Are you by chance referring to Burning Crusade? The rare and expensive Collector's Edition comes, I am told, with both CD and DVD versions. It's pretty outrageous that Blizzard thinks that a DVD version is some kind of "bonus" when it should be a mundane, standard feature. Most games come on DVDs, at least in Europe.
Mass Effect looks like it will probably suffer from the same "smallness" that other Bioware games have -- they are all constrained to tiny "areas" and you move from one to the other,... they are more like japanese CRPGs, not enough freedom.
What do you mean by tiny areas and lack of freedom? I experienced neither in Baldur's Gate II.
1. Tactical priority: games offer a massively distorted view of that.
Maybe, but it doesn't matter. The priorities are determined by the ruleset of the game, just like priorities are determined in real life by the situation and your own role in combat.
For that matter, suppression just doesn't work in games either.
Works kinda well in Day of Defeat. Machineguns are really, really bad news. They are ridiculously accurate, they have an extremely high rate of fire and they kill the enemy in one or two hits. If you played DoD CS-style so that each player has only one life, they'd think twice about attempting to take down a machinegun with a frontal assault.
I think games might teach you how to move tactically by always minimizing your exposure as much as possible and being mindful your environment. This seems like it would easily translate to real combat. The ability to react, think and process information quickly should also be improved by games. Also, the ability to refrain from shooting when there are friendlies in front of you seems helpful. Of course they teach that in any military (right?), but repeatedly reinforcing it with gaming should be beneficial.
Playing Far Cry on realistic difficulty is... well, it's kind of realistic. You really will die if you get yourself flanked or suprised, and the enemy can detect and shoot at you from suprisingly far away. I always scout every area before doing anything (I particularly look out for snipers), and I always try to find, if possible, an elevated position where I have a clear view of the battleground and where I can't be flanked. Of course it's not a simulator or anything, but some basic principles are in effect.
It doesn't put law enforcement officers in danger. What it does do is reveal informants and undercover law enforcement agents; this is a category of government officers that we could refer to as Secret Law Enforcement.
So it doesn't put them in danger, it just puts them in danger. OK, got it.
That being said, when encountering such a sight, you may want to question why the government needs secrecy?
Well gee, I don't know. Maybe they want to bust organized crime and terrorists for instance?
With a de jure monopoly on the use of force, as well as broad information gathering capabilities, the only need for secrecy in law enforcement is either to a) enforce unjust laws or b) provide the illusion of respecting someone's constitutional protections.
Do you think they'd conduct dangerous, difficult and unpredictable undercover operations if they didn't have to? And what the hell do you mean by unjust laws? Is there something unjust about catching criminals? Do you believe all laws should be abolished in favor of anarchy? You'd be the first to die if that happened.
Also, one means of information gathering is undercover operations. Another method is spying, which is also kind of secret.
I do not see the need for undercover law enforcement
Well, that most likely results from the fact that you don't even know what it is. You've developed some kind of feverish conspiracy theory where Men in Black secretly throw people in secret jails without any judges or juries, or the rule of law.
The government should enforces laws in the open
Yeah. It's so unfair when the criminals don't know you're investigating them. It's really mean. The cops should always politely inform the criminals that they are under investigation, so they can hide all the evidence.
There's no excuse for secrecy in government
Just how naive are you, exactly? There's no excuse for keeping certain things secret from foreign powers, criminals and terrorists?
So it would be perfectly alright if I went on national television, told everyone that you're a pedophile, gave your address and picture, and then urged the public to find and kill you? Would it also be alright if I exposed undercover agents on TV, causing them to be murdered or otherwise endangered?
Well, I'm sure these would be alright to you. After all, free speech cannot have any limits whatsoever.
Oh, I agree that free speech shouldn't be limitless. But the crucial point here is this is already public information. Law enforcement (or gov't) should not be able to selectively censor this data. If it is ok for some to publish it openly, then it is okay for all to publish it openly.
It should not be public information at all.
Of course not. But there is a big difference between me, a private citizen, breaking the law (which I would if I thought it were necessary to protect my family) and a governmental body breaking the law to protect its members.
So you're not willing to sacrifice yourself or your family, but it's okay if somebody else is in danger?
But that's the point. This guy isn't doing anything illegal. Law enforcement using its power to do what's in the best interests of its personnel is NOT the same as upholding the law. And rewriting the laws to "allow" these sorts of actions is merely another form of abuse of power.
Obviously the police must be take care of its personnel, otherwise they can't do their jobs.
If law enforcement and the courts start taking their own interest into account when determining what is right, why should I listen to them anymore than any other asshole that is just looking out for himself?
In this case they have every right to consider their own interests, which by proxy include your interests.
Heh, that's quite an assumption you make. There is a significant portion of the American population that would list police as the #1 threat to their safety, and would laugh if you suggested the police are there to protect them. It's true, I am a middle-class white male, so I can't speak to how I would feel if I were not, but I have heard others speak that are not.
I'm sure the population you're referring to is just chock full of honest law-abiding citizens who are oppressed for absolutely no reason at all.
I don't particularly want the list to be public; as you say, there is nothing in it for me. And while the list itself does not make me "feel better", the idea that we as a society should censor citizens from publishing public information in a clear violation of their free speech makes me feel bad.
I am strongly in favor of free speech, but not religiously so. Free speech doesn't magically justify everything. There's probably not a thing in the universe that doesn't become dangerous when it's taken to extremes. Freedom of speech can and should have limits. It's not 1 or 0, where you either have absolute freedom or no rights at all.
And yes, I would still support this if it were me that this list endangered.
Bullshit. Suppose you had a family (don't know if you do), and they were endangered as a result of some kind of list on the Internet. Would you gallantly sacrifice them in the name of limitless free speech? If you are willing to take the risk, then surely you'd be willing to face the possible consequences as well.
Ah, but you are saying I should sacrifice my right to free speech in order to protect them. You are not appealing to me as a person to not do something stupid and dangerous; you are advocating the government, via threat of force, prevent me from doing something I have a right to do. Or this other guy, actually, not me. Making personal sacrifices on behalf of law enforcement safety sounds an awful lot like me giving up something of value to me to protect them.
It's not much of a sacrifice. Lists like this serve no legitimate purpose. Believe it or not, what you want and what you feel you are entitled to is not necessarily the most important thing in the world, because it doesn't revolve around you. There are other people in it too. Also, by allowing law enforcement to do its job effectively, you also allow them to uphold the law. It's in your best interest. You may as well think "ah, so I should sacrifice my money in order to finance the government."
Secondly, I don't live in such fear that I particularly feel the need to be protected
You don't live in fear precisely because you are protected. In places like Iraq there's barely any rule of law, and therefore no protection. Somebody can just kidnap you, chop off your head and then kill your family. Or maybe you'll just die in a random suicide bombing one day. Of course you feel safe when you're living in a stable, law-abiding society.
I certainly would like the opportunity to negotiate the price of such "protection", rather than have the terms of service dictated to me by those who also dictate I must use their protection services.
So what does that mean? You want the law to be optional?
Why, exactly, do you want such a list to be public? What's in it for you? What's in it for anyone who isn't interested in hunting down and murdering the people on the list? I'm guessing you have no use for the list at all, yet you feel the list should be public just because it makes you feel better, even if it endangers other people.
Even free speech needs some kind of limits.
It is law enforcements job to protect me, not my job to protect them.
You don't have to protect them, but you don't have to endanger and hinder them either.
If a law enforcement officer feels that his job is unnecessarily risky, he is always free to quit.
So let's say they all quit. Then what? Who's going to protect you then? I guess it'll be time for martial law after that.
Well the USA has hundreds, if not thousands, of nukes and the Christian fundamentalists are a lot closer to taking control of the USA than the Islamic fundamentalists.
It's not about anybody taking control.
Hmmm. Sounds like someone has a severe case of racist paranoia.
Who said anything about race? Oh, you did. You may think this is a race issue, but I don't. And no, it's not paranoia: it's a fact that Muslims will become a majority in some countries. Regardless of what you believe about Islam or Muslims, it's going to happen. Their birth rates are higher, and they are reinforced by continuous immigration.
Well, even if that was true - so what? Norway and Sweden are dippy little countries with no international relevence anyway. Yeah, I'd miss the Swedish bikini team but, other than that, I'm not seeing the problem.
France has nuclear weapons. But how exactly are you not seeing the problem? You don't think there's anything worrying about Muslims taking over European countries?
"They" are by no means the only ones who have launched "terrorist" attacks on US soil. Now I suppose that, in your case, a terrorist attack involves a Muslim by definition. For example, if Virginia Tech had been a Muslim then that would have been a terrorist attack but otherwise not. The factual reality is that if you look at violent deaths in the US then Muslims are way way way down the list of perpetrators.
I am not talking about violent deaths, I am talking about terrorism. Virginia would have been a terrorist attack if the hypothetical Muslim perpetrator had done it in the name of Jihad or something similiar.
And Christianity is even older - what's your point?
My point is that Jihad is very old and therefore cannot possibly result from US action or inaction, or anything else that's happening right now. Jihad is the eternal duty of all Muslims, fit for all places and all times, until there are no more infidels.
The real problem here is that "concern" about Islamic fundamentalism is the new racism.
Except, of course, that Muslims are not a race, and the issue has nothing at all to do with race, except according to people like you who see everything in terms of race.
People have every right and every reason to be afraid of Islamic fundamentalism. You might as well claim that the world was racist for opposing Nazism.
There is so much crapaganda on this discussion it is disgusting, and if the website is removed, like it or not the government is hindering free speech. Bottom line
If the site puts law enforcement officers in danger, it should not be protected by free speech. It should be taken down.
I'm getting the feeling that many Slashdotters really, really hate law enforcement.
Just because there's a sex offender list doesn't mean that undercover cops and informants should be exposed on the Internet. There's no connection between the two.
And we also have Christian fundamentalists who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under laws based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs and we also have a whole range of other fundamentalists (that most people in the USA haven't even heard of) who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under laws based on whatever they happen to believe.
The US does at least somewhat suffer from the scourge of Christian fundamentalism, but it's not that dangerous. Certainly not a threat to the world, and certainly not even remotely comparable to Islamic fundamentalism.
Similarly, no one with any sense thinks that it is even remotely possible that the USA is going to (somehow be compelled to) adopt Sharia law.
Probably not going to happen in the US. The country is too big, too diverse. But small(er) European countries? That's another story. It really comes down to numbers, and when (not if) Muslims become the majority in countries like Norway and Sweden, sharia law will be implemented, unless there's a civil war that the Muslims will lose.
There's a good chance - maybe even an overwhelming chance - that this group or individual will not be a religious fundamentalist. Maybe it will be some nerdy guy at a pharmaceutical company who discovered how to genetically engineer bacteria to separate isotopes of uranium at just the same time as he discovers that his wife is cheating on him. Maybe it will be some gang member who joined the military to get weapons training who happens to discover a nuclear bomb that got lost in transit (e.g. the bomb was disguised as a jet engine for transport and got mis-routed to an air base).
Or maybe you just want to avoid even contemplating the mere possibility that in all likelyhood it will be done by a Muslim fanatic. They're the ones who are hellbent on bringing down the US. They're the ones who have already launched several successive and failed terrorist attacks on US soil, not to mention elsewhere in the Western world (and beyond). If there's going to be a nuclear detonation in the US, it's almost certainly going to be done by Muslims.
just that, when it comes to "terrorism", religious fundamentalism is not actually the root of the problem here.
Slashdot Mirror
On a more serious note, it's not like service members wouldn't be told about the robot, what it does and how it works.
Are you by chance referring to Burning Crusade? The rare and expensive Collector's Edition comes, I am told, with both CD and DVD versions. It's pretty outrageous that Blizzard thinks that a DVD version is some kind of "bonus" when it should be a mundane, standard feature. Most games come on DVDs, at least in Europe.
You assume that people who play Doom 3, Supreme Commander or Starcraft don't have Steam, and vice versa.
I think you should really, really think about this sentence for a moment.
This guy sounds so wealthy that he may as well buy the best and most expensive equipment he can find.
What are you doing here then? Shouldn't you be out talking to people in the real world?
Well, I guess Jade Empire does have small areas, though I'm guessing that has more to do with the Xbox's limitations than with Bioware's game design.
Mass Effect should have lots and lots of planets, so I doubt it will be anything like the more linear Jade Empire.
Where, exactly, is this taking place?
What do you mean by tiny areas and lack of freedom? I experienced neither in Baldur's Gate II.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Pimp slap is valid too.
Who are you to dictate how people should spend their time or how they should prioritize the things in their lives?
I was getting an epic amount of spam from Peons4hire. About time Blizzard pimp slaps those assclowns.
Maybe, but it doesn't matter. The priorities are determined by the ruleset of the game, just like priorities are determined in real life by the situation and your own role in combat.
Works kinda well in Day of Defeat. Machineguns are really, really bad news. They are ridiculously accurate, they have an extremely high rate of fire and they kill the enemy in one or two hits. If you played DoD CS-style so that each player has only one life, they'd think twice about attempting to take down a machinegun with a frontal assault.
I think games might teach you how to move tactically by always minimizing your exposure as much as possible and being mindful your environment. This seems like it would easily translate to real combat. The ability to react, think and process information quickly should also be improved by games. Also, the ability to refrain from shooting when there are friendlies in front of you seems helpful. Of course they teach that in any military (right?), but repeatedly reinforcing it with gaming should be beneficial.
Playing Far Cry on realistic difficulty is... well, it's kind of realistic. You really will die if you get yourself flanked or suprised, and the enemy can detect and shoot at you from suprisingly far away. I always scout every area before doing anything (I particularly look out for snipers), and I always try to find, if possible, an elevated position where I have a clear view of the battleground and where I can't be flanked. Of course it's not a simulator or anything, but some basic principles are in effect.
Well thank God you aren't the manager. You'd obviously suck at it.
How is the female "running the place" when she wants to work without horny guys harrassing her all the time? Do explain.
So it doesn't put them in danger, it just puts them in danger. OK, got it.
Well gee, I don't know. Maybe they want to bust organized crime and terrorists for instance?
Do you think they'd conduct dangerous, difficult and unpredictable undercover operations if they didn't have to? And what the hell do you mean by unjust laws? Is there something unjust about catching criminals? Do you believe all laws should be abolished in favor of anarchy? You'd be the first to die if that happened.
Also, one means of information gathering is undercover operations. Another method is spying, which is also kind of secret.
Well, that most likely results from the fact that you don't even know what it is. You've developed some kind of feverish conspiracy theory where Men in Black secretly throw people in secret jails without any judges or juries, or the rule of law.
Yeah. It's so unfair when the criminals don't know you're investigating them. It's really mean. The cops should always politely inform the criminals that they are under investigation, so they can hide all the evidence.
Just how naive are you, exactly? There's no excuse for keeping certain things secret from foreign powers, criminals and terrorists?
So it would be perfectly alright if I went on national television, told everyone that you're a pedophile, gave your address and picture, and then urged the public to find and kill you? Would it also be alright if I exposed undercover agents on TV, causing them to be murdered or otherwise endangered?
Well, I'm sure these would be alright to you. After all, free speech cannot have any limits whatsoever.
It should not be public information at all.
So you're not willing to sacrifice yourself or your family, but it's okay if somebody else is in danger?
Obviously the police must be take care of its personnel, otherwise they can't do their jobs.
In this case they have every right to consider their own interests, which by proxy include your interests.
I'm sure the population you're referring to is just chock full of honest law-abiding citizens who are oppressed for absolutely no reason at all.
I am strongly in favor of free speech, but not religiously so. Free speech doesn't magically justify everything. There's probably not a thing in the universe that doesn't become dangerous when it's taken to extremes. Freedom of speech can and should have limits. It's not 1 or 0, where you either have absolute freedom or no rights at all.
Bullshit. Suppose you had a family (don't know if you do), and they were endangered as a result of some kind of list on the Internet. Would you gallantly sacrifice them in the name of limitless free speech? If you are willing to take the risk, then surely you'd be willing to face the possible consequences as well.
It's not much of a sacrifice. Lists like this serve no legitimate purpose. Believe it or not, what you want and what you feel you are entitled to is not necessarily the most important thing in the world, because it doesn't revolve around you. There are other people in it too. Also, by allowing law enforcement to do its job effectively, you also allow them to uphold the law. It's in your best interest. You may as well think "ah, so I should sacrifice my money in order to finance the government."
You don't live in fear precisely because you are protected. In places like Iraq there's barely any rule of law, and therefore no protection. Somebody can just kidnap you, chop off your head and then kill your family. Or maybe you'll just die in a random suicide bombing one day. Of course you feel safe when you're living in a stable, law-abiding society.
So what does that mean? You want the law to be optional?
Even free speech needs some kind of limits.
You don't have to protect them, but you don't have to endanger and hinder them either.
So let's say they all quit. Then what? Who's going to protect you then? I guess it'll be time for martial law after that.
Just because one is available doesn't mean the other should be.
It's not about anybody taking control.
Who said anything about race? Oh, you did. You may think this is a race issue, but I don't. And no, it's not paranoia: it's a fact that Muslims will become a majority in some countries. Regardless of what you believe about Islam or Muslims, it's going to happen. Their birth rates are higher, and they are reinforced by continuous immigration.
France has nuclear weapons. But how exactly are you not seeing the problem? You don't think there's anything worrying about Muslims taking over European countries?
I am not talking about violent deaths, I am talking about terrorism. Virginia would have been a terrorist attack if the hypothetical Muslim perpetrator had done it in the name of Jihad or something similiar.
My point is that Jihad is very old and therefore cannot possibly result from US action or inaction, or anything else that's happening right now. Jihad is the eternal duty of all Muslims, fit for all places and all times, until there are no more infidels.
Except, of course, that Muslims are not a race, and the issue has nothing at all to do with race, except according to people like you who see everything in terms of race.
People have every right and every reason to be afraid of Islamic fundamentalism. You might as well claim that the world was racist for opposing Nazism.
If the site puts law enforcement officers in danger, it should not be protected by free speech. It should be taken down.
I'm getting the feeling that many Slashdotters really, really hate law enforcement.
Just because there's a sex offender list doesn't mean that undercover cops and informants should be exposed on the Internet. There's no connection between the two.
The US does at least somewhat suffer from the scourge of Christian fundamentalism, but it's not that dangerous. Certainly not a threat to the world, and certainly not even remotely comparable to Islamic fundamentalism.
Probably not going to happen in the US. The country is too big, too diverse. But small(er) European countries? That's another story. It really comes down to numbers, and when (not if) Muslims become the majority in countries like Norway and Sweden, sharia law will be implemented, unless there's a civil war that the Muslims will lose.
Or maybe you just want to avoid even contemplating the mere possibility that in all likelyhood it will be done by a Muslim fanatic. They're the ones who are hellbent on bringing down the US. They're the ones who have already launched several successive and failed terrorist attacks on US soil, not to mention elsewhere in the Western world (and beyond). If there's going to be a nuclear detonation in the US, it's almost certainly going to be done by Muslims.
It is, actually. Jihad is 1400 years old.