Propaganda refers to a blanket of misinformation that is produced and distributed in such a way as to obscure truth
No, that is not what propanganda is. Propaganda is a politically biased message, but it is not by-definition untrue.
F911 isn't propaganda.
Yes it is. You simply don't know what that means. In 1943, the USA produced much propaganda vilifying the Nazi empire. They happened to be correct, but it was still propaganda.
After 9/11, the Bin Laden family would take CONSIDERABLE risk by staying in the US.
Wrong. An FBI safehouse (or max-security federal penitentary) would be safer than flying, and safer than being anywhere in Saudi Arabia. And I'm not just saying that on general principles- in 2002, Al Quaeda murdered a high-rank Saudi before he could rat on them.
Now, when they pose no threat and can provide no information and their demise could unhinge the Saudi economy and enrage
He didn't know they were no threat, he didn't know they had no information, and he CERTAINLY couldn't prove either of those things.
it's not the mindless drivel that seems to be coming out of the Kerry campaign.
Incomprehensible. The bullet-list he posted is practically cut & paste from Kerry-Edwards literature. Those factoids ARE Kerry's stump speech! (He even listed them in the same order as on johnkerry.com)
Maybe you don't actually know what's coming from the Kerry campaign, but have a viewpoint warped by filtering through 2 or 3 layers of media pontificating.
and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war.
Of course, that was HIS mindset. The Clinton administration treated al Qaeda as a war-like matter, by deploying lethal military force whenever possible (and Gore had planned to continue). But the Bush team decided to basically call off the hunt. They did more than treat it as just a criminal matter, or even ignore it entirely- they actually started funding the Taliban!
and we're not really at war.
Good. Because the USA hasn't declared a war since 1942. If he wasn't to be at war, he's got to at least go through the motions...
You obviously have no clue about what modules are, and what the alternative (spaghetti code) is.
"Modular" is an overloaded word, even in the field of software programming.
There is "modular vs spagetti" (a), yes. But there's also "modular vs monolithic" (b). The latter factor isn't involved so much with how the code interacts, but how it's distributed. In a non-modular, monolithic program, the source code is all in 1 big directory tree, and any person acquiring a copy of the code will be pretty assured to have gotten a self-consistent version. Whereas with modules there is a possibility that the code will be distributed separately, creating the opportunity for version mismatch errors impossible with a self-contained, monolithic codebase.
Think about the problems one can cross trying to compile software like Ephiphany, which requires specifically correct versions of mozilla, gnome, gtk2, pango, fribidi, glibc, and gcc. Any one of those being off could sabotage the build process.
One might argue that that with good modular design, interfaces will be stable and precise version matchup won't be important... but that presupposes "goodness" beyond what modularity can guarantee.
everything *could* connect to everything, but that wouldn't happen in practice.
Because in practice, everyone who's not insane or evil uses at least a little modularity.
In a modular system, you may not even be able to test with the current versions of all components that interact with the one you changed.
Now you're changing the subject. You've brought up the issue of forward compatiblity with unforseen 3rd party code. That can be a problem, but it's actually an argument FOR modularity.
You can choose to compare a modular vs non-modular design where all code is controlled by one authority, but it's not fair to put unknown code into the modular case, unless the non-modular system also has to handle it. And when you do that, the advantages of modularity become even greater. (I could theoretically write a binary patch to add new features to program which doesn't support plugin modules, but that would be difficult and dangerous)
More modules means more edges, thus more opportunities to break.
Backwards. Modules actually mean fewer edges. This is an easy point to get wrong- people hear that modules define how things are connected, and imagine they add more connections. But in reality, the fact that they DISALLOW some kinds of connections is actually more important.
If you take a million line software project that is non-modular, any programmer who edits a line could concievably jump to any other line, giving you a million*million level of total complexity.
Upgrading to a language without "goto" statements will provide a degree of modularity- now each statment can't jump to every other line, but only other functions. Assuming functions average 35 lines, then complexity is reduced to million*(million/35). A decent gain.
Going beyond choice of programming language and imposing some firmer rules on the modularity of the project can improve things even more. Break it up into 10 modules, each with 100,000 LOC, and with only a very limited way each module is allowed to communicate with any other. Now you can test modules independently (either by experimental test-cases, or by reading the code carefully, which is more managable to do in 1/10th chunks). The complexity of each modules is down to (100,000*100,000), and once those are verified, the project as a whole is only 10*10.
China's economy doesn't matter. The software industry is a small part of the economy, and it's one of the most flexible. There isn't a whole lot of capital investment needed- you don't build up factories and supporting technological infrastruture- all it needs is a few smart guys on 486s.
China can very quickly grow to where it can challenge the USA's software industry.
Just because we have elected representatives (i.e., we are a republic)
That's not what "republic" means. Go back to dictionary.com; it is "A political order whose head of state is not a monarch".
The 2nd definition of republic matches what you said, but it's less dominant, and was not the definition back in 1776 (which is where all such arguments end up, really). The USA Constitution featured the word "Republic" in big letters to re-assure all nervous Americans that George Washington would never start acting like George IV. Anti-monarchy was an important driving emotion behind the American insurrection.
The appropriate sentiment is more like: "Ali is not Muslim, he is Sunni Muslim."
No. Sunni Muslim is a subset of Muslim. Neither "republic" or "democracy" is a subset of the other. In particular, most dictatorships are republics (until such time as they establish enough hereditary power to become monarchies). Heard of "Banana Republics"?
none of this discussion makes Greece the oldest democracy.
Oh certainly not. For one thing, Orville Wright isn't the oldest airplane pilot- because he's long dead. The modern Greece has no continuity of governance, culture, or even genetics with the ancient people that occupied their land.
And even if it did, ancient Greece never claimed to be demokratic as a whole- only a few individual cities even tried it. And even their attempts allowed less than 10% of residents to become voting citizens, which is insufficient to be a "government of the people".
If your criteria is that no nation is a democracy if there's any periodic time lapse between taking votes an acting on them, then that definition is impossible to meet without drastic high-tech measures (as demonstrated by Star Trek's "Borg" culture)
the beauty of the Republic, is that the part about "liberty for all"
You're doing it again... capitalizing words that are neither proper nouns, nor at the beginning of a sentence.
That capitalization suggests you are using some imaginary definition of "Republic", which I can see is the case, because you think it somehow involves "liberty for all". The ONLY definition for "republic" that was in use during the lifetime of the gentlemen you mention is "a nation without royalty". That's ALL it means.*
If you think it means anything else, then you're re-writing definitions to suit your rhetoric, a lowly technique by which absolutely anything can be "proven".
* It's notable that "republic" is derived from a Greek word popularized by Plato, who used it to describe proto-Communist states whose citizens lacked not only the right to property, but even their own bodies...
Seems like the libreals are depending on people who generally don't vote to turn the tide.
Karl Rove claims to be depending on that as well.
He explained in a recent interview that in terms of increasing his party's count, it's easier to register non-voting Republican sympathsizers than to convince a moderate to take his side, and then also bother to vote.
(On the other hand, the heavy load of non-representative moderate Republican speakers at their convention suggests otherwise...)
In any case, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.
Neither of those words are proper nouns. They shouldn't be capitalized unless occuring at the beginning of a sentence.
In any case, you're not stupid, just ignorant.
You're perpetuating the right-wing myth that "democracy" and "republic" are somehow conflicting terms. They're not. Just like "stupidity" and "ignorance", something can be both, either, or neither.
Here's a catalog of well-known countries: USA, South Korea: democracy + republic UK, Japan: democracy USSR, North Korea, Cuba: republic Sudan:
I say no, if I am going to bother to vote, I'd rather it have as much impact as possible
There is only a tiny chance that your vote will change the winner- but if that chance comes true, and you by luck get the power to select a politician, then who you voted for is irrelevant to the magnitude of your power.
In a well-balanced swing state, there might be (as you say) a 1/500 chance that an individual vote could turn the election. But if that 1/500 probability comes true, then no only will your vote of turned it, but so will everyone else's. Every single individual person who voted for the winner will know "If I hadn't voted, we'd have lost".
Even more importantly, each person who didn't like the winner but didn't go vote will be thinking "If only I'd spent 15 minutes to vote, **** wouldn't be President"
However, with one president, there is at least the chance we won't kill thousands of people overseas in an unjust war, and won't damage our international alliances more than they already are.
In 1999 I thought that both candidates were approximately equivalent (as they are, on 99% of issues). So although I felt an instinctive revulsion to George's moronic demeanor, it was a real surprise to see him stumble so directly into mistakes that his own father had the common sense to avoid. (Although Bush the 1st's conduct towards Iraq had major errors as well)
and won't damage our international alliances more than they already are.
I wouldn't mind a few alliances being damaged- starting with the Berne Convention, please.
With one president, there is the reduced chance of Christian morality being imposed upon the country as a whole.
I think you've fallen into the trap of accepting George W Bush's claim to have been influenced by the teachings of Christ. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
If you refer to New Testament stories of Jesus, you'll find a paragon of mercy and pacifism. Christian morality means
no favors for the rich
no judgementalism
no prayer in public
no capital punishment
no retaliatory wars
no pre-emptive wars
no wars at all, in fact
Although no pragmatic party can fully follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, on a point-to-point comparison, the Democratic platform comes closer.
Incorrect. According to acquaintances I trust, cedega (or was it just wine?) runs some games faster than Windows.
Well I've got Cedega right here, and I've never got it to run anything more than 80% as fast as Windows. Sometimes it's not even 5% as fast.
Sure, it's possible to screw anything up, and I suppose if you damaged a Windows install badly enough, then Cedega would be faster... but even Transgaming won't dare claim it's faster in normal circumstances.
NVidia's drivers have no problems on this same hardware, from what I can tell (from looking at the Dell forums).
NVidia's drivers don't work on ATI hardware!
Apparently Intel and VIA have released Free drivers
Irrelevant. They're not high-performance chips, so driver optimization doesn't matter.
You have a high slashdot number, so I'll assume you're relatively new here.
That's a silly assumption. He's obviously not new- he just wanted a new account, to reset the negative Karma score accumulated from past trolls.
A lot more than windows that's for sure.
That's a tautology, since Windows is one of the platforms for XFree86.
Remember that X was working on extremely old systems.
Although frequently optimized through shm or something, the client-server mechanism imposes some overhead, which is actually most apparent on older systems. Get out a 486 and compare Windows 3.1 next to XFree86 to see how bad it can be. (Or find a Linux "Agenda" PDA, if you can). But on today's PCs, that overhead cost has shrunk to undetectability.
Traditional turn based (pause during every turn) - Final Fantasy, UFO
That category can be futher split into two sub-types: pause for each combatant's turn, or only for player-controlled units. Games in the former category, such as the original Fallout, can be absolutely maddening. You can never dare get into a fight on one of Fallout's densely-populated city maps, because then each of the 30+ random pedestrians onscren becomes a combatant who takes a turn each (painfully slow) round.
Towards the conclusion you assault an evil cult leader in his church. Drawing a weapon when mass is in session is a big mistake, because although the worshippers are harmless and may just try to run off, there are SO MANY of them that the delay between your turns is intolerable...
machine guns being crap at hitting but excellent for supression fire
In reality, they're good at hitting too. You can't really suppress someone unless you present a serious threat of anyone poking his head up being immediately drilled. In some conflicts, machine guns have scored 100s of times more kills than rifles (even if the accuracy ratio per each shot was less, the number of bullets more than makes up for it)
The thing I hate most about turnbased games is that things like supression fire and encirclement don't really have an effect like they would in realtime.
That sounds backwards. In realtime games, the complexity of tactics is limited by the player's divided attention, and most all guns fill a similar role (or at best, are divided between CQB and "sniper" duties) Realtime games see players favoring certain weapons or battleplans not because they're really effective, but because they're easy to click on in a hurry.
Turn-based rule systems, on the other hand, have the luxury of allowing the time to input complex actions, like commands for suppressing and indirect fire, or single/burst/fully-automatic shooting modes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either
He's stopped it NOW, after a public confrontation with a totally embarrassing clip-tape of 40 "Shut ups".
(a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or
Jeremy Glick wasn't lying.
(b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.
"Shut up" is how O'Reilly dodges a question.
Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard
Funny. McVeigh, who did the OKC bombing, was in the US Army, which killed members of the Republican Guard... there's a connection I guess.
Propaganda refers to a blanket of misinformation that is produced and distributed in such a way as to obscure truth
No, that is not what propanganda is. Propaganda is a politically biased message, but it is not by-definition untrue.
F911 isn't propaganda.
Yes it is. You simply don't know what that means. In 1943, the USA produced much propaganda vilifying the Nazi empire. They happened to be correct, but it was still propaganda.
After 9/11, the Bin Laden family would take CONSIDERABLE risk by staying in the US.
Wrong. An FBI safehouse (or max-security federal penitentary) would be safer than flying, and safer than being anywhere in Saudi Arabia. And I'm not just saying that on general principles- in 2002, Al Quaeda murdered a high-rank Saudi before he could rat on them.
Now, when they pose no threat and can provide no information and their demise could unhinge the Saudi economy and enrage
He didn't know they were no threat, he didn't know they had no information, and he CERTAINLY couldn't prove either of those things.
it's not the mindless drivel that seems to be coming out of the Kerry campaign.
Incomprehensible. The bullet-list he posted is practically cut & paste from Kerry-Edwards literature. Those factoids ARE Kerry's stump speech! (He even listed them in the same order as on johnkerry.com)
Maybe you don't actually know what's coming from the Kerry campaign, but have a viewpoint warped by filtering through 2 or 3 layers of media pontificating.
and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war.
Of course, that was HIS mindset. The Clinton administration treated al Qaeda as a war-like matter, by deploying lethal military force whenever possible (and Gore had planned to continue). But the Bush team decided to basically call off the hunt. They did more than treat it as just a criminal matter, or even ignore it entirely- they actually started funding the Taliban!
and we're not really at war.
Good. Because the USA hasn't declared a war since 1942. If he wasn't to be at war, he's got to at least go through the motions...
You know, the FCC also chooses what is allowed to air and what isn't in America.
CNN and FoxNews are cable. They don't "air". The FCC doesn't control them.
what isn't in America.
The FCC only has jurisdiction in the USA, not America.
You obviously have no clue about what modules are, and what the alternative (spaghetti code) is.
"Modular" is an overloaded word, even in the field of software programming.
There is "modular vs spagetti" (a), yes. But there's also "modular vs monolithic" (b). The latter factor isn't involved so much with how the code interacts, but how it's distributed. In a non-modular, monolithic program, the source code is all in 1 big directory tree, and any person acquiring a copy of the code will be pretty assured to have gotten a self-consistent version. Whereas with modules there is a possibility that the code will be distributed separately, creating the opportunity for version mismatch errors impossible with a self-contained, monolithic codebase.
Think about the problems one can cross trying to compile software like Ephiphany, which requires specifically correct versions of mozilla, gnome, gtk2, pango, fribidi, glibc, and gcc. Any one of those being off could sabotage the build process.
One might argue that that with good modular design, interfaces will be stable and precise version matchup won't be important... but that presupposes "goodness" beyond what modularity can guarantee.
everything *could* connect to everything, but that wouldn't happen in practice.
Because in practice, everyone who's not insane or evil uses at least a little modularity.
In a modular system, you may not even be able to test with the current versions of all components that interact with the one you changed.
Now you're changing the subject. You've brought up the issue of forward compatiblity with unforseen 3rd party code. That can be a problem, but it's actually an argument FOR modularity.
You can choose to compare a modular vs non-modular design where all code is controlled by one authority, but it's not fair to put unknown code into the modular case, unless the non-modular system also has to handle it. And when you do that, the advantages of modularity become even greater. (I could theoretically write a binary patch to add new features to program which doesn't support plugin modules, but that would be difficult and dangerous)
More modules means more edges, thus more opportunities to break.
Backwards. Modules actually mean fewer edges. This is an easy point to get wrong- people hear that modules define how things are connected, and imagine they add more connections. But in reality, the fact that they DISALLOW some kinds of connections is actually more important.
If you take a million line software project that is non-modular, any programmer who edits a line could concievably jump to any other line, giving you a million*million level of total complexity.
Upgrading to a language without "goto" statements will provide a degree of modularity- now each statment can't jump to every other line, but only other functions. Assuming functions average 35 lines, then complexity is reduced to million*(million/35). A decent gain.
Going beyond choice of programming language and imposing some firmer rules on the modularity of the project can improve things even more. Break it up into 10 modules, each with 100,000 LOC, and with only a very limited way each module is allowed to communicate with any other. Now you can test modules independently (either by experimental test-cases, or by reading the code carefully, which is more managable to do in 1/10th chunks). The complexity of each modules is down to (100,000*100,000), and once those are verified, the project as a whole is only 10*10.
As soon as they get to better levels economy-wise
China's economy doesn't matter. The software industry is a small part of the economy, and it's one of the most flexible. There isn't a whole lot of capital investment needed- you don't build up factories and supporting technological infrastruture- all it needs is a few smart guys on 486s.
China can very quickly grow to where it can challenge the USA's software industry.
We're doing pretty well because there hasn't been another attack here?
That's not even true. There HAVE BEEN terrorist killings inside the USA after Septmember 2001.
Remember a little incident where people were killed opening anthrax in the mail? That's terrorist killing, folks!
(I could also talk about riflemen killing a dozen people in the national capital...)
Just because we have elected representatives (i.e., we are a republic)
That's not what "republic" means. Go back to dictionary.com; it is "A political order whose head of state is not a monarch".
The 2nd definition of republic matches what you said, but it's less dominant, and was not the definition back in 1776 (which is where all such arguments end up, really). The USA Constitution featured the word "Republic" in big letters to re-assure all nervous Americans that George Washington would never start acting like George IV. Anti-monarchy was an important driving emotion behind the American insurrection.
The appropriate sentiment is more like: "Ali is not Muslim, he is Sunni Muslim."
No. Sunni Muslim is a subset of Muslim. Neither "republic" or "democracy" is a subset of the other. In particular, most dictatorships are republics (until such time as they establish enough hereditary power to become monarchies). Heard of "Banana Republics"?
none of this discussion makes Greece the oldest democracy.
Oh certainly not. For one thing, Orville Wright isn't the oldest airplane pilot- because he's long dead. The modern Greece has no continuity of governance, culture, or even genetics with the ancient people that occupied their land.
And even if it did, ancient Greece never claimed to be demokratic as a whole- only a few individual cities even tried it. And even their attempts allowed less than 10% of residents to become voting citizens, which is insufficient to be a "government of the people".
with a limited term dictatorship in charge.
If your criteria is that no nation is a democracy if there's any periodic time lapse between taking votes an acting on them, then that definition is impossible to meet without drastic high-tech measures (as demonstrated by Star Trek's "Borg" culture)
the beauty of the Republic, is that the part about "liberty for all"
You're doing it again... capitalizing words that are neither proper nouns, nor at the beginning of a sentence.
That capitalization suggests you are using some imaginary definition of "Republic", which I can see is the case, because you think it somehow involves "liberty for all". The ONLY definition for "republic" that was in use during the lifetime of the gentlemen you mention is "a nation without royalty". That's ALL it means.*
If you think it means anything else, then you're re-writing definitions to suit your rhetoric, a lowly technique by which absolutely anything can be "proven".
* It's notable that "republic" is derived from a Greek word popularized by Plato, who used it to describe proto-Communist states whose citizens lacked not only the right to property, but even their own bodies...
Seems like the libreals are depending on people who generally don't vote to turn the tide.
Karl Rove claims to be depending on that as well.
He explained in a recent interview that in terms of increasing his party's count, it's easier to register non-voting Republican sympathsizers than to convince a moderate to take his side, and then also bother to vote.
(On the other hand, the heavy load of non-representative moderate Republican speakers at their convention suggests otherwise...)
In any case, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.
Neither of those words are proper nouns. They shouldn't be capitalized unless occuring at the beginning of a sentence.
In any case, you're not stupid, just ignorant.
You're perpetuating the right-wing myth that "democracy" and "republic" are somehow conflicting terms. They're not. Just like "stupidity" and "ignorance", something can be both, either, or neither.
Here's a catalog of well-known countries:
USA, South Korea: democracy + republic
UK, Japan: democracy
USSR, North Korea, Cuba: republic
Sudan:
I say no, if I am going to bother to vote, I'd rather it have as much impact as possible
There is only a tiny chance that your vote will change the winner- but if that chance comes true, and you by luck get the power to select a politician, then who you voted for is irrelevant to the magnitude of your power.
In a well-balanced swing state, there might be (as you say) a 1/500 chance that an individual vote could turn the election. But if that 1/500 probability comes true, then no only will your vote of turned it, but so will everyone else's. Every single individual person who voted for the winner will know "If I hadn't voted, we'd have lost".
Even more importantly, each person who didn't like the winner but didn't go vote will be thinking "If only I'd spent 15 minutes to vote, **** wouldn't be President"
And anyone who claims such an altruistic view, but has two shirts when someone else in the world has none,* is a hypocrite.
A person doing 2 evil things is evil.
A person doing 1 evil and 1 good thing is a hypocrite.
Which is a better person?
In 1999 I thought that both candidates were approximately equivalent (as they are, on 99% of issues). So although I felt an instinctive revulsion to George's moronic demeanor, it was a real surprise to see him stumble so directly into mistakes that his own father had the common sense to avoid. (Although Bush the 1st's conduct towards Iraq had major errors as well)
and won't damage our international alliances more than they already are.
I wouldn't mind a few alliances being damaged- starting with the Berne Convention, please.
With one president, there is the reduced chance of Christian morality being imposed upon the country as a whole.
I think you've fallen into the trap of accepting George W Bush's claim to have been influenced by the teachings of Christ. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
If you refer to New Testament stories of Jesus, you'll find a paragon of mercy and pacifism. Christian morality means
Although no pragmatic party can fully follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, on a point-to-point comparison, the Democratic platform comes closer.
Jesus Christ was a liberal.
I was going to say that, but thank you for doing it.
And what's that supposed to show, exactly? Hitler was elected in 1932, and the "Night of Long Knives" was July 1, 1934.
If you want to prove that Hitler's election was fraudulent or coerced, you'll can't argue based on events two years later.
Incorrect. According to acquaintances I trust, cedega (or was it just wine?) runs some games faster than Windows.
Well I've got Cedega right here, and I've never got it to run anything more than 80% as fast as Windows. Sometimes it's not even 5% as fast.
Sure, it's possible to screw anything up, and I suppose if you damaged a Windows install badly enough, then Cedega would be faster... but even Transgaming won't dare claim it's faster in normal circumstances.
NVidia's drivers have no problems on this same hardware, from what I can tell (from looking at the Dell forums).
NVidia's drivers don't work on ATI hardware!
Apparently Intel and VIA have released Free drivers
Irrelevant. They're not high-performance chips, so driver optimization doesn't matter.
You have a high slashdot number, so I'll assume you're relatively new here.
That's a silly assumption. He's obviously not new- he just wanted a new account, to reset the negative Karma score accumulated from past trolls.
A lot more than windows that's for sure.
That's a tautology, since Windows is one of the platforms for XFree86.
Remember that X was working on extremely old systems.
Although frequently optimized through shm or something, the client-server mechanism imposes some overhead, which is actually most apparent on older systems. Get out a 486 and compare Windows 3.1 next to XFree86 to see how bad it can be. (Or find a Linux "Agenda" PDA, if you can). But on today's PCs, that overhead cost has shrunk to undetectability.
Traditional turn based (pause during every turn) - Final Fantasy, UFO
That category can be futher split into two sub-types: pause for each combatant's turn, or only for player-controlled units. Games in the former category, such as the original Fallout, can be absolutely maddening. You can never dare get into a fight on one of Fallout's densely-populated city maps, because then each of the 30+ random pedestrians onscren becomes a combatant who takes a turn each (painfully slow) round.
Towards the conclusion you assault an evil cult leader in his church. Drawing a weapon when mass is in session is a big mistake, because although the worshippers are harmless and may just try to run off, there are SO MANY of them that the delay between your turns is intolerable...
machine guns being crap at hitting but excellent for supression fire
In reality, they're good at hitting too. You can't really suppress someone unless you present a serious threat of anyone poking his head up being immediately drilled. In some conflicts, machine guns have scored 100s of times more kills than rifles (even if the accuracy ratio per each shot was less, the number of bullets more than makes up for it)
The thing I hate most about turnbased games is that things like supression fire and encirclement don't really have an effect like they would in realtime.
That sounds backwards. In realtime games, the complexity of tactics is limited by the player's divided attention, and most all guns fill a similar role (or at best, are divided between CQB and "sniper" duties) Realtime games see players favoring certain weapons or battleplans not because they're really effective, but because they're easy to click on in a hurry.
Turn-based rule systems, on the other hand, have the luxury of allowing the time to input complex actions, like commands for suppressing and indirect fire, or single/burst/fully-automatic shooting modes.