Wired does not care whether its subjects interest or are helpful to network security admins, or any computer professionals for that matter. Such people no longer make up any part of Wired's audience. Wired is now a trendy, sensationalist "geek" magazine that caters to hacker wannabes and dotcom tag-alongs, nothing more.
Publishing the months old source code to the Slammer worm is the perfect way to appeal to them.
I can't see how using an arcade joystick with big blastic ball on the top would be helpful in any way in the operation of the joystick of the F-14's HOTAS. Moving an arcade joystick teaches as much about a flying an aircraft with its joystick about as much as moving the stick shift in your car. It'll teach you how change direction, but not what the castle button on the top of the F-14's stick does when pushed in the N direction, or even the fact that pushing the stick forward makes the aircraft pitch down and side motion controls roll.
As for the connection between AWACS and sonar operators learning how to read their screen by arcade games, I'd say that you're vastly underestimating the complexity of said military applications. Since when do arcade games use the same symbology, labeling conventions and settings as radars? How could staring at a bunch of pixelated space ships help in reading a waterfall display on a sub?
The Quake thing is kind of true- a modified version of Doom was used for reaction training, and now a system based off Operation Flashpoint is in development. Based off of it, but still heavily modified.
Might I ask whether you have any references for your other claims?
The only games I've found to be similar to military activities are the ones that actually try to portray it realistically. Even with those there are significant sacrifices made for gameplay or development reasons.
There have been casualties in every major conflict that the U.S. has been involved in. The American military seems to be obsessed with making any losses a thing of the past, to satisfy the public's constantly over-sanitized view of war.
Also, future wars could be had with China, North Korea and other countries (I'm thinking at least a decade from now, though it's hard to predict), which would easily be crushed by the U.S. There would no doubt be significant casualties though. Simply winning the war is not the goal of a skilled military, winning one with the fewest losses is (a wise thing to focus on imo).
There is also something called the "fog of war"- it basically refers to the unpredictability of warfare, where even the best plans by the best generals with the best troops equipped with the best weapons can go awry (see "Black Hawk Down" - technically successful, but with 17 of the world's best troops killed by untrained masses). The U.S. must be prepared for the unexpected.
Which is what defense is about. Every single major weapon of the U.S. developed in between the 1950s and 1980s was intended to be used specifically against the Soviet Union. How many actually were? The U-2 and SR-71, which were used only in non-combat roles. Who would deny the value of the U-2 in Cuban Missile Crisis, or the F-15 (and all of the other weapons used) in Gulf War though? Had the previous generation of weapons been used instead there would have been significant losses (F-4's against Iraqi MiG-29's). The absence of Iraqi air force activity in the most recent war seems to show that the performance of the Coalition forces in the first Gulf War, possible only with their modern equipment, convinced the Iraqis that it is pointless to fight in the air.
It is impossible to predict when a weapon may become useful or essential. It is better to overprepared than underprepared, and being just "prepared" is something very difficult to gauge, especially a decade in advance (I doubt that anyone has predicted any war that far in advance, Iraq certainly wasn't on my mind in 1993).
"One of the only movies to do it right was Jurrassic Park. It was also one of the first. It is a shame that production values have dropped so dramatically."
Really? I thought JP looked good when I saw it, but that was in comparison to all of the non-realistic CG of before. I saw it a month ago, and you could clearly tell what was CG. Also, you can't compare computer animation of dinosaurs (which you have never seen in reality) to the animation of humanoid characters. We see humans every day and have ingrained into our minds every subtle nuance of the most simple movements, things that are very difficult to replicate in CG (despite all of the muscle simulation and consultation from medical professionals). With dinosaurs CG artists have the luxury of the public's ignorance of actual dinosaur movement./Please, being different doesn't make you better. And plus, you're not actually different. You're just another anti-CG snob.
Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company
on
A Tour of Pixar
·
· Score: 1
Massive at $70,000? I heard that a single user license was only $30,000.
I forgot to mention Tribes, an excellent shooter that created a new sub-genre. Tribes features larger scale outdoor combat, between teams at bases separated by kilometers. Players must manage base defenses by placing turrets, repairing equipment and defending themselves. Combat is a fluid combination of multi-person vehicles and individuals with jetpacks.
Anyone who's played Tribes and Battlefield 1942 would recognize Tribes as its precursor. Unreal Warfare and UT 2004 (in typical Epic fashion) are following the trend.
Ever heard of simulations?
I was playing Falcon 4.0, a flight simulation, and it kind of went like this:
Load campaign. Watch as simulated war progresses in real time. Wait for an appealing mission to come up on the Frag Order (short for Fragment of the Air Tasking Order, nothing to do with "fragging" as in Quake), and then select a mission along with a position to fly (flight lead, wingman #1/#2/#3 etc.). Print briefing and read it, using a dry erase board to write down important stuff (expected threats, friendly aircraft operating in the area). Look at recon imagery of the targets and maps to plan your approach. Analyze SAM coverage, and other enemy composition location via JSTARS. Adjust waypoints as necessary. Adjust weapons loadout for aircraft. Click the "Fly" button.
Mission loads. Then, request take off from ATC. ATC tells me what runway to taxi to. Lots of other aircraft coming and going, so I have to wait a few minutes. I disable the wheel brakes and slowly make my way to runway 27, after which I take off. Only then do I get to the actual mission part. Describing that would quadruple the length of this post, and I'm tired of typing.
The point is that there is a wealth of underappreciated and neglected value in simulations. You don't have to be a military-buff to enjoy them (though a good 70% of simmers are), you only have to have the desire for gameplay that requires depth and thinking (and practice!). Simulations aren't just games about strategy in the traditional sense though, as dogfighting and other types of combat maneuvering require the utmost finesse and dexterity that any FPS player would envy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
I looked at several of your past posts, and noticed that none of them have two points. Some have more, some have fewer.
But how slowly will 32 bit applications run on it?
You're welcome.
I totally agree.
Wired does not care whether its subjects interest or are helpful to network security admins, or any computer professionals for that matter. Such people no longer make up any part of Wired's audience. Wired is now a trendy, sensationalist "geek" magazine that caters to hacker wannabes and dotcom tag-alongs, nothing more.
Publishing the months old source code to the Slammer worm is the perfect way to appeal to them.
I can't see how using an arcade joystick with big blastic ball on the top would be helpful in any way in the operation of the joystick of the F-14's HOTAS. Moving an arcade joystick teaches as much about a flying an aircraft with its joystick about as much as moving the stick shift in your car. It'll teach you how change direction, but not what the castle button on the top of the F-14's stick does when pushed in the N direction, or even the fact that pushing the stick forward makes the aircraft pitch down and side motion controls roll.
As for the connection between AWACS and sonar operators learning how to read their screen by arcade games, I'd say that you're vastly underestimating the complexity of said military applications. Since when do arcade games use the same symbology, labeling conventions and settings as radars? How could staring at a bunch of pixelated space ships help in reading a waterfall display on a sub?
The Quake thing is kind of true- a modified version of Doom was used for reaction training, and now a system based off Operation Flashpoint is in development. Based off of it, but still heavily modified.
Might I ask whether you have any references for your other claims?
The only games I've found to be similar to military activities are the ones that actually try to portray it realistically. Even with those there are significant sacrifices made for gameplay or development reasons.
There have been casualties in every major conflict that the U.S. has been involved in. The American military seems to be obsessed with making any losses a thing of the past, to satisfy the public's constantly over-sanitized view of war.
Also, future wars could be had with China, North Korea and other countries (I'm thinking at least a decade from now, though it's hard to predict), which would easily be crushed by the U.S. There would no doubt be significant casualties though. Simply winning the war is not the goal of a skilled military, winning one with the fewest losses is (a wise thing to focus on imo).
There is also something called the "fog of war"- it basically refers to the unpredictability of warfare, where even the best plans by the best generals with the best troops equipped with the best weapons can go awry (see "Black Hawk Down" - technically successful, but with 17 of the world's best troops killed by untrained masses). The U.S. must be prepared for the unexpected.
Which is what defense is about. Every single major weapon of the U.S. developed in between the 1950s and 1980s was intended to be used specifically against the Soviet Union. How many actually were? The U-2 and SR-71, which were used only in non-combat roles. Who would deny the value of the U-2 in Cuban Missile Crisis, or the F-15 (and all of the other weapons used) in Gulf War though? Had the previous generation of weapons been used instead there would have been significant losses (F-4's against Iraqi MiG-29's). The absence of Iraqi air force activity in the most recent war seems to show that the performance of the Coalition forces in the first Gulf War, possible only with their modern equipment, convinced the Iraqis that it is pointless to fight in the air.
It is impossible to predict when a weapon may become useful or essential. It is better to overprepared than underprepared, and being just "prepared" is something very difficult to gauge, especially a decade in advance (I doubt that anyone has predicted any war that far in advance, Iraq certainly wasn't on my mind in 1993).
What military weapon has not yet been described as a "video game" by the press? I'm getting kind of tired of this.
They did, after Vietnam. It's called the M-16A2.
I also have to agree here.
This could have potentially revolutionary social effects...
Typical slashdot sensationalism.
Trepia actually had a major part in the first Russian Revolution.
Has anyone heard of this person? Does anyone care?
Excellent.
Excellent...
"One of the only movies to do it right was Jurrassic Park. It was also one of the first. It is a shame that production values have dropped so dramatically." Really? I thought JP looked good when I saw it, but that was in comparison to all of the non-realistic CG of before. I saw it a month ago, and you could clearly tell what was CG. Also, you can't compare computer animation of dinosaurs (which you have never seen in reality) to the animation of humanoid characters. We see humans every day and have ingrained into our minds every subtle nuance of the most simple movements, things that are very difficult to replicate in CG (despite all of the muscle simulation and consultation from medical professionals). With dinosaurs CG artists have the luxury of the public's ignorance of actual dinosaur movement. /Please, being different doesn't make you better. And plus, you're not actually different. You're just another anti-CG snob.
Massive at $70,000? I heard that a single user license was only $30,000.
Whoa, a classical soundtrack to a scene of chaos for humorous effect? Never seen or heard that before.
Would you think that a similar system exists at Apple?
Argh, left off a quote...
"the people who endlessly say, 'Windows is not stable'
Most notably Apple and Mac users.
You've got a lot of guts kid.
I forgot to mention Tribes, an excellent shooter that created a new sub-genre. Tribes features larger scale outdoor combat, between teams at bases separated by kilometers. Players must manage base defenses by placing turrets, repairing equipment and defending themselves. Combat is a fluid combination of multi-person vehicles and individuals with jetpacks.
Anyone who's played Tribes and Battlefield 1942 would recognize Tribes as its precursor. Unreal Warfare and UT 2004 (in typical Epic fashion) are following the trend.
Ever heard of simulations? I was playing Falcon 4.0, a flight simulation, and it kind of went like this:
Load campaign. Watch as simulated war progresses in real time. Wait for an appealing mission to come up on the Frag Order (short for Fragment of the Air Tasking Order, nothing to do with "fragging" as in Quake), and then select a mission along with a position to fly (flight lead, wingman #1/#2/#3 etc.). Print briefing and read it, using a dry erase board to write down important stuff (expected threats, friendly aircraft operating in the area). Look at recon imagery of the targets and maps to plan your approach. Analyze SAM coverage, and other enemy composition location via JSTARS. Adjust waypoints as necessary. Adjust weapons loadout for aircraft. Click the "Fly" button.
Mission loads. Then, request take off from ATC. ATC tells me what runway to taxi to. Lots of other aircraft coming and going, so I have to wait a few minutes. I disable the wheel brakes and slowly make my way to runway 27, after which I take off. Only then do I get to the actual mission part. Describing that would quadruple the length of this post, and I'm tired of typing.
The point is that there is a wealth of underappreciated and neglected value in simulations. You don't have to be a military-buff to enjoy them (though a good 70% of simmers are), you only have to have the desire for gameplay that requires depth and thinking (and practice!). Simulations aren't just games about strategy in the traditional sense though, as dogfighting and other types of combat maneuvering require the utmost finesse and dexterity that any FPS player would envy.