I don't think intent impacts the outcome. That's why I think the Army is wasting their money on this. From everything I've read - I've never played the game - the degree of accurate detail is low. I don't see how it could be any other way due to the limitations of the platform if nothing else.
I think that at worst games can be a waste of time, at best they are art. They can engage the mind - but this does not translate directly to actions. They do not create mindless zombies out to kill. I don't think they 'trick' kids into enlisting in the army. I don't think they even make kids more likely to want to join or fight in a war. Their ability to do good falls within the same restrictions, yes.
So in an ethical game - a player should go out on a mission - and if they get wounded or killed, the game should be over and they should never be able to play it again.
I can't imagine that any sensible person would play a game like you describe and then decide that they are impervious to rockets and gun fire. Shoot- A-team tried to teach me that and I made it through o.k. But anyway - everybody is keying on this 'simulation' thing and how this is different from every other video game because the army pays for the development and I say nope. It's just another first person shooter - and it is wrong to say that somehow this game is bad but all the others are o.k.
Like any other marketing team - they are going to push what they think will sell. Have you seen the commercials on t.v. for floam? My kids bought some and it sucks. It isn't like the commercials at all. We through it all out and they learned a very good lesson. As my 6 year old said, "They say that just to get your money".
For years the reserves, gaurd etc. was easy money. I was in the Naval reserves for 4 years following my active duty and the hardest part about it was the boredom. (Though some of it was pretty cool - just depended on where I was.) I think one guy from my reserve center got called up for the first desert storm.
Disingenuous, misleading? I can't say it's not - but not any more than most other advertising. So we're back to idiots getting suckered - anyone with half a clue should know the score.
Well sure. When one decides that something doesn't exist, that's really the end of it. There's not much more to agree on. But my point is that this comparison is false because it just chooses a scope that fits what is posited. Sure - you can find some areas of agreement in regards to certain things. And then huge variations on many other things.
My primary assertion is that humans tend to fall into this trap of thinking every other group is full of idiots but their group is somehow different. I'm not knocking atheists - I'm trying to say that every group that fits under what ever label you want to slap on it has some good folks and some idiots. And I think that the original exchange illustrated my point very well.
I also don't really think (in the absence of convincing evidence) that video games generally lead to violent behavior. I do think, though, that a game put out by the Army that touts its realism can shape the ideas of what combat is like in impressionable minds, so I definitely have an ethical problem with them using it as part of a recruiting effort with people who are just coming into adulthood.
Do you have an ethical problem then with all war games? Or are you saying it is unethical to use it to recruit even though you don't believe it will have any influence on the actual actions of the intended audience?
One nice thing is, though, that enlisting always involves a contract - that spells everything out. Anyone who joins the military and later complains that the recruiter lied -- didn't read the document that mattered. Those people, by and large, are idiots. I met tons of them when I was in the military.
I say by and large - because it is within the realm of possibility that someone could have their contract altered after they signed it, but I've never seen it. It would be too much work because most of these folks do no research, just listen to what some e-5 or e-6 tells them and signs on the line without even reading what they've just signed.
It's my position, and one that I see echoed in many online communities, that games don't impact actual behavior. That laws seeking to limit or restrict games based on content are out of line. That lawsuits blaming violence on games are completely out of line. So - while I understand the emotions driving these folks, from a logical stand point, I think they are wasting their time and the army is wasting money.
If someone would like to argue that the game preps youth for war and predisposes them to join the army, then they would seem to be arguing that gta prepares and predisposes players to crime and violence, etc.
Atheists are not a singular group with a common theological stance. In fact, our common world view amounts to "We don't accept the existence of gods". Beyond that, atheists can diverge pretty heavily. his is unlike Scientologists, Catholics, Muslims and the like.
It is unlike them in the content of what is agreed upon - not the divergence. How many different sects of Christianity and Islam are there? Some of them are extremely different from one another and many of them have some really brilliant people in their midst. Just because you can find a few daft theists hardly makes all theists, or even the majority, daft.
Your reaction to the criticism in the gp is a great opportunity to learn how this argument looks from both sides.
That is nice - but I'm partial to Jake - always have been. This one of Roland's is nice but a lot longer.
"See the TURTLE of enormous girth! On his shell he holds the earth. His thought is slow but always kind; He holds us all within his mind. On his back all vows are made; He sees the truth but mayn't aid. He loves the land and loves the sea, And even loves a child like me."
In regards to Wil Wheaton, "He's may not have 'hardcore' geek cred nowadays (time in a Starfleet uniform aside), but then he's also a parent."
Let's see - he was on Star Trek as mentioned, he maintains an active and widely read blog, he writes columns for multiple high traffic web sites, he has a slashdot account, he runs linux, he's been published by O'Reilly (a book called 'Just A Geek' no less) and he has done voice work for such shows as Teen Titans. And he doesn't have 'hardcore' greek cred? What does it take? And what does that make the rest of us?
Well I can tell you where my tolerance comes from - I can't tell the difference.
When I was in high school I spent an afternoon once in a recording studio and these guys did this one part of a song over and over and over. It was driving me nuts because it sounded exactly the same every single time (to me).
Earlier this week I downloaded an album that is being marketed in a kind of shareware method (saw a link for it in a sig here at the dot) and so what you download is a lower bitrate (or whatever it is called) and the artist hopes you will like it enough to buy the higher quality files. The thing is, what he is giving away sounds just fine to me. Maybe someone with a better ear for this stuff would care, but I don't. And I struggle to see how this is a problem. If I am enjoying a song - I am enjoying it.
In other areas of my life I consciously choose to be satisfied with lower quality because I can't afford the best stuff. (optics come to mind as a great example) I have friends who can afford Swarovski and give me grief about the 'junk' I use. I feel the same way about this music stuff. For people who can really tell the difference, I can understand why they get passionate about it, but I just can't get that worked up over it as it's an issue that doesn't even really exist for me. I only know about it because someone tells me.
I'm not a hardware guy - but in an all hands meeting the other week, we were told that virtualization was going to save us a bunch of money on power. Our data center isn't all that big and they were talking about 2-3 thousand (US$) a month or something like that.
it all sounded pretty cool, but this bit, well I just don't know.
The one thing I didn't know until later was that my friend Dana had been holding his bare ass and balls directly in front of my algae covered face while my head was encased. Talk about a missed opportunity.
Verizon has unlimited 'in' messaging - but otherwise inbound and outbound count towards your limit and once you pass the limit you will be charged for text messages sent and received.
Right - so it wouldn't make a good full time job, probably not a part time one. But if enough people decide to pick up a small amount of easy money for places they regularly visit anyway, google gets what they want for cheap. Pretty smart on their part.
It says $2 from google and another $8 if the business verifies that the information is accurate. I'd like to see what the rate of getting that $8 looks like. Because a quick $10 bucks might be worth it, but $2 - not so much.
11g was released last week. so actually, in a production shop like mine, no - it hasn't changed a lot since 10g as there hasn't been anything else since 10g
I'd love to see that too. I've installed, and run Oracle 10g on Windows, AIX and Linux. Windows can have some odd stuff going on sometimes - but everything else is pretty much where Oracle is most at home.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think intent impacts the outcome. That's why I think the Army is wasting their money on this. From everything I've read - I've never played the game - the degree of accurate detail is low. I don't see how it could be any other way due to the limitations of the platform if nothing else.
I think that at worst games can be a waste of time, at best they are art. They can engage the mind - but this does not translate directly to actions. They do not create mindless zombies out to kill. I don't think they 'trick' kids into enlisting in the army. I don't think they even make kids more likely to want to join or fight in a war. Their ability to do good falls within the same restrictions, yes.
So in an ethical game - a player should go out on a mission - and if they get wounded or killed, the game should be over and they should never be able to play it again.
I can't imagine that any sensible person would play a game like you describe and then decide that they are impervious to rockets and gun fire. Shoot- A-team tried to teach me that and I made it through o.k. But anyway - everybody is keying on this 'simulation' thing and how this is different from every other video game because the army pays for the development and I say nope. It's just another first person shooter - and it is wrong to say that somehow this game is bad but all the others are o.k.
Like any other marketing team - they are going to push what they think will sell. Have you seen the commercials on t.v. for floam? My kids bought some and it sucks. It isn't like the commercials at all. We through it all out and they learned a very good lesson. As my 6 year old said, "They say that just to get your money".
For years the reserves, gaurd etc. was easy money. I was in the Naval reserves for 4 years following my active duty and the hardest part about it was the boredom. (Though some of it was pretty cool - just depended on where I was.) I think one guy from my reserve center got called up for the first desert storm.
Disingenuous, misleading? I can't say it's not - but not any more than most other advertising. So we're back to idiots getting suckered - anyone with half a clue should know the score.
Well sure. When one decides that something doesn't exist, that's really the end of it. There's not much more to agree on. But my point is that this comparison is false because it just chooses a scope that fits what is posited. Sure - you can find some areas of agreement in regards to certain things. And then huge variations on many other things.
My primary assertion is that humans tend to fall into this trap of thinking every other group is full of idiots but their group is somehow different. I'm not knocking atheists - I'm trying to say that every group that fits under what ever label you want to slap on it has some good folks and some idiots. And I think that the original exchange illustrated my point very well.
I also don't really think (in the absence of convincing evidence) that video games generally lead to violent behavior. I do think, though, that a game put out by the Army that touts its realism can shape the ideas of what combat is like in impressionable minds, so I definitely have an ethical problem with them using it as part of a recruiting effort with people who are just coming into adulthood.
Do you have an ethical problem then with all war games? Or are you saying it is unethical to use it to recruit even though you don't believe it will have any influence on the actual actions of the intended audience?
and a very fishy reason that a military of any country would put out a game "simulation" of actually being deployed
hamas does it, the us army does it. i don't think it does for either what they are hoping it will do.
One nice thing is, though, that enlisting always involves a contract - that spells everything out. Anyone who joins the military and later complains that the recruiter lied -- didn't read the document that mattered. Those people, by and large, are idiots. I met tons of them when I was in the military.
I say by and large - because it is within the realm of possibility that someone could have their contract altered after they signed it, but I've never seen it. It would be too much work because most of these folks do no research, just listen to what some e-5 or e-6 tells them and signs on the line without even reading what they've just signed.
It's my position, and one that I see echoed in many online communities, that games don't impact actual behavior. That laws seeking to limit or restrict games based on content are out of line. That lawsuits blaming violence on games are completely out of line. So - while I understand the emotions driving these folks, from a logical stand point, I think they are wasting their time and the army is wasting money.
If someone would like to argue that the game preps youth for war and predisposes them to join the army, then they would seem to be arguing that gta prepares and predisposes players to crime and violence, etc.
Atheists are not a singular group with a common theological stance. In fact, our common world view amounts to "We don't accept the existence of gods". Beyond that, atheists can diverge pretty heavily. his is unlike Scientologists, Catholics, Muslims and the like.
It is unlike them in the content of what is agreed upon - not the divergence. How many different sects of Christianity and Islam are there? Some of them are extremely different from one another and many of them have some really brilliant people in their midst. Just because you can find a few daft theists hardly makes all theists, or even the majority, daft.
Your reaction to the criticism in the gp is a great opportunity to learn how this argument looks from both sides.
Steven King's The Dark Tower series.
they may not be on commission but there may be some performance metric they need to hit for reviews, rewards, etc. i don't know, just guessing.
That is nice - but I'm partial to Jake - always have been. This one of Roland's is nice but a lot longer.
"See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his shell he holds the earth.
His thought is slow but always kind;
He holds us all within his mind.
On his back all vows are made;
He sees the truth but mayn't aid.
He loves the land and loves the sea,
And even loves a child like me."
nope - the turtle.
"See the TURTLE of enormous girth,
On his shell he holds the earth.
If you want to run and play,
Come along the BEAM today."
In regards to Wil Wheaton, "He's may not have 'hardcore' geek cred nowadays (time in a Starfleet uniform aside), but then he's also a parent."
Let's see - he was on Star Trek as mentioned, he maintains an active and widely read blog, he writes columns for multiple high traffic web sites, he has a slashdot account, he runs linux, he's been published by O'Reilly (a book called 'Just A Geek' no less) and he has done voice work for such shows as Teen Titans. And he doesn't have 'hardcore' greek cred? What does it take? And what does that make the rest of us?
Well I can tell you where my tolerance comes from - I can't tell the difference.
When I was in high school I spent an afternoon once in a recording studio and these guys did this one part of a song over and over and over. It was driving me nuts because it sounded exactly the same every single time (to me).
Earlier this week I downloaded an album that is being marketed in a kind of shareware method (saw a link for it in a sig here at the dot) and so what you download is a lower bitrate (or whatever it is called) and the artist hopes you will like it enough to buy the higher quality files. The thing is, what he is giving away sounds just fine to me. Maybe someone with a better ear for this stuff would care, but I don't. And I struggle to see how this is a problem. If I am enjoying a song - I am enjoying it.
In other areas of my life I consciously choose to be satisfied with lower quality because I can't afford the best stuff. (optics come to mind as a great example) I have friends who can afford Swarovski and give me grief about the 'junk' I use. I feel the same way about this music stuff. For people who can really tell the difference, I can understand why they get passionate about it, but I just can't get that worked up over it as it's an issue that doesn't even really exist for me. I only know about it because someone tells me.
I'm not a hardware guy - but in an all hands meeting the other week, we were told that virtualization was going to save us a bunch of money on power. Our data center isn't all that big and they were talking about 2-3 thousand (US$) a month or something like that.
it all sounded pretty cool, but this bit, well I just don't know.
The one thing I didn't know until later was that my friend Dana had been holding his bare ass and balls directly in front of my algae covered face while my head was encased. Talk about a missed opportunity.
Verizon has unlimited 'in' messaging - but otherwise inbound and outbound count towards your limit and once you pass the limit you will be charged for text messages sent and received.
Right - so it wouldn't make a good full time job, probably not a part time one. But if enough people decide to pick up a small amount of easy money for places they regularly visit anyway, google gets what they want for cheap. Pretty smart on their part.
It says $2 from google and another $8 if the business verifies that the information is accurate. I'd like to see what the rate of getting that $8 looks like. Because a quick $10 bucks might be worth it, but $2 - not so much.
thanks for pointing that out - i didn't even notice.
11g was released last week. so actually, in a production shop like mine, no - it hasn't changed a lot since 10g as there hasn't been anything else since 10g
I'd love to see that too. I've installed, and run Oracle 10g on Windows, AIX and Linux. Windows can have some odd stuff going on sometimes - but everything else is pretty much where Oracle is most at home.
yes - pointing out a factual error in an article is flamebait. the worst kind in fact.