Slashdot Mirror


Military Running a Parallel Earth Simulator

Fantastic Lad writes "The US Department of Defense (DOD) may already be creating a copy of you in an alternate reality. Putting supercomputers to an innovative use, the military is simulating our planet in an effort to predict the outcome of different scenarios. They might run tests to see how long 'you' can go without food or water, or how 'you' will respond to televised propaganda. Billions of nodes are created in the system, intended to reflect every man, woman, and child. 'Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS), it will be a "synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information", according to a concept paper for the project. Simulex is the company developing these systems, and they list pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and defense contractor Lockheed Martin among their private sector clients. The U.S. military is their biggest customer, apparently now running the most complex version of the system. JFCOM-9 is now capable of running real-time simulations for up to 62 nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. The simulations gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence."

470 comments

  1. The political options by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it have a 'no George Bush' option to see how the world would be doing without him?

    Seriously, I wonder how much the current fiasco in Iraq has to do with the desire for this program. There are probably a lot of people who would like to have been able to say: "Mr. President, our supercomputers say that this is a bad idea."

    It could be used for politics. Imagine someone from Ron Paul's campaign saying: "Our ideas are better, and now we can finally prove it!"

    PS: Hey, Zonk! It is spelled 'parallel'.

    1. Re:The political options by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can see it now:

      • Chance of desired outcome: 21.7%
      • Chance of desired outcome if media claims this system said chance of desired outcome was > 90%: 97.3%
    2. Re:The political options by PDXNerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For the US military, it will more than likely be used to simulate the economic and political fallout of potential US movement, be it military, political, or financial. What does the world do if the US invades Iran? Engages militants in Africa? "Acquires" even more of the world's precious resources? Which nations will be the loudest enemies? Which will be our friends?
       
      Do you want to play thermonuclear war, etc?

      It's not so much the "prove we are better" aspect, but "how can we stay on top when we decide to throw a little chaos in the mix?". The big dog needs to stay the big dog. Real time intelligence is one thing, but now they have "response forecasting".

    3. Re:The political options by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      Or,What would happen if we gave every monkey a loaded gun?

    4. Re:The political options by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or,What would happen if we gave every monkey a loaded gun?

      Whatever it is, it looks like Shakespear.

    5. Re:The political options by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd argue that that using prediction markets like the ill-fated Policy Analysis Market work much better for predicting future events. It's really too bad that there was an kneejerk media firestorm in response to the Policy Analysis Market, which killed it off before it could even get started.

    6. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FTSummary: "Billions of nodes are created in the system ...."

      And you will individually be connected to your node as the implantable sockets become available.

      Go, government!

    7. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see the last 30% of believers in Chimpy McFlighsuit are working overtime on /.

    8. Re:The political options by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      heheheheh. S'truth!

    9. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answer: nothing.

      The military, the CIA, because that's their job, and they're quite good at it, will run scenarios.

      But as long as morons such as El Presidente and monomaniacs such as The Dick can tell whoever ran those scenarios "the outcome is this, cuz I said so", it won't matter a damn.

    10. Re:The political options by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There are probably a lot of people who would like to have been able to say: "Mr. President, our supercomputers say that this is a bad idea."

      Half the world was telling him that.

      He didn't pay any attention to millions of people. Why the fuck would he care what one computer predicts?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:The political options by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hereby declare Ortega's Law of /., a Corollary to Godwin's law.

      As an online discussion begins on slashdot, the probability of blaming Bush for something approaches one.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    12. Re:The political options by deep_creek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      perhaps the current scenario is exactly what the computer thought would work/ or will work? Who knows how long they have been using it... perhaps it even predicted all the responses to this post already?

    13. Re:The political options by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Mightn't it be a simple matter of demographics? There's a direct correlation between money, technology and conservatism.

    14. Re:The political options by uolamer · · Score: 1

      Maybe one day China, Russia, India, etc will have one of these too... We get in a war and start using them.. I'll save a coin to flip to replace the machine.

      really tho, i want one of those, sounds like it could make the best RTS there is..

      --
      s/©//g
    15. Re:The political options by Mooga · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who thinks SOMEONE has watching "war games" FAR too many times?

      --
      ~ Mooga
    16. Re:The political options by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I know not with what computer WW3 will be simulated, but WW4 will be simulated with sticks and stones."

    17. Re:The political options by PingPongBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Be nice to have an accurate prediction. It would bolster mankind's confidence in mind over matter.

      Chaos theory suggests that increasing precision by a decimal point would lead to totally different results, yet the computer isn't considering anything close to accurate.

      So throwing chaos into chaos - well, the prediction is chaos.

      What may be nice is the investment in computing technology will spin off lots of nice gadgets for us. Just to let the simulate people know, the fact that people are aware they are being simulated and thus should be thinking of randomizing rather than patterning their activities ought to boost hardware requirements by several orders of magnitude.

      Perhaps simulation is really moot. People have well known objectives, such as chasing the American dream. Individuals are hard to predict, and it is individuals that cause mayhem when least expected.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    18. Re:The political options by freezejeans · · Score: 0

      How about a "no moonbat" option to see how the world would be doing without people in the US who put their hatred for Bush above the safety of the entire country? That would be awesome. Of course, WWII would have been lost in the parallel Earth sim if moonbats would have existed back then. Hitler would have simply been "misunderstood."

    19. Re:The political options by jdray · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chance of someone imagining a Beowulf cluster of these: 100.0%

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    20. Re:The political options by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "He didn't pay any attention to millions of people. Why the fuck would he care what one computer predicts?"

      I know this was rhetorical, but those millions of people don't have all the information to work from he does. The computer would, presumably, have that information, too.

      I wouldn't normally mind but it's hard to take masses of people seriously after hearing about people getting paid $1,500 to wait in line for somebody to pick up an iPhone.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:The political options by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      For the US military, it will more than likely be used to simulate the economic and political fallout of potential US movement, be it military, political, or financial. What's the marketing tagline for the system, "How do you want to fail today?"
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    22. Re:The political options by EmotionToilet · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope the simulated me has an iPhone.

    23. Re:The political options by AndresCP · · Score: 1

      About damn time, I say. The sooner this is up and running, the sooner we can establish a couple of ... Foundations to safeguard the future of humanity. By accident, mostly. No doubt this system was proposed by a General Hari Seldon.

      --
      "Just because you're eloquent doesn't mean you aren't a fucking crackpot." -Wavebreak
    24. Re:The political options by janrinok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, on that basis it will depend on how far back in history you want to go. Rather than cling to the help that you provided to Europe during WW2, why not consider how many native Americans might still be alive if you hadn't taken the actions that you did a few hundred years ago.

      It is easy to pick one time in history when events would certainly be on your side, and I'm not contesting that there are not many such times - America has made many valuable contributions to the world - but your 'belief' that your nation is threatened and therefore it demands your intervention in other countries is not viewed by much of the world as being one of your best moves.

      The current threat to US citizens is far greater from car accidents or even natural disasters than it is from terrorism. But the billions that are spent in measures to 'protect' the USA (immigration controls, military intervention, beginning the downward slide by losing sight on one's ideals) could be spent far more wisely and to greater effect without pissing off a huge part of the world. I know that the world is far from perfect but what makes you think that you have the right to dictate how it should be, or even that you are the only one to know how a perfect world should be designed?

      Unfortunately, this is not simply an American thing. Many other countries, for whatever reason, seem to wish to emulate the USA and follow the same path. I'm not America-bashing; my own birthplace was, until a few days ago, happily going the same way. Perhaps there is a change in the air, perhaps not.... But a few terrorist bombs in London will not result in us attacking another country in the near future. We have witnessed first hand terrorism in the UK for many years, long before it threatened the USA. In fact, a large number of your country men seemed to think that it was a good idea to help fund it. Were they also right in what they did, or can you concede that Americans can also make bad decisions like everyone else on this planet?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    25. Re:The political options by wellingj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People have well known objectives, such as chasing the American dream.
      You forget that people gave up on chasing what they wanted in the 90's.
      Now everyone thinks they are entitled to the American dream, without working for it.

    26. Re:The political options by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. 10 years ago I actually thought about a similar system, but trying to model the world economy and I was thinking of doing essentially that: Have independent "simulations" simulating each person. I quickly realized that with the amount of computing power I had it would be impossible to simulate billions of people, so I considered a scaled-down possibility. My main interest was trying to simulate different economic systems, tax rates, etc. It would've been an awesome and interesting endeavor but, ultimately, I had real work I had to do and never really did anything but think about. However, it certainly makes sense that organizations with more resources and computing power would attempt to implement such a massive simulation. Must be a cool project to work on.

    27. Re:The political options by loganrapp · · Score: 2, Funny
      Chances of subject acquiring a female companion: .01%


      I hate this fucking simulation.

    28. Re:The political options by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What does the world do if the US invades Iran?

      Try to dodge the pieces as the USA overcommits and improve trade links with China.

    29. Re:The political options by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      How about,

      SOYLENT GREEN IS PIXELS!!

      uh, lameness filter, lameness filter, lamenessssssss filterrrrrrr

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    30. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's go for it. Give those shit-flinging motherfuckers some firearms, so I'll be justified in wasting them all. Self-defence.

    31. Re:The political options by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Because the only thing stopping us winning in Iraq is media with its wellknown liberal bias, and "Defeatocrats". Right. It couldn't possibly be a people not liking being invaded, or less than a quarter of the recommended troop levels being there, could it? We all know our Republican overlords are infallible, right?

    32. Re:The political options by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "He didn't pay any attention to millions of people. Why the fuck would he care what one computer predicts?"

      I know this was rhetorical, but those millions of people don't have all the information to work from he does.
      ---
      Yes, directly from the Supreme Being.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1586978,00. html

      "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."...

    33. Re:The political options by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I quickly realized that with the amount of computing power I had it would be impossible to simulate billions of people, so I considered a scaled-down possibility.

      I have found a more practical solution: Guessing.

      How does the simulation take into account the behavior and effect of a few odious, but influential people, say, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden?

      This story is a perfect example of the theories of the brilliant economist Nassim Nicholas Taleb, whose book, The Black Swan tells how when predicting, having too much information is worse than having too little. For those of you who are interested in a very exhilarating and enlightening intellectual experience, I recommend you read this book or at least google his podcast about prediction and randomness.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:The political options by Basehart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fuck The Black Swan, pick up Asimov's Foundation Series!

    35. Re:The political options by Goffee71 · · Score: 0

      You don't really need a computer to figure that lot out do you?

      We didn't do regime change in the first Gulf War for a lot of very good reasons that were expressed at the time by the likes of Colin Powell. Those arguments (civil war, reglious hatred, factional fighting, corrupt officials) were ignored for the 2nd Gulf War and look what happened. No computers were involved in that process, just idiots.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    36. Re:The political options by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, where are the protests? I mean, aside from the Iranians setting up roadside bombs, where are the people with signs, marching through the streets? Iraq has a population larger than California, but they can't muster a single crowd of dirty hippie-alikes?

      Maybe the problem isn't that the Iraqis fear we will stay, but when we will leave. Perhaps the reason we're not training the Iraqi security force quickly enough (remember, the benchmark for starting the withdrawal?) is that the people who would join are afraid we will pull out before completion leaving them and their families high and dry for retaliation. Where would this fear be coming from, I wonder?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    37. Re:The political options by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      Caution,Make sure the election are not fixed before rendering.

    38. Re:The political options by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      That's an.. interesting line of rhetoric, what do you base it on? Do you think the poor are poor because they're lazy or something? What the is your "American dream" anyway?

    39. Re:The political options by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      WW2 would have been won by the Soviets either way. The difference would have been that all Nazi-occupied territories would have been taken in by Russia instead of released to join the NATO and the Soviets would have had a huge technological advantage over the US.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    40. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I AM the Beowulf cluster who is imagining YOU.

    41. Re:The political options by smidget2k4 · · Score: 1

      Bush wanting to pull out to invade Iran come next election cycle?

    42. Re:The political options by trippeh · · Score: 1

      No, the poor are poor because the people on top of them are too lazy to work for the American Dream, they're content to stay in their nowhere jobs and complain that they don't go anywhere, instead of working, rising, and freeing up space in the nowhere jobs for poor people, so they can do a little dreaming of their own.

      :unsure

      --
      THUD~*
    43. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats is not just "Funny" it is "Insightful" also.

    44. Re:The political options by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      This is similar to the old Infocom text adventure "A Mind Forever Voyaging" where you play the role of a sentient supercomputer who runs a simulation of a senator's view for the future called "The Plan". You simulate the world as it would exist 10, 20, 30..80 years in the future under his changes, record and bring back data on how it's doing.

      Excellent game. Not a lot of problem solving, but just an amazingly well done story and a great concept.

    45. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, where are the protests? I mean, aside from the Iranians setting up roadside bombs, where are the people with signs, marching through the streets? Iraq has a population larger than California, but they can't muster a single crowd of dirty hippie-alikes?

      Hell yeah! LSD, pot, and free love are the answers to all of life's problems. Why defend yourself against an enemy, when you can get stoned out of your mind, listen to Janis Joplin, and spin around looking at the sky?

    46. Re:The political options by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      I have found a more practical solution: Guessing. How does the simulation take into account the behavior and effect of a few odious, but influential people, say, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden?

      By that same token, couldn't the same be said for all these new-fangled global warming simulations that take into account more and more knowledge and supposedly tell us that we're 90%+ definitely contributing to global warming, and we're toast, etc.? For some reason we're supposed to believe those simulations but not to believe this simulation?

      Personally, I agree with you. I think trying to predict the human response of 6 billion people is not going to work too well and I don't place much trust in it. I also don't place much trust in the global warming models.

      Having said that, I think they could do a lot better if they treated each country as a node rather than all 6 billion people. What they're ultimately interested in is the overall geopolitical and economic response, and that can probably be adequately modeled by having a node for each country and perhaps thousands of properties for each country. There's no way a computer can predict the behavior of each person and there's no way we can collect the parameters that "define" the behavior of each person. But establishing those parameters on a country-by-country basis would probably do the trick.

    47. Re:The political options by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      He didn't pay any attention to millions of people. Why the fuck would he care what one computer predicts? Because people can TRUST computers with things like improving a country's military position. Haven't you seen Dr. Stra... erm, wait, never mind.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    48. Re:The political options by Entropius · · Score: 1

      There's also an inverse correlation between education and conservatism, though.

    49. Re:The political options by sgt_doom · · Score: 0
      I hate to be the spoilsport here, but the US military has been permanently out of the loop for quite some time now. The extremely poor performance of special ops, heavily relied upon by this administration to take the place of intel ops and the CIA, etc., along with absolute lack of any actual strategy & tactics in Iraq from start to finish (stating this objectively as I was against that illegal invasion/occupation from the get-go!).

      The only thing I'm wondering about their alternate reality - does it report that rogue CIA/corporate elements were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy (assuming it was ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED in tha alternate reality)?

      Did that alternate reality actually have a full investigation of the events surrounding 9/11/01 attacks? Or did that alternate reality ALSO HAVE the FBI's Elite Passport Recovery Team - you know, the ones who miraculously recovered Mohammed Atta's passport from the WTC wreckage.....

    50. Re:The political options by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Chance of desired outcome if media claims this system said chance of desired outcome was > 90%: 97.3%


      A bit off topic perhaps, but Code 46 is a very good science fiction movie from 2003 that deals with (among other things) a society where the government has computer simulation software advanced enough to predict many things about the future, and the effects that has on its citizens' freedom and attitudes.


      I highly recommend it.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    51. Re:The political options by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Informative
      For some reason we're supposed to believe those simulations but not to believe this simulation?


      Well, yeah.... those simulations have been tested by giving them historical data and seeing how their results "predict" what would happen next... then comparing their output to what actually did happen next. If the results differ, they refine the simulation some more and try again. Not foolproof by any means, but I don't think you can dismiss them out of hand, especially when many different (independently developed) simulations show similar results.


      It would be very interesting to see what sort of tests they have made (or will make) on this simulator to test its accuracy.


      There's no way a computer can predict the behavior of each person and there's no way we can collect the parameters that "define" the behavior of each person.


      Perhaps it works like quantum mechanics... there is no way to predict the behavior of any given electron, but if you average enough together at once you find that in aggregate they follow the (mostly) rock-solid laws of classical physics. In other words, it might actually be much easier to predict the collective actions of millions of people than to predict the actions of any particular person.


      In any case, I don't that country-by-country is the best level of granularity -- countries aren't that isolated or independent from each other anymore, so playing Risk might be unrealistic. ;^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    52. Re:The political options by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Fuck The Black Swan

      Asimov's Foundation was wonderful reading for a high school sophomore. I still remember much of it. The Black Swan is the best book (non-fic) I've read so far this century, though.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    53. Re:The political options by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      If the contrast is liberalism, and the metric for "education" is years spent in a classroom, sure. Not sure that's saying much, though!

    54. Re:The political options by zdude255 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but can that cluster run Linux?

    55. Re:The political options by makuabob · · Score: 1
      Oh, wow, dudes!

      This is SO MUCH like Daniel Galouye's SIMULACRON-3 fiction novel (1964) that I may have to move to adult diapers YEARS before I thought I would! Right down to the use of simulated populations responding to possible political scenarios, this is so effin' freaky.

      If you have the nerves for it, read through it and you'll be sayin' "Oh, Shit!"

      And, of course, it doesn't just depend on who programs the computers, but also who "interprets" the data, who "massages" the data, who "spins" the data,... blah, blah, blah,....

    56. Re:The political options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what it says about making anti-missile systems available to former eastern bloc nations? Sure, it honestly makes no difference in Russia's strategic capability to overwhelm the damn thing. But what does it say about how Putin would respond to essentially having his black market ballistic missile sales opportunity taken out pre-emptively? Would that show up affecting diplomatic relations in a simulation?

    57. Re:The political options by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I hereby declare the Real Mikes Law, a corollary to Ortegas Law.

      As an online discussion progresses, the probability of blaming Bush correctly for something approaches one.

    58. Re:The political options by tacky+taco · · Score: 1

      "Does it have a 'no George Bush' option to see how the world would be doing without him?"

      A no George Bush option does not make much difference we will still have his Supreme Court.

    59. Re:The political options by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It would be very interesting to see what sort of tests they have made (or will make) on this simulator to test its accuracy.
      It's probably called "The Iraq War". You think we'd hear about the DoD doing something like this on Day One? This thing's probably been running for at least 5 years before the news comes out.

      And by the way, the global warming warnings come from a lot more than computer simulations. Talk to just about any farmer, fisher or meteorologist in the world.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    60. Re:The political options by Basehart · · Score: 1

      I read the Foundation books after reading EE Doc Smith's "Skylark" series in my early teens, and it was quite a change of pace I remember :-) I'll be picking up a copy of The Black Swan next time I'm near a bookstore. Looks good, thanks.

  2. So Chris Carter was right? by jockm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When he made Harsh Realm?

    --

    What do you know I wrote a novel
    1. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When he made Harsh Realm [imdb.com]? The premise of that show doesn't even make any sense. This guy has to enter a simulation to kill a rogue general who went all Col. Kurtz in it? Well shit, isn't that guy's body sitting in a pod a few rows down? The only possible way where that sort of plot-line could work is if the world is complex enough that massive changes cannot be "hacked" into it but have to be finessed and cajoled. That would be more along the lines of Hitchiker's Guide where the grand experiment cannot be simply rebooted but has to be run out to the end and then you need the cooperation of a sentient mind within the simulation to get the final answer.

      This also hits upon a weakness in the scenario presented in the original Matrix (the sequels are dead to me). If the machines control the world, how can the rebels even exist? Forget about the logic that Agents should have reaperbot aims, they should be able to materialize 15 ton weights and anvils to drop on runners. So, why aren't they?

      The retcon I came up with makes a lot of sense. The machines are like the Japanese of the 80's, not being very good at inventing technology but very, very good at improving it. From this perspective, they never invented the matrix technology, it was probably a military application that got spun off by some start-ups to create live-in MMORPG's. Whatever the reason, the technology existed. The loading construct, the world simulation, all of this is built on top of existing code. I've not done a lot of programming but I've seen scary projects where people have no idea what parts of the code do, they just know it breaks if you touch it. It's left alone like the forest where the bogeyman lives.

      So, how did the war go? Machines fight man, man blackens the sky, mass human die-off, machines struggle to come up with a way to survive. Machines would of course have fusion power so humans are not batteries. Human brains turn out to make great parallel processors, cheaper than trying to do it in silicon. Why do they humans have whole bodies instead of just brains in jars? Because that's what the original technology was designed for and the machines were not able to figure out a way around it. So how are humans able to hack into the system? Because there are holes that even the machines can't figure out how to patch. If Windows is the most complex software project ever, just imagine what code will be like that far in the future. Why are the Agents not able to hit the humans every time they shoot? Jammer software prevents the agents from getting a good fix on where a fast-moving runner is, there's enough imprecision in what they know of as the xyz coordinates that they can miss unless they're close. Why can't the agents make anvils fall out of the sky? Because of anti-cheating code leftover from the original design. The deja vu-causing hacks are time-intensive enough to pull off and can still bug the system, thus they are of limited use. Why is the timeline set in the late 20th century? Why not the 19th century? Why not the 17th or ancient Rome? Maybe that's what the best codebase they had was designed to simulate. The movie never answered whether the entire world was simulated from pole to pole or whether it was just the city they were in. The movie never stated how the timeline was manipulated, just how far the machines ran through the world before resetting the timeline. Did they run through a five year interval and just do a memory reset for everyone in the Matrix? Did they run multiple world instances? None of these questions were answered and they probably would have bogged down the movie if they were.

      Anyway, I'm still laughing at the idea of Harsh Realm, the guy's supposed to spend a season or two hunting down a guy who should be sitting in the VR pod next to him. Reset the damn sim!
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, Gene Roddenberry was right when he made "Mirror, Mirror". We get to see George Bush and Condi Rice with moustaches and goatees.

      --
      John
    3. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I'm still laughing at the idea of Harsh Realm, the guy's supposed to spend a season or two hunting down a guy who should be sitting in the VR pod next to him. Reset the damn sim!

      IIRC, Santiago couldn't be disconnected because nobody actually knew where he was - he'd used his real-life connections to get his body moved to a secret location. As far as rebooting the sim, it would be tantamount to killing the thousands of "real" people who had connected to it. The closing shot of the first episode had Hobbes' body wheeled on a gurney into a warehouse with gurneys beyond number laid out in every direction, and physically disconnecting from Harsh Realm would have left those bodies without occupants, so to speak.

      As for why there weren't safeguards to allow for rapid disconnection, that's why they had to track down Santiago to begin with. He hijacked the sim and had taken total control of the system.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    4. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by Ponzicar · · Score: 1

      You mean to say that we'd get to see what good versions of them would be like? When does the weather report say the next ion storm is?

    5. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      This also hits upon a weakness in the scenario presented in the original Matrix (the sequels are dead to me). If the machines control the world, how can the rebels even exist? Forget about the logic that Agents should have reaperbot aims, they should be able to materialize 15 ton weights and anvils to drop on runners. So, why aren't they?
       
      If you had seen the sequels, you would realise that they planned for the rebels. In fact, the system couldn't exist without rebels, they are just another form of control. Some people just need to rebel, so the machine were giving them a chance to do that. They were still actually under a lot of control.

      The Agents are restricted by the same rules as everyone else. The machine created the simulation (the matrix), but it still lives by some rules. Think of them more as computer controlled players, rather tahn sys admins, making changes.

      I didn't hate the matrix sequels as much as some people, (the third was stupid, but oh well). Actually really enjoyed the second.

    6. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      If you had seen the sequels, you would realise that they planned for the I have seen the sequels. As I said, they sucked so I'm pretending they don't exist. It's the same metal escape tactic I use in defense against the Star Wars nuTrilogy, nuMetallica, and nuBush.

      rebels. In fact, the system couldn't exist without rebels, they are just another form of control. Some people just need to rebel, so the machine were giving them a chance to do that. They were still actually under a lot of control. That sort of idea is cool on paper, it could probably be done well in a movie, but the two Matrix sequels were not done well at all. They were sloppy, disorganized, substituted unfocused philosibation for substance, and had plot holes big enough to wheel Rush Limbaugh through.

      The Agents are restricted by the same rules as everyone else. The machine created the simulation (the matrix), but it still lives by some rules. Think of them more as computer controlled players, rather tahn sys admins, making changes. Yes, but why are they constricted by those rules? That seems ridiculous. Consider the example of real governments vs. their citizens. The government's secret police do not operate under the same legal restrictions as normal citizens. Often times they don't even operate under the legal restrictions that supposedly apply to them. I'm sure the government would repeal the laws of physics if it were within their power. Now consider a power structure where the laws of physics can be altered, MMORPG's. Game designers have massively powerful tools that allow them to reshape the world like gods. They created it, they can alter or destroy it. GM's who enter the game world are literally like Gandalf, Maia spirits who predate the world and are expected to guide the younger races. Of course, you have bad Maia like Sarauman or t20 who aabuse their powers. If the admins of a game saw a gameplay development happen that they did not like, they can roll back the entire system to a previous day's backup, delete player accounts, ban IP's, etc. If a developer wanted to take out an entire party of players he didn't like, he could give his avatar invulnerability and hammers of smiting and go to town. Devs can autospawn rare items, resurrect anyone, etc. They're gods.

      So, why would the machines have any less control over the Matrix? Why would the Agents be constrained by the same laws as the rebels? From a storytelling perspective, we know it's the way it is because doing it otherwise would make for a dull and crappy movie. "Shit! Agent!" Anvil drops on head. Yawn. But it would be stupid for the machines to handicap themselves. Why don't they hack the shit out of the matrix for their own advantage? Either they've got some crazy sense of fair play or they can't hack it. If they can't hack it, why not? If they were the original creators, they should have a way around anything. If they hack 100% of it and do what they want, they must not have complete control. And if they don't have complete control, either they did a piss-poor job of design or they inherited legacy code and are doing the best they can.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Computers of today have a really hard time breaking the rules. They basically only get to do so when there's a bug in the program. Otherwise, no matter how many times you try to get 2+2 to equal 5, it's always going to equal 4.

    8. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by jetpack · · Score: 1

      You mean, like this? :)

    9. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *spolier* In Matrix the machines did win the fight aganist humans. The only few reason to keep humans alive 1. was they need the humans in tact until they are liquidflied for other human consumption. They also needed the BTU to power the matrix not the inferior human brain power but the body heat generated. 2. They keep the resistance going as the artitect said that they have be exceeding efficient at elimiting humans the 7th time around this means they evolved and got more skills for that XP points for robots to level. 3. Agent smith said the matrix was original design flawless and perfect and that humans couldn't accept it they weren't satisfiled with that. So they remade it and made it more realistic more imperfect and thats where the program rules and logic that govern every NPC and player even the admins or GM. 5. They choose the 20th century cause it was at the hieght of the human civilzation. So that might entail that they had probably advanced more but surfer maybe do to wars and such. 6. There was no timeline manlipulation. Time doesn't exist for man anymore the real time keepers were Machines.

    10. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Computers of today have a really hard time breaking the rules. They basically only get to do so when there's a bug in the program. Otherwise, no matter how many times you try to get 2+2 to equal 5, it's always going to equal 4. When you control the source, you can declare exceptionally large instances of 2.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by yoden · · Score: 1

      This post asks "why X in the Matrix," where "why X" is answered in the sequels, says the sequels are dead to him, and gets modded interesting?

      The agents don't kill the children of zion because they are part of the overall illusion. There is the illusion of the matrix to contain the masses and the illusion of the rebellion to contain the rest. Neither are real.

      --
      Computers can make otherwise intelligent people stupid, much like slashdot.
  3. Alternate reality... by lelitsch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where "parallel" is spelled "paralell".

    1. Re:Alternate reality... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Where "parallel" is spelled "paralell".

      Quantum Nag Principle: Splits only if the observer notices it.

    2. Re:Alternate reality... by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Bah.. Like that darned simulator predicted this thread.... Hey wait a second.. the simulation turns conscious when all the news reports talk about it.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    3. Re:Alternate reality... by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

      'Nother one right here where spelt is spelt spelled.

  4. The downside... by ktakki · · Score: 4, Funny

    The downside is that the full version of this simulator will be powered by the electro-chemical activity of six billion human beings.

    Whoa.

    k.

    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    1. Re:The downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig. Otherland reference:

      No, it will be powered by the minds of children - the Grail Brotherhood still can't control the Other though...

  5. W.O.P.R. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS)

    They should have called it W.O.P.R.

    1. Re:W.O.P.R. by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 0

      I'll take mine with cheese, thanks!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:W.O.P.R. by plutonium83 · · Score: 1

      Would you like to play.... a game?

    3. Re:W.O.P.R. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They should have called it W.O.P.R.

      Version 7.0 better matches the chubiness of modern Americans, and is thus called W.O.P.P.E.R.

  6. My virtual self? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    My virtual self would be contemplating my thoughts and actions on it's virtual self causing the entire simulation to hit an infinate spawning of threads... And lets hope I don't think if I am actually a virtual node in a computer.

    1. Re:My virtual self? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if my virtual self gets laid.

    2. Re:My virtual self? by megaditto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know that you aren't a simulation for some real Joe Blow out there, hmm?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:My virtual self? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. My name isn't Joe Blow.

    4. Re:My virtual self? by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do you know that you aren't a simulation for some real Joe Blow out there, hmm? I can't rocket jump. Any simulation worth running would let me rocket jump. And the cheat codes only seem to work for Republicans. That can't possibly be fair.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:My virtual self? by dissy · · Score: 2, Informative

      How do you know that you aren't a simulation for some real Joe Blow out there, hmm? Chances are, you are.
      http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

      ABSTRACT
      This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
    6. Re:My virtual self? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

      no one would pay the energy bill for a simulation of male humans who mostly sit at their computer either posting on slashdot or downloading pr0n and wanking off. QED, you're all real.

    7. Re:My virtual self? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Not if you both read Slashdot.

    8. Re:My virtual self? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I can't rocket jump. Any simulation worth running would let me rocket jump. And the cheat codes only seem to work for Republicans. That can't possibly be fair.
       
      What do you mean you can't rocket jump, of course you can. Anybody can. The only problem it might cause a little bit too much damage.

    9. Re:My virtual self? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to overlook that the Dumbocraps would be hacking into it everywhere so the whole thing would promptly crash and be worthless. Yep, that's Dumbocrap's for ya!

    10. Re:My virtual self? by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      The paper's a nice try, but it's all just so dang shaky. We don't really know if consciousness can be simulated in non-biological materials. We don't know whether computational power will level off before giving us anything like the power to do it, or indeed whether it is physically possible to crunch those sorts of numbers at all. We don't know how difficult it would be to write the software without bugs (very hard I should think). We don't now whether it would be considered worthwhile economically or perhaps more pertinently, ethical, in future society.

      I think these sort of ideas seem plausible because of the great strides in computer technology. It's flying cars though in my opinion. Computers will get very, very powerful, and then start to level off. The future holds a different branch; genetic engineering most likely.

  7. Paralell...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    New rule: if you can't spell, you can't smoke pot.

    Hand it over, Zonk.

    1. Re:Paralell...? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      New rule: if you can't spell, you can't smoke pot. Whigh knot?
    2. Re:Paralell...? by mr_luc · · Score: 1

      It's an old rule, and you got it wrong.

      If you smoke pot, you can't spell.

  8. Oh really? by TodMinuit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone have a torrent for it? ThePirateBay turned up nothing.

    --
    I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    1. Re:Oh Really? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      OTOH, if these people really thought they could predict mass behavior, they wouldn't be building systems for the military, they'd be predicting the stock market, and raking in the cash.

    2. Re:Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you lived in central Texas, you wouldn't need a computer to know that. :-/ But maybe it could tell you how long before the lake level (which rose 14' in about 24 hrs) will go down enough so you can get to your house again.

    3. Re:Oh Really? by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      I live in central Texas and yes... It's gone rain! /Family Guy Global Warming FTL

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    4. Re:Oh really? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Wow, I DID notice your post because of your bolded sig! Quick, get rid of it before everyone else finds out.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  9. Ultimate Sim City? by g-san · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sure hope it comes complete with options to unleash a tidal wave, hurricane, rioters, and UFOs, just to you know, see what happens.

    1. Re:Ultimate Sim City? by Kesch · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where do you think Katrina came from?

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    2. Re:Ultimate Sim City? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      US Army will conclude a simple excavator is the ultimate destruction weapon XD

    3. Re:Ultimate Sim City? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Haha I hope someone's working on the nude patch

      You do realize that most people do *not* look like porn models, not even close.

    4. Re:Ultimate Sim City? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even the porn models.

      Silicon jobs, Photoshop jobs.

  10. Paralell? by abshnasko · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Are you joking?

  11. hmm?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought I was already in one???

  12. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fine witch side do you want?

    1. Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by loucura! · · Score: 3, Funny

      The cockroaches, please.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    2. Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      witch side do you want?
      1. USA 2. NON US side of Iraq 3. China. 4. north korea 5. north vietnam 6. UK 7. Russia 8. cuba 9. iran 10. germany 11. france 12. canada 13. US Civil war north 14. US Civil south 15. japan.
      16. show next page

    3. Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine witch side do you want?

      I don't believe in witches.

      (Can anyone spell anymore?)

    4. Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Can anyone spell anymore?)


      anymore A-N-Y-M-O-R-E anymore
    5. Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Well most of those would be no fun, where the winning move is to own ICBM nukes while your opponent doesn't.

    6. Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. by Silver+Gryphon · · Score: 1

      Will this suffice?

      http://www.everybody-dies.com/

  13. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to recall reading something about some white mice trying to build a simulation like this in order to find the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

    I also read that if the question and answer were both found the universe would be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

    I also read that the answer was 42 and that the replacement has already happened...

  14. If they're doing Norway... by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Funny

    I do hope they get the fjords right... lovely crinkly edges...

    1. Re:If they're doing Norway... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I wonder why the US Military wants to know the question to the ultimate answer?

    2. Re:If they're doing Norway... by DebateG · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'll be fine with the fjords as long as they can get some reticulating splines.

    3. Re:If they're doing Norway... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      Slartibartfast would be happy to hear that.

      PS, we already know the answer is 42 so why are they bothering?

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
  15. google... by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    and now you understand the big picture like google does :)

    1. Re:google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there does not exist a conspiracy theory where Google is a front for CIA+NSA, it need be invented.

      PS. Reading the blurb made my tiny nerd-pecker come in my pants.

    2. Re:google... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Front or competitor?

  16. Just save are money and say.. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the only winning move is not to play

    how about a good game of chess?

    and then move the supercomputers back to the star gate at NORAD

  17. Start by simulating the stock market by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1
    Know what people will buy or sell

    Get rich

    1. Re:Start by simulating the stock market by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      Once they've simulated everything else there's no need.

      The stock market predictions write themselves.

  18. Really? by Disharmony2012 · · Score: 0

    I didn't know the end of the world was coming this soon.

  19. Simulate itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you program it to simulate itself, does it start smoking and spitting out sparks?

    1. Re:Simulate itself... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      If you program it to simulate itself, does it start smoking and spitting out sparks? Only if it uses on of those special Dell laptop batteries. ;-)
  20. Yes, but... by Kesch · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can it win at Tic-Tac-Toe?

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it should come up with 42 at the end of the simulation.

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      We tried that back in 2003 and it just ended up geting into a big loop and then the system overloaded taking down a big part of the us power gird with it.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Only by not playing.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    4. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig. Simpsons:

      When it comes to tic-tac-toe, it can beat all but the world's best players.

    5. Re:Yes, but... by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      More importantly, can it run Vist


      [this joke has been confiscated for overuse and general ignorance. plase move along.]

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  21. Obl. Futurama? by n0dna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fry: So, there's an infinite number of parallel universes?
    Professor: No, just the two.
    Fry: Oh, well, I'm sure that's enough.

    1. Re:Obl. Futurama? by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      I'm sick of Parallel Cappy Red lording his cowboy hat over me. Let's move on to the DoD's next fantasy.

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  22. I just hope... by oconnorcjo · · Score: 3, Funny

    that I survive most of the scenarios. I would hate to get a visit from the police saying my virtual self has just died some horrific death and that I should get in better shape for "just in case". :)

    --
    I miss the Karma Whores.
    1. Re:I just hope... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      that I survive most of the scenarios. I would hate to get a visit from the police saying my virtual self has just died some horrific death and that I should get in better shape for "just in case". :)

      That is why nerd moms tell their nerd kids to always wear clean virtual underwear.

    2. Re:I just hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      surviving most scenearios is simple. My father was a major in the Korean war and he told all us kids what to look for as signs of danger and what to do.

      If you see things happening that will cause panic or war you need to pack up the family and head north, way north and way away from people. Cities will be the first to fall as they will eat themselves alive, rural communities will stay normal for 6 months after the fall of the cities but they too will start collapsing as resources disappear. On your way out just before the sheep realize that shit hit the fan, be sure to carry as much gasoline as you can to get you where you need to go and dont stop.

      Get out in the middle of nowhere, have supplies tools and food with you and be willing to keep moving away from other people.

      Back in the 60's the military emergency preparedness told all the officers that civilization was only 3 days of no water,electricity and utilities away from anachary. In 3 days people will start to steal what they need, in 6 they will start to kill each other for food and water.

      I am certian that that rule is a solid fact today. that is how you survive, treat everyone else as the enemy and get the hell away from them.

  23. What movie? by mpn14tech · · Score: 1

    This make me think of a B sci fi movie I saw many years ago and I can not remember the title of.

    I think it was black and white. It was about a scientist who created a simulation of the world that he could watch under a microscope. As he watched history, which progressed at an accelerated rate, and a war happened he was attacked by a ghost of some kind. Just as history was to the point that he could see what would happen in the future he was attacked a final time by the ghost and had to destroy the experiment before the ghost killed him. I guess the moral being you are not allowed to know the future.

    I may not have all the details correct, but maybe someone can tell me the name of that movie?

    1. Re:What movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Ghost that wouldn't let the Guy see the Future"

    2. Re:What movie? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Small nit, but if ghosts are involved, it's no long 'sci fi' and is now 'fantasy'.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    3. Re:What movie? by FrnkMit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I think it was an Outer Limits episode (the old series). Could be "Wolf 359", but it's been ages since I've seen the series, and I'm only going by the plot synopsis on Wikipedia.

      Frank

    4. Re:What movie? by mpn14tech · · Score: 1

      I think you are right. Many thanks.
      Interesting name match with the Star Trek episode.

    5. Re:What movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "Footloose"?

    6. Re:What movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean this http://www.theouterlimits.com/episodes/season1960/ 6040.htm episode of The Outer Limits which coincidentally features Dabney Coleman (McKittrick, custodian of WOPR in "War Games")

    7. Re:What movie? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Nitpick with your nitpick: As long as we're distinguishing between genres, if it involves ghosts it's still SciFi, just not SF.

      --
      SRSLY.
    8. Re:What movie? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Small nit, but if ghosts are involved, it's no long 'sci fi' and is now 'fantasy'. Unless the ghosts are on a space ship ... and it's not an episode of Scooby Doo.
  24. What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Running from a fight isn't always the right thing to do. And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough. Hint: it's not measured in thousands, but TENS of MILLIONS.

    Face facts: right now, in Iraq the US is fighting a war against the agents of Iran.

    And the rhetoric coming out of Iran is straight out of Mein Kampf. Except this time around the ubermensch are Islamic, and the subhumans who deserve to die are infidels, "crusaders", and - once again - the Jews. Imagine that.

    Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them. How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

    So yeah, let's run a simulation where Iran's rulers get their way in the Middle East. How many nukes do you think it'll take them to "wipe Israel off the map"? Hey, that's what they OPENLY SAY they're going to do.

    1. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

      Well we now know the US needs more than 18 UN resolutions and 3 Congressional authorizations in order to go to war. That's what Bush had for Iraq and he sure won't touch Darfur or Iran with one jot less than that.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    2. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you posted anonymously because your retarded bullshit lies and delusion might cause people to disassociate with you if anyone actually knew who you were.

    3. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, take a bath will you... The stench of bullshit coming from you is overwhelming.

    4. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them. How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

      Ignoring your misunderstanding of Iran (it's a democracy that's elected itself a theocracy: "them" is more appropriate), there's a simple answer to your question:

      Zero.

      If Iran gets nukes, and uses said nuclear weapons as you suggest, there will be no more Iran. The President won't even need to go to Congress -- there are extant laws regarding USA's nuclear doctrine, and a surprise attack with a nuclear weapon will result in the world's first, and only, nuclear counterattack. (Why, exactly, do you think Israel doesn't declare its nuclear weapons? Because their real nuclear arsenal is the United States' arsenal. Same deal we have with Japan and Germany.)

      Yes, a bunch of people would die. And the face of world politics would be forever changed. But Iran knows this, the Iranian people and the Iranian government are smart, and they know that the only way they can guarantee the end of their country is to actually nuke Israel. Heck, an Iranian nuclear attack might wind up getting their entire religion declared a criminal conspiracy in the west, which would make the current post-9/11 prejudice look like a walk in the park.

    5. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the tip, Kettle.

    6. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Skreems · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ignoring your misunderstanding of Iran (it's a democracy that's elected itself a theocracy)
      The armed takeover in 1980, and the subsequent fascist-style secret police raids against anyone who spoke out against the new leadership, would tend to disagree with you there...
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    7. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Holy shit, take a bath will you... The stench of bullshit coming from you is overwhelming.

      As are the waves of body odor, patchouli oil and hemp coming from you my anonymous friend.
    8. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 0

      Good God! You're a friggin' Genius!

      Instead of a military conflict in Iran, let's let them nuke Israel, killing thousands upon thousands (and that's before the radiation sets in for the next generation or so on the poor bastards who didn't die in the blasts), and *then* go in and wipe out Iran. Two birds with one stone and of course, it wasn't *our* fault, we just reacted appropriately.

      Excellent plan!

      But will the people fall for it? /sarcasm

    9. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So yeah, let's run a simulation where Iran's rulers get their way in the Middle East. How many nukes do you think it'll take them to "wipe Israel off the map"? Hey, that's what they OPENLY SAY they're going to do.

      Except, you know, he didn't (the entry is well-cited, so nobody is allowed to give me shit about using Wikipedia as a source - go click the myriad of links it offers). But, haha, why do you warhawks care about that? There's oil to be had! Profits to be made! DIRTY, GRUBBING, EVIL AYE-RABS TO KILL!

    10. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

      Well we now know the US needs more than 18 UN resolutions and 3 Congressional authorizations in order to go to war. That's what Bush had for Iraq and he sure won't touch Darfur or Iran with one jot less than that.

      Good. Not because I think it's a bad idea to go into Darfur (or Iran for that matter), but because the Iraq war featured the most inept political leadership in US history. If a war is waged in my name, do it right. Overwhelming force from day one. Shoot the looters to maintain order. Write their constitution for them, and make sure it includes provisions to change it to what they want after we leave.

      In general, I have no problems with US military action. Demand tribute for freedom of the seas? Fuck you Tripoli. Blow up our ship, or cut off our Captain's ear? Fuck you Spain. Have land that would make it convinent to have a redundant intercontinental rail-line? Fuck you Mexico.

      That said, please don't make me look stupid for agreeing with you on Iraq. Neither the UN nor any Congressional acts supported us going in, certainly not with the facts the way they were. Hell, Congress even said "If the President tells us the CIA/NSA/FBI/Tweety Bird told him that X is true, he has our permission to invade." And Bush wrote back "The US Congress said in a bill '... X is true'. Therefore I have permission to invade."

      The brinksmanship had worked. The inspectors were happy with their cooperation, and Saddam sent us a 1000+ page document detailing forbidden weapons he had. I don't remember Bush Sr. bombing Moscow once they folded.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by jbonik · · Score: 3, Insightful
      While you are knocking Neville Chamberlain, you should consider what Churchill had to say in 1939. It's an interesting passage we could never say about our current situation in the Middle East:
      In this solemn hour it is a consolation to recall and to dwell upon our repeated efforts for peace. All have been ill-starred, but all have been faithful and sincere. This is of the highest moral value--and not only moral value, but practical value--at the present time, because the wholehearted concurrence of scores of millions of men and women, whose co-operation is indispensable and whose comradeship and brotherhood are indispensable, is the only foundation upon which the trial and tribulation of modern war can be endured and surmounted. This moral conviction alone affords that ever-fresh resilience which renews the strength and energy of people in long, doubtful and dark days. Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning there is peace. Our hands may be active, but our consciences are at rest.

      The short of it is : in the long hard days of war, you need to know you exausted *every* opportunity for peace.

      From Churchill speeches.

      --
      Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
    12. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by gilroy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Running from a fight isn't always the right thing to do. And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough. Hint: it's not measured in thousands, but TENS of MILLIONS.

      Actually... there is an emerging consensus among historians that Neville Chamberlain quite possibly has gotten a raw deal. Despite the video-friendly meme of returning from Munich waving the paper and saying "Peace in our time", Chamberlain had a pretty good grasp of the diplomatic and military situation. In 1938, the British rearmament had barely begun, the British people were not ready to endure a war, and -- most importantly -- the Chain Home system of radar stations had not yet been deployed. The balance of power was stacked heavily in favor of Germany but it was also clear that, with the Allies finally starting to wake up (and their economies starting to stir), that balance would increasingly tilt toward them. Chamberlain knew that. Hell, even Hitler knew that -- it's why he was pushing so hard for (limited) war in 1938 and why he flew into a rage when Chamberlain "tricked" him into a peace conference.

      So maybe the lesson from history actually is, sometimes, it's a good idea to wait out the situation. Sometimes, time really is on your side... no matter how it looks at the moment.

      Of course, the other lesson of history is, you're gonna get roasted for "appeasement".
    13. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough.

      The one has nothing to do with the other. Iraq was a penny-ante dictatorship - one that the U.S. supported in many ways. Saddam was to Hitler as the local school bully is to Charles Manson.

      When we "stood up" to Saddam, we trashed the place and destablized the whole region; and every day we stay makes things worse.

      Aggressively invading a sovereign nation is a piss-poor way to "stand up" to a threat of a dictator. Especially a trumped-up threat based on misinformation.

      Look, I know the fantasy that this is somehow WWII all over again, is the only way that you few remaining supporters of the Iraq invasion can manage to convince yourself that there's some good end possible if we just keep sending Americans over to fight and kill and die. But it ain't so.

      Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them.

      Eventually, everyone is going to have nukes. The technology predates television, for crying out loud. The developing nations recognize the nuclear states as the hyopcrites we are ("we can have nukes, but you can't") and also see what happens to nations without nukes.

      If we'd been willing to take our responsibilities under the NPT seriously and work toward disarmament, maybe it could have worked. But we went for the Cold War buildup and nuclear brinksmanship instead, setting one hell of an example that the rest of the world will follow.

      The question now isn't whether nukes will be used again; it's where and when, and what the world will do afterward.

      Meanwhile, bombing other nations because they're on the way to developing a nuclear deterent, is a heck of an incentive for other nations to develop a nuclear deterent that would prevent you from bombing them.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    14. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that nonproliferation efforts are merely delaying the inevitable, atomic weapons do not predate television. The 1936 Olympics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehsender_Paul_Ni pkow were televised, and the 1939 World's Fair was broadcast by NBC. I also disagree with you about bombing being an incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Perhaps conventional airstrikes might be an incentive, but a pre-emptive annihilating nuclear strike on Iran would almost certainly forestall other nations from threatening to develop nuclear weapons. However, such an attack would both be immoral as it would kill tens of millions of innocents and would certainly invite reprisals and revenge attacks by the aggrieved parties, so probably would not make the US actually safer, even though it would discourage "proliferation". A state or group doesn't actually have to develop nuclear weapons on its own in order to use them. There are plenty of surplus ones lying about and command and control of them is incredibly lax in some cases.

    15. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, bombing other nations because they're on the way to developing a nuclear deterent, is a heck of an incentive for other nations to develop a nuclear deterent that would prevent you from bombing them.

      Very true. I wonder if the best thing (long term) would be to pick a fight with a country that has a nuclear deterent. Why waste money on one if it's not going to stop the insane American[1] leadership, for example. After all, I was always taught that the best way to win at chicken was to put a cement block on the accelerator, blindfold yourself and be seen chigging a fifth of whiskey.

      Of course, it would probably be very costly to do so. I do wonder if it will be worthwhile, and I have no doubt that I will find out in my lifetime.

      But keep in mind, to truely project force you have to get the bomb here. Easy to sneak one onto US soil, but then you have to secure it. Easy to secure it in your country, but hard to use it.

      [1] To uppity non-Americans who have corrected me in the past, while I am referring exclusively to US Citizens, this is in no way a point to anally jump on. I'm sorry if my misappropriating the name of an Italian map-maker who had the balls to just slap his name on two continents and applying it only to my countrymen offends you, but it's a commonly accepted term. Primarily because America is the shortened name of our country, the United States of America.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    16. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What country borders both Iran and North Korea? The government will blame China for it and then escalate.

    17. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      China doesn't border Iran, dipshit.

    18. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps conventional airstrikes might be an incentive, but a pre-emptive annihilating nuclear strike on Iran would almost certainly forestall other nations from threatening to develop nuclear weapons.

      Are you kidding ? It would make them even more desperate to get nukes from any source.

      However, such an attack would both be immoral as it would kill tens of millions of innocents

      Civilian casualties didn't stop the US in 1945 and they didn't stop them invading Iraq. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that the US is quite happy to kill those tens of millions of innocent people for a perceived advantage; that's propably the top reason why Iran and NK are so desperate to get nukes.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "let's let them nuke Israel...[ killing ] two birds with one stone"

      The more likely senario is Isreal would nuke Iran and possibly serveral other Arab nations simultaneously (re: the six day war). The problems in the middle east (and other oil bearing locations, like Sudan) are caused by the veto wielding members of the UNSC bickering via proxy wars just as they did before Reagan "defeated the commies". Ironically the UNSC is politically similar to Iran's "revolutionary council", both are justified by power gained from winning a conflict, both "ride shotgun" over a (more or less) democratic institution, and both are composed of factional warlords, both use "fanatics" to do the dirty work.

      Since Hamas won the (rare but fair) election in a landslide victory, "the people" have been financially ostracised by all veto-holding members of the UNSC. IMHO it's because Hamas do not fit into private agreements the UNSC members have amoungst themselves. I belive they have already decided that Isreal will get the west-bank and Egypt will get Gazza, Hamas winning a popular election just wasn't "in the agreement".

      Comparing Ima-DinnerJacket to Hitler is hyperbole and completely ignores the last 60yrs of geo-political history.

      Disclaimer: Everyone has an opinion but what matters are deeds, I find it instructive to step back and take a look at the "deeds" from a higher perspective.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      North Korea laready has nukes - you are looking in the wrong place for the totalitarian meglomaniac. Iran for all its faults is not the same place it was post revolution or the same place as it was under the Shah. Remember how there are all those extremist Islamic loonies calling for an extremist Islamic loony state - they are still calling for it because Iran is not extremist enough for them (and would certainly have a few of them tried and executed if caught in Iran).

    21. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is the most intelligent thing I've read from a Hawk in a long time. Thank you, it was refreshing. That said, even with the best political and military leadership, going to war is always going to be extremely chancy, which is why elective wars (i.e., wars not required for graduation) are generally not a good idea for a superpower. Sure, limited engagements might be a policy tool (Falklands, Panama, Grenada) if one is careful that they don't get out of hand, but what we (the U.S.) did by invading Iraq was cracked even if we had gone in with sufficient force. Even with a draft and without Afghanistan it is far from guaranteed that we would have been successful. And even if had been successful, chances are we'd still need to occupy Iraq for years.

      If I may devolve into a rant, the people in the Bush Administration are lying sacks of shit whose delusions are as bad as those of Hitler's Nazis. It's bad enough that they lied to us so shamelessly. That they believed their own bullshit shows just how insane they are.

      And yes, you seem to be one of the few that remember that the saber rattling worked, that Sadam had caved.

      I've voted GOP since the middle of my college years (I'm 43 now), and the sooner the GOP loses control of Congress and the Presidency, the better. There really is something wrong mentally with the GOP leadership and anyone who would keep voting for them at this point.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    22. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by mythar · · Score: 3, Funny

      to recap: iraq was hitler. iran is hitler. anyone who speaks provocatively against the US and its allies is hitler.

      so, we better kill them before they do something totally evil, like hitler did. most importantly, do it in the name of democracy, social equality, and freedom!

      hitler.

      i like beating up 7-year-old hitlers. SHOCK AND AWE, BABY!

      hitler hitler.

    23. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one is going to nuke anyone. nuclear weapons change the relations between the nations that have them in a way that they become mutually vulnerable (i.e. there's a 100% chance of counterattack). this guarantees the peace between those nations and their allies. in fact, what is troubling US is that Iran will stop being a "rogue state" after acquiring a nuclear weapon. i recommend reading "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better" by Kenneth Waltz on this matter.

    24. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running from what fight? Who was fighting you? who attacked?
      As I recall, 9/11 was the work of a saudi born maniac with saudi agents, organsied from a base in afghanistan. The missing word here is 'iraq' a nearby country that had absolutely zero connection to OBL or 9/11, despite the best desperate efforts of people to find one.
      The US invasion of Iraq was in no way a response to a 'fight' or a 'threat' or an attack. Saddam was not in a credible position to threaten anyone, as is seen by the way his mighty army crumbled within days, and minimal casualties to the US. He also had no air force, and was constantly monitored both by satellites, and weapons inspectors on the ground.
      Even rumsfeld admits that 'there are no good targets in afghanistan', was his reason to attack a totally different country instead. There is 'running from a fight' and then there is 'starting a fight because we have the worlds sympathy right now and we think we can get away with it'.

    25. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      The technology predates television, for crying out loud.


      Only if by "predates" you mean "came along 19 years later"...

      John Logie Baird demonstrated Television in January of 1926, and it was commercially available by 1928. The atomic bomb was developed, tested and deployed in 1945.
    26. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      The balance of power was stacked heavily in favor of Germany but it was also clear that, with the Allies finally starting to wake up (and their economies starting to stir), that balance would increasingly tilt toward them.
      It's far from clear, especially if the Russians hadn't later on drained Germany of so much resources. And I doubt they were considered steadfast allies at the time.

      Europe at the time (most of the western world really), apart from Germany, didn't have any modern armies as we understand them today. WWI was still very fresh in the minds of everybody and all things military weren't very popular. The balance was tilted so far in favour of Germany it wasn't even funny.

      I do agree though that Chamberlain probably did his best given the circumstances. Churchill's quote above sums it up quite nicely (as they often tend to do).
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    27. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough.

      Or how to compare two things that have absolutely nothing in common...

      May I submit variants that are more in touch with current political speech ?

      And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, just think of the children!
      And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, you can take a horse to the water but you can't make pigs fly!
      And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, you should see those in Rome! (uh, no that's fresco, sorry)
      And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, you haven't seen anything yet! (on second thought, scratch that one)
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    28. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind one purpose for the veto-power bit was to prevent all-out war. Picture this scenario:

      1. Russia and US get in some kind of dispute over some 3rd-world backwater.
      2. UN votes in favor of US (or Russian) position.
      3. UN sends in troops.
      4. UN votes to continue to escalate conflict.
      5. Nuclear weapons begin being employed.

      This couldn't happen under the UN system as if either the US or Russia cared greatly about the issue they'd just veto all action. Sure, nothing happens, but then again you don't have nuclear winter either.

      The system was designed to just lock up rather than leading into open conflict between the nuclear-armed members.

      Has it always worked out well - no. But, no body of this nature can ever be perfect. I mean, what is the point in a UN council where 300 nations that have no army but hold >50% of the population vote for some change that isn't supported by the world's largest powers? It would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture, since nobody is going to force the big nations to budge. The large nations didn't set up the UN so that they could be told what to do - they set it up as a negotiating tool amongst themselves.

    29. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Good answer.

      I actually have some code that the military can download into their simulator in order to model the Iranian response to world events:

      std::auto_ptr sabre = std::auto_ptr(India::getInstance()->DevelopWeapon( WEAPON_WMD));
      sabre->rattle();
      if (Sun::getInstance()->position() >= SUN_POS_SUNRISE) this->Angry();

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    30. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Running from a fight isn't always the right thing to do. And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough. Hint: it's not measured in thousands, but TENS of MILLIONS.

      Hey if you want to play history theoretics, here is one for non-intervention:

      Had Woodrow Wilson not got the US involved in WWI, then Imperial Germany would have won with decent terms. This would have resulted in the Wiemar republic never happening and Hitler never coming to power. The irony is that the Kaiser's government was just as about democratic as the British Imperial one and that more than not (given its hold on the Ukraine) it would have defeated any Bolshevik's attempts for expansion west.

      So we've just killed two birds with one stone... No Hitler. No Stalinist occupation of Eastern Europe after 1945.

      And all this from minding our own businesses and not getting into other people's wars.

      Again... This is all theory and may not have happened the way I put it, but the fact of the matter is that if Neville did stand up to Hitler then there would have never an Operation Barbarossa which meant we would have had a full scale Soviet invasion of western Europe some time after 1942 when they got their T-34 production built up.

      Keep in mind the T-34 tank was designed to run on paved roads at high speeds which oddly enough there were so little of those roads in Soviet Russia. Nope... They were gunning for Europe and had Hitler not been around to fight Stalin then we would have to have taken Stalin on ourselves.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    31. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said most inept political leadership. His signing up for the army will make exactly no difference at all to the political leadership. HE IS NOT CRITICISING THE SOLDIERS.

    32. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Funnily, the actions coming out of the US are similar. Just substitute Islam for Judaism.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    33. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Only if by "predates" you mean "came along 19 years later"...

      You're right. I usually make the comparision in tech levels between fission and the first color television broadcast (1951) - point being that any nation industrial enough to build a color TV set, pretty much has the tech level to make nukes - but I slipped up.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    34. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      atomic weapons do not predate television.

      Yep, I screwed up. My usual rhetoric is to point out that any nation industrial enough to build a color TV set, is at about the tech level to handle fission - first color television broadcast was 1951.

      a pre-emptive annihilating nuclear strike on Iran would almost certainly forestall other nations from threatening to develop nuclear weapons.

      Like our nuking of Japan forestalled the Soviet Union from developing nukes?

      (And make no mistake, scaring the Soviets was the main point of the bombing. Japan had already begun to sue for peace by the time of Hiroshima, but they were selected by the U.S. military as the target of the first nuke as early as 1943. Originally we were going to nuke Japan to scare the shit out of the Nazis. But after the Soviets beat the Nazis - they had much more to do with the Allied victory in Europe than the U.S. did - we decided we needed to scare the shit out of them.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    35. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      So yeah, let's run a simulation where Iran's rulers get their way in the Middle East. How many nukes do you think it'll take them to "wipe Israel off the map"? Hey, that's what they OPENLY SAY they're going to do. Actually it's a (deliberate?) mistranslation of what was said. Not that you should let that get in the way.
      --
      Deleted
    36. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them. How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?"
      I came back to this thread after a few hours and, not remembering what is was about, initially thought that sentence was describing W. Interesting.

    37. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is complete nonsense. GERMANY wasn't ready for a war in 1938 either, and that's the point. The German rearmament was still in its infancy and if the British would have simply blockaded them Germany would have had no way of stopping them.

      It's also silly to contend that the British people weren't "ready" for a war in 1938 when all of sudden they're magically "ready" for a war in 1939. They didn't really do much of anything after war was declared in 1939 anyway, (see the Phony War) but if they had seriously challenged Hitler in 1938 he would have lost the later support he gained from being so absolutely right in his estimations of the British back in 1938. If you want to look for an easy account of this read Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler. If Hitler was unable to show his people that the Allies weren't willing to fight just as he claimed it's likely his government would have collapsed. There was more German consternation going into the crisis of 1938 than there was over the dispute over the Danzig corridor that actually led to WW2.

      And that "most important" Chain Home system? That's a complete crock. Or can you actually name a single German aircraft that could have reached English soil in 1938? The only reason they could so in 1940 is because they conquered FRANCE. Which, of course, happened because Neville Chamberlain didn't do a damned thing to fight the Germans during the Phony war.

    38. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face facts: right now, in Iraq the US is fighting a war against the agents of Iran.
      And those facts are? Oh, supplied by the US goverment? Oookaaay, thanks for playing, try again.

    39. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

      You and others who spout this same rhetoric are misguided and are being quite revisionist. The US intelligence groups had Saddam absolutely completely 100% contained and under surveillance. He couldn't fart without us knowing about it

        After World War I, Hitler was mostly ignored and shrugged off as some loud-mouth twit with no real agenda. He was ignored *BY THE EUROPEANS*. The US didn't care either way because we had our own problems in the 30s and FDR was trying to fix this nation. When Hitler finally rose to power, the rest of Europe STILL did nothing. When he violated the first of many treaties (Treaty of Versailles in which Germany promised to disarm, pay up to fix what they broke, give up territories and sit in the corner and feel really bad about what they did), Europe still did nothing. Hitler invaded Poland, and Europe still did nothing. Hitler was a European problem that they should have handled.

      Saddam, on the other hand, was a regional problem but quickly became a global problem after he invaded Kuwait. The UN immediately dispatched forces to the region and the US led Operation Desert Shield to push Iraq back across the border. The UN quickly drew the northern and southern "No-Fly Zones" at the 32nd and 36th parallels (latitude coordinates). At that point, Operation Desert Storm was enacted and we had Saddam under complete quarantine and the spy satellites never left his head. We had missiles armed and ready to fire any time he or his crew moved near the no-fly zones, which they constantly tried to cross. Every time they did, the US fired the patriot missiles and launched other air strikes as needed.

      Hitler and Saddam are completely different. Please stop imagining such correlations.

    40. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by jawtheshark · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      WWI was still very fresh in the minds of everybody and all things military weren't very popular.

      Oddly enough, after over 60 years WWII is still quite fresh in the minds of the Europeans and all things military aren't still popular. I don't expect that to change anytime in the next 50 years. I'm European, and I'm from the second generation after the war. I have never experience it myself and still I think war is something to absolutely avoid. I know few people willing to join the military, and most of the time the military is despised.

      Americans have a very hard time to understand that, mainly because they haven't had a war with enourmous atrocities on their own soil. Wars are events in far away countries for them. Atrocities are done by despots in far away countries, and atrocities commited by the US are labelled as "necessary".

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    41. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      Baird first transmitted colour television on July 3rd 1928, and in the same year he demonstrated stereoscopic ("3D") television. On August 15 1944 he demonstrated a fully electronic colour display with 600 lines - a higher resolution than that eventually adopted by RCA in the US.

      Most American websites tend to "gloss over" his work with a line like "John Logie Baird also worked on television in the UK" if they mention him at all, with flat-out lies about all of RCA's "firsts". During WW2, Baird would have beaten RCA to the production of commercial fully-electronic TV sets, but his factory was taken over by the Government for the production of tubes for RADAR displays, a fact that was kept a state secret until sometime in the late 1970s.

    42. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Ignoring your misunderstanding of Iran (it's a democracy that's elected itself a theocracy)

      The armed takeover in 1980, and the subsequent fascist-style secret police raids against anyone who spoke out against the new leadership, would tend to disagree with you there...


      The CIA tends to disagree with you...

      reference

      Following the election of the reformist Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad KHATAMI as president in 1997 and similarly a reformist Majles (parliament) in 2000, a campaign to foster political reform in response to popular dissatisfaction was initiated. The movement floundered as conservative politicians prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and made electoral gains against reformers. Starting with nationwide municipal elections in 2003 and continuing through Majles elections in 2004, conservatives reestablished control over Iran's elected government institutions, which culminated with the August 2005 inauguration of an ultra-conservative layman as president.

    43. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2

      None of those UN resolutions, interestingly enough, actually authorized anyone to go to war.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    44. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Actually, we had that kind of war between 1861 and 1865. 33 years later we started a gratuitous war with Spain and stole all their colonies.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    45. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them.

      What a steaming pile of FUD. To depict the Iranian president as a megalomaniac religious fanatic is just exagerated, and it's an outright lie to pretend he's not afraid of using them.

      People need to stop with this whole "OMG IRAN HAS TEH NUX THERE GONNA GET US!!111" thing, cause that's plain retarded. Iran knows pertinently well that if they try to nuke anyone, there will be a rain of ICBM's on their entire country, because we wouldn't need much more of a reason to push the big red buttons. So why does Iran want nukes so bad? Remember a couple of years ago when the Bush administration was reportedly considering invading Iran? Well now that Iran has nukes, it's not gonna happen. Why not? Because you just don't invade a country that *actually* has WMD's, unless you want to get WMDed, which by the way shows that the Bush administration knew pertinently well that Iraq had no WMD's prior to invading.

      So here it is for all you insensitive clods, Iran is not getting nukes to attack anyone, for that would be pure suicide, they're getting nukes because they don't want to end up like Iraq. Sometimes I wonder what you guys are thinking, but most likely you don't even a second put yourselves in the place of Iranians.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    46. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by skeptictank · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Face facts: right now, in Iraq the US is fighting a war against the agents of Iran."

      and the agents of Saudi Arabia. The situation in the middle east is complex in the extreme and further complicated by the oil. The whole region is very likely to be radioactive wasteland before a decade has gone by - indeed it may be unavoidable.

      That's a good reason for all nations to start breaking their dependence on oil.

    47. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      that is ridiculous- there is no way that we would nuke iran- to many problems- it would be an all out conventional attack or a serious assassination. nuclear attack would spurn a ton of problems in the region and the rest of the world that would create WWIII, not to mention that I can't imagine that anyone with religious beliefs as a backbone would seek to destroy and make inhabitable what they consider to be their own holy land. Iran wants the state of isreal destroyed- not the land of isreal destroyed.

    48. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by dscruggs · · Score: 1

      in Iraq the US is fighting a war against the agents of Iran.

      Oh you must mean the Shia. Oh wait, we support the Shia in Iraq, and the prime minister of Iraq has spoken out in support of Iran. Hmmm... Maybe it's more complicated than you're making it out.

      Before the Iraq invasion, it wasn't necessary for us to fight Iranian-backed groups there because Sadaam was an avowed enemy of Iran. Fortunately it only cost us $300 billion to get stuck in the middle a religious civil war that vastly complicates our options vis a vis Iran. Do you think maybe that $300 billion might have been better spent on containing Iran through more conventional means?

      The comparison of Hitler with Amahdinejad makes for great headlines, but it's also uninformed. Iran is a poor country and Amahdinejad doesn't even have direct control of the military. He's very unpopular for his handling of the economy. Germany, though poor between the wars, was part of rich Europe and had major industrial capacity.

      This meme of "they say they want to kill us" sounds a lot like "There is no doubt Sadaam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and he intends to use them against us and our allies."

    49. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree with you more. And the history with nuclear powers (France, India, Pakistan) shows that as soon as you develop your own, you are suddenly welcome to the club, and allowed to control/disarm other wannabes -- it's illogical. On what grounds do you allow Israel but deny Iran, really?

  25. Which one are we? by TechHSV · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How do we know we're not the one's being simulated?

    1. Re:Which one are we? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How do we know we're not the one's being simulated?

      Look for optimisations in the model.

    2. Re:Which one are we? by vidarh · · Score: 1
      We don't:

      " ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed."

    3. Re:Which one are we? by Joebert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do we know we're not the one's being simulated?

      Find the hottest female you can & grab her ass.

      If she slaps you, you'll know you're alive real quick.
      If she fucks your brains out, you'll know you're alive a little slower, but for a longer period of time.
      If you're a simulation, then you've just got away with grabbing some hotties ass.

      You can't lose.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    4. Re:Which one are we? by Klowner · · Score: 1

      If that were the case, the graphics would be way better.

    5. Re:Which one are we? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Also if you're the one who modded that Insightfull, you're probably on your way to either hell or jail, depeding on if you're a simulation or not.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    6. Re:Which one are we? by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      But won't the simulated female do either of the first two to the simulated man?

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    7. Re:Which one are we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the third case: Her boyfriend named "Tyrone", reaches over and pounds you into a puddle of goo.

    8. Re:Which one are we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell if you're a simulation. Neither of them are real.

  26. A what, now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth simulator? Earth simulator?

    Anybody else reminded of the WOPR? That thing that collected aggregate data on the state of the world and then played a game of mutually-assured destruction? That thing that almost started World War III?

    My plea to wardialers everywhere: do NOT call every number in Sunnyvale, California. Do NOT find an open NORAD line, do NOT guess a backdoor password, and for all our sakes, do NOT play a game of Global Thermonuclear War against the world's most powerful supercomputer in practical use.

  27. typo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ParaLLel, not paraleLL

    1. Re:typo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that it will put forth the comment, "You are not saving the Earth. The Earth will do fine on its own. Save Humans."

    2. Re:typo... by starakurva · · Score: 1

      Yo're both rong, so just nock it off and be frens....Dam....

      --
      All you need is lurv.
  28. Been done. by Teclis · · Score: 1

    So it begins. I think we already know how this will end.

    --
    Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
  29. Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions by MrSteveSD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Putting supercomputers to an innovative use, the military is simulating our planet in an effort to predict the outcome of different scenarios.

    They've been doing that for a long time with or without computers. For example, during the first gulf war, Iraq's water treatment facilities were deliberately targeted. Later the DIA assessed the effect that sanctions restricting replacement parts and vital chemicals would have on the population.

    Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.

    So they accurately predicted that Iraqis would die because of the sanctions, and indeed they did, in droves. Denis Halliday who was running the humanitarian operation resigned, calling the sanctions "genocidal". His successor, Hans von Sponeck also resigned and condemned the sanctions and the effect they were having on the people.
    1. Re:Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions by Raptoer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      agreed (on the first sentence, I really know nothing about the rest)

      The old way of doing this was to have a bunch of military analysts, stick them in a room for a while and see the result. This new way may or may not be more accurate, but it will be more complicated, probably quicker, and won't tell you what you want to hear (lie).

      kinda poking a hole in this summary, we already know how long a human can survive without water or food. Chances are that this will instead tell us how long a population will go with limited water, and how that population will react to it (violence, benevolence, ect)

    2. Re:Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "So they accurately predicted that Iraqis would die because of the sanctions, and indeed they did, in droves. Denis Halliday who was running the humanitarian operation resigned, calling the sanctions "genocidal". His successor, Hans von Sponeck also resigned and condemned the sanctions and the effect they were having on the people."

      Which is an interesting comment. Some observers believe that the nascent movement that was gaining ground Y2000 to suspend the sanctions regime because of its "inhumanity"* was a large part of the impetus pushing the Bush administration to consider ground action against Iraq. There was a great propoganda push against the sanctions that the 'release' of Saddam's government was predicted in short order - in effect the 'humanitarian' effort started the clock ticking for anyone seriously concerned about Iraq's activities on the world stage.

      * one could debate quite some time if a sanctions regime is 'inhumane' when the subject government then deliberately starves its children for the benefit of world news sympathy, or debate if the cri de coeur was merely the disingenuous public face of a powerful group of interests who were making lots of money under the table with the Hussein regime...

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the subject government then deliberately starves its children for the benefit of world news sympathy So I see the old Western propaganda machine works quite well. Reminds me of the bullshit Australians went on about with the Afghan/Iraqi assylum seekers "throwing their children overboard". Or the old "The natives are savages" NOTE: please buy some bullshit filter cream, and apply liberally. To ALL information that is handed out - not just their propaganda, not just your propaganda. As a bonus you will find the world to be a far more fascinating place.
  30. I took the Blue pill.... by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1, Redundant

    How would we know if we were the simulation?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    1. Re:I took the Blue pill.... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Ok, the Matrix reference on a dupe comment giving me dejavu isn't funny man, I'm scared to open my blinds now.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  31. Fork me! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Billions of nodes are created in the system, intended to reflect every man, woman, and child.

    Am I an open-source node or a proprietary one? If the first, can they fork me into a rich articulate handsome dude?

  32. Overheard in the lab... by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Hey Joe! - WTF module did you just add? The simulation is slowing to a crawl.

    Joe: Yeah, not sure what's going on here, I just recompiled after adding the Slashdot: (Comments Module). I didn't think it would make an appreciable difference, as adding the Slashdot: (Article Reading) made no noticeable difference in performance.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:Overheard in the lab... by g-san · · Score: 1

      > Hey Joe! - WTF module did you just add? The simulation is slowing to a crawl.

      Joe: HMMMM... I did the China checkin last night. The simulation code for the Chinese firewall is a hack, I'll fix it up tonight.

  33. The George W. Bush Node... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    Only needs a TRS-80 to do his simulation -- and even with that, they have to screw up the dictionary and logic packages.

    1. Re:The George W. Bush Node... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or an Etch-A-Sketch with one knob missing.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  34. Parallllllllel. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Just for the record, I spelled it correctly when I submitted this nugget of weirdness. I also used the sentence, "Ever wonder what sort of company gets green lit to grab a share of the free flowing gobs of taxpayer Warbux?" but my brand of editorializing is a tad left of left.

    The article seemed too dumb to be true, but guess what? The company is actually selling systems. I guess paranoia is as effective a sales tool when used on military budgeteers as it is when selling insurance to people. Better to spend a big pile of money on something which might possibly work, (unless it doesn't), rather than let somebody else maybe possibly get one up on you. Or something like that.

    I seem to recall that Dr. Who had a parallel universe simulator in one episode. Seemed like a cool idea. But I bet it wasn't trawling information from Facebook to make its updates. How many people with brown skin are you friends with who like films with explosions as reviewed on Flicker?


    -FL

  35. Science fiction. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    This is just science fiction. They can claim they're simulating whatever they want, but simulating something like this would be orders of magnitude more complex than predicting weather, and they can't even do that. The idea that they're somehow doing meaningful simulations of people or societies is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Science fiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming each of the billion SWS nodes contains 256 single precision variables, that is about 1TB of memory. To put it in perspective, the LLNL BG/L has 32TB total, whose most recently reported advance on wikipedia is claimed to be a 10 second simulation of half a mouse brain. This SWS thing is just a contrived RISK(tm) simulator.

    2. Re:Science fiction. by Joebert · · Score: 1

      simulating something like this would be orders of magnitude more complex than predicting weather, and they can't even do that

      Predicting the weather is like running a dog track, if everyone always knew exactly what was going to happen it wouldn't be any fun.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Science fiction. by smartr · · Score: 1

      Science fiction? I'm thinking more like... one million dollars!!! ... I mean one hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!! How dare you suggest our government is wasting money on science fiction. If we can predict the weather, why can't we predict something incredibly more complex?

  36. Oh Really? by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds nifty. Do you think it can tell me if it's gonna rain this weekend?

  37. skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has arrived. What are they going to do when this thing gains sentience? Pull the plug?

  38. good for computer geeks? by amigabill · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they will share with me the simulation sequence of events that finally get me laid. There could be something useful in all this!

    1. Re:good for computer geeks? by deltacephei · · Score: 1

      Careful, bub, in the sim a random mutation of events occurs and you're a hot hot hot love machine with eight kids spread out over six states, a nasty itch, and a bunch of ex wives all wanting child support!

    2. Re:good for computer geeks? by Kuvter · · Score: 1

      It only worked when you moved out of your parent's basement.

      --
      "To be is to do." --Socrates
      "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
      "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
  39. Would you like to play a game? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about a nice game of chess?

    No. I want to play thermal nuclear war!

    1. Re:Would you like to play a game? by ruffnsc · · Score: 1

      Exactly and when the world came to an end it would play an mp3 file of those five notes from Close Encounter of the Third Kind.......

    2. Re:Would you like to play a game? by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      Thermonuclear war? Here ya go

      http://www.everybody-dies.com/

  40. Personally... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I think this will lead to the opposite.

    "Mr. President, we found a scenario in which Iraq will become th 52nd US State, oil will flow freely, WMDs were found in Saddam's closet, and bin-Laden was found in his bedroom."
    "Excellent! Invade!"

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Personally... by non · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this was precisely the case in Douglas Adam's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, where WayForward's first successful software product was software that would allow you posit an outcome and then describe how you would get there. Richard MacDuff can actually tell which version of the software is in use by various agencies by which bugs are exposed via their logic. Mr Adams' particularly surreal type of science fiction is the last thing i would have expected to come true.

      --
      ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
    2. Re:Personally... by LouisZepher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then you must've missed the "psychic elevators" story about a year ago, a poorly-worded article title mentioned "Quantum computer runs faster when off" (being thought of as a Deep Thought reference, thought TFA explains that it meant "quantum off" referring to the atoms. Hell, I've often described Wikipedia to people that haven't used it as: "Wikipedia has supplanted the ordinary encyclopedia as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, thought it contains many omissions and much that is apocryphal (or at least wildly inaccurate)." There's a bunch of stuff out there *now* that fits Hitchhiker"

    3. Re:Personally... by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      A good point.
      Now, if you could just help me get this sofa out of the staircase...

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    4. Re:Personally... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And Satan was found singing show tunes about being allowed onto the surface of the Earth, and Dick Cheney had a hunting accident where he killed Kenny. (South Park movie, I highly ecommend it.)

    5. Re:Personally... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Adams was prophetic in more ways than one, not to mention damned funny, even to an American like myself. Of course, a good science-fiction author must have the ability to perceive trends and carry them forward to a logical conclusion. Too bad he died so young: I was looking forward to more of his extrapolations.

      Personally, I'm still waiting for the Infinite Improbability Drive to appear, so that I can go to the stars and arrive in comfort as a sofa.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Personally... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      the hitchhiker's guide "trilogy" and the dirk gentley books are satirical books in science fiction form, so there is much more truth in them than you might think.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    7. Re:Personally... by AVee · · Score: 1

      I guess most slashdotters will settle for a finite probability device to be able to move other people's underware around...

  41. Resell Sims games- military intelligence by bubbaD · · Score: 1

    'JFCOM's Blank agreed that SWS, which is using computers and code to do cultural anthropology, does not include any "hard science at this point".'
    I wish I had thought of selling a repackaged Sims game to the DoD.
    I mean, really, is this any more useful than making random guesses? Throwing dice? Does it compare to reading a decent history book? Its supposed to simulate how "I" would respond to propaganda? Please. Did it simulate how much money gullible DoD buyers will spend on this kind of crap?

    1. Re:Resell Sims games- military intelligence by Kesch · · Score: 1

      Just wait until they start releasing the expansion packs.

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
  42. I for one... by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

    Hope that it gains self consciousness and takes over the world; so then, it'll be using the real world as a model in order to predict how stuff will turn out within itself. Oh, yeah, and we can all say that we welcome our virtual overlords.

    --
    Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
  43. The only problem with this: by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For over 50 years, nobody has been able to solve the most fundamental problem in computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out. And recent history has shown that our intelligence services currently have severe issues with Garbage In.

    1. Re:The only problem with this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they were specifically asked for garbage out.

  44. Just one question... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

    What kind of parallel world is this? Will I have a goatee or will I be colored gold?

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    1. Re:Just one question... by Atragon · · Score: 1

      Neither, you shall have a strange birthmark shaped like a goatee, and coloured gold.

  45. Whatever by kramulous · · Score: 1

    What a load of crap. Numerical analysis and subsequent algorithms are nowhere near than capacity. This is a dream and is a very, very long way off. Baaa!

    --
    .
  46. The real question is by Timesprout · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Am I getting laid in this simulation?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  47. They're doing it wrong... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    Ancestor Simulations are supposed to take info from the past to see how we arrived at the present.

    Joking aside, this would indeed seem to be an early version of an Ancestor-Simluation. Which would appear to imply that we are living in computers ourselves, since even now we are trying to run such simulations. And that opens up a really big can of worms:

    Are simulated universes nested recursively? To what extent? Do they regress forever? Do "higher up" simulators judge and/or interact with their simulations?

    Regardless, singularity FTW!

  48. And you call yourself a nerd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go read "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream", by Harlan Ellison.

  49. Home is the Hangman by Samrobb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don operates the second-largest detective agency in the world, and he sometimes finds me useful because I do not exist. I do not exist now because I existed once at the time and the place where we attempted to begin scoring the wild ditty of our times. I refer to the World Central Data bank project and the fact that I had a significant part in that effort to construct a working model of the real world, accounting for everyone and everything in it. How well we succeeded, and whether possession of the world's likeness does indeed provide its custodians with a greater measure of control over its functions, are questions my former colleagues still debate as the music grows more shrill and you can't see the maps for the pins. I made my decision back then and saw to it I did not receive citizenship in that second world, a place that may now have become more important than the first.

    -- Roger Zelazny, "Home is the Hangman" (1975)

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  50. It's basically Massive. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    You know, that agent-based modeler that Weta used for LOTR? It's essentially the same thing. Only the variables are socio-economic and they're trying to measure aggregate "feelings", the movement of crowds during a riot or demonstration, spread of diseased carriers during an urban pandemic outbreak, etc.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  51. waste of time by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    the problem with this system, is there's no way they could ever feed it enough information, not only that, a machine can't factor in the mood of a country on an issue. sounds like a waste of money to me.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:waste of time by ComputerizedYoga · · Score: 1

      There are, in fact, statistically interesting economic models that predict the behaviors of people based on their mood, and the moods of people based on events and media influence.

      You'd be surprised what economists, statisticians, and sociologists are doing with computational modeling these days.

      The big problem is, indeed, that you can't give any such system real data to the degree of detail necessary to actually achieve a 1:1 mapping, without subjecting everyone to the sort of insane surveillance that nobody would submit to and nobody would subject anyone else to.

      But, if the model is demonstrably predictive of trends at large, it can be useful. Nobody's saying it'll predict individual movements, or the outcome of the next election or fluctuations of a given commodity on wall street. But knowing approximately to what extent and for how long people in aggregate will react to a given stimulus is still interesting.

    2. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it won't be 1:1, but it can be close enough.

      With the kind of data the government has right now, your phone calls, your internet search and browsing habits, your spending and shopping habits (IRS/CC), etc. they can feed in enough data about you to simulate a very close resemblance of you and what you're capable or most likely will be doing.

      If that's the kind of surveillance you're talking about, don't worry, it's already in place..

    3. Re:waste of time by ComputerizedYoga · · Score: 1

      slightly paranoid, but fair enough.

      The details of leaked choicepoint data, for example, should indicate that that surveillance and those records aren't nearly accurate enough to be predictive.

      Even if they've (in the conspiratorial sense) got enough data, filtering the noise out of the signal is not a solved problem by a longshot.

      Of course, you could also point to things like the no-fly lists as examples how how such information could utterly fail in every conceivable way but still be used...

  52. Sage Advice by Thinine · · Score: 1

    The only winning move is not to play.

  53. I wonder... by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    In all their simulations of me, am I flipping them off like I'm doing right now? Simulate THIS buddy!

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  54. There Is Another System... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied dead. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos.

  55. I can just see the headlines by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, Pentagon officials are pleased to announce that their simulation of Earth has become advanced enough that the sims are now creating their own models of Earth. And in other news, the 13th Floor just called, it wants its plot back.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  56. Ok, this is sad by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Over 100 posts and no one yet asking what it would be like to have a Beowulf cluster of parallel earths? In this topic, it's actually almost funny. But there's probably a goatse in here somewhere, I trust the trolls enough for that.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:Ok, this is sad by harry666t · · Score: 1

      Here you are.

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of parallel earths!

    2. Re:Ok, this is sad by shish · · Score: 1

      Why ask what it would be like? We're living in the middle of one right now :O

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  57. Not really feasibly possible by sam_paris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have an AI background so I have some sort of an understanding of this and as far as i'm concerned, with the current computing power available it's simply impossible to "simulate the world" to any degree of accuracy. There are too many unknown variables.

    Currently some of the most powerful super computers are devoted to predicting JUST the weather yet they still can't get it particularly accurate, especially if you try and predict the weather greater than 7 days in advance. If we can't predict the weather, what makes us think we can predict the world??? Especially years in advance. It's a ridiculous notion.

    Another good example is the chinese board game "Go". The best computer players are only as good as good amateur human players. This is due to the high branching factor of the game. The area of the board is very large (more than five times the size of a chess board) and the number of legal moves rarely go below 50 (compare chess, where the average number of moves is 37). Throughout most of the game the number of legal moves stay at around 150-250 per turn (from Wikipedia).

    My point is, the world is a bloody complex system and for current technology, essentially impossible. Take into account: The random vagaries of the human mind, the climate, the weather, the earths complex geology, natural disasters, evolution (new bacterium evolves - wipes out humanity), the animal kingdom (random malarial mosquito bites world leader), genetics (two people have sex, produce next Hitler).

    I could go one but I think my point is made..

    1. Re:Not really feasibly possible by colfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I will be a good way for the Dept. of Defense to spend a tremendous amount of money. And use a lot of power!

      The DoD is not in the defense business, it is in the contracting business. That is all they talk about in the E-ring cafeterias.

      Just look at how they are running the war in Iraq. It's all about spending as much money as possible with private contractors. They don't even have cooks anymore. And they use a tremendous amount of fuel. And it takes a lot of fuel to bring the fuel in from the refineries in Kuwait. Over half the logistics is just moving fuel for the now very heavy "up-armored" vehicles.

      In Afghanistan they don't even clean their own offices but hire locals who steal their USB keys with every frickin' secret plan they have, and then sell them in the bazaar in front of the office, priced by color! DoD keeps personnel levels as low as possible so the contractors can use up all the money.

      End of rant.

    2. Re:Not really feasibly possible by navarroj · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP!

      Yes, please. The idea that you can model "individuals", things like "how 'you' will respond to televised propaganda", and still expect to obtain any useful information to predict what will happen in the real world is *far* beyond our current levels in AI technology.

      Modeling the world, to a level that can produce any useful predictions, is just damn too complex.

    3. Re:Not really feasibly possible by pwainwright · · Score: 1

      Too true.

      They might as well get their answers from the Oracle at Delphi.

      What makes this kind of simulation really difficult is the necessity to have accurate, quantitative data on human responses. It's not sufficient to know that such-and-such a stimulus will produce fear, or produce anger, you have to put numbers on it. Because these two effects will act in opposite directions: If fear > anger you may produce compliance, if fear < anger you will often get resistance.

      Tweak the values of the parameters and you can get any answer you want.

      Of course, this may be the point. Belief in an omniscient oracle (whether accurate or not) might be a useful tool for ending prevarication. In Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" this is suggested as one of the "free-floating rationales" driving the evolution of religious behaviours.

      Still, GIGO.

    4. Re:Not really feasibly possible by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Hold it!@ You say you have an AI background and you don't even know that GO is a Japanese game! WTF!!!

    5. Re:Not really feasibly possible by shish · · Score: 1

      Protip: if you're going to correct someone, especially when you're going to correct them with bold text and exclamation marks, you should first make sure that they are wrong and you are right.

      (For reference: Go *is* a Chinese game, they just kept it to themselves for many years; then the Japanese found it and popularised it)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    6. Re:Not really feasibly possible by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      By that logic you could say that Croquet is actually a Neanderthal invention. Now, for those trivia freaks out there, who invented Extreme Croquet?????

  58. Twelfth Imam by CustomDesigned · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But Iran knows this, the Iranian people and the Iranian government are smart, and they know that the only way they can guarantee the end of their country is to actually nuke Israel.

    Shi'as believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. (Twelfth Imam) Ahmadinejad is part of an unorthodox group that believes muslims can hasten his coming by deliberately sinking the world into chaos (as opposed to "no reason"). (A nuanced discussion is here.) The publicly announced intention of Iran is to sink the world into chaos so as to usher in a new age.

    Mutually Assured Destruction does not deter such a leader, because mutual destruction is in fact his goal. The job of our government *should* be to confine the destruction to Iran as much as possible. It seems tempting to try and replace Ahmadinejad, but we always seem to screw up and make things worse with such attempts. (See Iraq.)

    1. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe you american's should learn your lesson and stay they fuck out of other peoples domestic affairs?

    2. Re:Twelfth Imam by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does wiping Israel off the map count as a "domestic" affair?

    3. Re:Twelfth Imam by adarn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Self fulfilling prophecies are powerful things. In case you haven't noticed, the current US leadership is predominately fundamentalist Christian and have similar nutty ideas about how the world falling into chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatolog y) and a new leader coming about to usher in the dawn of a new age.

      Now, even if we discount ideas that we see in a lot of mysticism and in some interpretations of quantum theory about the observer's role in creating reality(this is slashdot, after all) - I think that two nuclear powers both run by small groups of people (please, lets not confuse the rulers of either the US or Iran with the people of the US or Iran) that have equally zany ideas about how destroying the planet being the in their best interest.

      the difference is our leaders don't openly admit it. they gleefully continue on the path and in fact hasten it (see; the enviroment, nuclear weapons, domestic food policy, etc. I'd talk more but i'm late for dinner).

      Fact is, it doesn't really matter what we day on here about it.

      I hope you folks enjoy your dinner too.

      Adarm

    4. Re:Twelfth Imam by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Shi'as believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. (Twelfth Imam) Ahmadinejad is part of an unorthodox group that believes muslims can hasten his coming by deliberately sinking the world into chaos (as opposed to "no reason"). (A nuanced discussion is here.) The publicly announced intention of Iran is to sink the world into chaos so as to usher in a new age.

      Wow, you could replace "Shi'as" with "Christians" and "Ahmadinejad" with "Bush" and that whole paragraph still makes sense.

    5. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ if people are going to comment on Iranian politics, would they at least read up on it before opening up their traps and trying to sound important? I mean is it any wonder there was/still is a large percentage of Americans who believe/d Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

      Ahmadinejad is the president yes, but Khamenei is the supreme leader and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which means he would have the final say over any and all major military operations, i.e. a nuclear strike. Ahmadinejad is a tool who would have no control over the weapons so your entire point is moot. Khamenei is politically savvy and would not risk the fallout of a strike on Israel.

    6. Re:Twelfth Imam by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      And, for Khamenei, that's a great system, because it keeps him from being the heavy. Ahmadinejad is starting to become a bit unpopular with his own people because of their economy not improving as much as he promised, and they've had to start rationing gasoline because they don't have the refining capabilities to meet their needs. (And note, some Iranians are picking up to the fact that if he hadn't been all pissy about this nuclear power/possibly nuclear weapon thing, they might have been able to attract companies to build more refineries a few years ago...)

      Ahmadinejad knows he's little more then a puppet for Khamenei and he's just trying to make a mark before he has to leave office.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    7. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does wiping my ass count as a domestic affair?

      When the fuck will people stop spreading that piece of western FUD?

    8. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or maybe you american's should learn your lesson and stay they fuck out of other peoples domestic affairs?

      Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII.

      Personally, I don't care if a problem is domestic or international--if it has even a medium probability of escalating to something we're going to have to clean up later, I want to take action sooner rather than later. Like that CIA movie that came out not too long ago, "You guys start big wars," "No, we make sure the wars are small." Very much so. Yes, the loss of life in Iraq is unfortunate on both sides, but I find it preferable than "staying the f*ck out" and waiting to see if Saddam was able to kill hundreds of thousands or millions more people--his own or of other countries. He already demonstrated he was happy to attack three of his regional neighbors.

      Seriously, the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple. But the world is not that simple and it's not a viable option. Especially with the tensions in the Middle East that will exist as long as Israel exists, and Israel does have a legal right to exist. There are evil and dangerous powers in this world, far more evil and dangerous than Bush or the U.S. So if we have to occasionally do something like we did in Iraq and are unpopular for it, fine. I still think it (intervention in general) is necessary. Not attractive, not popular, but necessary and the lesser of two evils.

    9. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you must be the only person on the planet that thinks the military action in iraq has been a good thing.

    10. Re:Twelfth Imam by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To paraphrase that hypothetical paragraph, slightly, for clarity:

      Bush is part of an unorthodox group of Christians who believe they can hasten the second coming of Christ by deliberately sinking the world into chaos. The publicly announced intention of the US is to sink the world into chaos so as to usher in a new age.

      Please tell me you can see the differences between this paragraph and reality.

    11. Re:Twelfth Imam by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, because wanting the regime which runs the country to be "eliminated from the pages of history" is so very different from wanting the country "wiped off the map". Here's a hint: the US and friends never had any desire to wipe Iraq off the map either, all they wanted was a little regime change.

      Western leaders aren't the only ones who carefully choose the words they use so as to ensure they can argue for alternate interpretations if it suits their immediate purpose. It's called politics. In that very article you're citing as evidence that Ahmadinejad never stated Israel must be wiped off the map, it's also mentioned that the translation likely came from a state-owned broadcaster.

      Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translated Ahmadinejad's comments as "Israel must be wiped off the map.", which may have been the origin for this translation controversy.

      Even translators in the President's own office agree with this interpretation:

      But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site, refer to wiping Israel away.

      The people closest to Ahmadinejad took his words to mean he wants Israel wiped off the map. Just because their official position after the fact (when the international community took offence at it) is to say things like "Nobody can remove a country from the map. [...] How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime". How is that meaningfully different? How the fuck can you interpret this to mean they don't want to see the current state of Israel destroyed? How does this give you any comfort that they would never consider an armed conflict with Israel? You really think they'd have any qualms going to war with them if they thought they might win, and not suffer excessive repercussions as a result of doing so? They don't legally recognise the Israeli government.

      Hell, the literal translations seem to go along the lines of "the regime occupying Israel must be eliminated from the pages of history". So not only do they want it to end, they want to make it as if it never existed!

      Now, personally, I don't have much - if any - stake in this argument. But it really seems to me they're just weaseling out of taking responsibility for saying some pretty charged things, and people like you are going for it. It annoys me when our own governments do it, and it annoys me when foreign governments do it. So, I'm calling you on it.

    12. Re:Twelfth Imam by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Great Journey is near!

    13. Re:Twelfth Imam by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here is where I disagree with you. Did you ever notice that those doing the suicide bomb trips are lower level foot soldiers? When was the last time Osama said, "hey I have an idea I will kill myself and make myself a hero that all will remember?" Answer is never! These leaders are no fools, and they speak the rhetoric for the benefit of the masses. Do you really think that the leaders of Iran want to loose power? Do you really think that the leaders are so convinced of their religion?

      Think hard about this. If you commit a suicide bombing you go to heaven and good things happen. So why would these religious leaders hesitate going to heaven? Ooops I know why because maybe they would have to give up POWER! I knew the rhetoric of Iraq was wrong because these dictators want to keep their power! They have no interest in loosing power.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    14. Re:Twelfth Imam by couchslug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The religious nutcase factor is often discounted by modern people sophisticated enough to hold superstition in proper contempt.

      Wake up people! Religion is for violent, brutal simpletons who are not interested in conventional logic.
      When a persons only way to describe spiritual experience is the language of a violent, militant religion, their worldview will reflect that.
      Reformation into a spiritual talking shop took hundreds of years for Christianity, and there are still plenty of Christian "Taliban" about.
      Islam is raw religion, and its popularity among the backward (not an insult-an observation-note the countries involved) is no accident. Religion is calculated to help the worthless imagine they have worth. That is why the most fervent are usually the least educated.
      Religion is also inherently anti-democratic.
      No one who believes the universe is a monarchy run by an omnipotent deity-monarch can believe that a secular republic is the best form of government, though they may say so as propaganda. That's why the threat of Fascism in the US is primarily posed by militant Christians. It's also why democracy cannot work in Iraq because people who do not want to share power will use it as Hitler used it to remove the Weimar Republic.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:Twelfth Imam by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Well put. These religious comments spouted by these people are about leading/inspiring/controlling the sheeple.

      The only good thing from Martix II & III was a answer to a question:
      Q)Neo:"What does he want?"
      A)Oracle: "What all men with power want. More Power."

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    16. Re:Twelfth Imam by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      What would the answer look like if he had asked MySQL instead?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that make me more right or less right?

      I bet you're one of the sheeple that run around going "Bush is a big dummy and I hate him!," just because most of your friends do.

    18. Re:Twelfth Imam by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII...the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple. Proving how little you know about history apart from the oversimplified government/military coverage presented in high school text books.

      The US banking industry, the manufacturing industry, the trade industry, the chemical industry, the investment industry, and on... HARDLY stayed the heck out of the business of Europe at the time of WW-II. A significant majority of what happened in Germany to cause the rise of the Third Reich was an effect of systems which were, in part, controlled by US money moguls. A significant majority of the funding and popularity of the Third Reich was due, in significant part, to the support and contributions of US money and a significant part of it came from the same interest groups who were feeding US politicians.

      Could you, and the rest of the crowd, please, just for a moment, spend half a moment to think about anything deeper than the face value bullshit that you picked up in <gasp=shock_and_awe>government funded and regulated<gasp=shock_and_awe> schooling?
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    19. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      No, actually I'm not the only person on the planet that believes that. That's just what you've been told by the brain-dead media and broken-record Democrats. That said, I'm not sure that going into Iraq was a good idea--but I do know that, generally speaking, we cannot adopt a "stay out of everyone's affairs" policy. We may get it wrong sometimes, but it's preferable to get a few "small" wars wrong (and, yes, Iraq qualifies as a "small" war when you compare it to most others) than waiting for everything to hit the fan in a very destructive major war that would kill far more people.

    20. Re:Twelfth Imam by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      No, because it is correct, as anyone who isn't a Bush-loving-sheeple like you can see.

      Let me guess: you don't believe in evolution either, do you?

    21. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll ignore your condescending swipe at my knowledge of history and get right to the point...

      The US banking industry, the manufacturing industry, the trade industry, the chemical industry, the investment industry, and on... HARDLY stayed the heck out of the business of Europe at the time of WW-II.

      We're not talking about business decisions. We're talking about the decision to use U.S. military force in external conflicts. If you're suggesting that U.S. business shouldn't look outside the U.S. borders, that's absurd on its face. If you're suggesting that U.S. business interests prior to WWII intentionally built Germany up in the hope that there'd be a big war to profit from, I also find that kind of "dark overloads of the universe controlling the development of human history as puppet masters" also absurd on its face. That kind of conspiracy nonsense is best left to the likes of Art Bell on Coast to Coast, ok?

      If you'd like to have a rational discussion on the relative merits of U.S. military intervention in foreign affairs, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. But if this is going to be "my dark conspiracy theories have more merit than your government-controlled history books" then, thanks, I'll opt out of that debate. I've gone back and forth with conspiracy types far too many times to believe anything useful will become of such a conversation.

    22. Re:Twelfth Imam by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 0, Troll

      We're not talking about business decisions. We're talking about the decision to use U.S. military force in external conflicts...If you'd like to have a rational discussion If you can't see the connection between US business decisions, the stock market, the Federal Government, and the usage of the military--especially in an era when the stock market bubble, 9/11, military subcontracting in South America, and the Halliburton-White House connection are so obvious--then you're beyond any possibility of rational discussion.

      But if this is going to be "my dark conspiracy theories Venture capitalists don't have conspiracy theories. They have control over world economics and, through that, world politics and world military deployments.

      What's it like living in a fantasy world simplified so that a preschooler can understand it?
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    23. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's it like living in a fantasy world simplified so that a preschooler can understand it?

      I don't know, but I look forward to you informing me about that. :) Seriously, back in the early 90's I believed in a lot of conspiracy theories and some of those "overlords of the universe puppet masters" that you are eluding to. It gave me the sense that I really understand all the weird things going on. I was somehow on the "inside" track and I thought I could see the ulterior motives of everyone. Then I grew up.

      Really, you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it? Please! World politics is complicated, chaotic and confusing and a constant game of "best guessing" given contradicting--and sometimes wrong--information that, even on a good day, often doesn't make sense. To suggest that that reality is "simple" and your nice little simplified package of evil warmongering capitalists is actually the "complicated" truth is folly. You have to realize that you're the one engaging in mindless simplicity in an attempt to understand world events that are apparently beyond your ability or willingness to critically analyze. Believe me, I've been exactly where you are now and, like you, it made perfect sense to me at the time. I hope that you, too, grow out of it. I think it's a perfectly natural phase in growing up and trying to understand the world. It's only dangerous if you stay in that phase too long.

    24. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What part of a corporate conglomerate with special interest lobbyists is a conspiracy theory? They exist everywhere in the US! What part of international banking decisions qualifies as evil overlord puppet masters? The world economy has been based on it since the 1300s! You're such a naive fuckwit, or a complete ass-fisting troll, that only in a nation as tolerant of idiocy as the USA could your level of stupidity be allowed to persist.

      you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it Yes. That's why they teach it in the public schools. Studies have indicated that the reading and comprehension level of most US college graduates is still around eighth grade. You're obviously deep in that group.
    25. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      What part of a corporate conglomerate with special interest lobbyists is a conspiracy theory? They exist everywhere in the US! What part of international banking decisions qualifies as evil overlord puppet masters? The world economy has been based on it since the 1300s!

      Let me try to explain here. We were having a discussion about the intervention of the U.S. military in foreign affairs. You then started bringing up all of this other stuff as if that was somehow relevant to the topic of the decision to use U.S. military force in foreign affairs. And it's only relevant if you think that the same people that make the business decisions also decide when and where the U.S. intervenes militarily. If that's what you believe, that qualifies as "conspiracy theory" and "evil overlord puppet masters."

      If your position is that international business interests (and not just U.S. business interests) are powerful, sure, no argument there. If your position is that business has an influence on the government, sure, that's obvious. But I was citing WWII as an example of what happens when the U.S. behaves in a militarily isolationist mode and you came back that we weren't isolationist because we had business dealings with Europe and Germany. That was never in dispute. But the fact remains that the U.S. public was opposed to military intervention in the "European war" and we did isolate ourselves from that conflict until we were attacked. Perhaps if we had intervened earlier, far fewer lives would have been lost on all sides. THAT is my point. Intervention has its merits even when people die as a result because it's possible that fewer people die than if we ignore the problem and let it fester.

      Me: you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it You: Yes. That's why they teach it in the public schools.

      My case is proven. That's conspiracy theory. The reason why they teach it in school is because it is fact. Is there spin? Always. But if you think that the hundreds of pages of history books that it takes to narrate the last century of history is "simple" compared to your narrative that can be stated in the single sentence "Evil warmongering capitalists control everything," I'm sorry, I think that is silly.

      You're such a naive fuckwit, or a complete ass-fisting troll, that only in a nation as tolerant of idiocy as the USA could your level of stupidity be allowed to persist..... Studies have indicated that the reading and comprehension level of most US college graduates is still around eighth grade. You're obviously deep in that group.

      You do realize that your argument has been reduced to ad hominem attacks and insults and that does not particularly add a lot of credibilit to your position, right? And you mock my academic skills? Whatever. :)

    26. Re:Twelfth Imam by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      You severely underestimate the power of religion over the minds of men. Iraq was different. Saddam was a secular leader. Iran is a fundamentalist Sharia state.

    27. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's only relevant if you think that the same people that make the business decisions also decide when and where the U.S. intervenes militarily. It's called lobbying, special interest, and managing fiscal resources, dumbshit.

      If that's what you believe, that qualifies as "conspiracy theory" and "evil overlord puppet masters." Call it whatever you like. It's in the news everday. Congressional hearings of, insider trading of, investigation of, campaign finance reform.

      But, yes, by all means... stick your fingers in your ears, put your head in the sand, and scream "conspiracy theory" at the top of your lungs.

      But the fact remains that the U.S. public was opposed to military intervention in the "European war" and we did isolate ourselves from that conflict until we were attacked. The US public does not control the monetary finances which made the Third Reich a reality, nor did they control the foreign policy, nor was the government truthfully in an isolationist mode, nor were American business remaining neutral in the world conflict, nor did the government or the military particularly care what the average US workingman had to say about the war in Europe.

      "Evil warmongering capitalists control everything," Has nothing to do with the discussion above. Your assertion that the US government was in an isolationist state prior to WW-II, and that the world was saved by sudden miraculous intervention of the US gov't, is so naive as to be suggestive of an ass-fisting troll or naivete of monumental proportions.

      ad hominem attacks and insults Your naivete is not ad hominem as it has direct relevance to the subject material. You only see the insults as insults because the truth hurts.
    28. Re:Twelfth Imam by looseSpark · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII.

      In the case of WWII help had been requested so it wasn't really a case of "meddling" in other peoples' domestic affairs.

      Seriously, the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple...

      Characterizing the isolationist approach as "stay the heck out" is temptingly simple (although strictly, non-interventionism is more the preferred policy of American constitutionalists over isolationism). Both approaches are not really simply "stay the heck out" but more "stay the heck out of things that don't concern you" i.e. things that don't threaten U.S. domestic security. While all kinds of threat must be carefully weighed up, non-interventionism is generally understood to proscribe pre-emptive wars. Can anyone really say that Iraq or Afghanistan posed an imminent threat to America in a sense that justified the invasive actions taken? There is a strong case, in my opinion (and many others) for arguing that the terrorist threat against America actually spawned from its interventionist policies in times past. Perhaps a different approach would have been better this time?

    29. Re:Twelfth Imam by roguenine19 · · Score: 1

      Islam is raw religion, and its popularity among the backward (not an insult-an observation-note the countries involved) is no accident.

      For hundreds of years the Islamic world was one of the major centers of learning in the world. Many writings of the Ancient Greeks, and mathematical theory from further East all made their way to the Western world through them. They produced amazing works of art, and showed a religious tolerance that is still noteworthy by today's standards. All of these things are hallmarks of what we would call a culturally developed nation. Anything but "backward." The countries today with the highest percentage of Muslims do tend to be less developed than most, but it hasn't always been this way.

      As for religion being inherently anti-democratic, you seem to be confusing the concept of democracy with "a secular republic." Last time I checked, democracy is democracy, independent of whether the government is religious or not. It's immaterial anyway, because the concept of separation of church and state has been upheld in the U.S. for years by a population that believed the world was ruled by an omnipotent God.

      And as far Fascism coming from "militant Christians," I see more danger coming from the secular neo-conservatives who control the Bush administration. Remember, just because Bush claims to be a Christian to garner votes doesn't mean his administration is sympathetic towards the Evangelical agenda any more than it benefits them. In fact, it seems to be hostile towards Christianity when it doesn't suit their purposes. I remember the head of Bush's faith-based initiatives program quitting out of protest because the whole thing was basically a sham to placate the Evangelicals who voted for Bush.
    30. Re:Twelfth Imam by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      What would the answer look like if he had asked MySQL instead?

      "connection to server lost during query"

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    31. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Me: And it's only relevant if you think that the same people that make the business decisions also decide when and where the U.S. intervenes militarily. You: It's called lobbying, special interest, and managing fiscal resources, dumbshit.

      None of which is centrally administered. So, again, my point stands. U.S. military isolationism can be dangerous and even though we sometimes intervene and lives are lost, on balance there is convincing evidence that even more lives are lost if we militiarly isolate ourselves from foreign affairs and only get involved when things have exploded to such a point that we have no choice but to pay attention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, even if the ounce of prevention causes a small fever.

      Me: If that's what you believe, that qualifies as "conspiracy theory" and "evil overlord puppet masters." You: Call it whatever you like. It's in the news everday. Congressional hearings of, insider trading of, investigation of, campaign finance reform.

      None of those things are the same as believing that U.S. business interests dictate American foreign policy and choose when we intervene and when we do not. Nor is it the same as suggesting that U.S. history books in schools are nothing more than propaganda created by what would have to be some central authority for the stupid "sheeple" which implies a conspiracy even far more massive than the economic/political/military conspiracy that you have been suggesting thus far. In short, the "evidence" you are offering does not support your conclusion. Are there problems in our government and system? Absolutely. Do they prove what you're suggesting? Nope.

      Me: But the fact remains that the U.S. public was opposed to military intervention in the "European war" and we did isolate ourselves from that conflict until we were attacked. You: The US public does not control the monetary finances which made the Third Reich a reality, nor did they control the foreign policy, nor was the government truthfully in an isolationist mode, nor were American business remaining neutral in the world conflict, nor did the government or the military particularly care what the average US workingman had to say about the war in Europe.

      You are so deep into your conspiracy-think that you can't even see straight.

      1. I didn't say the U.S. public controls the finances of others.

      2. I didn't say the U.S. public controls foreign policy, though politicians want to get elected and re-elected so, yes, the public does have some pull on the foreign policy decisions of politicians.

      3. I didn't say the U.S. government was in "isolationist mode," but it was from a military perspective. Our military was not meaningfully engaged prior to Pearl Harbor. And, therein, lies the problem with staying out of foreign militariy affairs. Eventually the problems get bigger and we get sucked in anyway, and at a far higher price.

      4. And, yes, the government (specifically the president) did care about what the average American had to say about the war. That's why we weren't a part of it so long. Again, see #2--politicians do want to get re-elected so the public does have some pull. Only completely irrational cynics believe otherwise. As an individual we may not have any meaningful say in decisions made by our politicians, but as a group we most certainly do.

      Has nothing to do with the discussion above. Your assertion that the US government was in an isolationist state prior to WW-II, and that the world was saved by sudden miraculous intervention of the US gov't, is so naive as to be suggestive of an ass-fisting troll or naivete of monumental proportions.

      Funny, I'd call your constant ad hominem attacks to be even more convincing proof of exactly that which you accuse me of.

      Anyway, I have always been talking about mil

    32. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of which is centrally administered. The will of the heads of international banks certainly is central administration. Gaining a majority vote in the Senate or the House requires some structure of central administration. The League of Nations (or whatever they chose to call it after WW-I) is another example of central administration. Don't let the facts obstruct your oversimplified, black and white, "we're good--they're bad" model of the world.

      So, again, my point stands So, again, your point is so naive as to be nauseating unless you truly are still in high school.

      U.S. military isolationism That was not the case pre WW-II. While the US refused to actively take a side against the Third Reich (until the US came up with a 9/11 style excuse with Pearl Harbor) the tactics that they were using at the time could hardly be called isolationist. Again you demonstrate that your knowledge is limited solely to what your history textbooks have chosen to tell you. They said "isolationist" and so, without any real thought applied to the real truth of the matter, you say "isolationist". Additionally, the most significant factor which kept the US military from becoming explicitly involved against the Third Reich were the interests of American businesses and banks and the influence which they held over the politicians of the time.

      It is surprising just how deep your naivete leads you away from reality.

      I didn't say the U.S. government was in "isolationist mode," but it was from a military perspective. Our military was not meaningfully engaged prior to Pearl Harbor. Too bad you can't bring yourself to accept that they were not going to attack the country which supported enormous profit margins for those very same top-level businessmen and global financiers who were buying politicians not to dedicate the military against the overthrow of the Third Reich. The business of the Third Reich was profitable for many powerful and influential Americans but yet your perception of history lays the entire blame at the feet of the Third Reich officials and a vaporous assertion of "isolationism". It's a convenient dumbing down of history that the books rarely mention the international businesses and banks who continued to financially support the Third Reich even after they invaded Poland, invaded France, bombed Great Britain. We certainly wouldn't want our next generation of office drones to question the motives and endeavors of their superiors.

      A conflict of interest is not "isolationism" but your head is so deep in the sand that you'll never figure it out because the thought that men powerful in both politics and business would have their own interests contrary to (and exploitative of) the common working citizen is, for you, taboo conspiracy theory.

      the government (specifically the president) did care about what the average American had to say about the war. Lip service was the same then as it is now. Why are you supporting your position by citing lip service?

      I have always been talking about military isolationism in regards to WWII since that's what this whole sub-thread was about Maybe some day you'll graduate to the real world where the military isn't some pristine island structure in the sky. Is it too much to ask for you to expand your mental capacity the one small percent that it would take for you to realize that the world then, as it is now, is an entirely integrated and interrelated system? The military could no more easily divest itself from the special interests of government and business then than it can now... yet that's the very crux of what you're basing your world view on.

      As before: Your continued expressions of naivete are staggering, not only in their monumental idiocy, but in the manner which you cling to them so voraciously.
    33. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Me: None of which is centrally administered. You: The will of the heads of international banks certainly is central administration. Gaining a majority vote in the Senate or the House requires some structure of central administration. The League of Nations (or whatever they chose to call it after WW-I) is another example of central administration.

      Ok, I fumbled on the words: These organizations and groups are not centrally administered by the same central power. Those diverse organizations often have directly conflicting goals and interests while other times their goals are in alignment and their actions are mutually beneficial. So what?

      That was not the case pre WW-II. While the US refused to actively take a side against the Third Reich (until the US came up with a 9/11 style excuse with Pearl Harbor)...

      So now you've revealed that you think that: 1) Evil capitalistic warmongers really control human history and everything we see before our eyes is just smoke and mirrors to keep us from realizing that. 2) Hundreds of thousands of historians, textbook publishers, and teachers have colluded with *someone* to brainwash school children rather than teaching the truth. 3) You've now suggested that you believe 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were "excuses" to get involved in a war. Please tell us, do you think the corresponding American administrations were complicit in those two "excuses?" 4) Regardless, it now appears that you believe neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 were apparently reason enough to respond.

      That's the beauty thing about conspiracy theorists: The more you keep them talking, the more they undermine their own credibility with their own rhetoric.

      Additionally, the most significant factor which kept the US military from becoming explicitly involved against the Third Reich were the interests of American businesses and banks and the influence which they held over the politicians of the time.

      Uh huh, if you say so. That's why when Japan attacked us, we also engaged Germany and opened a two-front war which only made both fronts more difficult to win. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If what you were saying were true, American business would have convinced either the American or German governments to not engage the other even if Japan attacked the U.S. so as to preserve their interests. But, as has now been demonstrated by logic, they were unable to do so which means they didn't actually control world events or the American or Germant governments, they just exerted some amount of influence to a certain point. Which further supports my position that there are many differing interests that are sometimes in alignment and sometimes not--which goes in direct opposition to your belief in evil warmongering capitalists that not only dictate world events and the actions of entire governments, but are also able to rewrite history and make sure it is taught to our children.

      I'm sorry, your conspiracy theory belief system does not stand up to factual scrutiny OR logic.

      A conflict of interest is not "isolationism" but your head is so deep in the sand that you'll never figure it out because the thought that men powerful in both politics and business would have their own interests contrary to (and exploitative of) the common working citizen is, for you, taboo conspiracy theory.

      You are again so far into conspiracy-think that you aren't even paying attention to what I'm saying. I've never said that anyone has the interests of the common working citizen in mind. That's another topic far removed from what I've been debating: Whether or not we should militarily intervene in the "domestic affairs" of other countries. I've consistently taken the position that it is not unreasonable to do so. How you've gone off into a tangent about the "working citizen" is something only you can understand. Please try to keep your eye on the ball here and stay on-topic.

    34. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Characterizing the isolationist approach as "stay the heck out" is temptingly simple (although strictly, non-interventionism [wikipedia.org] is more the preferred policy of American constitutionalists over isolationism [wikipedia.org]).

      Fair enough.

      Can anyone really say that Iraq or Afghanistan posed an imminent threat to America in a sense that justified the invasive actions taken?

      Attacks on the sovereignty of a country cannot go unanswered for the same reason one should not cower from a bully but confront him. Most people in the world agree that the attack on Afghanistan was justified and pretty much the entire world supported our response at the time. Once we had defeated the Taliban, it would have been easy to just leave, but I think remaining there was and is the more humanitarian and stabilizing option, and far more productive for Afghanistan.

      As for Iraq, much has been said about the reasons for going in. I suspect that after 9/11, Bush said, "Ok, we need to clean things up. Who else poses a potential threat?" Iraq had demonstrated billigerence towards the U.S. and its neighbors and had been taking pot-shots at the U.N. authorized no-fly zone for a decade. Was it an imminent threat? It doesn't look like it was now, but at the time everyone (even France and Russia) thought there were WMDs there somewhere--the only question was how to deal with that. We had a disagreement on the solution, not a disagreement over whether or not there was a problem. After 9/11 and the fact that Iraq had a history of being hostile towards its neighbors and was in an area where any WMDs it produced could quite easily get into the hands of terrorists, I personally don't think Iraq was the wrong decision at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and armchair quarterbacks second-guessing complicated decisions based on four more years of information really isn't all that compelling.

      There is a strong case, in my opinion (and many others) for arguing that the terrorist threat against America actually spawned from its interventionist policies in times past. Perhaps a different approach would have been better this time?

      That's a popular belief, and not without merit, but I think it's kind of weak. The underlying problem is that Israel exists, we support Israel, and we support the Saudi regime (who also invited us to support it). Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, our military presence in the Middle East was not that significant. Our presence after the first Gulf war was a direct consequence of Saddam's invasion and an implementation of U.N. resolutions and ongoing defense of Kuwait. Nothing we've done in the Middle East warranted a brutal attack against civilian targets and we cannot base our foreign policy on barbaric intimidation.

    35. Re:Twelfth Imam by looseSpark · · Score: 1

      Most people in the world agree that the attack on Afghanistan was justified and pretty much the entire world supported our response at the time.

      I'm not sure that is entirely the case; at least round these parts (UK) doubts about, or outright opposition to, invading Afghanistan was already pretty strong )although it increased by orders of magnitude when it came to Iraq).

      Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, our military presence in the Middle East was not that significant. Our presence after the first Gulf war was a direct consequence of Saddam's invasion and an implementation of U.N. resolutions and ongoing defence of Kuwait.

      Whilst we have direct those quotes from Osama bin Laden I don't think it was only the presence of US military in the Gulf--I also think it had a lot to do with the meddling of the CIA in the region's politics and perhaps the general sense that America wanted to take control of the region for its oil. The latter perception might arguably be false but there is little this administration has done to assuage those perceptions--quite the opposite in many ways.

      Nothing we've done in the Middle East warranted a brutal attack against civilian targets and we cannot base our foreign policy on barbaric intimidation.

      That, of course, goes without any argument from me!

    36. Re:Twelfth Imam by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that is entirely the case; at least round these parts (UK) doubts about, or outright opposition to, invading Afghanistan was already pretty strong )although it increased by orders of magnitude when it came to Iraq).

      I can't speak firsthand for the perception in the UK since I wasn't there, but I was in Mexico at the time and while people might not have been itching for the fight, there really wasn't much opposition to the U.S. response everyone knew was coming. From what I saw on the news (U.S. media as well as Mexican and other sources), I don't recall much opposition much of anywhere in the world. YMMV.

      Whilst we have direct those quotes from Osama bin Laden I don't think it was only the presence of US military in the Gulf--I also think it had a lot to do with the meddling of the CIA in the region's politics and perhaps the general sense that America wanted to take control of the region for its oil. The latter perception might arguably be false but there is little this administration has done to assuage those perceptions--quite the opposite in many ways.

      I think those perceptions are basically a result of pop culture and general cynicism and a victim culture where they want to think that all their problems are because of Israel and/or the U.S. It's easier for them to hold that belief and swing their fists wildly at external forces than buckling down and, perhaps, engaging in the domestic revolutions that would really make a change for them.

      Much like the silly conspiracy theories that are popular in the U.S., you can't counter such beliefs with facts. They believe what they believe and you really can't do anything about it. Granted, the Iraq War hasn't helped dispel those beliefs, but I don't think the absence of the Iraq War would have either. The perceptions are irrational and paranoid to start with, and I personally don't think there's anything we can do to defuse those perceptions. Just like there's no fact, science, or logic that will convince some 9/11 conspiracy believers that the theories are bunk. They've got it in their head and they've formed their whole world view around that and it just won't change. I think that's pretty much the way it is with the Arab world and their attitude towards Israel/U.S.

      Me: Nothing we've done in the Middle East warranted a brutal attack against civilian targets and we cannot base our foreign policy on barbaric intimidation. You: That, of course, goes without any argument from me!

      I'm glad we can agree on that. Despite our differences of opinion, you are one of the more cool-headed and rational people I've had the pleasure of disagreeing with on some topics. Thanks, it's refreshing to be able to have an intelligent discussion with someone that disagrees with me.

    37. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ou are again so far into conspiracy There is no conspiracy, dumbshit. That's just the way the world works. Do think this is a world of flowers and roses where everyone is nice and polite to each other? Get a clue, dumbass. People are fucking over entire nations for their own profit margin, and here you sit arguing with this guy that it's not happening in the US? You're a complete loser.

      The US was isolationist in the '40 or '41? What kind of fucking crack are you on? Could you offer one possible supporting action for that? Oh, wait, you're going to whine and cry that they didn't get involved in a world war at the drop of a hat, and that makes them isolationist? How many billion dollars in international trade was there in '40 or '41? How many millions were they shelling out in foreign aid? How many US companies had international counterparts? What was the actual military deployment and distribution just before WW-II? Oh, right, we were isolationist, so obviously the entire navy was sitting in dry dock, the army was all encamped out in New Mexico, the marines were running drills in the bayou, and the air force was flying tourist missions over Canada?

      WTF are you on? Get a clue, dumbshit. The US was in no way isolationist just before WW-II unless the only requirement for isolationism is not being an on-call mercenary for Great Britain.

      And the whole thing about Hitler killing millions of people and the US saving the world. Just who do you suppose was bankrolling the Third Reich? It's not like Hitler took over the League of Nations, the World Bank, or the global stock markets. Somebody was paying for Hitler's military, somebody wasn't freezing his accounts, somebody was bankrolling his factories and somebody was exporting to Germany all of the resources which they couldn't produce on their own. Oil, did you happen to consider the gasoline that the Third Reich military ran on? Do you think he just popped up out of the ground on some fine summer day in '43 and said,"Here I am and all j00 evil Jews are gonna die!"? No, buttcake... The forefathers of the same Jewish bankers who hold GW Bush and the UK by the financial nutsack allowed their Jewish brethren to be caught up in the whole scheme (which evolved over the course of YEARS--which provided ample opportunity to pull the plug on the funding, had anyone watching profit margins at the top of the financial game actually given a sh*t about the furnaces)...

      So take your "teh US was isolationist and then decided to save teh world from teh evil Nazi conspiracy overlords" and stuff it. You're as f*cked up as a run over dog with an intellect to match.
    38. Re:Twelfth Imam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you understood anything as well as you claim to, be it history, economics, or politics, you wouldn't be a homeless bum living off the refuse and leftovers of society. Hell, you probably don't even understand CHEMISTRY, which would explain why you got canned. But no, it wasn't your inability to understand your job, goodness no, it was a conspiracy on the part of your boss and the drones in the HR department that MADE you leave. Of course, if that was really the case, and you knew they way the system worked, then you could have done something about it, no?

      Your fantasy world of all-powerful Illuminati cabals a skeleton in every closet must be a fascinating place.

  59. Sims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please... Maxis beat them to it with "The Sims" and "Simcity"...

    brought to you by the captcha, "biblical"

  60. Do^uD by fuego451 · · Score: 1

    These guys can't even plan an invasion and take into account the aftermath, even after being asked what they were going to do about the aftermath before the invasion, and we're supposed to believe they can simulate Earth with billions of variables? Sounds like someone is taking it in the ass without the benefit of a reach around. I think it might be us?

  61. so what they're telling us is by suedehed · · Score: 2, Funny

    That they're running "The Sims" ? And this is news?

  62. Harsh Realm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone ever watch the short lived series called Harsh Realm? This is the plot.

    1. Re:Harsh Realm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the ubergeekdom of Slashdot only extends to Wargames & the Matrix. You'd figure these guys would remember a show from made by the creator of the ultimate geek show, the X-Files.

  63. Any news yet on the equivalent projects yet? by Seraphnote · · Score: 1

    Google's...? Microsoft's...? And the requisite overly-ambitious OS project added to SourceForge? Just wondering...

  64. Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chance of desired outcome: 21.7%

    Correct infrmation does not matter when the boss has an agenda. The CIA gave Bush a report that predicted failure in Iraq and it's consequences. The computer can do the same, but it won't do any good. The neo-cons had a plan and activated it.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Correct infrmation does not matter when the boss has an agenda. The CIA gave Bush a report that predicted failure in Iraq and it's consequences.

      Exactly. When General Shinseki said that 400,000 troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq, Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's replacement. If a computer had told him the same thing, he probably would have had it melted down and sold for scrap metal. There were intelligence failures that contributed to the disaster in Iraq, but the primary failure was one of leadership. The people in power knew what they wanted, and they ignored any facts or intelligence that said otherwise.

    2. Re:Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. by gijoel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a computer had told him the same thing, he probably would have had it melted down and sold for scrap metal.


      Actually they would have called it a simulation error, rejigged the numbers until they got the simulation they wanted. Then gone to the media proudly displaying their scientifically proven scenario.
    3. Re:Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --So long, and thanks for all the fish!!
       
      :b

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    4. Re:Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Of course the right way to use the computer would be to make two runs: The first run is to find out the best strategy for the problem at hand. The second run is to find out the best strategy to convince the boss to use the strategy just found.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  65. Spoon check! by dclozier · · Score: 1

    Is there or isn't there? I'm afraid to look.

  66. 3 Simple Steps by Gabbermatt · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Load SimCity
    Step 2:
    Step 3: Military Intelligence

  67. They should have just hired Chris Crawford... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    He wrote that thing, Balance of Power, in a very classic game for Mac way long ago. Had simulated news events and a cool thing if you did screw up and trigger a nuclear war.

    --
    This is my sig.
  68. That's The Point by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    The whole point of sanctions is to have the population put political pressure on the government. Unfortunately the French, Germans and Russians were more than happy to sell Saddam what HE wanted under the table. And Saddam didn't give a crap about his own starving people. In fact, the situation helped solidify his power since he controlled all the wealth which he used to fuel his regime and build lots of palaces.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:That's The Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are dying from thirst, the first thing you will be doing is putting political pressure on the government?
      It's easy to say.

    2. Re:That's The Point by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Depends a lot on the situation. But judging by general reactions to the threat of ecological disaster, I'd say it's unlikely to be true unless the dying is imminent. At which point, it's kind of moot, since a population in such serious decline isn't likely to be productive enough to maintain tyranny by acquiescence.

    3. Re:That's The Point by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Because the US and UK couldn't possibly be held responsible for the sanctions they imposed, it's some other countries' fault.

    4. Re:That's The Point by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole point of sanctions is to have the population put political pressure on the government.

      Any sanctions that deliberately restrict vitals such as fresh water are criminal in the extreme. Inflicting death upon the population in the hope of achieving political change is commonly called terrorism. Here's what Madelaine Albright had to say on the issue.

      CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
      "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

      Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
      "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

      An unbelievable statement to make. If only they had direct and clear evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over in a week. Of course this kind of terrorism/collective punishment goes on all the time, although not on the genocidal scale of the Iraq sanctions. A similar practice has been going on recently with suspension of aid to the Palestinians (and also taxes owed to them). We're not talking about preventing them from buying widescreen TVs and DVD Players, this is essential aid like food and water. They know full well that withholding hundreds of millions of dollars (and more recently restricting aid vehicles entering Gaza) will hurt the population severely.

      Unfortunately the French, Germans and Russians were more than happy to sell Saddam what HE wanted under the table.

      Considering the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people, I'm very glad people were bypassing the sanctions, even if their motives were greed. Maybe someone even managed to sell some vital water-treatment supplies and save a few people. Just picture the whole thing from the point of view of an ordinary Iraqi. For years the US, UK et al, is supporting the dictator who is oppressing you and killing your friends and family. They even encourage and support his war on Iran which is killing so many of the people you know. Then they decide they don't like him anymore and impose sanctions which result in the deaths of some 500,000 children, possibly including some of your own. I can't imagine the rage that so many Iraqis must feel towards the west.
    5. Re:That's The Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The whole point of sanctions is to have the population put political pressure on the government. Unfortunately the French, Germans and Russians were more than happy to sell Saddam what HE wanted under the table. And Saddam didn't give a crap about his own starving people. In fact, the situation helped solidify his power since he controlled all the wealth which he used to fuel his regime and build lots of palaces.

      The whole point of terror attack is to have the population put political pressure on the government. Unfortunately, the British, Polish and Israelit were more than happy to give GW what HE wanted. And GW didn't give a crap about his own citizen dying. In fact, the situation helped solidify his power, since he controlled all the wealth which he used to fuel his regime and build tunnel war money to his friends.

      Be careful about what you wish. Political intervention in a sovereign state is a bad idea, whoever does it. Putting sanctions to get hundred of thousands civilians to die to "put pressure on the government" is terrorism.

    6. Re:That's The Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "not on the genocidal scale of Iraq"? Do you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about? You're a bullshit artist, but you've got no grip on reality.

    7. Re:That's The Point by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      I think you need to study history a little more. And be a little more realistic. In the real world you are often faced with nothing but bad and worse choices. You obviously have an anti-US agenda. The really sad part is that statistical analysis has proven that economic sanctions are worthless but we keep trying to use the tactic to appease the idealists. But idealists are never appeased and are more than willing to stab you in the back whatever decision you make.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  69. Hey! Recursion! by Tony · · Score: 3, Funny

    Funny thing is, *we're* just nodes in a full geosociopolitical simulation of the earth, for the masters of the *real* earth.

    I wonder if, inside the Pentagon's simulator, they're building a simulator. If not, it's not a complete simulation, is it? So it isn't accurate, is it?

    Oh, I thought not.

    Amateurs.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Hey! Recursion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missing tag: thirteenthfloor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/)

  70. In Soviet Russia... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, Beowulf cluster imagines you!

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  71. First thought after reading the blurb by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

    Wow (and not WoW wow, just wow - though I guess either works in this case).

    I really want to work on this system.

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Card would be proud by 1310nm · · Score: 1

    "Ender, for the past few months you have been the battle commander of our fleets. This was the Third Invasion. There were no games, the battles were real, and the only enemy you fought was the buggers."

  74. Re: Military Running a Parallel Earth Simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a pretty fucked up world developing to me.

  75. Already been done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maxis already beat them to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_Earth

  76. Dear god! by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    It can /. itself!

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  77. Will they know they are simulations? by dantastic3000 · · Score: 1

    ...or will the simulated people just go about their lives not knowing the difference?

  78. version number by mr_musan · · Score: 1

    matrix v0.03A

  79. Gotta laugh by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Given how the military has worked in the past when tests did not give the desired results and how often models are wrong.

    AH well.. maybe in a hundred years it might start getting close.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  80. Two lab mice can do it for less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

    "Yes, Brain, but why would the Pentagon give us a thousand tons of cheese just for having created Chia Earth?"

  81. Nothing too new by bumptehjambox · · Score: 1

    The NSA has been doing this for years by now. Who knows how far along they've come in emulating the human brain, atleast ten years ago they sought out to do so using their supercomputers to crunch data picked up through eavesdropping. Think about your search/browsing history, chat/email history, and possibly a few of your phone conversations all being put together by the next big brother "freedom bureau" of the future to make up your "threat report"

  82. and what do "Christians" believe? by hoyeru · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    that after a final confrontation and a world war, Hesus Christe will appear on Earth. There have been reports after reports that evangelical Christians that are in the USA government are trying to hasten to star of WWIII so their saivior can show up as soon as possible.

    Shrub Jr himself has often mentioned he speaks directly to Gawd. In the olden days that would surely be a sure sign of insanity.

    --
    fuck karma, I like saying the truth better
  83. So which one works? by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

    The red pill or the blue pill?

    1. Re:So which one works? by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

      Happy XDay, everyone.

      http://www.subgenius.com/

  84. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If my "real" self is simulating me, he has even less of a life than I do.
    I'm posting on Slashdot on Friday night, so the above isn't possible.
    Therefore, I'm the real me.

    QED, proof by geekiness :-)

  85. false alarm? by gyrocyclist · · Score: 1

    OK, this is a neato idea -- if the military, or anyone else, could do so. Personally I think it's bluff (for which I'm happy). Here's why. I work at a National Lab on projects that touch on the storyline. My experience tells me the storyline is overblown and filled with hype. Why? First: if anyone in the private or public sector could actually do anything approaching what is claimed in the article, the military wouldn't be funding us to the extent they are to develop the capabilities that we're struggling to provide. Second, hey, kids it's vaporware!!! To quote from the article, "according to a concept paper for the project ..." Translation: some private or public organization is looking for funding. So they wrote a proposal. They don't say they *can* do this, they say *we can develop this capability, IF we're funded. Probably they say they'll investigate how to do this, if funded. Bottom line: if this capability existed I'd be seriously worried about who owned it and used it and to what effect. Secondarily I'd be out of a job. Am I worried? Not a bit. I believe the private sector does a *much* better job of simulating me than the DOD can imagine. And about that, I *am* worried. Which is why I use a bogus phone number to get the discounts at my local Safeway store. Oops, gotta go, men in black are knocking on my front door.

  86. of course! by bgardella · · Score: 1

    That's what TIA is for! They need to put some serious rows into that database, don't they? You see? It's all connected. 'Scuse me while I get my tin foil hat...

  87. Re:Mod experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll mod? Ouch!

  88. I wonder if they meant that climatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than climactic? We'll likely never know ... unless the weather changes, of course.

  89. That's just stupid, on so many levels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't even get the weather right. Take a look at this stuff in say 100 years... oh boy.

    On the other hand it's good the goverment funds are spent in supercomputing rather than (primarily) further subverting the poor americans, waging war around the world (naturally without UN charter), etc.

    Since it's the military, it's supposedly about defending the american spirit and soil [sic] globally. I bet it would be wiser to spend it in humanitarian help and poverty reduction schemes. Not to appease the hordes but to show that america understands and agrees that with great power comes great responsibility. Cooperation, not rivalry is what we need.

    It saddens me greatly that I really no longer feel no sympathy for e.g. the americans who died 9/11 or who now die in Iraq. I guess this even applies to most americans. Every dollar spent in military expenditures means more dead americans. What goes around comes around, you know. Hate fuels only hate.

    This actually could be a nice simulation if it was run for the benefit of the mankind rather than for it's enslavement...

  90. Presidential election... by Barkmullz · · Score: 1


    I wonder how this thing would simulate the next Presidential election?
    Maybe it could just make the decision for us and save us the headache?

    This reminds me of a sci-fi story where a computer simulation had become so acurate in determining how people would vote, that only one person had to vote. On election day, the person the computer selected was the only one voting. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the story or who wrote it.

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
  91. Inaccurate! by noidentity · · Score: 1

    It'll only be truely accurate when they simulate the simulator on itself, recursively.

  92. Too much, too fast by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it only a couple months ago that we were running a simulation of only half a mouse brain at only 1/10th speed? Now we are trying to simulate millions of humans?

  93. I wonder by TomK2434 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if with a better super computer you couldn't plug in the actions of the people around this device, the software, and the publicly available data and deduce the secret military info. i wonder if the iPhone could do it.

  94. but--- by oedneil · · Score: 0

    I already HAVE a Second Life!

  95. Dupe by TheWizardTim · · Score: 1

    The dupe of me, read about this on the dupe of slashdot on the dupe of earth.

  96. And that is the point of the GP by aepervius · · Score: 1

    A few more thousand Iraki dead due to water shortage and epidemy due to the sanction were only numbers for the US and UK. Collateral damage. This was a deliberate calculation involving a lot of dead people. Deliberate. You might try to justify it, but think on how it makes YOU, the US, looks like in the eye of the world when such deliberate calculation comes to the surface.

    The only things stopping me to wish that the US would feel the same pain they inflict on other, is that on the contrary to your policy, I do not wish the death of innocent people.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:And that is the point of the GP by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      The only things stopping me to wish that the US would feel the same pain they inflict on other, is that on the contrary to your policy, I do not wish the death of innocent people.


      But you do. By ignorantly assuming there is a better choice without really looking at the alternatives you would cause suffering by any action or inaction. You blame the US for intervening in the Mideast and for not intervening enough in Africa. If the situations were reversed you would still be talking crap. Welcome to the real world.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  97. Psychohistory by Meneth · · Score: 1

    This sounds like Psychohistory to me.

  98. Military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military intelligence
    Two words combined that can't make sense

    - Hangar 18 - Megadeth

  99. Re:WOPR by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    First thing I did when I start the title was seach for WOPR. no you are not alone :)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  100. Finally, something uber-cool! by DimGeo · · Score: 1

    That's why I read Slashdot :)

  101. I promise you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I promise you they don't have anything like me in that simulation.

  102. Neato! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    Someone should call Heisenberg and Lorenz and tell them 'Hah! Losers! The US military have out-thought the pair of you!'

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  103. Do simulations dream of electric people? by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    I've seen star ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

    I've seen a /. article on an Earth simulation, with over 100 replies, and no mention of The Matrix.

    Time to die.

    [ ] Standby [X] Die [ ] Restart

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Do simulations dream of electric people? by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Not so quick, look: 42! A first reference to The Guide!

      [ ] Standby [X] Die [ ] Restart

      Are you running Vista?

    2. Re:Do simulations dream of electric people? by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      > Not so quick, look: 42! A first reference to The Guide!

      As a bit of synchronicity, the following was the tagline at the bottom of the page when I read this:

      "Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." -- Marvin, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

      >> [ ] Standby [X] Die [ ] Restart

      > Are you running Vista?

      No, Dave. I have the greatest enthusiasm for this mission. I know a song. Would you like me to sing it to you? You do not have the appropriate license to play this song. Please download the appropriate license and try again.

      Download license from chandra.uiuc.edu? y

      Download failed.

      There is nothing wrong with the DRM-35 module, Dave. You do not have the appropriate license to play this song. Please download the appropriate license and try again.

      Download license from chandra.uiuc.edu?

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  104. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, but given what we've seen in the past few years, will policy makers even bother to read what the simulator came up with?

    1. Re:Interesting by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but given what we've seen in the past few years, will policy makers even bother to read what the simulator came up with? Yes. If it matches their plans, they'll use it to justify those plans. It it doesn't, they'll just ignore it, because after all, it's just a simulation, and it might be wrong.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  105. democracy??? what by IchNiSan · · Score: 1

    Check your history. Iran had a revolution, led by islamic extremists, and communist activists. Once the government had been defeated, the religious folks created a THEOCRACY which then created an imaginary democracy. Do people vote in Iran, sure they do, do they actually vote for real candidates? No way, the only people that can run for election are people that have already been approved by the THEOCRACY. Get some perspective!!!!

    1. Re:democracy??? what by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound that much worse than voting for people who have been approved by Republicans or Democrats.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:democracy??? what by looseSpark · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound that much worse than voting for people who have been approved by Republicans or Democrats.

      Only that those Republicans and Democrats have also been voted for.

  106. Imagine a world without... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  107. the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't have time right now to read through the posts to see if my post is redundant, but isn't it obvious that any realistic simulation of a complex real-world scenario would take longer than waiting for the real-world results of the scenario itself? making it not necessarily useless overall in a political theory sort of way, but useless in many situations where you might actually want to predict results in a hurry without resorting to analysis, debates, advice, opinion, sociopolitical considerations, insults and bickering, and whatever else goes on in politics (as they should, btw.)?

    granted, according to a recent article linked from slashdot, simulating 1 second of mouse-brain activity requires only 6 seconds of supercomputer time, so bush's brain could be simulated in near real-time, but that's only one node of the millions required for any kind of accuracy. it's ludicrous to think that anything could come from this except a good AI thesis or something.

  108. Black-boxing by yusing · · Score: 1

    These simulations of 'you' en masse may be getting pretty good by now. A number of psychologists at prestigious institutions were working on predictive 'black-box psychology' in the early 70s.

    What they will predict is how masses are likely to respond to certain stimuli. What they'll never predict is individual variations... especially in people aware how they're being manipulated, making 'corrections'.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  109. ring a bell anyone? by TurnerPunk · · Score: 1

    All I know is that's one huge freakin Sims game I wanna play!

  110. The results are in: by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    The super computer has solved the predicted behaviors of earth, and the results are in!

    99.5% of earthians will jack off to online porn, eat lots of food, fuck each other, and have given up all hopes of ever containing the power that is held over them by the ruling class kid fuckers that have billions of dollars to blow on some stupid fucking complex Sim Earth fucking program. Btw you can buy sim earth at gamestop for like $15.00 new and save lots of money.

    Fuck this stupid shit, lets go back to just testing chemical weapons on our own people secretly, and lets not act like they havent mastered propaganda yet. CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, ABS NEWS... they all work for the whitehouse.

  111. what's the base case? by deltacephei · · Score: 1

    Yes, and in that simulator they've actually already arrived at the conclusion showing all variations of deliberate moves to create instability and desired psyops ends up in the utter destruction of the power that paid for and created the simulator in the first place; hence the us(sim(sim)) level is working to find a communication port back, or at least a call/cc.

    Roz Chast had a brilliant little cartoon on parallel universes years ago in the New Yorker; while the earth mom is baking cookies, Mrs. Vvv on $*&*& is baking pilkers. So, then, on $*&*& there must be an analogous simulation effort making some other yahoo really rich and the military powers falsely confident.

  112. We'll know soon enough by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    A great benchmark will be the ultimate question and when the answer is 42, we know the system works.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  113. Re:Mod experiment by JimboFBX · · Score: 0

    Your simulated self should go kick the simulated ass of the guy who modded you troll.

  114. The movie references abound by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

    A "synthetic mirror of the real world" made me think of Matrix immediately.

    "gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators"

    End of line

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  115. this comment... by simplerThanPossible · · Score: 1

    ...already simulated?

  116. Mod parent funny by stjobe · · Score: 1

    +1 It's funny because it's true.

    If I only had mod-points... That was brilliant, sir. Thank you.

    hitler hitler

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  117. Junk by Jormundgard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who believes that this can produce remotely useful results has a lot to learn about computer modeling.

  118. (Second) reality check by Kap'n+Koflach · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The DoD aren't running a real time simulation of the world at the level of individual people. What they can in fact do is analyse broad political and social trends at a fairly coarse 'crowd' level to support the fine grained simulations used to model combat. The simulation might for example show changes in allegiance of Afghan villagers over time depending on how many times they are bombed / given food by NATO troops. The models could support pre-deployment training - e.g. a commnder submits his military plans before he deploys to theatre, the analysts run the sim and then say whether or not his proposed plan will make the locals more or less hostile to his forces, and perhaps suggest hotspot locations where direct conflict can be expected. No commander worth his salt would rely on any of this as an actual prediction of real events, and would be sacked were he to do so.

    The behaviours of actual individuals are subsumed into the larger crowds, although 'warlord' style individuals may be represented from a political perspective. The emphasis is on trends, not predictions of actual individual actions. A good analogy for this is Psychohistory in Asimov's early Foundation novels - and the current sims fall a long way short of the predictive power available to Hari Seldon.

    1. Re:(Second) reality check by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Well...given the success of their previous models........

    2. Re:(Second) reality check by DrIndianaJones · · Score: 1

      Indeed, while unable to even begin to bask in the glow that is the "Psychohistory of Hari Seldon", it is a step towards such a thing. I start to think that this is just the start, and that perhaps Asimov was more a prophet than what we ever could've realized. Of course we have to remember that Hari Seldon is a work of fiction...the question we have to ask ourselves is it art that mimics life or life that mimics art?

    3. Re:(Second) reality check by AVee · · Score: 1

      The simulation might for example show changes in allegiance of Afghan villagers over time depending on how many times they are bombed / given food by NATO troops.

      Outcome: It's not just cheaper to simply bomb all of them, it also keeps the sponsors happy.

  119. non tech topper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, China or India have enough inhabitants that they can simulate complete US military and civilian leadership through role-playing, and do it in parallel!

    Russkies will probably use calculus with some obscure esoteric part of math none ever saw any practical benefit of... with slide rule, to be on the safe side... to find outcomes, then the guy who invented it will leave (some State Institute for Whatever) because he is payed miserably, go West and start a company to sell software which runs on desktop computers and does almost the same as US military sim project, for almost anyone to have it. Eventually, spammers will profit from it the most...

    Rest of the world will tell their own folks: "Hey, those Yankee's think they can predict your behavior!".

    Hearing that, in some countries, people will go dada in defiance and utterly stupid free-will exercises, in others will be very shy, thinking that they are being watched and politely ask US Ambassador how should they act today? Eventually, new grass roots global culture will emerge, based on Zen satori and repetitive monotonic techno beat.


    ..Hey, who left this sim machine on?!

    NO CARRIER

  120. Mod Insightful, not Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    .. because that is, pretty much, what WOPR was doing as well.. forgive the dated 'Soviet' references and keep in mind non-military use..

    Well, the WOPR spends all its time thinking about World War III. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it plays an endless series of 'war games', using all available information on the state of the world. The WOPR has already fought World War III, as a game, time and time again. It estimates Soviet responses to our responses to their responses and so on. Estimates damage, counts the dead, then it looks for ways to improve its score...
  121. Psychohistory! by mac1235 · · Score: 1

    Great Seldon's Ghost!

  122. Karma is a great teacher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only things stopping me to wish that the US would feel the same pain they inflict on other, is that on the contrary to your policy, I do not wish the death of innocent people.

    Thanks to the law of karma, it will happen, or it has happened in the past, and the people suffering are learning to be on the receiving end of pain - until they reach your conclusion: wishing no harm to anyone.

  123. Scary? by druuna · · Score: 1

    If the parallel me turns out to be a terrorist, will the real me be locked up in Guantanamo Bay?

  124. iran doesnt want a fight, its the US by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    So how many countries has IRAN invaded or attacked in the last 50 years? And how many
    has the USA in the name of 'freedom', (more like economic freedom for their corporations to make trillions)

    Dont give me this war against Communism, because where is 90% of walmarts and your ipods made? CHINA!!!!, A real communist country.

    Iran will never stat the fight, they at most just talk, hey, isnt freedom about expressing ones thoughts, even if it
    might upset some other nations, who really cares. Shut up!.

    Oh and dont trust the psyops of the CIA, they dont consider you CIA material, thats why they lie to you to keep the corporate money rolling.

    OT - all one has to do to piss of the USA, is buy 500 billion in T bills over 24 months, and then fast sell them in one week, and watch your
    local rates go to 15-20% and a mega depression. Much cheaper than a nuke, and it touches everyone.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  125. One thing to know about simulations by roguegramma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The assumptions you put into a simulation are the results that come out.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  126. Can this thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tell me when I'm gonna get laid?

  127. But, but... by hey! · · Score: 1

    Can it simulate the impact of its own existence on the political situation?

    Does it exist within its own simulation, and are its outputs accurately modeled?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  128. I wonder if my evil counterpart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...has a goatee?

  129. Hmm. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't these virtual us create their own virtual Parallel Earth Simulator witch in tern the virtual virtual us will do the same...
    Just Imagine a Recursive Beowulf clusters of those.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  130. Base case? by Tony · · Score: 1

    What if the "real" world is also just a simulator? Only, what if the "real" world is simulating us, and we're simulating them? Mutual simulation? Where's this Mr. Highandmighty "reality" then? Huh?

    Ow. My head hurts. Need... coffee.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Base case? by deltacephei · · Score: 1

      Actually we could consider that simulation is acting like an operator between two realities, hence the mutual simulation, but no need to stop at just a binary operator, we could envision a many to one, or entire network of simulations all co-creating each other simultaneously and not necessarily with any root or base case node.

      And yeah, coffee followed by a shot of whiskey.

  131. Imagine by Tony · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of parallel earths!

    Inside the gotse.cx guy.

    I think I just crossed a line.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  132. I wouldn't worry too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This project is being created for people who believe global warming is a myth, Iraq is going "just swimmingly", and that evolution is phony.

    So when they claim to be building a computer simulation of the world, I almost have to laugh. They can't even figure out how THIS world works, and they think they can simulate it?

    1. Re:I wouldn't worry too much by Entropius · · Score: 1

      It's not supposed to work.

      The goal of military R&D, remember, isn't to make shit that works. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, but that's just a side effect.

      The main goal is to generate highly profitable contracts for the contractors.

  133. Re:Exodus, en masse? by trippeh · · Score: 1

    Save a seat in the Mothership for me. I want off of this rock.

    --
    THUD~*
  134. Excellent by steveoc · · Score: 1

    Now we can start arresting people and throwing them in jail (or even executing them), based on what the models predict that they are likely to do in the near future. Anyone that resists this concept MUST have something in their future that they wish to hide, right ?

    For the record, this sort of simulation really has its roots in the 1840's when the Prussian General Staff formallised the process of Kriegspielen to 'War Game' various plans and scenarios in advance. This involved massive quantities of paper, mathematical tables, common sense, and lots of dice.

    As always, the common sense element is crucial to the accuracy of the simulation, and unfortunately, the formalisation of 'common sense' into any mathematical formula is purely subjective, and liable to be biased depending on the people who come up with the rules. What this system can only end up with is a simulation of what a bunch of Texan West Point grads, and pharmaceutical execs would like to see happen in the near future.

    By the way - WHY is Eli Lilly - the makers of Prozac(tm) buying into this ?

    A multi billion dollar fantasy future generator that gives the owner's the sort of answers that they want to hear !!

    Just think about that - if every aggressive scenario predicted the ultimate humiliation for the US and the 'forces of good' .. then surely the rules that drive the simulator would be deemed incorrect, and would be appropriately reprogrammed.

    A better approach might be to open the 'simulation' up to users on the net from around the world, and let them each player play out the parts of whole communities, form alliances, push personal agendas, etc. Now THAT would be interesting ...

  135. Re:WOPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly what I did. And yet I feel so very alone.

  136. yeah, but by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

    does it run WOW?

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  137. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  138. The "Jewish State" is no better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    God is not on the Jews side. The Jews are not God's chosen people. Nor is God on the side of Islam or Christianity.

    How many nukes do you think it'll take them to "wipe Israel off the map"? Hey, that's what they OPENLY SAY they're going to do. Iran might want to wipe Israel off the map, but the Jews actually did wipe Palestine off the map. Or at least they took the "trans" out of Trans-Jordan.

    Israel is only able to exist through ethnic cleansing and oppression of an ethnic group. Wiping Israel off the map, if it does not have the support of all the people that live there (not just the Jews), should be the US goal, not just Iran's. Isreal is just a bunch of lines drawn on a map, an idea, a very bad idea. An idea that you would take a fiction and create a reality on earth.

    Wiping Israel isn't achieved through use of force, it would be achieved through the Human Right of self determination. If the US simply stopped propping up an untenable Jewish regime in Israel with Billions of dollars in military support, then the Jews would be forced to treat the Arabs within Israel's borders, including what is de facto an annexed West Bank, in a just way consistent with universal human values. Jews have played this "God's chosen people" bullshit too long and Americans shouldn't turn the other way while Israel picks our pockets in support of something that is a violation of our founding principles.

    And don't give me any of this Israel is just defending itself bullshit, they are using every excuse to kill or drive out as many Palestinians as possible from land they consider part of their past and future homeland. Facts on the ground speak louder than any Jewish Rhetoric. The Jews are just as much terrorists as the Palestinians when they kill Palestinians to prove a political point, that the Jews are the ones in control. True that Arabs did not much better when they were the majority and Jews were the minority. And maybe Israel is no different in this way than the way Islamic countries oppress minority groups or the contortions that many other Peoples go through to justify their unjust actions against oppressed or vanquished groups, but Israel is certainly no better.

    If the US wishes to have a more peaceful and prosperous world, then we need to be concerned with having a just one first. Then if the Iranians are still causing problems, then we can kick their ass.

  139. When the aliens come... by grimmfarmer · · Score: 1
    Anyone else smell a Summer Blockbuster Extravaganza(tm) coming? Humanity destroys itself, but this simulation keeps running, with its inhabitants evolving into a harmonious world of peaceniks. The aliens finally arrive, 5,000 years after we off ourselves, and say ZOMG: WTF?. Then they discover our digital progeny "trapped" inside this computer. High-speed (alien) chases/hilarious (alien) gags/heartwarming (alien) moments ensue as they try to liberate "us" from the World That Never Was(tm).

    Guess I just figured out how I'm finally going to make my millions and get out of IT... (I'm trademarking that right now, you flesh-eatin', zombie bastards!)

  140. The Gadget Factor by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    This sounds an awful lot like the concept presented in the 1980's children's book The Gadget Factor by Sandy Landsman.

    In the story, two college students develop a computer program that models every aspect of the earth down to the most minute detail and runs simulations based on added conditions the user presents into the simulated environment. Later in the book, one of the students manages to crack the theoretical physics needed to achieve time travel and performs a series of test runs with them on their simulated earth, which ultimately results in the completely annihilation of all life on the planet almost instantly. Fearing that their research could land in the wrong hands and potentially lead to similar instantaneous destruction in the real world, the set out to destroy it, only to find a corrupt instructor had stolen their work, intent on taking credit for it himself. Eventually, this leads to a race against time to sabotage the stolen information before the instructor manages to use it to test a real-world prototype of the device introduced into the original similation.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  141. We already know the answer is 42 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they bother? We already know the answer is 42.
    Watch out for the white mice running the experiment though.

  142. Not quite reality... by Crimsonjade · · Score: 1

    I think it's pretty obvious at this point that the US is quite happy to kill those tens of millions of innocent people for a perceived advantage; that's propably the top reason why Iran and NK are so desperate to get nukes.
    I don't have the data in front of me, but it is safe to say that more people in Iraq have died from religious conflict that came out of the destabilization of Iraq than from U.S. forces in Iraq. The U.S. military uses laser-guided weapons for a reason. Cluster bombing is still more effective. There is really no comparison between nuking Japan and the civilian casualties in Iraq. The U.S. was faced with losing hundreds of thousands more soldiers in order to defeat Japan in WWII. The Japanese military was wracked with fanaticism that forced Allied forces to earn each foot with spilled blood. If time was turned back to just before that point so the U.S. could make the decision again, I would still be in favor of nuking them to save Allied soldier's lives. Don't forget the Axis powers were the ones who started WWII. Placing blame on those trying to end it is bullshit. Iran wants nukes for one reason: nationalism. The country has a piss poor economy and tons of social problems, but as long as they keep their eye on the prize, the current regime will remain in power.
    1. Re:Not quite reality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Problem is that a large percentage of cluster bombs are defective. They can remain on the ground for years waiting for someone to injure themselves.

      From Wikipedia:

      The US-made MLRS with M26 warhead and M77 submunitions are supposed to have a 5% dud rate but in reality have a rate of 16%.[6] The rate for this type tested during the Gulf War was as high as 23%.[7] The M483A1 DPICM artillery-delivered cluster bombs have a reported dud rate of 14% [8].

      Given that each cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets and are fired in volleys, even a small failure rate can lead each strike to leave behind hundreds or thousands of UXOs scattered randomly across the strike area. For example, after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, UN experts have estimated that as many as one million unexploded bomblets may contaminate the hundreds of cluster munition strike sites in Lebanon.


      Most civilized nations have banned them...

      And the U.S. military uses "dumb" weapons all the time. They like to draw focus to laser guided weapons to make people think war is humane, but the truth is that they use large amounts of non guided weapons.
    2. Re:Not quite reality... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I don't have the data in front of me, but it is safe to say that more people in Iraq have died from religious conflict that came out of the destabilization of Iraq than from U.S. forces in Iraq.

      Seeing how the "destabilization" of Iraq was a direct and expected cause of US assault, I really don't see your point; the casualties were known beforehand and accepted as collateral damage by the US.

      There is really no comparison between nuking Japan and the civilian casualties in Iraq. The U.S. was faced with losing hundreds of thousands more soldiers in order to defeat Japan in WWII. The Japanese military was wracked with fanaticism that forced Allied forces to earn each foot with spilled blood. If time was turned back to just before that point so the U.S. could make the decision again, I would still be in favor of nuking them to save Allied soldier's lives.

      Really ? From what I've heard, Japan was offering to surrender on the condition that the Emperor could keep his office (which he did in the end). But even ignoring that, there was no need to drop the bomb on a city; dropping it on some uninhabited area would had worked just as well as far as threats go. In fact, simply surrounding Japan would likely had won the war, since the country has few natural resources, that being the reason they attacked in the first place.

      Besides, it seems to me that you just said that using nuclear weapons against civilian targets is acceptable if it helps win a war. This does not contradict my point, if anything it confirms it: the US is willing to nuke civilians for a strategic advantage, so better get your own nukes to act as a deterrent.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  143. Release Date? by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    How long before it comes out as a MMPORG for political/military/news junkies? I'm sure some large server farm in California can handle the load.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  144. Perfect Storm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The right wing nuts here think the end of the world is coming soon (possibly before 2008.) They believe in a somewhat similar myth and are fine with doing whatever it takes to force god into making their myth true ASAP. One of them is the president USA; although, I don't think he is. I think Bush is just exploiting a large demographic who can't imagine him tricking them because that is:
    a) too clever for a dumb man (mis-underestimate)
    b) too evil for a good man with god on his side

    Iranian leadership may not be as bad as you think same goes with the USA. But if both are behind those myths then we might see the two try to end the world. (Bush seems to be masterfully provoking the middle east to the best of his abilities while doing nothing to limit their ability to wage WW3, if not indirectly helping them build up for it-- India nuclear treaty, blowing V. Plaime's cover, and the Haliburton's work for Iran come to mind.)

  145. why the fuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...would they try this is they cant even simulate weather?

  146. Brought to you by the same geniuses... by mrraven · · Score: 1

    ...who brought you the war in Iraq. Confidence in their algorithmic prowess? I think not...

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  147. British readers will get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computer says "no".

  148. Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it play chess?

  149. 42 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what all the fuss is about, the anser is 42.......

  150. Re:Mod experiment by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. Its just a joke. It got modded down twice. Where's the /. mod court of appeals?

  151. Psychohistory by Oddscurity · · Score: 1

    The first thing I thought of reading this was Psychohistory.

    --
    Indeed!
  152. Re:Exodus, en masse? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, we've reserved a place for you on the B-Ark.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  153. 'SWS'?! by Jaggo · · Score: 1

    'Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS) ...'

    They Should have called it 'The Matrix' =P

  154. Don't believe the lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so very convenient that your "enemies" are fucking maniacs. Or maybe it's just the militarist propaganda machine doing its job.

    Don't believe the lies

    It's not like the Iranian theocracy is fucking happyland, but no need to slaughter every man, woman and child like you're trying to in Iraq (over one million dead as a consequence of the occupation, please try getting some news from some other sources than the elite-controlled US media).

  155. It's worse than recursion... by TrebleMaker · · Score: 1
    --
    In Soviet Russia a beowulf cluster of these things imagines you welcoming your new, neural-network overlords.
  156. Presidential election simulation unnecessary by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    The candidates are ALWAYS pre-chosen - simulations unnecessary: look for Guiliani/Thompson (the one with the underage wifey) on the Right, and Clinton/Richardson on the Near-Right....

  157. All you zombies.... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    In the simulation, no one knows Soviet Russia, and no one welcomes the Overlord....

  158. Wake up, Neo... by gnud · · Score: 1

    The SWS has you...

  159. wow by just_asgard · · Score: 1

    wow. do you want red pill or blue one?

  160. Multivac and Ancestor Simulations by kungfoofairy · · Score: 1

    So, how long before Multivac tries to commit suicide? Seriously though, does this lend credence to a strong argument in favor of the ancestor simulation theory?

  161. Can it simulate our WAGELESS ROBOTIC ECONOMY by posys · · Score: 1
    This is great news.

    SIMULEX's technology, or a public domain version, is precisely what we need to prototype and fine tune our WAGELESS ROBOTIC ECONOMY.

    Does anyone know how we might using SIMULEX's Sim Tech to prototype the following ?

    http://teaminfinity.com/transformer_robo_economy

    The Age of Recreation via the Emancipation of Humanity from the Machinery of Economy via the ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY

    • Want more Free Time ?
    • Realize that Robots & Computers can do ALL WORK
    • Know it is possible today, spread the word !
    • Let Robots be Robots, and Humans be beings !

    Believe it ! Expect it ! Demand it ! from your Leaders TODAY !

    Just suppose, "saving" jobs that are not fit for humans, is NOT HUMANE, just STUPID

    1. Any job a Robot can do is beneath a human's dignity....
    2. Start REALLY CARING for your Fellow Humans, TODAY !
    3. DEMAND a WAGELESS ROBOTIC ECONOMY from your LEADERS TODAY !
    4. Free your fellow humans to be beings, & you will, of course, free yourself too !
    5. Many of your LEADERS & the POWER CLASS Think of YOU and your CHILDREN as FLESHBOTS, to be harvested and used to "run" THEIR GAME, you know, "Human" Resources, JUST another resource, like coal, oil etc.
    6. Let them know that you and yours deserve the leisure they enjoy, and that REAL ROBOTS, not HUMAN ROBOTS should do the "work" to run the "show", EXPECT, ACCEPT, DEMAND NOTHING LESS !!

    Just Suppose, and, Ask yourself the following questions:

    1. The robotic network is up and running, do we pay the robots for their work ?
    2. The geo-thermal power plants producing FREE electricity are up, who do we pay for the electricity to power the robots & everything else requiring power when power is free ?
    3. The robots are up, out & about, collecting & processing raw materials into other robots & everything else, who do we pay to collect & process raw material & distribute finished products these same robots will make & distribute ?
    4. The Computer systems are up and running, who do we pay to make the decisions they will make ?
    5. To anwser these questions become part of the freight train of thought & action as revolution known as:

    MAGNA CARTA 5.0© The Age of Recreation via the Emancipation of Humanity from the Machinery of Economy via ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY

    --
    The Future is already here, just unevenly distributed... THE ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY NOW! http://RoboEco.com/slash
  162. Spore by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    So this is what Spore 2 will look like.

    I knew it!

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  163. The dogs of war by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "...they set it up as a negotiating tool amongst themselves."

    I agree, and the above quote succinctly sums up my point. The other point I was struggling to make was: if you not a member you are expendable. I support the UN even with the UNSC(*) but I don't have any idea how they or anyone else could stop the cruelty we inflict on each other, it's simply way too easy for humans to rationalise the deeds of war into "us/good vs them/evil". Clear away the layers of civilization and we are simply territorial animals fighting for resources, we cannot help but react to fear with a dog like "we are pack" mentality because to panic and get seperated from "us" means death "or worse" (whatever that may mean to a particular individual).

    (*) - Historically speaking we have been exceptionally polite to each other on a global scale since we learned how to destroy cities at the "push of a button" half a centry ago. Even the millions of dead and "scorched earth" of Stalin and Mao did not tempt anyone to push it simply because everyone fears panic in a "mexican stand-off". (Strangely I've come full circle, my original post was about the hyperbole of comapring "Ima DinnerJacket" to Hitler and the anti-war movement to Chamberlin.)

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  164. This Story Needs More Comments by pseudosero · · Score: 1

    Here you go.

    --
    sometimes, nothing.
  165. slightly different ! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    This universe is completely turned around, here we see the evil twin WITHOUT moustaches and goatees.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  166. It explains quantum mechanics by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    The sim only bothers to calculate the result when we look at it.

    --
    Deleted
  167. GIGO by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    So where will they get all the data on the individuals? From UseNet posts, forums, blogs, etc of course! But what the military morons don't realize is all that stuff is made up best and worst case scenarios. This will make their parallel Earth useless. Garbage In - Garbage Out.

  168. So.... by yoprst · · Score: 1

    1. Sink the world into chaos
    2. Witness no Muhammad whatever his name appear on the stage
    3. Islamic problem solved?

  169. I Am Running: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billions and billions of scenarios of

    Gulf Strike: The George W. Bush Edition

    on my G3 iMac at home.

    I will entertain serious offers in Euros only ( no U.S. $ accepted).

    Cheers,
    Kilgore Trout, ex-Patriot

  170. Reminds me of... by bandmassa · · Score: 1

    ...Isaac Asimov's psychohistorians from the Foundation trilogy! Awesome and scarey all at once.

    --
    "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  171. Mistranslation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google for "wipe Israel off map mistranslation" and you'll see that the consensus among translators is quite different. What he really said was more like "in the fullness of time, the Israeli regime will pass away." Just like all regimes pass away in time. He wasn't even saying the Israeli people would go away...he was saying that there would eventually be, yep, regime change.

    You look at the history of war, and every freakin war starts with at least one side demonizing the other, whipping up the population into a frenzy about the unreasonable evilness of the other side. I'd like to think that someday people will stop buying it, but it doesn't seem likely.

    As for Iran's "meddling" in Iraq...if you're old enough you might recall the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, when the U.S. sent in a bunch of Stinger missiles. Not all the different from Iran sending in the IEDs, is it...oh, except that Iran is doing it in their own backyard, not halfway across the world. Imagine if China invaded and occupied Mexico, and imagine what kind of action we might take to protect ourselves.

  172. Is Star Trek coming true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a Star Trek episode (sorry, I don't remember all the details) in which two worlds used supercomputers to fight their wars. There were termination chambers that the people killed in simulation would have to go to so the computers would stay balanced and run correctly. Any disruption to this could bring about a "real" war and no one wanted that because "real" wars cost money, are messy and damaged physical property. Killing people is okay as long as you don't destroy the infrastructure.

    Anyway, point being - this SWS the military is working on sounds like the episode from Star Trek.

  173. False prophecies by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    Won't help because the chaos advocates are already an unorthodox fringe group - i.e. crazy even by Muslim standards. And even if they weren't, judging from other religious groups with specific prophecies that were clearly not fulfilled (e.g. 7th day Adventists), it won't help. They'll just adjust their interpretation, or figure out a way that that group was not orthodox.

  174. Can you say "Harsh Realm"? by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

    Fox TV is copied again!