My post was actually about Bush not crushing dissent ruthlessly like Mubarak, and I just picked the Democrats because they're really the only organization he might care about and because Mubarak does crush the opposition party.
I understand your point about the problem of two dominant parties in America. It's unfortunately mathematically guaranteed by the combination of the electoral college and our first past the post system. Some third party viability would breathe a lot of life into our political system, but I don't see it happening because the two parties both have too much to gain from stopping it.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say that there's no discernable difference between the two parties. The debates over immigration, healthcare, energy, and how to handle terrorism all show strong differences between the two. Certainly, there are areas where I wish they'd be a little more difference between the two (like copyright law), but if you think that there's no difference between the two parties, ask yourself this:
"What would Al Gore do?"
Seriously, if Florida had been called for Al Gore in the 2000 election, do you think this country would be the same as it is today?
Would the closest we've come to expanding healthcare coverage have been a huge boondoggle written by big pharma? Would we have energy policies intended to keep us on oil and to give huge tax breaks to oil companies? Would we have pretended global warming wasn't happening and seen intimidation of scientists across the board? Would we have had huge tax cuts while the national debt swelled 33% in 6 years?
Would North Korea have thrown out IAEA inspectors and built bombs without the "Axis of Evil" speech? (On the other hand, if they did would Al Gore have given them what they wanted instead of standing up to them?) Would we have even had September 11th, or would Al Gore have listened to advisors warning of al Qaeda as early as January 25th, 2001 and been able to stop it? Would he have set up off-shore prisons for indefinite detentions and with secret trials where the accussed cannot confront witnesses?
Would we have gone to war in Iraq based on sketchy evidence with pollyanna dreams of being greeted with sweets and flowers and of having the Iraqis pay for the reconstruction within years. Would we have gone for it even with strong international opposition? Would we have had all the looting and sectarian violence? Would we have had Abu Ghraib?
Would America be hated worldwide like it is today?
Look, I don't know what you believe in or if you're just totally dissatisfied with the kind of nonsense that comes out of Washington. I don't know if you've come to the conclusion that bipartisan legislation has about a 50-50 chance of being really bad. I don't know if you're just cynical about politicians in general and are tired of the fact that they're all bought and paid for. I don't know if you've got some sort of fringe issue that both parties hate like drugs or the freedom to copy your own music. However, I do know that if you think there's no discernable difference between the two parties, you're clearly viewing the world through a very heavy filter.
GBA: 144.5 mm X 82 mm X 24.5 mm @ 140g (w/o batteries) PSP: 170 mm X 74 mm X 23 mm @ 161g (w/o batteries)
The GBA is shorter and weighs less, but is thicker. The DS, however, is bigger than both. I just got one recently, and it's a bit of a shocker how much heavier it feels after a few years of using an SP. I don't have a PSP to compare, however.
No, try me. I'd love a good justification for your motives or opinions that led to you accusing me of being "only worried about Democrats being hauled away." Since you're accusing me of only caring for what you see as my own instead of having the prinicples to care about anyone being hauled off by a government for expressing their beliefs, I think you have a duty to justify your deliberate reading of that statement into what I actually said or to offer an apology.
You're only worried about Democrats being hauled away, then?
Straw man argument. I'm comparing apples to apples. The Muslim Brotherhood -- the largest opposition group in Egypt -- is a banned party but is the largest political competitor to the President's Party at 20% of the seats in the last election with all the candiates running as independents.
Anyway, well fine. Just to be politically correct for you. As long as members of the Democratic / Libertarian / Green / Constitional / Prohibition / Reform / Personal Choice / Peace & Freedom / Socialist / Socialist Workers / Workers World Parties, Independents, non-voters, voters for election in other countries or whoever else isn't a Republican are not being rounded up for their political beliefs, then we're not on par with Egypt.
Unless you count continued attempts to shoot down US planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone.
How does trying to shoot our military planes out of the sky of their territory threaten the people of the US? Not that we didn't have really good reasons for the no-fly zone and not that Iraq is some sort of innocent victim, but how does standing up for the defense of their own territory count? Any threat that posed would be eliminated by not being there.
Or the continued development of weapons that violated UN restrictions in terms of range.
Then there's the financial support for the families of suicide bombers...
This aid was provided exclusively to Palestinian suicide bombers, and not to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement. In general, Saddam was wary of religious zealots as he wasn't a very dedicated Muslim himself (despite peppering his speech with religious phraseology post Gulf War) but saw the Palestinian movement as both a movement that posed no threat to him and a good way to earn political capital with other Arab neighbors. This was a threat to Israel and not the US.
But Saddam was far from a downtrodden lamb.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he was hardly a threat to the US. Heck, he was barely a threat to Israel which was the enemy within closest striking distance and provided most of that threat by easing the burdens left to their families by suicide bombers.
If we were looking to take on actual threats capable of delivering a nuclear attack on the US, topple a cruel and sadistic tyrant, and damn the consequences internationally, then why is Kim Jong-Il still in power? Why the paper tiger instead of the guy that has missles capable of reaching the US -- the guy that has nuclear warheads? Even the argument of "saving the Iraqis" pales compared to the intimidation, brainwashing, and malnourishment that the North Koreans are suffering.
Look, I can't stand Bush, and I think his policies (particularly on the power of the executive branch) are a danger to the long-term health of democracy in America, but until Democrats are being arrested, beaten, and tortured for speaking out against the President and until the Republicans specifically ban certain parties from holding public office for years, then Bush can't hold a candle to Mubarak.
Honestly -- degrees, people. It's a matter of degrees.
The international wealthy have their wealth invested in the current petroleum based economy. If there really is a viable new technology, or one comes around, they would do everything they can to prevent it from getting a foothold and stopping the profit from the petroleum economy.
Yeah, yeah, and the oil industry is hiding the 100 MPG carburetor and a car that can run on water.
You know what? A little over 100 years ago, all the weatlhiest Americans and international investors had their money invested in railroads and related industries. The railroad was obsoleted for travel and for light shipping by the automobile and the airplane. The descendents of the people who were rich back then are still rich now.
I don't buy the argument that the oil companies could prevent such technology from being found out about or that their investors would be all that interested in stopping it instead of getting all their money into it first or at least into other lucrative industries. Why do you think Bill Gates diversified his portfolio years ago?
We've had many Presidents who were boosters of the space program or at least of our ICBM program during the Cold War. Had we a cheap way of getting to space based on alien technology, then why the hell would we waste all that money on chemical rockets when the life of the nation was on the line in nuclear detente? We could've dominated space over the Soviet Union with a fleet of craft, knocked nukes out of orbit on launch, and pretty much won the Cold War as a conventional war without all of the fuss.
Face it, Occam's Razor demands that the most simple explanation (that we don't have the technology) should be listened to over the theory that we have all the technology but the world hasn't been shaped by it because of a coalltion of people working for interests that don't match the public interests they should have.
Easy. You're attacking a straw man. The two specific technologies discussed are anti-gravity and free energy. Neither of these have anything to do with "a device to kill a single person at 1000 miles without a clear line of sight."
Congratulations you (may or may not) have made a strong argument for the government hiding some sort of super-duper assassination tool. This is irrelevant. You have failed to make an argument for hiding free energy and UFO propulsion which could open up the throttle on our economy.
If you had read or watched the interview you would know he was using the remote operating program RemoteAnywhere. In which case his story is totally consistent.
Yeah, okay. I can explain away the "juddering" of the image as slow updates on their VNC client. I can explain away seeing "a hand" move across the screen as the mouse cursor....
But, viewing photographs over 4-bit color? First of all, do any VNC-like clients actually support 16 color graphics? Second, how are you supposed to recognize anything in a photo (much less airbrushing) over 16 color graphics? Lastly, what was he planning on doing with those graphics if he wasn't taking screenshots? He could've mean 8-bit color, but that's an awful lot errors to pile up.
I still maintain that either the guy is innocent by way of incompetence or lying abount how he accessed the machines if he actually did.
So, he viewed a 16-color image of a UFO that was "juddering" like a video stream up until someone's hand moved across it while he was hacking?
This guy has to be innocent or lying. There's no way anyone this computer illiterate could've hacked anything unless he had physical console access and a good fire axe.
In all fairness we steamrolled Iraq and have suffered exceedingly low casualties. A low level, extremely unsuccessful, resistance is no indication that we're not using extremely advanced technology.
True, but "Shock and Awe" would've been even more awesome with fighter jets that could make 90 degree turns and any sorts of weapons based on free energy technology.
Though, I think if we had 100 year+ tech, we would have solved the IED sooner.
Same here. At the very least, you'd think we'd have done some about the insurgency with those fancy government mind control lasers I keep hearing about.
See my reply to the other guy. Please explain what rational motive would lead the government to hide technology that could solve several major US policy goals and that would give us even more military superiority when the Pentagon is never satisfied with what they have already. Despite the abundant benefits of openly using the technology, your excuse must provide a good reason why hiding it has more benefits, especially as our economic leadership is starting to decay.
Consider this: WHY would you show off your MOST ADVANCED technology if your LESS ADVANCED technology already IS SUPERIOUR to the adversarys?
You've obviously never read up on the kind of technological fantasies the US military has. Despite your BOLD STATEMENTS that EMPHATICALLY use CAPITALIZED WORDS which make me DOUBT YOUR SANITY, the US military is completely and totally incapable of understanding the words "good enough." Even though our military technology can stomp on anyone on the planet, the Pentagon has long argued for increased capabilities against a phantom Chinese threat. They conjure up the image of China suddenly having tech on par with ours in 10-20 years as a boogeyman to justify bigger and fatter budgets for more powerful weapons.
Second, the space program is a black eye for the US. It was a prominent sign of American strength and leadership that has decayed into a series of failures. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to send a space shuttle up and to deploy our many satellites. If we had alien technology, then we could half NASA's budget and accomplish the same goals. We could also cheaply weaponize space like the Pentagon always fantasizes about.
Third, oil. We have a lot of shady alliances worldwide that revolve completely around access to oil. Take Saudi Arabia. We've known for decades that the Saudis are state sponsors of terrorist groups and have spent their money heavily to foment Muslim radicalism. We know that the majority of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis. However, we're still all buddy-buddy with them because of oil. If we weren't dependent on oil, we could pressure the country towards democracy or at least leave it as some sort of backwater of no importance and focus on developing more friendly allies elsewhere.
Take Venezuela. The US government has long thought that the rise of Communism and Socialism in Latin America was to be stopped at all costs -- even to the point of toppling democracies for dictatorships. (I really, really hate this policy, BTW.) Venezuela is the vanguard of a new South American socialism movement, and it only succeeds because the state oil industry can support the entire economy. Guess what country is the number one customer of Venezuela despite our official dislike of Chavez? The US of course.
Take Iran. Right now, our conflict with Iran over nuclear power/weapons is sending oil prices skyrocketting and hurting Americans. If we had free energy, then Iran would have no leverage. If we were smart, we'd give it to the Chinese and the Russians and remove the economic leverage that makes them veto UN resolutions against Iran, Sudan, etc.
Oil blocks a very, very large amount of US foreign policy goals and make us have some goals that are very unsavory. Free energy would not only boost our economy, but it would make many of Washington's dreams possible. To say that we have it and aren't using it is to BLATANTLY IGNORE GEOPOLITICS.
Then again, I don't expect to reach you with facts. For crying out loud, you post a link to a site which goes on about "Illuminati," "The New World Order," and "Chemtrails." If you can offer a RATIONAL explanation of why we have a greater interest in hiding technology than in using it, I'd love to hear it. Bonus points if you can explain why 100 years advanced military technology isn't being used in Iraq right now.
Anyone who thinks that the US government is sitting on technology that would give us greater air superiority in combat, make exploration and military domination of space easy, eliminate a significant portion of our trade deficit, make us no longer beholden to countries like Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, etc., etc. is a complete and total lunatic.
If we had alien technology, had reverse engineered it, and knew how to make it work, we would be using it right now.
I'm just so happy that a "Developer" article actually made the front page. I have been afraid that the tech level of the audience of Slashdot has been falling lately. Compare it to the number of "Game" articles on the front page.
No, don't. Zonk is a machine that exists to post. It's not fair comparing any other section to Games as a result.
Actually, I'm playing in a FATE game on weekends right now, and I really like the rules system. The Aspects rules fit nicely with the high action game we're playing in. I only didn't mention it because it adds complexity to FUDGE, and I was shooting for the simplest systems that people are likely to have at least heard of.
Fair enough. I disagree, but that's because I sit at a far end of the "simplicity" vs. "realism" spectrum. I don't think that "realism" should even be a goal of a game compared to ease of play. I started gaming with diceless games, and so I've been "ruined" for most mainstream systems.
Tastes differ. As long as we're gaming with people that have similar goals and are all capable of having fun, that's what really matters, you know?
Simplicity and clarity are subjective, too, and you had not problem debating them. (and I disagree with all your specific counters, though I think that Risus beats GURPS for simplicity, and some forms of clarity, though not realism.
Risus is an excellent minimalist game, but you're going to have to dispute that all of my specific counters are not simpler than GURPS? All of them?
Let's describe a few of them:
QAGS rules are dirt simple. You have a job with a score beside it. You roll a d20 under the score to succeed if you try something that you can do under your job. You similarly have a Gimmick and a Weakness with a score. That's pretty much your entire character, and that's pretty much all of the rules except for Yum Yums -- food that you are awarded that you can bribe the GM with. Over the Edge is also very freeform and simple with I believe only 4 player-defined traits to pick and roll against. That's a far sight simpler even just in character creation that GURPS.
Amber's mechanics are dirt simple. You compare stats and the highest wins with only a little play for one character having set up the arena of combat in their favor. Theatrix doesn't even really look at stats and is essentially a pure "drama" mechanic where the GM rules in favor of whatever preserves the story best with no required regard to what the stats say (as they just define that the character is like) and gives players the ability to spend a pool of points to dictate the plot themselves. This is in stark contrast to the initiative, to hit, damage, cover and concealment, fatigue, etc. rules of GURPS.
Feng Shui's character creation system is to take a template and fill in a couple of values. All rules complexity comes from the various schticks the PCs employ. Actual combat is completely a matter of rolling two dice + an attack value and comparing it to the defense value. Damage is static, and death comes at doing checks against your constitution once damage gets above a certain level. It's the most complex system that I mentioned, and it's still very simple and very fast to play compared to GURPs.
GURPS Lite is very simple compared to the standard core rules, but I still say that it's significantly more complex than games like QAGS and OtE much less the purely diceless games. If you have a good reason why, for example, Amber is more complex than GURPS, I'd love to hear it.
Slashdot never reviews anything but supplements from the mainstream publishers. Some of these D&D supplements have been out for a couple of months now; I've seen them in stores.
Given who and what they review, I honestly have to wonder if they have no taste or if they're getting paid for it. Honestly, none of the smaller publishers could afford this kind of product placement, and none of these supplements are really worth a review. They're just more feats, more prestige classes, more races, etc -- in other words, nothing innovative and nothing that significantly expands your options for game play.
I'd love to see a review of a beautiful game like Weapons of the Gods, but you aren't going to see it around here.
Not to be too fanboyish, but GURPS beats any other tabletop RPG hands down for clarity, simplicity, realism, and playability.
While your mileage may vary in what you consider fun, and I respect that opinion, there's a bit too much chest-thumping pride to ignore in your statement when you so boldly declare the GURPS wins the trophy for all of these things.
You obviously have not strayed outside of the classic supplement machines of WotC, White World, SJG, etc. if you think that GURPS wins in ALL four categories. You definitely haven't played any indie RPGs and have never played a diceless game. While GURPS may beat the d20 and Storyteller systems in many ways, it's not the king of the hill for some of the virtues you ascribe to it.
For simplicity and clarity, you can't get much better than diceless games like Amber or Theatrix. For simple games with dice, quick-play systems like QAGS or DIY games like FUDGE offer very simple rules to work with. Over the Edge is also a wonderfully simple game. Even a game with a lot of crunchy bits like Feng Shui is much simpler than GURPS if a bit less focused on "realism."
"Playability" is of course a completely subjective virtue, so I won't try to dispute you there since it's pointless to argue about a subjective opinion. However, I find that simplicity and clarity are virtues in a game directly opposed to "realism." Attempting the goal of realism generally means rigid modeling of a situation which inherently demands complexity to cover all the "what-ifs." All games fail in this some degree or another, leading to the long-running Murphy's Rules comic in SJG's Pyramid magazine.
Objectively, though, any time your game relies on a grid of some sort with facing, turning, and movement rigidly defined, you've already lost the battle for simplicity. If it's more complicated than, "Roll to hit, roll for damage," then it's already out of the league of many games for simplicity.
How did George Bush trick George Tenet into thinking the WMD case was a "slam dunk?"
He didn't. He and others in his administration made it quite clear that that's what they wanted to hear. In the face of the downgrading of the role of the CIA in intelligence gathering as Rumsfield has acted to shift such responsibilities to the Pentagon and in face of his own personal career gain, he gave the President what he wanted to hear.
This is despite the fact that people told him the source of the "mobile biologicql weapons labs" allegation was completely unreliable. This allegation was again made on May 28, 2003 after the war and after others had said they were most likely used for making hydrogen for weather balloons. Then there was of course the CIA analyst who thought that aluminium rocket tubes where meant to be parts for a uranium enrichment centrifuge despite their agreed upon lack of sutability by nearly all other experts (wrong shape, wrong size, coated with a weather-proofing material that would poison the reaction, and even if true would make less potent centrifuges than the ones Iraq has already used pre-Gulf War). A complete debunking is here. The CIA knew the yellowcake in Niger argument was wrong in March 2002 thanks to Wilson's report.
Now, in spite of all of these supposed "intelligence failures" and in spite of failing to connect the dots to prevent September 11th, the President gives George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom in December 2004. Isn't that just chummy?
And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.
They're not lies. The evidence has been amply documented that the administration had access to intelligence that debunked all their WMD claims and even had made a mole out of one of Saddam's inner circle who told the CIA that Iraq had no WMD programs. Instead, they chose to go forward with the claims to get the American people behind the idea. I know that I was sold on the idea after the 2003 State of the Union address until all the debunking started to come out over the next few months.
Furthermore, I think you sincerely fail to understand what patriotism is. I'll turn this question around on you: Was it unpatriotic for Iraqis to question Saddam Hussein?
We have leader that has contempt for the electorate and contempt for rule of law as shown repeatedly by his actions in this war. It is in fact our patriotic duty to criticize the President. To mutely accept and praise whoever is in office is the antithesis of one's duty as a citizen of a democracy.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
I'm guessing he got turned off a the point where a favorite party member gets kidnapped at the beginning of the game and you're forced to go on side-quests to make enough money to get her back. Right at the start of the game. "Here's a little taste of plot BOOM SIDE QUESTS!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird!
It's a plane!
No, it's Irony!
*cue the music*
My post was actually about Bush not crushing dissent ruthlessly like Mubarak, and I just picked the Democrats because they're really the only organization he might care about and because Mubarak does crush the opposition party.
I understand your point about the problem of two dominant parties in America. It's unfortunately mathematically guaranteed by the combination of the electoral college and our first past the post system. Some third party viability would breathe a lot of life into our political system, but I don't see it happening because the two parties both have too much to gain from stopping it.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say that there's no discernable difference between the two parties. The debates over immigration, healthcare, energy, and how to handle terrorism all show strong differences between the two. Certainly, there are areas where I wish they'd be a little more difference between the two (like copyright law), but if you think that there's no difference between the two parties, ask yourself this:
"What would Al Gore do?"
Seriously, if Florida had been called for Al Gore in the 2000 election, do you think this country would be the same as it is today?
Would the closest we've come to expanding healthcare coverage have been a huge boondoggle written by big pharma? Would we have energy policies intended to keep us on oil and to give huge tax breaks to oil companies? Would we have pretended global warming wasn't happening and seen intimidation of scientists across the board? Would we have had huge tax cuts while the national debt swelled 33% in 6 years?
Would North Korea have thrown out IAEA inspectors and built bombs without the "Axis of Evil" speech? (On the other hand, if they did would Al Gore have given them what they wanted instead of standing up to them?) Would we have even had September 11th, or would Al Gore have listened to advisors warning of al Qaeda as early as January 25th, 2001 and been able to stop it? Would he have set up off-shore prisons for indefinite detentions and with secret trials where the accussed cannot confront witnesses?
Would we have gone to war in Iraq based on sketchy evidence with pollyanna dreams of being greeted with sweets and flowers and of having the Iraqis pay for the reconstruction within years. Would we have gone for it even with strong international opposition? Would we have had all the looting and sectarian violence? Would we have had Abu Ghraib?
Would America be hated worldwide like it is today?
Look, I don't know what you believe in or if you're just totally dissatisfied with the kind of nonsense that comes out of Washington. I don't know if you've come to the conclusion that bipartisan legislation has about a 50-50 chance of being really bad. I don't know if you're just cynical about politicians in general and are tired of the fact that they're all bought and paid for. I don't know if you've got some sort of fringe issue that both parties hate like drugs or the freedom to copy your own music. However, I do know that if you think there's no discernable difference between the two parties, you're clearly viewing the world through a very heavy filter.
According to the Wikipedia:
GBA: 144.5 mm X 82 mm X 24.5 mm @ 140g (w/o batteries)
PSP: 170 mm X 74 mm X 23 mm @ 161g (w/o batteries)
The GBA is shorter and weighs less, but is thicker. The DS, however, is bigger than both. I just got one recently, and it's a bit of a shocker how much heavier it feels after a few years of using an SP. I don't have a PSP to compare, however.
5) try to play in motion (isn't a big selling point of GB that you can play in the car/on a plane?)
*blink blink* Ummm.... I'd be more worried about hooking up the power and video input cables on a car or plane than the motion of the controller.
No, try me. I'd love a good justification for your motives or opinions that led to you accusing me of being "only worried about Democrats being hauled away." Since you're accusing me of only caring for what you see as my own instead of having the prinicples to care about anyone being hauled off by a government for expressing their beliefs, I think you have a duty to justify your deliberate reading of that statement into what I actually said or to offer an apology.
You're only worried about Democrats being hauled away, then?
Straw man argument. I'm comparing apples to apples. The Muslim Brotherhood -- the largest opposition group in Egypt -- is a banned party but is the largest political competitor to the President's Party at 20% of the seats in the last election with all the candiates running as independents.
Anyway, well fine. Just to be politically correct for you. As long as members of the Democratic / Libertarian / Green / Constitional / Prohibition / Reform / Personal Choice / Peace & Freedom / Socialist / Socialist Workers / Workers World Parties, Independents, non-voters, voters for election in other countries or whoever else isn't a Republican are not being rounded up for their political beliefs, then we're not on par with Egypt.
Happy now? Hmm? Hmmmmmmm? Too bad.
Unless you count continued attempts to shoot down US planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone.
How does trying to shoot our military planes out of the sky of their territory threaten the people of the US? Not that we didn't have really good reasons for the no-fly zone and not that Iraq is some sort of innocent victim, but how does standing up for the defense of their own territory count? Any threat that posed would be eliminated by not being there.
Or the continued development of weapons that violated UN restrictions in terms of range.
The al-Samoud II missile only had a range of 183 km. This isn't enough to even reach Israel or Europe, much less the US and they were thus not enough to count as a threat to the US.
Then there's the financial support for the families of suicide bombers...
This aid was provided exclusively to Palestinian suicide bombers, and not to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement. In general, Saddam was wary of religious zealots as he wasn't a very dedicated Muslim himself (despite peppering his speech with religious phraseology post Gulf War) but saw the Palestinian movement as both a movement that posed no threat to him and a good way to earn political capital with other Arab neighbors. This was a threat to Israel and not the US.
But Saddam was far from a downtrodden lamb.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he was hardly a threat to the US. Heck, he was barely a threat to Israel which was the enemy within closest striking distance and provided most of that threat by easing the burdens left to their families by suicide bombers.
If we were looking to take on actual threats capable of delivering a nuclear attack on the US, topple a cruel and sadistic tyrant, and damn the consequences internationally, then why is Kim Jong-Il still in power? Why the paper tiger instead of the guy that has missles capable of reaching the US -- the guy that has nuclear warheads? Even the argument of "saving the Iraqis" pales compared to the intimidation, brainwashing, and malnourishment that the North Koreans are suffering.
Look, I can't stand Bush, and I think his policies (particularly on the power of the executive branch) are a danger to the long-term health of democracy in America, but until Democrats are being arrested, beaten, and tortured for speaking out against the President and until the Republicans specifically ban certain parties from holding public office for years, then Bush can't hold a candle to Mubarak.
Honestly -- degrees, people. It's a matter of degrees.
The international wealthy have their wealth invested in the current petroleum based economy. If there really is a viable new technology, or one comes around, they would do everything they can to prevent it from getting a foothold and stopping the profit from the petroleum economy.
Yeah, yeah, and the oil industry is hiding the 100 MPG carburetor and a car that can run on water.
You know what? A little over 100 years ago, all the weatlhiest Americans and international investors had their money invested in railroads and related industries. The railroad was obsoleted for travel and for light shipping by the automobile and the airplane. The descendents of the people who were rich back then are still rich now.
I don't buy the argument that the oil companies could prevent such technology from being found out about or that their investors would be all that interested in stopping it instead of getting all their money into it first or at least into other lucrative industries. Why do you think Bill Gates diversified his portfolio years ago?
We've had many Presidents who were boosters of the space program or at least of our ICBM program during the Cold War. Had we a cheap way of getting to space based on alien technology, then why the hell would we waste all that money on chemical rockets when the life of the nation was on the line in nuclear detente? We could've dominated space over the Soviet Union with a fleet of craft, knocked nukes out of orbit on launch, and pretty much won the Cold War as a conventional war without all of the fuss.
Face it, Occam's Razor demands that the most simple explanation (that we don't have the technology) should be listened to over the theory that we have all the technology but the world hasn't been shaped by it because of a coalltion of people working for interests that don't match the public interests they should have.
Please, refute the logic, if you can!
Easy. You're attacking a straw man. The two specific technologies discussed are anti-gravity and free energy. Neither of these have anything to do with "a device to kill a single person at 1000 miles without a clear line of sight."
Congratulations you (may or may not) have made a strong argument for the government hiding some sort of super-duper assassination tool. This is irrelevant. You have failed to make an argument for hiding free energy and UFO propulsion which could open up the throttle on our economy.
If you had read or watched the interview you would know he was using the remote operating program RemoteAnywhere. In which case his story is totally consistent.
Yeah, okay. I can explain away the "juddering" of the image as slow updates on their VNC client. I can explain away seeing "a hand" move across the screen as the mouse cursor....
But, viewing photographs over 4-bit color? First of all, do any VNC-like clients actually support 16 color graphics? Second, how are you supposed to recognize anything in a photo (much less airbrushing) over 16 color graphics? Lastly, what was he planning on doing with those graphics if he wasn't taking screenshots? He could've mean 8-bit color, but that's an awful lot errors to pile up.
I still maintain that either the guy is innocent by way of incompetence or lying abount how he accessed the machines if he actually did.
So, he viewed a 16-color image of a UFO that was "juddering" like a video stream up until someone's hand moved across it while he was hacking?
This guy has to be innocent or lying. There's no way anyone this computer illiterate could've hacked anything unless he had physical console access and a good fire axe.
In all fairness we steamrolled Iraq and have suffered exceedingly low casualties. A low level, extremely unsuccessful, resistance is no indication that we're not using extremely advanced technology.
True, but "Shock and Awe" would've been even more awesome with fighter jets that could make 90 degree turns and any sorts of weapons based on free energy technology.
Though, I think if we had 100 year+ tech, we would have solved the IED sooner.
Same here. At the very least, you'd think we'd have done some about the insurgency with those fancy government mind control lasers I keep hearing about.
See my reply to the other guy. Please explain what rational motive would lead the government to hide technology that could solve several major US policy goals and that would give us even more military superiority when the Pentagon is never satisfied with what they have already. Despite the abundant benefits of openly using the technology, your excuse must provide a good reason why hiding it has more benefits, especially as our economic leadership is starting to decay.
Consider this: WHY would you show off your MOST ADVANCED technology if your LESS ADVANCED technology already IS SUPERIOUR to the adversarys?
You've obviously never read up on the kind of technological fantasies the US military has. Despite your BOLD STATEMENTS that EMPHATICALLY use CAPITALIZED WORDS which make me DOUBT YOUR SANITY, the US military is completely and totally incapable of understanding the words "good enough." Even though our military technology can stomp on anyone on the planet, the Pentagon has long argued for increased capabilities against a phantom Chinese threat. They conjure up the image of China suddenly having tech on par with ours in 10-20 years as a boogeyman to justify bigger and fatter budgets for more powerful weapons.
Second, the space program is a black eye for the US. It was a prominent sign of American strength and leadership that has decayed into a series of failures. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to send a space shuttle up and to deploy our many satellites. If we had alien technology, then we could half NASA's budget and accomplish the same goals. We could also cheaply weaponize space like the Pentagon always fantasizes about.
Third, oil. We have a lot of shady alliances worldwide that revolve completely around access to oil. Take Saudi Arabia. We've known for decades that the Saudis are state sponsors of terrorist groups and have spent their money heavily to foment Muslim radicalism. We know that the majority of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis. However, we're still all buddy-buddy with them because of oil. If we weren't dependent on oil, we could pressure the country towards democracy or at least leave it as some sort of backwater of no importance and focus on developing more friendly allies elsewhere.
Take Venezuela. The US government has long thought that the rise of Communism and Socialism in Latin America was to be stopped at all costs -- even to the point of toppling democracies for dictatorships. (I really, really hate this policy, BTW.) Venezuela is the vanguard of a new South American socialism movement, and it only succeeds because the state oil industry can support the entire economy. Guess what country is the number one customer of Venezuela despite our official dislike of Chavez? The US of course.
Take Iran. Right now, our conflict with Iran over nuclear power/weapons is sending oil prices skyrocketting and hurting Americans. If we had free energy, then Iran would have no leverage. If we were smart, we'd give it to the Chinese and the Russians and remove the economic leverage that makes them veto UN resolutions against Iran, Sudan, etc.
Oil blocks a very, very large amount of US foreign policy goals and make us have some goals that are very unsavory. Free energy would not only boost our economy, but it would make many of Washington's dreams possible. To say that we have it and aren't using it is to BLATANTLY IGNORE GEOPOLITICS.
Then again, I don't expect to reach you with facts. For crying out loud, you post a link to a site which goes on about "Illuminati," "The New World Order," and "Chemtrails." If you can offer a RATIONAL explanation of why we have a greater interest in hiding technology than in using it, I'd love to hear it. Bonus points if you can explain why 100 years advanced military technology isn't being used in Iraq right now.
Anyone who thinks that the US government is sitting on technology that would give us greater air superiority in combat, make exploration and military domination of space easy, eliminate a significant portion of our trade deficit, make us no longer beholden to countries like Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, etc., etc. is a complete and total lunatic.
If we had alien technology, had reverse engineered it, and knew how to make it work, we would be using it right now.
Did anyone else read that and have the reaction, "Maybe we shouldn't be burning our limited supply of ingredients for life-saving medicines?"
I'm just so happy that a "Developer" article actually made the front page. I have been afraid that the tech level of the audience of Slashdot has been falling lately. Compare it to the number of "Game" articles on the front page.
No, don't. Zonk is a machine that exists to post.
It's not fair comparing any other section to Games as a result.
Actually, I'm playing in a FATE game on weekends right now, and I really like the rules system. The Aspects rules fit nicely with the high action game we're playing in. I only didn't mention it because it adds complexity to FUDGE, and I was shooting for the simplest systems that people are likely to have at least heard of.
Fair enough. I disagree, but that's because I sit at a far end of the "simplicity" vs. "realism" spectrum. I don't think that "realism" should even be a goal of a game compared to ease of play. I started gaming with diceless games, and so I've been "ruined" for most mainstream systems.
Tastes differ. As long as we're gaming with people that have similar goals and are all capable of having fun, that's what really matters, you know?
Simplicity and clarity are subjective, too, and you had not problem debating them. (and I disagree with all your specific counters, though I think that Risus beats GURPS for simplicity, and some forms of clarity, though not realism.
Risus is an excellent minimalist game, but you're going to have to dispute that all of my specific counters are not simpler than GURPS? All of them?
Let's describe a few of them:
QAGS rules are dirt simple. You have a job with a score beside it. You roll a d20 under the score to succeed if you try something that you can do under your job. You similarly have a Gimmick and a Weakness with a score. That's pretty much your entire character, and that's pretty much all of the rules except for Yum Yums -- food that you are awarded that you can bribe the GM with. Over the Edge is also very freeform and simple with I believe only 4 player-defined traits to pick and roll against. That's a far sight simpler even just in character creation that GURPS.
Amber's mechanics are dirt simple. You compare stats and the highest wins with only a little play for one character having set up the arena of combat in their favor. Theatrix doesn't even really look at stats and is essentially a pure "drama" mechanic where the GM rules in favor of whatever preserves the story best with no required regard to what the stats say (as they just define that the character is like) and gives players the ability to spend a pool of points to dictate the plot themselves. This is in stark contrast to the initiative, to hit, damage, cover and concealment, fatigue, etc. rules of GURPS.
Feng Shui's character creation system is to take a template and fill in a couple of values. All rules complexity comes from the various schticks the PCs employ. Actual combat is completely a matter of rolling two dice + an attack value and comparing it to the defense value. Damage is static, and death comes at doing checks against your constitution once damage gets above a certain level. It's the most complex system that I mentioned, and it's still very simple and very fast to play compared to GURPs.
GURPS Lite is very simple compared to the standard core rules, but I still say that it's significantly more complex than games like QAGS and OtE much less the purely diceless games. If you have a good reason why, for example, Amber is more complex than GURPS, I'd love to hear it.
Slashdot never reviews anything but supplements from the mainstream publishers. Some of these D&D supplements have been out for a couple of months now; I've seen them in stores.
Given who and what they review, I honestly have to wonder if they have no taste or if they're getting paid for it. Honestly, none of the smaller publishers could afford this kind of product placement, and none of these supplements are really worth a review. They're just more feats, more prestige classes, more races, etc -- in other words, nothing innovative and nothing that significantly expands your options for game play.
I'd love to see a review of a beautiful game like Weapons of the Gods, but you aren't going to see it around here.
Not to be too fanboyish, but GURPS beats any other tabletop RPG hands down for clarity, simplicity, realism, and playability.
While your mileage may vary in what you consider fun, and I respect that opinion, there's a bit too much chest-thumping pride to ignore in your statement when you so boldly declare the GURPS wins the trophy for all of these things.
You obviously have not strayed outside of the classic supplement machines of WotC, White World, SJG, etc. if you think that GURPS wins in ALL four categories. You definitely haven't played any indie RPGs and have never played a diceless game. While GURPS may beat the d20 and Storyteller systems in many ways, it's not the king of the hill for some of the virtues you ascribe to it.
For simplicity and clarity, you can't get much better than diceless games like Amber or Theatrix. For simple games with dice, quick-play systems like QAGS or DIY games like FUDGE offer very simple rules to work with. Over the Edge is also a wonderfully simple game. Even a game with a lot of crunchy bits like Feng Shui is much simpler than GURPS if a bit less focused on "realism."
"Playability" is of course a completely subjective virtue, so I won't try to dispute you there since it's pointless to argue about a subjective opinion. However, I find that simplicity and clarity are virtues in a game directly opposed to "realism." Attempting the goal of realism generally means rigid modeling of a situation which inherently demands complexity to cover all the "what-ifs." All games fail in this some degree or another, leading to the long-running Murphy's Rules comic in SJG's Pyramid magazine.
Objectively, though, any time your game relies on a grid of some sort with facing, turning, and movement rigidly defined, you've already lost the battle for simplicity. If it's more complicated than, "Roll to hit, roll for damage," then it's already out of the league of many games for simplicity.
He didn't. He and others in his administration made it quite clear that that's what they wanted to hear. In the face of the downgrading of the role of the CIA in intelligence gathering as Rumsfield has acted to shift such responsibilities to the Pentagon and in face of his own personal career gain, he gave the President what he wanted to hear.
This is despite the fact that people told him the source of the "mobile biologicql weapons labs" allegation was completely unreliable. This allegation was again made on May 28, 2003 after the war and after others had said they were most likely used for making hydrogen for weather balloons. Then there was of course the CIA analyst who thought that aluminium rocket tubes where meant to be parts for a uranium enrichment centrifuge despite their agreed upon lack of sutability by nearly all other experts (wrong shape, wrong size, coated with a weather-proofing material that would poison the reaction, and even if true would make less potent centrifuges than the ones Iraq has already used pre-Gulf War). A complete debunking is here. The CIA knew the yellowcake in Niger argument was wrong in March 2002 thanks to Wilson's report.
Now, in spite of all of these supposed "intelligence failures" and in spite of failing to connect the dots to prevent September 11th, the President gives George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom in December 2004. Isn't that just chummy?
And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.
They're not lies. The evidence has been amply documented that the administration had access to intelligence that debunked all their WMD claims and even had made a mole out of one of Saddam's inner circle who told the CIA that Iraq had no WMD programs. Instead, they chose to go forward with the claims to get the American people behind the idea. I know that I was sold on the idea after the 2003 State of the Union address until all the debunking started to come out over the next few months.
Furthermore, I think you sincerely fail to understand what patriotism is. I'll turn this question around on you: Was it unpatriotic for Iraqis to question Saddam Hussein?
We have leader that has contempt for the electorate and contempt for rule of law as shown repeatedly by his actions in this war. It is in fact our patriotic duty to criticize the President. To mutely accept and praise whoever is in office is the antithesis of one's duty as a citizen of a democracy.
--Teddy Roosevelt, 1912
I'm guessing he got turned off a the point where a favorite party member gets kidnapped at the beginning of the game and you're forced to go on side-quests to make enough money to get her back. Right at the start of the game. "Here's a little taste of plot BOOM SIDE QUESTS!!!"
Still, Minsc for the win!