Technology certainly helped in Afghanistan. There's no longer a friendly government to host the terrorists in that case, and interestingly we're getting cooperation from Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Singapore...
The Palestine Authority is a special case. For political, religious and diplomatic reasons, arresting Arafat and his friends would have nasty ramificaitons.
Yeah, strict realism can hurt gameplay enjoyability. A submarine simulation without time acceleration might be incredibly boring unless it's strictly limited to scenarios where the enemy is already nearby...
For another example, needing food in otherwise heroic "high fantasy" swords-and-sorcery games come to mind. It doesn't add that much to gameplay to need to explicitly demand that characters eat every several hours or whatever, unless starvation is MEANT to be a real challenge (e.g. in crossing a long, barren wasteland)... and I'd usually disagree with such a situation. Thankfully, while some games have done that, I've yet to see an RPG in which characters need to, er, use the facilities, which would be even worse ('tho realistic!).
Agreed. The "Fallout" world is pretty good at being consistent, for instance, even though virus-created Super Mutants running around with laser rifles aren't terribly realistic.
"Fallout 2", however, weakened consistency by having many more pop-culture jokes, and also characters that are "aware" that they're merely characters in a computer game... in addition, one of the end "puzzles" (one based upon one in _Wasteland_, methinks) is blatantly absurd -- as not even a sadistic enemy warlord is likely to have a fortress where his own troops are forced to run around on an electrified floor, taking large amounts of damage, while following a completely arbitrary pattern of computer-controlled doors just to go from one level to another. It's another misfeature which screams "This is a game, not a logical world!".
So, for that matter, are "set-piece" battles in which enemies are on alert and in precisely chosen ambush positions 24/7... unless they're robots, of course.
On WWII tactical games, for instance, if you want to market it as "historical" and "realistic", it would be rather unwise to represent tank armor merely as large piles o' hit points, and let standard infantry rifle rounds regularly do significant damage, oh, Panzer Vs -- you don't have to be a grognard to realize how silly that is, compared to having models of armor slope and thickness, plus armor penetration tables.
And yes, a historically detailed game can be damn fun. It certainly raises tension when you realize there's a PzVI on a well-chosen hill 800m away, and that mindlessly selecting a bunch of units and clicking on the PzVI won't save you -- that you'll have to study the terrain and use real tactics to block or avoid its LOS.
But if you're aiming towards the C&C/*craft/AoE fans who don't truly care if it's really accurate in the nitty-gritty, hey, go ahead. And you'll probably have a larger market with that approach, too.
Playing fast and loose with reality would also help certain strategic-level situations. It's been argued, for instance, that the Confederacy was pretty much doomed to fail, given the far greater industrial production and manpower of the northerners, and the unwillingness of the European powers to intervene on the CSA's behalf. Perfectly modelling the US Civil War might result in a rather depressing game from the CSA's point of view, so adding "what if" options might not be such a bad idea... Ditto for, say, a WWII Eastern Front strategic game, post-Uranus; without pretty serious "what if"'s, it would be difficult to change the end result...
I think it might be quite interesting if the Federal government provokes the public by extending legislative blackmail to other areas, as well. By legislative blackmail, I mean the "we'll tax you, then give you some of your money back -- on conditions -- in order to impose regulations on areas that normally we wouldn't be allowed to do so". The cardinal example is the blood-alcohol content limit, where the Feds blackmail the states into maintaining 0.10 or lower BAC thresholds, on non-Federal roads, in exchange for receiving Federal highway funds.
That may be acceptable to people in the name of public safety, but extend the policy to other methods, raise the tax brackets, and sooner or later there'll be people sufficiently irritated to question this circumvention of the 10th amendment. If it brings about greater awareness of Constitutional issues and discussions of Federal power, it might be beneficial in the long term to actually work towards such a moment...
Hm. Some "information" that could be lethal to the user -- for instance, detailed information on the construction of improvised explosives with household materials, but missing any data on safety precautions. The temptation to implement it would probably result in the occasional maiming.
No, that doesn't hold for porn -- I don't know of any study that shows conclusive causative relationships between pornography and, say, rape or molestation, but then I'm not a sociologist and I don't spend my time looking for such studies -- but information need not always be benign.
First, there is no constitutional right to "hear" speech, as that would constitute a right to a service -- of which there are very few. The right to an attorney and the right to vote are among the primary service rights. But the government is practically never Constitutionally obligated either to provide means for speaking, such as funding your attempts to get the word out, nor to fund your attempts to hear, such as by buying you newspaper subscriptions or a radio. You have no constitutional right to a subsidized subscription to Pravda; nor is there such a right to an e-rate discount for network connectivity.
Would you rather that the NSF assign research grants by lottery? Or, likewise, the NEA (the arts endowment, not the educator's association)? Or, for that matter, highway grants?
If not, then you'll have to agree that the Government is entitled to make subjective judgements about how to dole out its funds. Libraries are quite free to reject the e-rate restrictions. In fact, subject to obscenity ordinances, a community-funded library could have all-porn-all-the-time network access, if no Federal e-rate funds are involved. Even if the restriction is impossible to meet, meeting the restriction is not mandatory since accepting the e-rate is not. The law could be revised to require merely best-effort, perhaps, without invalidating the main intent that the Federal government has no intention of allowing e-rate funding to be used for providing pornography.
Nor is it particularly prejudicial, since it's covering a specific type of content -- and one that is not a significant method of conveying a message, so it avoids various issues that would occur with, say, banning political content. And it certainly is not arbitrary; the government has long maintained that pornography for children is a bad idea.
No. Once you've sent the money to the Treasury, it's theirs. If you don't believe me, write the Treasury and ask for "your" money back to spend as you choose.
That's why the government decides how to budget, instead of individual taxpayers figuring out how to spend their individual little contributions. You can send requests and advice, but it IS the Gov'ts money, and it can spend it on researching ways to breed less-intelligent catfish if it wants.
It does regulate the decency of the mail; sending "obscene" materials through the mail is an offense.
However, that tends to be subject to local community standards. If memory serves, there was a Tennessee postmaster who found out about a non-TN couple mailing out bestiality videos. He ordered some for evidence, then initiated prosecution.
a) Holding an opinion != expressing it.
And, with regards to the latter, the form does NOT matter when it comes to liability. Spread libel through skywriting aircraft and if somebody has evidence -- a good videorecording -- you're just as vulnerable to a lawsuit.
b) Firearm legality varies. Try walking into a police department in D.C. and asking their advice as to how to safely store a handgun. Guess what -- possession's illegal there. Ditto, for that matter, in NYC.
c) So does owning an unauthorized pirate videotape collection. It's not exactly confined to high technology, foo.
United Virtualities calls the product "Ooqa Ooqa," the nickname of one of the cofounder's daughters. The firm's signature product is the "shoshkeles," named after another daughter of a co-founder.
Hm. I hope the company got their permission. Having your name attached to annoying advertising methods can't be good.
Don't forget that, at least before Musharraf and possibly afterwards, the Pakistani ISI was quite thoroughly allied with the Taliban; and even now, there are numerous sympathizers. There are sufficient pro-Islamist elements in Pakistan, including people still inside the government, to provide another motive for the US government wanting Pearl.
What, like the confiscation of firearms so that people can't defend themselves against tyranny? Oh, wait -- wrong party. Or supporting racially-focused policies awarding extra privileges to some versus others? Oh, wait -- wrong party. Or, the attitude that one should always look to the State as the provider? Oh wait...
The same folks who believe in crystal healing and other New Age foolishness? There are some who reject traditional Western-style medicine because it comes from the West, it seems.
Keep in mind that Apple probably derives a greater portion of its revenue from hardware and other non-software items than does Microsoft, so the latter would suffer disproportionately more if adopting the same policies.
Also, if the OEMs stuck with the free versions, customers might as well, as long as they're "good enough". Many customers install new office suites only rarely.
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well.
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 2
Continuing the conflict helps the groups I mentioned stay meaningful. Peace doesn't help them get any closer to the destruction of Israel, and they're the ones sending out the bombers and shooters. AFAICT, they care more about that than they do about Palestinian peace and prosperity.
I suspect that if Arafat had accepted Barak's offer, these groups, with the possible exception of Fatah given that it's Arafat's own, would paint a target on the back of his head.
The Wahibbi sect is a puritanical variant of Islam, and the official state religion of Saudi Arabia.
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well.
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 2
The suicide bomer strategy is not purely militarily, methinks -- most likely, it's aimed at
a) forcing a harsh Israeli response by driving its public opinion to the right (there's a real possibility that Likud/Netanyahu will be back instead of the present unity government coalition)
b) destabilizing the Palestinian Authority, which would leave Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah/Tanzim and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as the main power groups -- these would all be less influential in peacetime.
c) getting other nations involved in condemnations, and perhaps sanctions / embargos. If an Israeli overreaction causes the US to rethink its pro-Israeli stance, then the Palestinians have won something.
The Tet Offensive wasn't exactly a glorious military success, but it served its political purpose, no?
Re:US sticks its nose where it doesn't belong
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
The Netherlands and Spain both look into the long-arm doctrine quite heavily; in the case of the former, the Netherlands has Milosevic on trial for crimes in Yugoslavia, while a Spanish judge seemed to be serious about prosecuting Pinochet, last I heard.
It'd be difficult even for Rev. Falwell to compete with the Saudi paper al-Riyadh, which recently published a column claiming that Jews were sadistic vampires who consume pastries composed of human blood from tortured Gentile kids and adolescents. Or even with the Palestinian Authority, who some years ago promulgated the myth that Israelis were spiking chewing gum with chemicals that caused women to be libidinous, yet sterile.
To win votes from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the related unions.
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
For all their oil, neither their GDP ('bout US $9000 per capita as of 1998) nor massive budget deficit (expenditures $44B, revenue $32.3B => exceeds revenue by ~36.2%) is impressive.
But then, that's not surprising in an economy so full of patronage that 40% of the labor force is in government.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology certainly helped in Afghanistan. There's no longer a friendly government to host the terrorists in that case, and interestingly we're getting cooperation from Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Singapore...
The Palestine Authority is a special case. For political, religious and diplomatic reasons, arresting Arafat and his friends would have nasty ramificaitons.
Yeah, strict realism can hurt gameplay enjoyability. A submarine simulation without time acceleration might be incredibly boring unless it's strictly limited to scenarios where the enemy is already nearby...
... and I'd usually disagree with such a situation. Thankfully, while some games have done that, I've yet to see an RPG in which characters need to, er, use the facilities, which would be even worse ('tho realistic!).
For another example, needing food in otherwise heroic "high fantasy" swords-and-sorcery games come to mind. It doesn't add that much to gameplay to need to explicitly demand that characters eat every several hours or whatever, unless starvation is MEANT to be a real challenge (e.g. in crossing a long, barren wasteland)
Agreed. The "Fallout" world is pretty good at being consistent, for instance, even though virus-created Super Mutants running around with laser rifles aren't terribly realistic.
"Fallout 2", however, weakened consistency by having many more pop-culture jokes, and also characters that are "aware" that they're merely characters in a computer game... in addition, one of the end "puzzles" (one based upon one in _Wasteland_, methinks) is blatantly absurd -- as not even a sadistic enemy warlord is likely to have a fortress where his own troops are forced to run around on an electrified floor, taking large amounts of damage, while following a completely arbitrary pattern of computer-controlled doors just to go from one level to another. It's another misfeature which screams "This is a game, not a logical world!".
So, for that matter, are "set-piece" battles in which enemies are on alert and in precisely chosen ambush positions 24/7... unless they're robots, of course.
...on the category of game.
On WWII tactical games, for instance, if you want to market it as "historical" and "realistic", it would be rather unwise to represent tank armor merely as large piles o' hit points, and let standard infantry rifle rounds regularly do significant damage, oh, Panzer Vs -- you don't have to be a grognard to realize how silly that is, compared to having models of armor slope and thickness, plus armor penetration tables.
And yes, a historically detailed game can be damn fun. It certainly raises tension when you realize there's a PzVI on a well-chosen hill 800m away, and that mindlessly selecting a bunch of units and clicking on the PzVI won't save you -- that you'll have to study the terrain and use real tactics to block or avoid its LOS.
But if you're aiming towards the C&C/*craft/AoE fans who don't truly care if it's really accurate in the nitty-gritty, hey, go ahead. And you'll probably have a larger market with that approach, too.
Playing fast and loose with reality would also help certain strategic-level situations. It's been argued, for instance, that the Confederacy was pretty much doomed to fail, given the far greater industrial production and manpower of the northerners, and the unwillingness of the European powers to intervene on the CSA's behalf. Perfectly modelling the US Civil War might result in a rather depressing game from the CSA's point of view, so adding "what if" options might not be such a bad idea... Ditto for, say, a WWII Eastern Front strategic game, post-Uranus; without pretty serious "what if"'s, it would be difficult to change the end result...
Well, that's one way to get the ladies dancin' round the *cough* maypole *cough*...
Confrontation.
I think it might be quite interesting if the Federal government provokes the public by extending legislative blackmail to other areas, as well. By legislative blackmail, I mean the "we'll tax you, then give you some of your money back -- on conditions -- in order to impose regulations on areas that normally we wouldn't be allowed to do so". The cardinal example is the blood-alcohol content limit, where the Feds blackmail the states into maintaining 0.10 or lower BAC thresholds, on non-Federal roads, in exchange for receiving Federal highway funds.
That may be acceptable to people in the name of public safety, but extend the policy to other methods, raise the tax brackets, and sooner or later there'll be people sufficiently irritated to question this circumvention of the 10th amendment. If it brings about greater awareness of Constitutional issues and discussions of Federal power, it might be beneficial in the long term to actually work towards such a moment...
Hm. Some "information" that could be lethal to the user -- for instance, detailed information on the construction of improvised explosives with household materials, but missing any data on safety precautions. The temptation to implement it would probably result in the occasional maiming.
No, that doesn't hold for porn -- I don't know of any study that shows conclusive causative relationships between pornography and, say, rape or molestation, but then I'm not a sociologist and I don't spend my time looking for such studies -- but information need not always be benign.
First, there is no constitutional right to "hear" speech, as that would constitute a right to a service -- of which there are very few. The right to an attorney and the right to vote are among the primary service rights. But the government is practically never Constitutionally obligated either to provide means for speaking, such as funding your attempts to get the word out, nor to fund your attempts to hear, such as by buying you newspaper subscriptions or a radio. You have no constitutional right to a subsidized subscription to Pravda; nor is there such a right to an e-rate discount for network connectivity.
Would you rather that the NSF assign research grants by lottery? Or, likewise, the NEA (the arts endowment, not the educator's association)? Or, for that matter, highway grants?
If not, then you'll have to agree that the Government is entitled to make subjective judgements about how to dole out its funds. Libraries are quite free to reject the e-rate restrictions. In fact, subject to obscenity ordinances, a community-funded library could have all-porn-all-the-time network access, if no Federal e-rate funds are involved. Even if the restriction is impossible to meet, meeting the restriction is not mandatory since accepting the e-rate is not. The law could be revised to require merely best-effort, perhaps, without invalidating the main intent that the Federal government has no intention of allowing e-rate funding to be used for providing pornography.
Nor is it particularly prejudicial, since it's covering a specific type of content -- and one that is not a significant method of conveying a message, so it avoids various issues that would occur with, say, banning political content. And it certainly is not arbitrary; the government has long maintained that pornography for children is a bad idea.
No. Once you've sent the money to the Treasury, it's theirs. If you don't believe me, write the Treasury and ask for "your" money back to spend as you choose.
That's why the government decides how to budget, instead of individual taxpayers figuring out how to spend their individual little contributions. You can send requests and advice, but it IS the Gov'ts money, and it can spend it on researching ways to breed less-intelligent catfish if it wants.
It does regulate the decency of the mail; sending "obscene" materials through the mail is an offense.
However, that tends to be subject to local community standards. If memory serves, there was a Tennessee postmaster who found out about a non-TN couple mailing out bestiality videos. He ordered some for evidence, then initiated prosecution.
Not legal. The federal subsidy is allocated specifically as an "e-rate" for providing internet access, and is not applicable towards other programs.
I'm getting a mental image of an Omnibot running around, screaming "Beer, Will Robinson! Beer, Will Robinson!"...
a) Holding an opinion != expressing it.
And, with regards to the latter, the form does NOT matter when it comes to liability. Spread libel through skywriting aircraft and if somebody has evidence -- a good videorecording -- you're just as vulnerable to a lawsuit.
b) Firearm legality varies. Try walking into a police department in D.C. and asking their advice as to how to safely store a handgun. Guess what -- possession's illegal there. Ditto, for that matter, in NYC.
c) So does owning an unauthorized pirate videotape collection. It's not exactly confined to high technology, foo.
Excerpt:
United Virtualities calls the product "Ooqa Ooqa," the nickname of one of the cofounder's daughters. The firm's signature product is the "shoshkeles," named after another daughter of a co-founder.
Hm. I hope the company got their permission. Having your name attached to annoying advertising methods can't be good.
Don't forget that, at least before Musharraf and possibly afterwards, the Pakistani ISI was quite thoroughly allied with the Taliban; and even now, there are numerous sympathizers. There are sufficient pro-Islamist elements in Pakistan, including people still inside the government, to provide another motive for the US government wanting Pearl.
What, like the confiscation of firearms so that people can't defend themselves against tyranny? Oh, wait -- wrong party. Or supporting racially-focused policies awarding extra privileges to some versus others? Oh, wait -- wrong party. Or, the attitude that one should always look to the State as the provider? Oh wait...
The same folks who believe in crystal healing and other New Age foolishness? There are some who reject traditional Western-style medicine because it comes from the West, it seems.
Keep in mind that Apple probably derives a greater portion of its revenue from hardware and other non-software items than does Microsoft, so the latter would suffer disproportionately more if adopting the same policies.
Also, if the OEMs stuck with the free versions, customers might as well, as long as they're "good enough". Many customers install new office suites only rarely.
Continuing the conflict helps the groups I mentioned stay meaningful. Peace doesn't help them get any closer to the destruction of Israel, and they're the ones sending out the bombers and shooters. AFAICT, they care more about that than they do about Palestinian peace and prosperity.
I suspect that if Arafat had accepted Barak's offer, these groups, with the possible exception of Fatah given that it's Arafat's own, would paint a target on the back of his head.
The Wahibbi sect is a puritanical variant of Islam, and the official state religion of Saudi Arabia.
The suicide bomer strategy is not purely militarily, methinks -- most likely, it's aimed at
a) forcing a harsh Israeli response by driving its public opinion to the right (there's a real possibility that Likud/Netanyahu will be back instead of the present unity government coalition)
b) destabilizing the Palestinian Authority, which would leave Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah/Tanzim and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as the main power groups -- these would all be less influential in peacetime.
c) getting other nations involved in condemnations, and perhaps sanctions / embargos. If an Israeli overreaction causes the US to rethink its pro-Israeli stance, then the Palestinians have won something.
The Tet Offensive wasn't exactly a glorious military success, but it served its political purpose, no?
The Netherlands and Spain both look into the long-arm doctrine quite heavily; in the case of the former, the Netherlands has Milosevic on trial for crimes in Yugoslavia, while a Spanish judge seemed to be serious about prosecuting Pinochet, last I heard.
It'd be difficult even for Rev. Falwell to compete with the Saudi paper al-Riyadh, which recently published a column claiming that Jews were sadistic vampires who consume pastries composed of human blood from tortured Gentile kids and adolescents. Or even with the Palestinian Authority, who some years ago promulgated the myth that Israelis were spiking chewing gum with chemicals that caused women to be libidinous, yet sterile.
To win votes from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the related unions.
For all their oil, neither their GDP ('bout US $9000 per capita as of 1998) nor massive budget deficit (expenditures $44B, revenue $32.3B => exceeds revenue by ~36.2%) is impressive.
But then, that's not surprising in an economy so full of patronage that 40% of the labor force is in government.