listen to a thing they have to say.

So fuck you too. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

matrix by anuj · 2004-02-23 10:01 · Score: 1

yup, another worthless so-this-is-how-the-matrix-started.

that, or it's a matrix w/in a matrix.

but they wouldn't let that happen, would they?

~A

--
Linux, Vai, Satch and Guitars.. that is the life ICQ# 7357858

I didn't know we did that! by ccmay · 2004-02-23 10:14 · Score: 1

China 1945-1946, 1950-1953

Guess I missed the history lesson that dealt with our bombing of China in the 1950's.

Maybe you mean we bombed the Chinese soldiers that came south across the Yalu River to help the Communists take over the Korean Peninsula. I should hope so.

Looking over your list, it seems to me that we were in the right about 80 or 90 percent of the time. Not bad. You won't see me shed too many tears for the tyrants and totalitarians we tried to overthrow.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by 1gor · 2004-02-23 10:17 · Score: 1

You've forgot to mention that elected politicians would not initiate hostilities without support of the population. What is an easy way to get reelected? A short and victorious war. Never asked yourself why does this trick work every time?

I don't believe politicians start wars. People do.

Hitler was voted to power. Germans felt incredibly humiliated after WWI, hyperinflation, reparations etc. And they voted-in a demagogue who told them that they are great just because they belong to German race.

It's the nature of democracy. Power of people can easlity turn into power of the mob. So, now as ever, warmonger politicians are just trying to please the voter.

--
--

Drawing the wrong conclusion about OPEC by ccmay · 2004-02-23 10:20 · Score: 1

I think you use OPEC well to illustrate that the US still has weaknesses.

Actually, I think the conclusion to be drawn is that the US is not nearly so imperialist and rapacious as the Chomskyites would have you believe. The America of their fevered nightmares would have occupied all of the Middle Eastern oil fields decades ago. We could secure the Saudi Arabian fields in a week with one aircraft carrier and the 82nd Airborne. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing....)

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

Re:Drawing the wrong conclusion about OPEC by ISPpfy · 2004-02-23 17:05 · Score: 1

Except that everyone else doesn't have the aircraft carrier and the 82d Airborne... much less the power and ability to keep those forces projected for any significant period of time.

Re:I'll have to disagree with the premise behind t by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 10:36 · Score: 1, Funny

> > The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the > > President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition > > of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. > > With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray > > that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." > > > > So here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage > > entirely on biblical principles: > > > > A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one > > man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) > > > > B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in > > addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II > > Chron 11:21) > > > > C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. > > If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) > > > > D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen > > 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) > > > > E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the > > constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be > > construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) > > > > F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry > > the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately > > does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be > > otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. > > 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) > > > > G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, > > it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him > > (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young > > and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this > > rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by Cosmik · 2004-02-23 10:42 · Score: 1

"we haven't had a major conflict here since the civil war.... Thats a major feat if you think about it, is there a safer place to live???"

Yes. Try any of the following countries:

* England
* Scotland
* Canada
* Australia
* New Zealand
* Wales
* Spain
* Portugal
* Switzerland

Etc, etc. I could go on. There are plenty of countries that haven't had a civil war at all. There are plenty of countries that have had war at some point, but are currently a safer place to live due to their relationships with, and attitudes to, other countries (Norway, Finland, Austria etc).

Wake up. The USA isn't the be all and end all.

who needs this? by Nept · 2004-02-23 10:56 · Score: 1

it's just for the benefit of a few white mice anyway ...

--
"Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd

Real Time Update by femto · 2004-02-23 11:07 · Score: 1

So the obvious pairing is the Earth simulator with wireless sensor networks ('smart dust'). In that way the fake Earth can be made to mirror the real Earth. Intelligence gathering then becomes a matter of observing the fake Earth (provided the sensors can be trusted).

No doubt the temptation will then be to build robotic weapons that take their orders from the fake Earth. That way soldiers can fight from the safety of the fake Earth while real people get killed on the real battle field.

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by Ariane+6 · 2004-02-23 11:39 · Score: 1

England had a long and bloody Civil War. Pick up a history book sometime.

So to with Sports by bobobobo · 2004-02-23 11:45 · Score: 1

Sports also fall under the same category. One team versus the other, get from one side to the other, conquer territory, strategy, physical and mental accumen. It's all there.

In The Beginning by Flwyd · 2004-02-23 13:29 · Score: 1

In the beginning, God created Kuwait City. The Earth was without form and void. And God said "Let there be energy," and and oil was moving across the face of the waters. -- Ge 1. ...

"You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with oil and honey." -- Le 20:24.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

War, what is it good for? by AP31R0N · 2004-02-23 15:47 · Score: 1

@ War never solved any problem... well, except for ending the british occupation of america, ending slavery in america, end the german conquest of europe (TWICE), end the holocaust against the jews, keep the southern half of korea free, liberate kuwait from iraq, liberate afganistan from the taliban, liberate iraq from saddam.... @ THERE *ARE* EVIL PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD, EVIL PEOPLE WILL USE VIOLENCE, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR MORALS OR YOUR PACIFISM @ The unwashed ignorami think that if we just hug them enough and talk long enough that the evil doers will change their ways... and REALITY has proven this wrong 99.9999999% of the time. SOMETIMES THE ONLY WAY TO STOP EVIL IS BY FORCE. @ And *no*, i am NOT saying that violence is good, or that it should be the first option, or even the tenth. But it is childish to assume that if your heart is full of enough love and THC that the bad guys will behave. Sometimes you have to kill them or at least hurt them enough to make them stop. ! @ Ask a serial rapist which is more effective at stopping him: a) "please don't hurt me because I'm so nice" b) Swift Kick to the Groin @ When option A fails, one must be prepared to apply option B, OR become the next victim.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!

Re:I'll have to disagree with the premise behind t by bigmattana · 2004-02-23 16:18 · Score: 1

But you CAN work to establish and support governments that are NOT based upon religious teachings and that DO have rights for women.

First off, how do WE go about working to establish these governments in countries who are perfectly happy having these governments? I don't think they are going to let us change their governments other than by force.

Second, we SHOULDN'T try to do so. It is possible to have laws based on religous teachings that don't force religions on people. This is what our country used to be. These are simply morals that certain people believe in. A country should be based on morals that the people in it beleive in. Values that are not based on religion are not necessarily "safer" than ones that are. You don't have to go back far in history to see many exmples of this. If we don't understand this, we will never be able to work with the Muslim world, because they understand when they are being looked down on because of their beliefs and values.

Debugging the earth by obeythefist · 2004-02-23 16:57 · Score: 1

But for some reason, the simulator keeps crashing with error messages like "six multiplied by nine" and "fourty-two".

--
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.

Actually... by voss · 2004-02-23 17:25 · Score: 1

It was britain who started the shooting in the revolutionary war. They are the ones who refused to negotatiate. The colonists did not want independenc e until there was no other realistic choice.

the civil war ended slavery at the cost of 600,000 american lives(5% of the white male population died in that war the equivalent of killing 8 million people today). However most other countries ended slavery without killing half a million people and destroying an entire region in the process.

Iraq started the Gulf war
The taliban came to power through violence
Saddams whole MO was brutality.

There is a diffeence between defending yourself/protecting others versus using violence as a solution to social and economic problems. While you can actually use violence to solve problems the cost of doing so is far higher than other means.

Harsh Realm by O.F.+Fascist · 2004-02-23 18:57 · Score: 1

Anyone ever see that show on Fox called Harsh Realm.

They only showed like 5 or 6 episodes of it before they cancelled it.

This reminds me of that show.

Two words. by ccherlin · 2004-02-23 20:24 · Score: 1

"Harsh Realm".

Link.

best commander breaks enemy resistance w/o force by goon · 2004-02-23 22:31 · Score: 1

"... Overly cautious generals kill more of their own men than overly aggressive generals. The best commanders in history are those who've been able to achieve a remarkable balance between caution and audacity while simultaneously inspiring their men to do things that no sane person should be able to do ..."

No. The best commander(s) are those who coerce their enemy into submission without force.

"... supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting ..."

[Sun Tsu - Pt 2. Attack by Strategem]

--
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup

Re:Once again, NOT ON OUR SHORES.... by Cosmik · 2004-02-24 14:40 · Score: 1

Nowhere did I say that England didn't have a civil war. I'm quite aware of Cromwell et al. I was merely stating countries that are a safer place to live than the USA. For example, I also state Spain in that list, and they had a very bloody civil war only last century in which around 300,000 people died.

My history book collection is fine, thank you. Try reading my post properly sometime.

Re: liar. by mr100percent · 2004-02-27 05:30 · Score: 1

Settle down and listen to the facts.

The majority of Muslims really don't care if the world is run by Sharia or not. How come no terrorists have ever said they hate Canada? or Mexico? Because those countries leave the Muslims alone, they don't interfere in their affairs.

Muslims are trying to reform themselves, their lands and their governments. If they want Shariah, then fine, provided they come to that democratically. Don't confuse what Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan did as Shariah. How come Islamic countries like Malaysia don't have the death penalty for Adultery? Perhaps their concept of Shariah is much better, who knows.

Will you calm down, Muslims want to live in peace with everyone. Stop acting like the majority are terrorists. There is no islamic state, no leader, no emir, no caliph. Therefore they should focus on getting themselves together. I know many so-called "Wahhabis" who live in the US, are good people, and get along fine with their non-Muslim neighbors. Wahhabis condemn terrorism against innocent people.

Slashdot Mirror

US Military Builds MMO Earth Simulator

372 of 525 comments (clear)