Slashdot Mirror


Google Maps Meets Carmen Sandiego

Craig Miller writes "What better way to end the weekend than by playing a game of Brewster Jennings Protects America? This new game is a Google Maps mashup with the classic 'Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego' style of game. Run around the world trying to stop a terrorist from carrying an attack. Pretty amusing game and it shows what you can do with the Google Maps API and a little imagination." Despite the jingoistic title and concept it's a lot of fun, and quite challenging on hard.

149 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Great by gregbains · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Wow, this is amazing. Shows what innovation and imagination can prduce.

    1. Re:Great by ElleyKitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be better if they gave instructions. Seriously, can you tell me how to play this thing?

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    2. Re:Great by gregbains · · Score: 1

      Not really, but it looked cool ;)

    3. Re:Great by Trejkaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, once you find out the place you need to go to, you're up for a lot of zooming and dragging to pinpoint it. It would be much better (more like a quiz and less like a pixel hunting exercise) if they had a text field so that you could put the location you want in and it zoomed straight to it.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    4. Re:Great by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      How do you find out what place you need to go to?

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    5. Re:Great by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Google the hints. That part's easy.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  2. What in the world by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    is a 'Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego' style of game?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:What in the world by Celsius+233 · · Score: 3, Informative

      May I refer you to Wikipedia?

      --
      Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
    2. Re:What in the world by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was an early series of educational computer games for youngsters in which they had to figure out (with the help of an included encyclopaedia) clues in order to locate master criminal Carmen Sandiago.
      Google ref

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:What in the world by Traegorn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know whether to feel too old or too young for this comment.

    4. Re:What in the world by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1

      I remember playing where in Europe is Carmen Sandiego on my family's Apple IIe. I also remember the TV show...with the awesome Chief and the "Rockapella" group. Good times, good times...

      --
      I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
    5. Re:What in the world by GeoffP · · Score: 1

      I watched that show, too. I even have the soundtrack (with a bunch of Rockapella music).

    6. Re:What in the world by BenFranske · · Score: 1

      FYI Rockapella is a real group and is actually quite popular overseas (Japan I think) they have several CDs out. I do wish someone would replay the PBS game show series though...

    7. Re:What in the world by brunes69 · · Score: 1
      It was also a really cool TV show,/a> on PBS when I was young.

      Of course I also remember the PC game, which the TV show was a spin-off of.

    8. Re:What in the world by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, IIRC the prize was like a flight or vacation to some remote country.. PBS doesn't have much money for that sort of thing, so I imagine they made it very difficult :P

  3. World Dominance for Google by Open API by Transcendor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yet another example of perfect marketing by Google:
    1.make a more-than-average type of product, and establish it on the market.
    2.Make everyone use it.
    2.1Do that by quality
    2.2 by offering the best possible solution for someone who just wants to USE it
    2.3 by being the one who lets other people use it (by offering an API)
    TADA
    3. World Dominance
    I don't hate Google, but isn't it a bit a strange thing that "fair use" methods like "letting others use your product for both's advantage" leads to some kind of strange quasi-monopolism?
    is that something the Open-Source-Community has to worry about?


    Don't let the facts bite you. Get bitten here instead.

    1. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by th0mas.sixbit.org · · Score: 2, Funny

      2.1 is definitely a non-functional requirement, I'm going to dock you points for putting it in your use case...

      --
      twitter.com/gravitronic
    2. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by Seumas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where does CCH Pounder fit into all of this?

      (Obscure...?)

    3. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Note to self: make world dominance game with Google Maps.

      (Risk clone?)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Most of what was put there does apply to Microsoft, and look at there little game of monopoly. Everyones uses it cause they can use it.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    5. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yep. And now she plays the Detective / Captain on The Shield.

      Man, the TV version of Where In The World was just so awful. It just made me want to crawl through my television so I could beat all of the idiot children to death.

      Oh.. and don't forget, they had the house-band Rockapella . . Hah! Oh god the 90s were horrible.

    6. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by cgenman · · Score: 1

      You forgot that it should be pushed by a company that is already directly in the public's eye. Google can launch Google Maps and have the world's passing attention, but who would go to maps.northernlight.com? There are things out there better than google, but you wouldn't know it unless you had done a deep and broad search.

      BTW, your plot for world domination reduces to:
      Make the best possible solution for users with an open API.
      Which, while nice, hasn't saved everybody.

    7. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by humina · · Score: 1

      Too bad it backfired. I couldn't find the first clue, decided I didn't want to play the game, and left not thinking too highly of google or the Carmen like game.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    8. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

      Near as I can tell, that link is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Is there any reason you included it? You should consider using it in a signature, unless you want to mislead people or bump up your google rank or something.

    9. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by skiddie · · Score: 1

      Awful? WTF? I used to run home from school with my sister to watch that show. I'll never forget Reykjavik thanks to that early iteration of edu-tainment.

    10. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      What are you people who criticize Google for producing a good product and giving it away smoking? Would you rather they charge insanely high prices for garbage?

      Are you really saying that the Open Source community needs to look at Google as a threat because of this? Now everyone who produces something and gives it away is evil? Is it just because it isn't Open Source?

    11. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      She'll be released at the End of Days :-D

    12. Re:World Dominance for Google by Open API by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      No. Google is just upping the ante; other companies are free to follow (or even outinnovate Google). If they can't or don't want to (or simply don't for some other reason), well... that's not really Google's fault, as long as Google does not use anticompetitive business tactics etc. do prevent or hinder competition.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  4. Whoa by isaf · · Score: 3, Funny

    This would be so much cooler with real time satellite feeds and orbital laser command at your control

    1. Re:Whoa by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd prefer a satalite that consists of an mirror array. Then I'd just need to breed some super intelligent ants to control it...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  5. Jingoistic? by Toasty981 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jingoistic? So the desire to protect America is extremely nationalistic?

    Either that, or Zonk has no idea what the word means.

    1. Re:Jingoistic? by Toasty981 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Separate discussion, but fair enough.

      I didn't get to see it before the server went down, but it almost reads like you're chasing down a guy like bin Laden...i.e. someone that definitely qualifies as wanting to cause harm.

      Of course, I think I'm taking this way too far at this point!

      (As far as the separate discussion goes, with regards to Iran, I found this link on AndrewSullivan.com. Interesting stuff...Iran scares me more than Iraq for sure, especially given the recent comments about Isreal. Scary stuff.)

    2. Re:Jingoistic? by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I find it funny that you're all bent up about people causing harm to you, but you're just as eager to cause harm to others (be them bin Laden or Iran).

      After all, Iran should be equally scared of America. The American government resorted to props and obviously fake pictures to build up their "case" against Iraq. Remember Powell in front of the U.N.?

      Don't paint yourself as the victim. You're not, and the world knows it.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:Jingoistic? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the Clinton or Kennedy Administrations never ever did anything unprovoked or invasionary.

      Yea, it's all Bush doing this illegal and unprovoked stuff.

      As for Iraq not posing a threat to the United States, thats not what Clinton, Gore and the majority of the United States House and Senate thought from 1990 to 2002.

    4. Re:Jingoistic? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      You're the only one coming up with the idea that it is just the Republicans who are scummy. It's the Democrats, too. But then again, the Democrats and Republicans are virtually indistinguishable, and have been for a long time. The one common interest they do not represent is that of the American people.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    5. Re:Jingoistic? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...the unprovoked invasion of sovereign nations which posed no threat to America.

      With the recent sabre-rattling directed at Iran and Syria, the definition of "protect" might become even more perverted and twisted.


      I'm curious - what do you think was going on with Iraq for the last 15+ years? And what do you think Syria and Iran has been doing during that same time?

      I'm no fan of the Bush Administration and am not keen to defend it's actions. However, I also find it a little odd that you use language that makes other players sound like innocent victoms of a bully superpower.
    6. Re:Jingoistic? by Olix · · Score: 1

      Hang on a sec, I am pretty sure America was very big on Eliminating all traces of Communisn from the world in the last half centuary. Surely if America's Consumerism and Capitalism is a way of life, then Communism is also?

    7. Re:Jingoistic? by blibbler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What was going on in Iraq for the last 15 years did not threaten the US in the slightest. There was no connection between Iraq and the four hijacked planes on 11th of September 2001. Osama Bin Laden reportedly hated Sadam because he maintained a relatively secular country. Even if the arguments of weapons of mass destruction were true, they wouldn't pose any threat to the US, or any other western country. Beyond that, Iraq's armed forces were relatively underpowered compared to many of the regional countries due to years of sanctions.
      I don't think that anyone would argue that Sadam was a nice character, but he was far from the worst leader, even in the region. Additionally there are many other countries that are in far worse shape, and treat their people a lot worse than Iraq that have not received any attention from the US

      In summary, I don't think anyone would argue that Sadam was innocent, but there is no doubt that the US was a bully superpower.

    8. Re:Jingoistic? by quantax · · Score: 2

      Actually, the issue is not whether Iraq was a threat; of course it was a threat so long as Saddam was the head of the state. The question is whether he was an immanent threat. We now know he was not and there are questions about the portrayal of him as such.

      --
      "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
    9. Re:Jingoistic? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      There was no connection between Iraq and the four hijacked planes on 11th of September 2001. Osama Bin Laden reportedly hated Sadam because he maintained a relatively secular country.

      Agreed.
      Even if the arguments of weapons of mass destruction were true, they wouldn't pose any threat to the US, or any other western country.

      This I don't agree with. Iraq, under the Sadam regime, became a threat when it attempted to expand its borders. It has continued to be a threat since then. And while any Iraqi involvement with terrorism is, put generously, dubious... it doesn't mean they're suddenly innocent.
      I don't think that anyone would argue that Sadam was a nice character, but he was far from the worst leader, even in the region. Additionally there are many other countries that are in far worse shape, and treat their people a lot worse than Iraq that have not received any attention from the US

      None the less, Sadam did miscalculate by invading Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia. Then attempt to circumvent the stipulations of Cease Fire... misappropriate funds at the expense of his own people's welfare... not to mention attempt assasination of a US President (we won't even go in to the shennanigans being played in the No Fly Zones in Nothern and Southern Iraq). What we see now is the outcome of a state of war that has been ongoing since 1990. Granted, that's hard to tell from what's coming out of the Bush Administration's press office.
    10. Re:Jingoistic? by JahToasted · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm curious - what do you think was going on with Iraq for the last 15+ years? And what do you think Syria and Iran has been doing during that same time?

      Well the US support the Shah of Iran who was a corrupt dictator. The people of Iran revolted. So the US started supporting Saddam Hussein, another corrupt dictator, fight a brutal war against Iran. The US sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and told him where to drop them. Since he wasn't really going anywhere in his bloody war against Iran Saddam made peace with Iran. So the US stopped supporting Saddam. Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, which the US used to get a foothold in Saudi Arabia. The US wisely didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War because the pentagon knew the casualties would be too high.

      Later, with absolutely no mandate from the UN or NATO, very few allies (with the exception of the UK), and no occupation plan, the US invaded Iraq.

      US plays dirty and it comes back to bite them in the ass. This seems to keep happening over and over again. You'd think you guys would learn a lesson...

    11. Re:Jingoistic? by whoop · · Score: 1

      Iraq ceased being a sovereign nation in 1991. As the troops were closing in on Baghdad, Saddam aggreed to some stipulations and was allowed to remain in power. He was to abide by the rules established, then he could have his country back.

      It just so happens when the UN officials were supposed to be monitoring these stipulations, they also got into the oil bribing business. So for twelve years, they didn't particularly care whether Saddam actually dismantled any weapons, provided proof he had, etc.

      Iraq was attacked not solely because Bush is macho, a vendetta for his father or whatever, but because there was this agreement from back then. How many times must Saddam be told "Do it or else" over twelve years?

      Despite all the political hoopla around the world, there have been no official sanctions brought on the US, like there would if we attacked another country for truely no reason. Attacking Iran or North Korea right now would be significantly harder to justify...

    12. Re:Jingoistic? by operagost · · Score: 1

      If we had not attacked Iraq, then the leftists would be accusing the USA of being cold, callous, and unfeeling towards the downtrodden Iraqis-- especially the Kurds, against whom Saddam unleashed genocidal attacks.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:Jingoistic? by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      In other words:

      You're an idiot.


      You really don't understand the history of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, it extends back to before Islam was even a dehydration induced wetdream of Muhammad - when it was then the Isrealites against both the Philistines and the Sea Peoples of modern day Syria and Egypt. Only now has this orgy of blood and spit taken on the face of Islam instead of the other random social and political movements of the middle east. It's a territorial dispute where both sides are just as vicious, however one side (the underdogs) decided in the last 50 or so years to use tactics that the west doesn't deem "humane". Israel just happened to have the backing of the UK and the US to begin with...so of course our politicians and (for the most part) mainstream media will back them. Realize that while Islam has pledged to wipe Israel off the map, so too have the majority of Israeli Jews pledged to destroy all traces of Islam from Israel, as well as move into other lands in the Tigris and Euphrates valley that were the Mythical seats of the seven tribes of Israel. Plenty of Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli guns to match the children killed by suicide bombers.

      As far as wanting to destroy the west for being "decadent", that's more a statment against the greed and power of leaders, their double-handedness (a HUGE problem for Muslims. A man should have Honor and keep his word...something we did not do in the 80's during the Afghanistan conflict. We used them to fight Russia then spat in their face. THAT is what pissed off Bin Laden and the rest over there and Afghanistan). It's also an incitation of civil unrest amongst the common American citizen. The stereotype that it's because we let our chicks show their mugs is sensationalism. There are plenty of women in Syria, Lebanon, and even Iran that show their faces (and more) and don't get decapitated on the streets because of it. This is, as all wars, a political one. Radical Islam just happens to know how to get our panties in a bunch. Ignore them, laugh at them, they'll go away. Call them genocidal hate mongers and they'll just keep going.

      You see, they're effective social engineers. That's all they are.

      You, sir, and an Uninformed, brainwashed idiot.

    14. Re:Jingoistic? by Psykosys · · Score: 2
      Because the Clinton or Kennedy Administrations never ever did anything unprovoked or invasionary.
      Clinton did do "invasionary" things, just on a much smaller scale. Kennedy indeed escalated the war in Vietnam, which probably also met the definition of invasive. But neither he nor Clinton repeatedly lied to justify their own war/invasion.
      As for Iraq not posing a threat to the United States, thats not what Clinton, Gore and the majority of the United States House and Senate thought from 1990 to 2002.
      And you'll notice that they didn't declare a second Gulf War during that time; further, that virtual disarmament was confirmed during this period and that it became inceasingly clear as time progressed that there were no weapons.
    15. Re:Jingoistic? by Kent+Simon · · Score: 1

      ok, i'll burn some karma :P
      if we waited until Iraq was an immenent threat, wouldn't that imply many more losses of life due to war?
      personally i'd rather fight a war where less Americans, and Iraqi citizens are killed, than wait until a country builds to the point that they ARE an immenent threat.

      --
      Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
    16. Re:Jingoistic? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      If the Iraq fiasco was about eliminating threats to America, there were many more that had priority. North Korea's nuclear program was well-established as a real thing, and they test-fired an empty missile that landed in Alaska. If it was for humanitarian reasons, other places like Darfur took precedence. If it was for solving regional conflict that was aggravating the area, then Israel-Palestine would take precedence.

      Also, the anger is over the US administration claiming that Iraq as an "imminent threat" that "there is a link between Iraq and what happened on 9/11" and that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Africa. All of these proved completely false. The American people were promised that it wouldn't take more troops to keep the peace than to win the war, and that Iraq would finance itself, and that Americans would be greeted as liberators.

    17. Re:Jingoistic? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      North Korea attempted to expand its borders, but why was it considered less of a threat than Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes to threaten with.

      The attempted assassination of a US president? You mean the alleged plot that an Iraqi man confessed under torture by Kuwaitis? The man was allegedly angry because he lost his family to a US bombing strike. Aside from the fact that people will say anything under torture, how does this link to Iraq? A lone vigilante doesn't have any link to the government of Iraq.

    18. Re:Jingoistic? by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      No, I can insult it. I'm also on it's side here in this particular case. I'm against the proto-nazi extermination of Muslims simply because they piss a few people off from time to time.

    19. Re:Jingoistic? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Well the US support the Shah of Iran who was a corrupt dictator. The people of Iran revolted. So the US started supporting Saddam Hussein, another corrupt dictator, fight a brutal war against Iran. The US sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and told him where to drop them. Since he wasn't really going anywhere in his bloody war against Iran Saddam made peace with Iran. So the US stopped supporting Saddam.

      Amazing what's happened in the last 15 years. :P But I suppose you have to go back a ways to get perspective. With that in mind, you missed a few points.

      First - I would hate to have someone misunderstand you and believe the US invented an Iraq-Iran war. This conflict had been brewing for decades, if not centuries. Neither side of that conflict are without fault. Although it was Iraq who were ultimately decided as the aggressors. US support for Iraq came a couple years after the beginning of the war. The US had decided that the dictator in Iraq was far more preferable to the dictator in Iran - and little wonder why (at least from their perspective).

      It would also be a mistake to interpret that US involvement as the primary support for Iraq. The vast majority of arms came from the Soviet Union with additional support from France, China, Germany, and Egypt. There was financial backing from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia among other Arab states. In comparison, US support was fairly minor. What's notable was that this support was also largely clandestine in nature - leading to some degree of scandal (arms sales to Iran lead to an earlier scandal).

      The Iraq-Iran war is extremely costly for both sides. It's little wonder that hostilities would eventually cease as neither side was gaining anything to justify the cost. Oddly enough, Iraq had offered to end the war in '82 but Iran continued its attacks in the Iraqi government and so the war continued another 6 years.

      That the US stopped supporting Saddam seems to fall in line with (most) of Saddam's other supporters. It also falls in line with other major geopolitical events such as the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. I would hesitate to point to Iraq's bargain with Iran as a sole reason the US began changing its attitude towards Iraq.

      Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, which the US used to get a foothold in Saudi Arabia.

      I agree with the statement. US involvement in Saudi Arabia always seemed like inviting Uncle Earnie over to help with some heavy lifting only to find him still crashing out on the couch 3 months later.

      Having said that - your statement does tend to gloss over why the US was there to begin with and what it did. And it conveniently does so without having to mention any support for US involvement during the time period.

      The US wisely didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War because the pentagon knew the casualties would be too high.

      You might want to note that the US did, in fact, invade Iraq. But they wisely didn't roll in to Baghdad for a number of reasons. Casualties would be one point. Not wishing to completely dismantle Iraq's standing military (a gift to Iran) would be another. And ultimately, avoiding the mess of dealing with ousting Saddam is the major one. It would have been nice to see the Iraqis handle Saddam on their own.

      Later, with absolutely no mandate from the UN or NATO, very few allies (with the exception of the UK), and no occupation plan, the US invaded Iraq.

      Saddam is ruthless and resourceful. Not only did he outlast his opponents, he managed to defy the UN and to some extent flourish. It would end up taking direct involvement after all - 13 years later. True - this was done without the support of a decade ago. But then, scandals like the Oil for Food Program and financial links as well as military equipment support from Iraq's largest supporters and critics of US actions..

    20. Re:Jingoistic? by blibbler · · Score: 1

      I think you are mistaking hippies for leftists/liberals. It is similar to the distinction between feminists and man-haters. In the hippies' defense, most of that evil kurd-killing happened in the 80s when Iraq was the West's (and especially the USA's) bestest buddy.

    21. Re:Jingoistic? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      North Korea attempted to expand its borders, but why was it considered less of a threat than Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes to threaten with.

      What attempt to expand its borders? Perhaps you've missed the Korean War? Or was there another invasion that I missed?

      In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with Iraq. You're not advocating invasion of North Korea, are you? Or are you claiming that the situation with Iraq is identical to the one on the Korean peninsula? I agree that there are some interesting simularities. But there are also considerable differences between the two. One major point is that, as far as I know, North Korea has not violated terms of their cease fire agreement (not that things are all rosey - ask anyone who's served in South Korea).
      The attempted assassination of a US president? You mean the alleged plot that an Iraqi man confessed under torture by Kuwaitis? The man was allegedly angry because he lost his family to a US bombing strike. Aside from the fact that people will say anything under torture, how does this link to Iraq? A lone vigilante doesn't have any link to the government of Iraq.

      There is more evidence than just a man facing execution (torture, while possible and even likely, is speculation). But I agree that there is some question as to whether Iraqi intelligence was really involved.
    22. Re:Jingoistic? by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      Jingoistic? So the desire to protect America is extremely nationalistic?

      Teaching geography via the Global War on Terror is certainly paranoid, I'm not sure it's jingoistic, exactly. It's no better than the demonization of commies in the 1950s.

      He's a rule of thumb for you on the whole "terrorism" thing. Ask yourself this: If I change the word "terrorist" to "communist" and pretend it's happening during the fifties, do I laugh at the poor paranoid fools?

      Let's try it.

      "The story so far: You are an undercover CIA agent, in the 1950s, claiming to work for the fictitious "Brewster Jennings & Associates" company. You were just awoken at three in the morning by a phone call from The Chief telling you to report to your office immediately. From what he told you it looks like a communist attack is set for today and you are the country's last and only hope. Click 'Start New Game'. It's time to save America."

      Yup, out loud.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    23. Re:Jingoistic? by aug24 · · Score: 2, Funny
      One major point is that, as far as I know, North Korea has not violated terms of their cease fire agreement

      I think you misspelt "has nukes and no oil" ;-)

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    24. Re:Jingoistic? by MullerMn · · Score: 1

      Is there an internet law that covers the fact that when you put a word in bold you are moire likely to misspell it?

    25. Re:Jingoistic? by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 1

      Technically, the Shah was more of a king because there were previous Shahs going back hundreds of years. His repressions started after someone tried to usurp the throne (thus culminating in the 1979 revolution).

    26. Re:Jingoistic? by Evangelion · · Score: 1

      Later, with absolutely no mandate from the UN or NATO, very few allies (with the exception of the UK), and no occupation plan, the US invaded Iraq.

      You forgot Poland!

    27. Re:Jingoistic? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Why would Iraqi intelligence support an assassination attempt, when everyone knows Iraq would be blamed (right after Gulf War) and would lead to a sequel of the Gulf War (which no Iraqi wanted after losing so bad). It's just an accusation, and I don't take it as credible, and certainly not cause enough for a full-scale invasion and war in which 20,000+ (by US military count, which is the minimum) civillians died.

      If that's the case, why didn't we invade Cuba or nuke Russia for being somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination?

    28. Re:Jingoistic? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      so there were no communist spies in the govt and they never had nuclear missisles aimed at us? Just like how there is no terrorist threat?

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    29. Re:Jingoistic? by Kent+Simon · · Score: 1

      the fact remains that North Korea is not stupid enough to actually attack us. And we are smart enough not to do anything about them, China is too big of a risk. We know that there was bad money getting to terrorist groups from Iraq, we know they hated us, and we know they'd jump at any chance to be an immanent threat.

      --
      Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
    30. Re:Jingoistic? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Why would Iraqi intelligence support an assassination attempt, when everyone knows Iraq would be blamed (right after Gulf War) and would lead to a sequel of the Gulf War (which no Iraqi wanted after losing so bad).

      Because Saddam ordered them to. Saddam has certainly taken steps that defied rational thought and advice. Saddam has a personal grudge against (now) the Bush family. Besides, if the bomb had been set off as it was supposed to be, there would have been even less evidence to point back to Iraq. Especially when there are so many others one could point a finger at being the source of such an attack.
      It's just an accusation, and I don't take it as credible, and certainly not cause enough for a full-scale invasion and war in which 20,000+ (by US military count, which is the minimum) civillians died.

      I don't see it as justification for an all-out attack either. But it does provide some circumstantial evidence towards the view that Iraq was hardly an innocent country, cow-towed by the Gulf War, and posing no threat to the world around it.

      And I don't buy that this was some kind of personal Bush vendetta.
      If that's the case, why didn't we invade Cuba or nuke Russia for being somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination?

      Next, you'll be demanding an immediate retaliatory off-world strike for invasion and abduction of US citizens. :P
    31. Re:Jingoistic? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      the fact remains that Iraq was not stupid enough to actually attack us. And we weren't smart enough not to do anything about them, destabilizing the region by doing it unilaterally was a risk. We know that there was very weak and circumstantial evidence connecting terrorist groups to Iraq, we know that Osama Bin Laden called Saddam Hussein an "infidel" because Saddam Hussein was secular and executed people who went to the mosque too often, and we ignored the evidence against WMDs.

    32. Re:Jingoistic? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      ...one of several major or splinter terrorist groups operating in the region.... or even, say, a lone vigilante.

  6. I guess... by Nolkyan · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Brewster Jennings couldn't stop the incoming terrorist attack on his server...

  7. FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ok so NASA World Wind gets high resolution terrain mapped Moon data, lots of people submit the article to /. all get rejected, someone makes a game for google and /. say "WOW OMFG how cool we mustwrite an article"

  8. The only thing I found by 13bPower · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that Bostons roads are REALLY messed up.

    1. Re:The only thing I found by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Even if it is one of the most advanced systems in the world. If I am not mistaken, the highways even can tell how fast traffic is travling, and divert some of it through private roads.

    2. Re:The only thing I found by swimin · · Score: 1

      Youve never driven in Boston. I can't believe the roads are intelligent if they can't be bothered to have street signs.

  9. Google Earth games too by Lord+Satri · · Score: 5, Informative

    OgleEarth points to three games involving GoogleEarth, Earth Contest, GoogleEarthing and GEwar. Taken from http://industry.slashgisrs.org/article.pl?sid=05/1 0/07/134251

  10. Jingoism by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Insightful

    extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy (source m-w.com)

    I don't really think of this as Jingoism. Fighting terrorists to prevent them from killing people in your country (particularly after they've done things like, say that they want to kill people in your country, is pretty natural.

    Jingoism might be things like shooting illegal immigrants trying to run across the border from Mexico, such as the Minutemen are accused of doing. Notice the difference.

    1. Re:Jingoism by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      You're right, that was flamebait. Clarifying that protecting your country is not jingoism, while killing people who are relatively innocent is jingoism. Thanks for the mod. Of course, Zonk wasn't at all pitching some flamebait in the article.

    2. Re:Jingoism by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Jingoism might be things like shooting illegal immigrants trying to run across the border from Mexico, such as the Minutemen are accused of doing. Notice the difference."

      WTF I know slashdot has a leftist slant, but can you provide any links? how many illegals have been shot? any facts to back up that accusation?

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    3. Re:Jingoism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, dipshit, the Minutemen are 1) sitting on private property with the consent of the owners, 2) observing, and 3) contacting the border patrol upon sighting illegal border crossers. In fact they've even dismissed volunteers who show up with indications of an itchy trigger finger. The Minutemen are accused of a lot of things, mainly by those with an ethnic axe to grind who don't want to see our immigration laws enforced. Got any actual proof? No? That's what I thought.

      If the Minutemen are vigilantes, then so is your neighbor down the street who calls the cops because he sees somebody stealing your car.

    4. Re:Jingoism by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Accused. I didn't say that they were doing it.

      I believe in the enforcement of the law. I'm not trying to say that we should permit lawbreaking activity. I just said that they were accused of such.

  11. The Perils of being slashdotted by calvin1981 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Update (Oct 30, 2005): Oh crap, here comes the Slashdotting.. The server probably won't be able to take the beating so if the game doesn't work now bookmark us and return in a few days time. Sorry! - Craig

    This is from BrewsterJennings.com.

  12. Terrorist attack? Oh, great... by MicroPat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Run around the world trying to stop a terrorist from carrying an attack. Expect a full-fledged investigation from the Patriot Act police soon.

  13. They did a poor job at teaching history. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Such games never really taught history. Yes, they taught you dates and names, but nothing serious. They never were able to delve into the complex socio-political situations that caused or arose from historic events. They never taught how to discern tainted or biased historic information from legitimate reports.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:They did a poor job at teaching history. by nosredna · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair, neither did history class in high school.

    2. Re:They did a poor job at teaching history. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting it would. The education systems of many western nations are quite lacking these days. It's not surprising that the vast majority of young people are completely ignorant of history.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:They did a poor job at teaching history. by patternjuggler · · Score: 1

      The education systems of many western nations are quite lacking these days. It's not surprising that the vast majority of young people are completely ignorant of history.

      When exactly was it where the western nations did have great proportions of people well-versed with history? Public education hasn't been around for much more than a century at least in the U.S., so sometime in the 20th century?

      In my experience, there are two types of people who spout off on the 'they don't teach history well anymore' troll:

      Those who are simply old, and who encounter young people who don't know about things they didn't have the benefit of being alive to hear about when it was news.

      The well-educated (and also relatively old), either by being born to the well-off or an accident of geography or because they took a personal interest in self-education through books or whatever. For all their superior education they still express surprise when encountering younger people who did not enjoy the same good fortune as they did, and then make the simple minded assumption that the education system is going down the tubes.

      I'm not really sure what the point of the troll is, other than to say 'I am knowledgeable and wise and you or most other people aren't, so therefore they should respect my opinion more than their uninformed one and that is why nobody has fixed the other things wrong with the country today...'.

    4. Re:They did a poor job at teaching history. by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC, it was mostly a geography game, and we played it when we were in 4-5th grade. Getting 4th and 5th graders to know the locations of various countries, cities, and landmarks on a map is all they were striving for, and that they succeeded at that goal is quite an accomplishment in itself. It also succeeds at teaching kids how to use reference materials. The games came with almanacs and desk encyclopedias so that the player could look up the answers. I think that is quite often the case that knowing how to find an answer is a more important skill than knowing anything else. As information continues to become more and more readily accessible, what's the big deal if it's not all stored locally in the user's brain?

    5. Re:They did a poor job at teaching history. by SlartibartfastJunior · · Score: 1

      this Brewster Jennings game is great for "real" map skills! Instead of showing kids "look, you can use a piece of paper to discover locations you already know and don't need a map for," I could see this being used as a classroom demonstration that in theory, all maps ARE connected. That's something that gets overlooked - maps show what you want them to show, for the segment of the earth you want them to show it - but now that we're not restricted to data "locked in" on paper, there is no reason kids shouldn't learn how a fluid map system works.

    6. Re:They did a poor job at teaching history. by Jardine · · Score: 2, Funny

      IIRC, it was mostly a geography game, and we played it when we were in 4-5th grade. Getting 4th and 5th graders to know the locations of various countries, cities, and landmarks on a map is all they were striving for, and that they succeeded at that goal is quite an accomplishment in itself.

      I remember playing it in 9th grade...in French. That just added a whole new level of difficulty to the game.

  14. Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? by x0dus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google helped me found her.. She's in Cairo, Egypt.

  15. Why in the hell by dknj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    would you submit your site to slashdot when you already know you can't handle a slashdotting? Seriously, he submitted the article then writes on his site "here comes the slashdotting, come back later".

    Just my $0.02

    1. Re:Why in the hell by Wisgary · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because it will get people to look at it... ? I think that's the point, server crash or not. People will still come back later out of curiosity, and he'll get the publicity he wants.

  16. Re:Jingoist title? by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then again, perhaps if anyone knew where the name "Brewster Jennings" came from, it might put things in a different perspective.

  17. For Cheaters by scienceguy55 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    To get a rediculous amount of time left, type the following into yor address bar
    javascript:void(min=99999999);
    . To submit as the high score, type:
    javascript:void(hi_score(true));
    .
    1. Re:For Cheaters by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      What address bar?


      While it is true that the adress bar is hidden in the game window, there are ways to get around that. For example, IE allows pressing CTRL-N to open a new window, which normally contains the contents of the previous window (or it can be confiured to do so.)

      Mozilla does not have any visible feature to open the page.

      I'm not sure about Opera, Konqueror or other browsers as they are not installed at this time. However, I know that Lynx still has an address bar, but it isn't useful as it does not support Javascript.

  18. Re:Does anyone remember Punky Brewster ? by Transcendor · · Score: 1

    no.

  19. Re:Jingoist title? by mako1138 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it's the name of the front company that Valerie Plame used as cover.

    When you've got a fictitious company protecting America, the title isn't "jingoistic": it's just a joke.

  20. Tip by daniil · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you want to find out where she is hiding herself right now, just ask Google: Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    1. Re:Tip by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Cairo

  21. Re:Does anyone remember Punky Brewster ? by pooly7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ho yeah ! It was even shown on french TV... What's the link with Carmen Sandiego ?

  22. Are we missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, holy fuck, it's a game, not a goddamned graduate level course at Yale!

    1. Re:Are we missing something? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are missing something. You're missing the fact that merely knowing dates and names is not a clear understanding of history.

      One should not think that they know the subject just because they played such a game.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  23. Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    So the American military was just walking down the boulevard one day, window gazing, and then all of a sudden the meander into a full-fledged war with Iraq? Of course they deliberately attacked Iraq!

    America has never expressed a desire to eliminate an entire way of life or people.

    We hear on a daily basis how America would like to eradicate various extremists. Like it or not, they are people, and they have chosen a particular way of life. Yet you're all into destroying them. Frankly, I'm appalled by all such behaviour, be it from an American or an Arab.

    And thank you for the ad hominem attack. That seals the victory for me!

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by qeveren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you folks would simply stop overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with psychotic tin-pot dictators for your own economic advantage, you wouldn't need to keep going back and overthrowing them every few years, now would you?

      Yes yes, survival of the fittest. Ever notice how it's always the bully that espouses this philosophy?

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    2. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

      Please cite the numerous examples of America overthrowing peaceful democratic nations? Im not saying we havent pulled our share of shit - every county has. And its true we have supported nasty rulers from time to time (just like every other county has) But comapred to the Imperialism that built modern Britian and France, or the naked agression displayed by Germany or Japan, America looks like an angel in comparison.

      And If you dont think that when cultures clash it's survival of the toughest and most resiliant, then you and I are on different planets. It's a self evident fact. Has nothing to do with being a bully. What do you live in a bubble or something?

    3. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      South Korea, eh? Ah well, all them yellers are alike.

    4. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

      Come on know you its clear I meant North Korea..I just mistyped it. I did mention NK several times in that post and others. Implying that I can't tell the difference or dont care is a pathetically cheap shot and you know it.

      Of course whenever the Left is up against anything they dont like they are the first ones to call people names. Aginst illegal immigration? well then you're a racist. Against gay marriage, well of course you must be a homophobe. Against Muslim Radicals getting their hands on nukes? Well that makes you a jingoistic hate monger. pathetic...

      Those accusations carry no weight when used by the Left. The sooner everyone learns to laugh at, and ignore, those accusations the better off we all be.

    5. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Left? I'm an Anarchist, sir. I would appreciate if you didn't call me names as I care not for your silly political classifications. I make up my own mind rather than follow a neatly laid path of talking points and illogical historical missconnections.

    6. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Just incase you didn't get my reply, i just pointed out how you called me a name that I don't appreciate when I did nothing of the sort. I just pointed out a cute little freudian slip. So, from this little diatribe you went on, I can only conclude that you're a leftist.

      So, hows it going over there in commieland, yah pinko?! Wand some hammers and sicles to go with your tea?!

      For the record, the words North and South are two letters appart, which are placed at fairly distant locations on the keyboard. Perhaps this is a conspiracy that the left has forced on you, so that everone sees you as something you're not...a lefty disinformationalist! OH THE HORROR!

      For the record, I am left handed. Biatch.

    7. Re:Your ad hominem attack gives me the victory! by sp0rk173 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, you have much to learn about anarchy. It's not all about slashing and burning. That's what makes democracies.

  24. For those who are wondering .. by calvin1981 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Brewster Jennings and co. is a "real" company. The CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose cover was blown for political reasons, "worked" for Brewster Jennings.

    1. Re:For those who are wondering .. by pakora+nosey · · Score: 1

      No shit, Sherlock! :rolleyes:

  25. Re:Don't Be An Ignorant Twat. by Olix · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I was uniformed. But can't you argue like an adult rather than a message board troll? Also, what makes you so sure that there were not Americans 50 years ago who did advocate "killing all the communists". America is a country of what, 650million people? Amoung that number there would be people who thought executing Communist party officals would be the only way to ensure the security of their way of life, particularly doing McCarthy's Red Scare in the 50's.

    Islam is practiced by 1.3billion people world wide. Don't you think they are allowed their share of extremists also?

  26. Good training material by hasrat · · Score: 1

    Lets get all the CIA/FBI hooked to this and they might get a bit better at their jobs. BTW, I have failed in saving 3 major cities in my attempts at this game. My apologies to the residents.

  27. Brewster Jennings & Associates by Rufus211 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    In case you're wondering what the name Brewster Jennings refers to, it's the CIA shell company that was exposed along with Valerie Plame's identity.

  28. What I really loved. by ToeNipples · · Score: 2, Funny

    My favorite part of this game was looking up the word "jingoistic".

    --
    So says ToeNipples
  29. Where is Charles Manson? by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

    Thank god this has Slashdot's attention, maybe now someone can tell me where Charles Manson is imprisoned?

    It's the first step in one of the sequences, and I could not find it. I tried 4 different major California prisons, each of which had been indicated by some research (via Google, natch).

    On a related note, how does hinting work? I turn it on but I see no effect.

    1. Re:Where is Charles Manson? by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but Alcatraz stopped being a prison [checks via google] in 1963, before Manson even committed his crimes. But I tried it anyway -- no dice.

    2. Re:Where is Charles Manson? by InsideTheAsylum · · Score: 1

      Oh man, this was on the news a while back... They were considering placing MJ in the same place... it sounds quite nice for a prison, they have open cells, a lounge, tvs, and so on. WTF kind of prison is that?

    3. Re:Where is Charles Manson? by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      He's in Corcoran State Prison in Kings County. That's probably why they were looking to put Jackson there, because it is nearby Neverland. Kinda. Sirhan Sirhan is also imprisoned there. I would think these guys would be at San Quentin, but then, that's reserved for child rapists and murderers...

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  30. The White House by lilmouse · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's right - somethis is missing! A terrorist has stolen the White House! Your job is to track the theif to his hideout, arrest him, and recover the loot! A white man was seen leaving the scene of the crime...

    --LWM

  31. Re:Don't Be An Ignorant Twat. by Olix · · Score: 1

    My parents practice Islam in Britain, and can assure you that they most definitly do not condone the actions of Extremist Terrorists in America an, ideed, Britan. As I stated, there are 1.3 billion practicing Muslims, Muslims in India, Europe, The America's... only a very, very small percentage of them support the attacks against the USA, and only the minority turn a blind eye to these events, so they may live in safety in their countries. Do not assume that "Islamists" (As you say) means only the inhabbitants of several small countries in the Middle East, in the same way you would not assume that "Christian" means inhabbitants of Isreal and perhaps Italy.

  32. Stop With The Stupid Online Journal Buzzwords!!! by obsol33t · · Score: 1

    This new game is a Google Maps mashup with the classic 'Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego' style of game.

    What is wrong with something like:
    "It is a 'Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego' style game that implements google maps."

    Although I hate the word 'podcast', for example, it at least fills a void where a new term was needed. 'Mashup' is a stupid buzzword that essentially means 'combination of', we already have plenty of more informative ways to express this idea (see above).

  33. Jingoistic???? by duncan+bayne · · Score: 1

    Sometimes, SlashDot articles read as though the posters are actually embarassed to be American.

    1. Re:Jingoistic???? by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

      Welcome to LeftDot. Where you been?

  34. Re:Jingoist title? by patternjuggler · · Score: 1

    the title isn't "jingoistic": it's just a joke.

    Calling a joke title jingoistic is a joke. Asking 'why do you hate America so much?' of the person who called the joke title jingoistic is also a joke.

    Of course, the authors of those posts and Zonk may not be in on it (what did Zonk know about Brewster Jennings and when did he know it?), but that makes the whole thing even more funny.

  35. It isn't jingoism by oldCoder · · Score: 1
    Protecting people from getting killed isn't jingoism.

    Wearing a flag is jingoistic. Or maybe this storeis. Unless it's a hippy wearing a flag. Then people assume it's anti-jingo, whatever that is. Okay, he might not be a hippy, just a slob. Whatever.

    --

    I18N == Intergalacticization
  36. Awesomeness by pakora+nosey · · Score: 1

    This is an awesome game! Me likes.

  37. Re:There was never a threat. by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

    >>>There was no threat to be eliminated, and as such it was not an act of protection

    It was less an act of protection from immediate threat than it was taking out the trash. We had unfinished business from the Gulf War and Bush decided that since we were in Afghanistan anyway thanks to the Taliban we might as well do a little global housecleaning. The fact that Bush had to spin it with the WMD thing is a sad commentary on how far the left as eroded America's spine.

    And from the way Iran has been acting lately, they should be next on the list unless Israel get to them first. Unlike America, the Left in Israel doesn't have such a loud whiney voice and I doubt they will stand around and let Iran get nukes whilst the left in the West debates and complains and wrings its hands over multicultural respect, human rights, worries about offending butchers etc.

    Israel has learned the hard way that follwing a liberalist appeasement doctine would be the quickest way to get yourself wiped out when dealing with Islamic radicals.

  38. Mu. by modecx · · Score: 1

    Of course, one should not deem themselves experts on a subject because they've played a game. Nobody is suggesting this. Did anyone ever suggest that? Nobody ever has, for all I know, and if they did, I'd be all up in their ass instead of yours. I've never heard anyone call himself or herself an expert in anything related to a game, besides being an expert at playing the game, and that's a fair metric if it's based in reality. Playing chess professionally doesn't make one an expert military strategist, and playing professional golf doesn't make one a good landscaper. Why should playing game designed for 6th graders make one an expert historian?

    The game is designed to stimulate interest in and open the mind to the subjects of geography and history (and astronomy, English, math in later games) by presenting a cursory and entertaining overview of each. For any kid remotely interested in the topics, it's a step in the right direction, isn't it? By that virtue, I'd say the games did just as they were designed to do, and in fantastic style.

    It is assumed that this is all the game was supposed to do, and assuming or suggesting otherwise is idiocy at best and ad hominem at worst. Unless, of course, you appreciate the in-game experience as training exercise just in case you somehow happen to get a job as a detective chasing a long legged brunette hottie in a red trench coat and broad brimmed hat, whom also likes to leave obvious clues--then you've really got a leg up on the competition, haven't you?! It's not a failing of the game designers, and it's not a failing of primary education in the western world to not present the subject in way you feel is appropriate. If anything, the people who keep track of teenage suicides should be thankful you're not in charge!

    I guess it's all relative, right? Still, I bet some of those kids on the PBS contest show could've wiped the floor with you, pretty much all of the US, and many history majors, just for the fun of it and, of course, that prized trip around the country/world.

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  39. OT by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First rate trolling, sir. Congratulations.

    Or, in the off case you're serious, I'd like to point out that we *can't* win a war by eradicating everyone who sees America as an irresponsible and arrogant world citizen. I'm not saying the solution is to go hug them, but you can't treat life like a game of Counter-Strike.

    --
    Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
    1. Re:OT by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

      I guess its "first rate trolling" When the Left is confroted with the harsh realties of the situation?

      I never said anything about killing everyone who doesnt like America - if you hadn't noticed in the orginal post I addressed evil and dangerous goverments like those in Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Stop trying to misreprent what I said.

      No you can't go around treating life like a game of Counterstrike, I never said you could. I only stated that I have no problem with America finshing off Saddam and others of his ilk.

      Europe's answer to evil in the world obviously never worked. First they appeased Hitler until it was too late, then they relied on America to protect them from the Soviets, then when ethnic cleansing reared its head once again in Bosnia, did the Euros rush in and clamp down? of COURSE NOT.. they waited until America came in to throw its weight around. The European UN response to Milosivitch was, shall we say, less than overwhelming .... Fast forward to today - countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria etc are filling the world with hate filled nutballs desperately trying to get their hands on nukes and other WMDs to use on the "infidel" Israel,America, and Western Europe.

      Do I agree with every single thing America has ever done? NO. Do I have a problem with taking out Afghanstan, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc? Hell NO.

      You act like the countries at issue here are Australia or something just becuase they dont like us. If you can't tell the difference between North Korea and Iraq and Iran vs Australia then god help you. The former is threat to world peace and stability, the latter is not. Thus they have nothing to fear from us.

      Exacly how to YOU propse to stop those people? a few more treaties? a few more abassadors? Strength and power and threat of anihilation is the only thing they respect. You think its a coincidence that Syria threw up its hands and started to come clean after we kicked the shit out of the Taliban and Saddam's empire?

      Expecting those countries to play nice through negotiations is like expecting gang bangers to please stop living the thug lifestyle if you ask nicely enough. Aint gonna happen.

    2. Re:OT by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Exacly how to YOU propse to stop those people?

      I propose we send them cookies, then send over a few of our finest gentlement. Eventually, we will breed with their women, assimiliate our superior genes with theirs, and peace will come.

    3. Re:OT by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

      thats pretty funny.. Im not sure if our genes are superior to theirs.. cultures yes, genes no.

    4. Re:OT by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Cultures are subjective. Their value cannot be calculated. I would say our culture is pretty shitty. The individual is no longer nurtured and told to develop into a strong minded and strong fisted saint, instead we're told that to be a good citizen means to be a good consumer. No other means are possible for success. Work at your upper-middle-wage job. Fight to retire and do what makes you happy. Buy, eat, sell, buy, buy, trash, eat, destroy. Dream, but don't dream too much, becuase you probably won't accomplish it if it exists outside of a corporation. Have a backup plan if you do dream, like...an electrician or some other way to add complexity and individual reliance on governmental infrastructure. Want to have your own business? Great, be a good citizen and pay these fees and fill out these forms. Oh, can't compete? Well, hey, we'll subsidize you. Maybe your local congressman can convince the rest of congress that your industry needs help, and even though it's technologically inferior and unmarketable, he'll get them to subsidize it and eventually convince the technophiles that it is indeed worthy of cheers and harumphs! Or maybe you want a job upon which the foundation of America is built, like owning a farm. Oooo...sorry, conglomeration is the only way to go there. Heavily subsidized conglomeration, as well. Again, more hoops, more forms, more bullshit

      Because we're more complex does not mean we're superior. It means we have to jump through more hoops to live comfortably. Granted, i'm not saying that life in general in Iran is superior to life in the US, but simply because we have more toys and more distractions does not mean we're the better culture. It just means we burn more money and resources simply to survive than they do.

    5. Re:OT by TouchyFeely · · Score: 1

      I dont think the points you raised makes our culture "Shitty" - imperfect yes, but not shitty.

      Here in all areas of the Western world, women can appear in public without covering their bodies. We can follow our own religious paths without persecution. We can criticise our government without fear of death. We can congregate in public and private as per our own desires without fear of being jailed or tortured. Next time you are seriously injured or need a vaccine or antibiotics you can thank Western science and medicine. Of course the computer and the internet you are using right now was created in the West. So is the vehicle you drive. Show me how many times a Middle Eastern county has invented a spaceship, or designed a computer, or invented a new medical device. Democracy, freedom of thought, and Science and Technology are the merits by which I would rate a culture's value. What countries/cultures are propelling the advancement of the world along vs. dragging it back to the middle ages?

      PS: You sound a bit bummed out about the American experience - Dont let it get to you. Life is a bitch no matter where you live. Just go out and bust your ass and work hard and live a good life. Be thankful you at least have the opportunty here in America to start your own busisness if you want, to travel and associate freely, and to live life without an oppressive regime always at your back. No one ever life would be easy or fair. Many common folks in the Middle East do not have such "luxeries" that we take for granted.

    6. Re:OT by Mateito · · Score: 1
      I'd like to point out that we *can't* win a war by eradicating everyone who sees America as an irresponsible and arrogant world citizen.

      Why not? That would leave... um.. America!

      Then the only possible war would be a civil war.

    7. Re:OT by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 1

      I see where you're coming from, but don't the words "slippery slope" mean anything to you? I see as one of the possible outcomes of current foreign policy the complete destruction of the Middle East (Rice is already talking about taking on Syria and Iran, although on the other hand, Iran's talking smack about Israel is pretty scary--and Syria's always been pretty scary). And (if we ignore the ethical implications of that) that will *totally* unbalance our standing in the world community. Sure, it's not like France is gonna invade us, but do we really want a world where America is standing over the smoldering crater that used to be the Middle East, snarling "Alright, who's next?" I expect you'll tell me the only alternative is the converse, where the Taliban comes back into power and is dancing about on three hundred million U.S. graves, but as a human being, I find it hard to believe those are the only two alternatives...

      Also, "strength and power and threat of annihilation" may be the only thing some countries respect, but many terrorists don't respect even that since they hardly exist in any way that can constitute a target for that annihilation. That's really the root of the problem. We don't have a real target in this war. I think the key part of any long-term solution is to curb the U.S. behavior that inspires terrorists in the first place. Some of these things we cannot (and should not) give up, and we should fight to protect them. But I think the U.S. does have a lot of room for improvement.

      --
      Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
  40. I tried to play it... by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

    ... but all I got was this error message!

  41. I don't know where Carmen is but... by corngrower · · Score: 1

    Waldo made an appearance in my Computer Engineering class last Friday.

  42. Re:Don't Be An Ignorant Twat. by operagost · · Score: 1

    Then, your parents are poor Muslims. The Qur'an commands that Muslims are not to take Jews or Christians for friends, to subjugate other nations, and force them to either pay tribute or convert. This is not trolling-- it is fact. Read the Qur'an, then come back and mod me down if I am wrong.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  43. Impossible by someguy456 · · Score: 1

    The game seems fun and all, but I found it impossible to play, specifically with the counter in place. That is, I think that when you take into account factors such as the speed of google maps, the area of the map which you could click on, the rate of zoom, etc, it is very, very close to the 10 minutes allotted. This is of course, ignoring the human controllable factors such as the time it takes to read the clues or make up your mind onto where to click next. I've tried twice, playing with nearly dead-on "top-level" clicking, reasonable zoom levels (to not get lost out in the middle of nowhere), and yet I still can't win. But I do have to wait a lot for Google's maps too load.

  44. Re:Don't Be An Ignorant Twat. by mr100percent · · Score: 1
    So where is the outrage from the 1.3 billion that are against it?


    Council of American-Islamic Relations condemns 9/11 in national full-page newspaper ad the next day.

    Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah of Lebanon condemns Osama Bin Laden.

    Grand Imam of Al-Azhar seminary, Shaikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, condemns Osamah Bin Laden (Plus official text)

    Prominent Pakistani Cleric Tahir ul Qadri condemns Bin Laden.

    Television preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi condemns Al Qaeda

    Spanish Muslim Clerical authorities Issue Fatwa against Osamah Bin Laden. There are on the order of 250,000 Muslims in Spain.

    High Mufti of Russian Muslims calls for Extradition of Bin Laden. Russian Muslims are 15% of the population there, so this is not a pro forma thing.


    List of Muslim condemnations of Terrorist attacks. Also Scholars of Islam and the tragedy of 9/11 attacks


    Expressions of grief and sympathy in the Arab world after 9/11. (Includes candlelight vigils in Tehran, anti-terrorism protests in Bangladesh)

    Iraqi blogger Riverbend recalls the sympathy she felt on 9/11


    You didn't hear any protests because it simply wasn't covered in American news. International news did pick up on these events. How about the people in Arab countries who donated blood after 9/11 because Qaradawi suggested it? What about the flower bouquets people sent in sympathy to the American embassy in Kuwait, so many that they ringed the fence?


  45. Re:Don't Be An Ignorant Twat. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    That's not what is says. Show me the actual verses. You're just spouting what the detractors say.

    [5:82] "...And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."

    Nothing about subjugating other nations. And I don't think I've ever heard any Muslim call it tribute, anyone who lives in an actual Islamic state has to pay taxes, Muslims pay their charity tax (zakat) and non-Muslims have to pay similar for citizenship.

  46. Forget that, man... by eremitic · · Score: 1

    I'm still looking for Waldo.

    --
    Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
  47. HELP! "mickey, donald and the rest of the gang?" by epgandalf · · Score: 1

    I can't find the location of the clue "mickey, donald and the rest of the gang" I've looked at Disneyland and Disney World, but I can't find it.
    Because there aren't many clues, this one keeps popping up and keeping me from finishing

  48. Re:Stop With The Stupid Online Journal Buzzwords!! by aftk2 · · Score: 1

    No doubt. I'm going to use this opportunity to pimp my blog entry on the subject - I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether this action is ironic or not.

    --
    concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
  49. Re:No thanks, I have a life! by MyShinyMetalAss · · Score: 1

    I read that as:

    (..)to a farm park to see the animals play on the inflatable bouncy castles, ride on the boats and generally get some fresh air.(..)

    --
    This is not an automated signature. I type this in to the bottom of every message.
  50. What I learned from this game by eyal0 · · Score: 1

    What I learned from this game:

    1. If you need to search the web for something useful, it can't be done in under 10 minutes.
    2. If you put the word "map" in your search, you will get everything except a map. This holds especially true if you want to know where the fuck within Orlando Disney World is.
    3. Google has excellent international support so long as you're search is in English and USA-based.
    4. My internet connection is too slow.
  51. Re:Don't Be An Ignorant Twat. by Xner · · Score: 1

    Aside from the little thing about buring in hellfire a few verses later.
    But that's how religious texts are supposed to be written i guess.

    --
    Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
  52. Re:i figure i should post first by Mahou · · Score: 2, Informative

    if you search google for where in the world is carmen sandiego it tells you she's in cairo, egypt.

    --
    if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
    ...te?
  53. Re:There was never a threat. by Rahga · · Score: 1

    "Except as any intelligent person knows, Iraq was not a threat to America. That was well-known before hand, and proven completely true afterwards."

    1) Iraq under Saddam was a threat to Shiites.
    2) Iraq under Saddam was a threat to Kurds.
    3) No-fly-zones were set up and run for a decade to prevent slaughter because of (1) and (2).
    4) Considering #3, in hindsight, every intelligent person obviously had no idea whatsoever know how much of a threat Iraq was or was not. If it was obvious, then surely you could point me to somebody, somewhere that came forward prior to the war with evidence arguing that point.

    Using Bill Maher's talking points does not make one Bill Maher.

    "There was no threat to be eliminated, and as such it was not an act of protection."

    4) If the Iraq War never began, and if the US and UK ended the no fly patrols, then the "International Community" would instantly blame the US and UK for the slaughter of thousands or millions.

  54. Great by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 1

    The Google Maps API is so open and easy to develop, this has caused stuff like this to develop. You have to hand it to Google for creating such an easy to use tool like that, I expect to see some great innovative sites based around different ways to use this API. Congratulations to everyone involved.

  55. Re:Jingoist title? by mako1138 · · Score: 1

    You're absolutely right. I shouldn't take /. so seriously =P.