It's not mandatory but it was a major advantage in WW2 and probably all following wars too. Controlling the air means you have access to pretty much any point in the war, both with firepower and logistics. Better logistics mean your ground forces can fight better.
Considering the rest of the world doesn't have anything close to stealth tech I don't think anything more than the F22 is really needed to maintain air superiority though...
The US has reached Mars with rovers, that's all that's feasible currently and all that makes sense, a human wouldn't be more useful than a rover over there and would just die faster (and weight too much if you include the food for the four years of travel and the few months of survival on the planet). Sending a man to Mars is a pointless prestige goal that looks cool to the layman but does nothing scientifically useful (of course building a spaceshiop that can go outside the Earth's magnetic shield without having its payload toasted would be useful but that doesn't require landing on Mars).
I guess those super high-tech weapon systems might be a waste of money anyway, the US has already left the rest of the world way behind in the arms race but that high-tech army seems to be a massive money sink if it's ever fielded. 1.4 trillion USD just to fight a few cold war era relics? I guess they should research how to make the army cheaper, not even stronger. Noone's doubting its stength but if using it bankrupts the nation perhaps enemies of the US would consider the US army no longer a real threat as it hurts the US more than the target it's thrown at (especially when that target is an amorphous threat like terrorism).
Thing is, space is big. It's so fucking big it doesn't fit into the human mind. Without forcing people to travel along certain lines there is no fucking way you'll ever meet someone. There are points of interest that would gather people (like space stations) but e.g. a planet alone is already so damn huge you wouldn't meet anyone randomly just by going into orbit.
Even just "warping" from one planet's orbit to another can already happen through so many possible routes that intercepting them is impossible unless you give the interceptor system some kind of magnetic attraction that pulls courses within several hundred thousand kilometers towards you. For travel between two systems that are lightyears apart there's so many routes that you'd need an even larger field that could lock down an entire solar system if deployed inside one. And that's just covering the direct routes, there's always the option to take a really tiny detour (nothing like 3x as long, given the distances in space a 1% deviation for half the distance would already turn into a HUGE distance without significantly impacting travel times).
Another problem is that you don't want people to move freely through the galaxy in a game with territory, with free flight there's no way you could ever be sure to intercept an invasion fleet since there is no way you could possibly cover the gigantic volume a territory of a few planets would include, you'd basically have enemies popping up anywhere inside your territory.
Also it doesn't make for very interesting combat to see literally nothing and only get computer feedback on whether you hit anything, even if you magnify the target it still won't give much of a connection since any weapon inaccuracies will be so far off that you won't even see the shots and the distance is so huge there won't be much of a connection between the magnified view and the sense of "here".
Now I'm sure there are simulation geeks who'd love simulated space combat at real ranges but most people want space dogfights like in the movies and the territory system would annoy everyone.
No. You seem to be suffering from the widely held delusion (at least among "content creators") that a pirated copy is a lost sale. The statement that is actually being made is this:
What he thinks is irrelevant, what Rockstar thinks is the important part. You can say they have no evidence all you want but they're not a court of law, they can act without evidence. What they see is somebody whining about "DRM" and using that to calm his conscience about simply warezing the game. What they see is a person who claims to have ideals but doesn't have enough of them to actually avoid playing the game, a person with no self control whose compulsion to play the game can be used to make him buy the game if it's properly secured.
Few people care about what you SAY it's about, they see that while you object to the DRM you lack the self control to not play the game at all and therefore removing the option to download it will make you lose your ability to protest DRM because you obviously want to play the game so much.
Also many rightfully expect that once the DRM is gone you'll make up a new issue to "protest" (like the price) to justify using warez to yourself.
IOW all you tell them is "I'm a cheapskate hiding behind a 'protest' to justify my cheapskatish ways".
Most established developers and publishers with a console license should be able to scrounge a million together, the ones that can't probably have even lower dev costs.
Perhaps they should dial down the game budgets then, I'm pretty sure those new market games Nintendo is making aren't exactly costing tens of millions.
Then again they have a completely fucked up view of low-risk which apparently involves spending most of the company's money on a single game and hoping it sells enough to make the money back.
When people blame the game that means they haven't notice anything that went wrong on their part and felt the failure was beyond their control. It's frustrating when you lose progress through no fault of your own.
Obviously the properties are tied to the character, any other player using your save would see the same properties. What's tied to you is your ability and what you do with it.
He's got an S, a more different S, consummate Vs, spinities, wings, a beefy arm for good measure, angry eyebrows floating above his head and he comes IN THE NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
Of course the US populace still cares about what damage the US Army causes to other countries so they couldn't just waltz in and kill everything even if they use robots.
Also deployment costs money. Big money, as the Iraq mess has shown. Money is probably a better restraint than the prospect of dead US soldiers.
There was also the case of the Solarian guardians that were programmed to assume anyone speaking with an accent other than the local one is a robot in disguise and must be eliminated. They simply didn't consider foreigners human.
But someone who could corrupt your robot production could sabotage your weapons production to make your ammunitions explode when you fire them and destroy your own tanks and planes. These are machines that get designed to a spec that has to be okayed by multiple people throughout the chain of command. There's no easy corruption here more than there's easy sabotage of other weapons.
The robots get built to do something. That something gets decided by a bunch of people who are calm rather than ducking behind cover while bullets fly overhead. The resulting program is likely much more "sane" than the average soldier in the midst of a battle
The robots do what all the people involved in their development and deployment told them, not just what the last order was. If the robot was programmed to avoid bad orders like that (soldiers are told to avoid them, after all) it could very well refuse an illegal order without violating the "robots do what they are told" rule.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not mandatory but it was a major advantage in WW2 and probably all following wars too. Controlling the air means you have access to pretty much any point in the war, both with firepower and logistics. Better logistics mean your ground forces can fight better.
Considering the rest of the world doesn't have anything close to stealth tech I don't think anything more than the F22 is really needed to maintain air superiority though...
The US has reached Mars with rovers, that's all that's feasible currently and all that makes sense, a human wouldn't be more useful than a rover over there and would just die faster (and weight too much if you include the food for the four years of travel and the few months of survival on the planet). Sending a man to Mars is a pointless prestige goal that looks cool to the layman but does nothing scientifically useful (of course building a spaceshiop that can go outside the Earth's magnetic shield without having its payload toasted would be useful but that doesn't require landing on Mars).
I guess those super high-tech weapon systems might be a waste of money anyway, the US has already left the rest of the world way behind in the arms race but that high-tech army seems to be a massive money sink if it's ever fielded. 1.4 trillion USD just to fight a few cold war era relics? I guess they should research how to make the army cheaper, not even stronger. Noone's doubting its stength but if using it bankrupts the nation perhaps enemies of the US would consider the US army no longer a real threat as it hurts the US more than the target it's thrown at (especially when that target is an amorphous threat like terrorism).
Thing is, space is big. It's so fucking big it doesn't fit into the human mind. Without forcing people to travel along certain lines there is no fucking way you'll ever meet someone. There are points of interest that would gather people (like space stations) but e.g. a planet alone is already so damn huge you wouldn't meet anyone randomly just by going into orbit.
Even just "warping" from one planet's orbit to another can already happen through so many possible routes that intercepting them is impossible unless you give the interceptor system some kind of magnetic attraction that pulls courses within several hundred thousand kilometers towards you. For travel between two systems that are lightyears apart there's so many routes that you'd need an even larger field that could lock down an entire solar system if deployed inside one. And that's just covering the direct routes, there's always the option to take a really tiny detour (nothing like 3x as long, given the distances in space a 1% deviation for half the distance would already turn into a HUGE distance without significantly impacting travel times).
Another problem is that you don't want people to move freely through the galaxy in a game with territory, with free flight there's no way you could ever be sure to intercept an invasion fleet since there is no way you could possibly cover the gigantic volume a territory of a few planets would include, you'd basically have enemies popping up anywhere inside your territory.
Also it doesn't make for very interesting combat to see literally nothing and only get computer feedback on whether you hit anything, even if you magnify the target it still won't give much of a connection since any weapon inaccuracies will be so far off that you won't even see the shots and the distance is so huge there won't be much of a connection between the magnified view and the sense of "here".
Now I'm sure there are simulation geeks who'd love simulated space combat at real ranges but most people want space dogfights like in the movies and the territory system would annoy everyone.
Is that a reference to Fahrenheit 451?
One theory I read was that DRM isn't meant to protect permanently, it's just intended to delay the warez release past the sales peak.
No. You seem to be suffering from the widely held delusion (at least among "content creators") that a pirated copy is a lost sale. The statement that is actually being made is this:
What he thinks is irrelevant, what Rockstar thinks is the important part. You can say they have no evidence all you want but they're not a court of law, they can act without evidence. What they see is somebody whining about "DRM" and using that to calm his conscience about simply warezing the game. What they see is a person who claims to have ideals but doesn't have enough of them to actually avoid playing the game, a person with no self control whose compulsion to play the game can be used to make him buy the game if it's properly secured.
Few people care about what you SAY it's about, they see that while you object to the DRM you lack the self control to not play the game at all and therefore removing the option to download it will make you lose your ability to protest DRM because you obviously want to play the game so much.
Also many rightfully expect that once the DRM is gone you'll make up a new issue to "protest" (like the price) to justify using warez to yourself.
IOW all you tell them is "I'm a cheapskate hiding behind a 'protest' to justify my cheapskatish ways".
But complaining about the DRM is kinda silly then when you're not going to see it anyway.
Tends to spoil the tree though, it gets chopped down and turned into paper to print laws on then.
Most established developers and publishers with a console license should be able to scrounge a million together, the ones that can't probably have even lower dev costs.
Perhaps they should dial down the game budgets then, I'm pretty sure those new market games Nintendo is making aren't exactly costing tens of millions.
Then again they have a completely fucked up view of low-risk which apparently involves spending most of the company's money on a single game and hoping it sells enough to make the money back.
Telltale uses Steam AFAIK and they went through two whole seasons on one of their series while another is at episode 4 out of 5.
Traffic jam on foot?
It's point and click, other systems don't really use an interface like that.
When people blame the game that means they haven't notice anything that went wrong on their part and felt the failure was beyond their control. It's frustrating when you lose progress through no fault of your own.
Obviously the properties are tied to the character, any other player using your save would see the same properties. What's tied to you is your ability and what you do with it.
He's got an S, a more different S, consummate Vs, spinities, wings, a beefy arm for good measure, angry eyebrows floating above his head and he comes IN THE NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
Of course the US populace still cares about what damage the US Army causes to other countries so they couldn't just waltz in and kill everything even if they use robots.
Also deployment costs money. Big money, as the Iraq mess has shown. Money is probably a better restraint than the prospect of dead US soldiers.
Or ammo and fuel run out or the machine breaks down from a lack of maintenance...
There was also the case of the Solarian guardians that were programmed to assume anyone speaking with an accent other than the local one is a robot in disguise and must be eliminated. They simply didn't consider foreigners human.
Not if you ask DARPA.
But someone who could corrupt your robot production could sabotage your weapons production to make your ammunitions explode when you fire them and destroy your own tanks and planes. These are machines that get designed to a spec that has to be okayed by multiple people throughout the chain of command. There's no easy corruption here more than there's easy sabotage of other weapons.
The robots get built to do something. That something gets decided by a bunch of people who are calm rather than ducking behind cover while bullets fly overhead. The resulting program is likely much more "sane" than the average soldier in the midst of a battle
The robots do what all the people involved in their development and deployment told them, not just what the last order was. If the robot was programmed to avoid bad orders like that (soldiers are told to avoid them, after all) it could very well refuse an illegal order without violating the "robots do what they are told" rule.