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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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 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 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 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 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!

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

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!

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

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 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..)

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?

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 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

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

Why spend all that money?

We already know the answer is 42.

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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 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

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']

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.

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: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?

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

The mice will be furious!

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

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 -

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?"

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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

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.

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."

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...

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.

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

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

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".

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 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.

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

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: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?

Slashdot Mirror

US Military Builds MMO Earth Simulator

113 of 525 comments (clear)