Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China First Person Shooters (Games) The Military United States Games

PLA Develops First Person Shooter With US Troops as Targets 395

Posted by Roblimo
from the like-america's-army-in-reverse dept.
An anonymous reader tipped us to a People's Daily story about the (Chinese) People's Liberation Army's new shoot-em-up game with US soldiers as targets, and that story led us to a more complete description of the Glorious Revolution game at the Daily Mail, which includes a nice video (in Chinese, of course) toward the bottom of the article that shows how the game looks in action.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PLA Develops First Person Shooter With US Troops as Targets

Comments Filter:
  • We are their enemy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:05AM (#36218270)
    and best customer all at once.
  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonescb (1888008) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:07AM (#36218310)

    There are games where China is the enemy. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the US are the bad guys?

    • by 0racle (667029) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:08AM (#36218344)
      Because the US is always the good guys. It can't be the other way around.
    • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:12AM (#36218416)

      There are games where China is the enemy. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the US are the bad guys?

      Citation needed for games where the Chinese army is the bad guy and the game is made by a world government.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Xest (935314)

      Because now Bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda has been rather unscary for a few years now, China is the new bogey man with which the US government prefers to beat it's citizens into submitting further to their control and scrutiny with.

      That's why.

      • by mlts (1038732) *

        Doubt it. China actually could shitcan the US economy in 24 hours, either using currency manipulation, calling in the debt, or even military means (getting their puppet Kim to shell Seoul, overrun Taiwan, etc.)

        Because companies know that, there is a reason why you don't see PLA posts as the target for FPS games.

        • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DarkOx (621550) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:45AM (#36218834) Journal

          and we could shitcan the Chinese economy in 24 secs announcing our intent to default on that debt, and stopping the purchase of their exports.

          • That's how a country turns into a basket case that no one trades with. How do you think the rest of the developed world would react to the U.S. throwing a toddler-style hissy fit and demonstrating that they have no integrity and their word is not worth shit?

            Whose economy would suffer from that?

        • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

          by truthsearch (249536) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:48AM (#36218860) Homepage Journal

          Any attempt to seriously harm the US through economic methods would also hurt themselves.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Martin Blank (154261)

          While I agree with you on the economic front, China would have difficulties if they tried something like getting Kim to invade the South. North Korea's military is something of a joke technologically speaking, relying on numbers. Their most advanced aircraft are a few dozen MiG-29s, and the remainder are 1970s and older aircraft. Their armor is even older than what the allied forces faced in Desert Storm. Besides, it's not in China's economic interest. Remember that message that was released by Wikilea

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jonnythan (79727) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:13AM (#36218424) Homepage

      Because those games are not created by the US government or US Army, nor are they used as training tools for actual soldiers.

      • by bl8n8r (649187)

        > nor are they used as training tools for actual soldiers.

        Not quite. Watch the movie in TFA.

        Personally, I don't care who's shooting who in the game. The intent behind the creation of the game would be more of a concern.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:27PM (#36219362)

        The US Army HAS created a game. It is called America's Army and is free for all to play. You play as US forces, of course. So who is the enemy OPFOR, basically the generic professional opposing force the Army itself has. Whatever side you play on always appears as US Army, the other side always appears as OPFOR. No country is the "bad guys" in their game.

        The Army game doesn't make a political statement, and indeed is based off of the Army's own training idea and methods.

    • by berashith (222128)

      or go back to Command and Conquer : Generals... the choice is USA, China , or a random terrorist group . Choose your team and go kill... it is a game , no real people die , and the colors are just skill trees. Who cares...

    • by mlts (1038732) *

      Show me a FPS where the Red Guard is a target.

      The only recent game where I know of where Chinese soldiers were the target of violence was Command & Conquer: Generals, and the Zero Hour expansion.

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:26AM (#36218596)

      So did the game developed by the US Army feature chinese and russian enemies?
      Of the article is accurate, this game wasn't developed by some third party but was developed by the PLA.

      Seems a bit revealing to me.

      And folks tell me I'm wrong when I say there will be a significant war with china in the next 50 years. But this is how things start. The chinese have a fairly enormous racial superiority complex laid over a deep inferiority complex due to the 1800's and early 1900's. That kind of thing can boil over in a bad way.

      The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.

      • by Splab (574204)

        There won't be a major war, the Chinese will just require all loans repaid, that will end the US as we know it.

        • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SwordsmanLuke (1083699) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:36AM (#36218718)
          ...And you don't think *that* would lead to a major war?
          • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

            That was my reaction too, at first, but they'd probably enforce economic sanctions - no more cheap Chinese-made crap exported to the US - before they went to outright war... and then I decided it probably WOULD be the end of the US as we knew it.

          • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

            by tgd (2822) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:53AM (#36218936)

            ...And you don't think *that* would lead to a major war?

            Not when we need to borrow money to pay for it.

        • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

          by yurtinus (1590157) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:37AM (#36218744)
          We simply can't repay all the debt we owe at one sitting - that is as big of a problem for China as it is for us. Demanding all of our loans be repaid would wreak havoc in both economies.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Can they make us pay it all in one sitting if they wanted to? Bonds can't be redeemed until the maturity date, can they? Kind of like a bank can't make you pay off your mortgage all at once. The agreed terms have defined pay back times.

            • by Cwix (1671282)

              Either way, probably wouldnt matter. I believe we would default and use the savings to go to war.

            • No they can't (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:33PM (#36219420)

              The people who act like that are just people who don't understand the world economy. They see it on a narrow, personal, level and think it is like a loanshark situation: China gave the US money and can call it due any time. That is wrong, what actually happened is China chose to invest in US securities and bought them. They pay defined rates at defined times and there is no ability to "call in the loan."

              Also important to understand is that US securities pay in US dollars. So if the government chooses to inflate their way out of it, you are SOL. A note pays a fixed dollar amount and unless it is a TIPS or inflation protected one, and long term bonds are not, then it isn't paid in adjusted dollars. If you have a note that pays $1 million then that's what you get, doesn't matter if that $1 million has 1% of the buying power as when you purchased the note. Means there's a reason for holders of these to not want the US economy to tank.

              Now what China could do it sell the securities on the open market. While the government doesn't pay the balance on a note until it is due, you can sell it to other investors. Ok, but if they unloaded all their securities at once, it would cause a massive price depression which would mean a massive loss of money for China. If they tried to unload securities with a face value totaling a trillion, but could only get people to pay ten billion because of oversupply and people being worried, they'd take a massive financial hit.

              There's more to this (like the fact that default is an option for the US, or that the notes are all just accounting entries managed by the treasury, not physical notes) but what it comes down to is it is not a situation of "They loaned a lot of money and can hold it over your head." It is rather a situation of "They have invested a ton of money in your securities and need those securities to do well so they don't lose their investment."

        • A) China can't require the debt be paid whenever they want. It has a time limit and a repayment schedule, much like a mortgage. Your bank can't require you to pay your mortgage back immediately either.
          B) The US can easily pay the debt off, because the debt is denominated in dollars. We can print as many as we want. The resulting inflation will suck for people who saved money, and for those (like China) who loaned us money when it was worth more, but it won't be the end of the US as we know it.
      • This is some very non-insightful fud from a standpoint that does not acknowledge, let alone understand, the workings of modern international relations.

        China and the U.S. are not nearly as rivalrous as you seem to insist. However, that sort of belief does make for some good domestic politics and policymaking on both sides, what with the faux nationalism that can be invoked pretty much anytime.
      • I disagree. I think the US will do anything to avoid all-out war with China. They can easily grow their army to tens of millions of soldiers and change their factories to building war machines.

        • Armies and navies don't really matter to the US or China. It's impossible to mass a force when the enemy has nuclear weapons. Any concentration of ships is just a really expensive future coral reef.

          But it wouldn't take much to disrupt food transportation and kill millions on both sides. Biological attacks are possible but have the risk of backfiring. Not sure of what form it will take.

          As for bonds-- nations can and do just change the terms on bonds. In the past they have arbitrarily turned 20 year bond

      • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mlts (1038732) * on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:53AM (#36218938)

        I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen. However, there are a lot of things that worry me:

        1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.

        2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because there are a lot of races in China.

        3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.

        I just hope old hatreds can be set aside, people here in the US start using nuclear power as opposed to fighting over dino juice, and that both countries get some wisdom of their own that trading is a lot better than chucking ICBMs.

        China is also going through a cultural renaissance. Now that people can do art and music without being lined against a wall and shot (like in Mao's time), people there are more interested in education and developing their economy as opposed to military gains.

        I cross my fingers -- in a lot of ways, China is a command economy, but it isn't an extreme country (now that the nuts like Mao are cozily dead), nor is it one that would sacrifice its children for religious dogma meaninglessly. I just hope it stays that way.

        • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

          by idontgno (624372) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:28PM (#36219372) Journal

          1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.

          I assume you mean the resources currently in Chinese territory. I doubt we'd go to explicit war against a major military power with nuclear capability over resources. Easier and safer to bargain, like we have up until now.

          2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because Han is the only race in China that matters.

          FTFY. Ask the Uyghur about that. However, the concept of the Middle Kingdom is key to its foreign policy. China invented exceptionalism [wikipedia.org] millennia before George Washington was born.

          3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.

          I hope not. There's enough ancient hatred in the world as it is.

          I still think the flashpoint will be when China decides it's put up with "its rebellious province" [wikipedia.org] long enough, and the US will have to decide whether it will go to war on behalf of its little ally or just let it go, along with a fair bit of US military hardware and technology.

        • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

          by Nadaka (224565) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:28PM (#36219380)

          There used to be a lot of races in China, most have been "ethnically cleansed" by the Han. The Han race is China is the Peoples Communist Party. Maybe things will go well, but they are pretty close to the Nazi party in the late 20's, so my hopes are definitely not up.

        • I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen.

          It's not going to happen. The US and China are BFF's. They're practically twins. They're the two "most capitalist" countries in the world. Both are authoritarian regimes run by close parings between business and closed political parties. All the other political shit (communism/democracy) is purely for show. China is America's Eastasia. America is China's Eastasia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four [wikipedia.org]

      • China has a significant imbalance in its female to male population. Which is a source of unrest. So their government will need to keep them busy, distracted, etc.

        Now this would be more troublesome to local adversaries than remote ones, simply because moving that many men is a logistical nightmare. So I would think that should they need to be aggressive Taiwan is toast of course quickly followed by Korea. Will they? Not while they have relatively stable finances, but if it implodes like a house of cards that

      • The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.

        Luckily this is already happening thanks to DNA. There used to be a fairly strong belief that was promulgated by the PRC that the chinese evolved separately from the rest of the world based on the discoveries in china of some homo erectus fossils - a.k.a. peking man. But:

        A 1999 study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within that of the whole world population, which suggests there was no inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_man#Relation_to_modern_Chinese_people [wikipedia.org]

    • by Bigbutt (65939)

      I'm not seeing where anyone said it was a bad thing. Of course I haven't read all the following posts yet so there may be someone down below who says that.

      [John]

    • I'm not surprised either. EA's Battlefield 2 featured soldiers who were very obviously Chinese and generic "arab".
      • by egamma (572162)

        I'm not surprised either. EA's Battlefield 2 featured soldiers who were very obviously Chinese and generic "arab".

        Are you sure they are Chinese, and not Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese/Thai?

  • Lots of other games (Score:3, Informative)

    by gad_zuki! (70830) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:07AM (#36218314)

    have done this. You can shoot US soldiers in Battlefield if you play the other team. In fact, I prefer playing the MEC in BF2 because the sniper weapon is just better. Not sure why this is news, other than getting censorship blowhards and right-wing nuts agitated. I'm sure we'll see this on Fox News tonight wrapped in a typical "Are liberals to blame" bullshit.

  • Not convinced... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vlpronj (1345627) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:07AM (#36218318)
    Where are the screenshots of US soldiers as the enemy? I.E., American flag on uniform, American flag or markings on the Apaches? Apaches are heavily exported, the "enemy" could be one of many nations the US has sold them to.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nowhere in that video did I hear anything about the US being the enemies. Actually it sounds like this is a PLA developed game for PLA soldiers (for training... or however military forces justify making video games these days).

      I would assume that the enemies are 'OPFOR'. There is a scene with an Apache(?) going down, but frankly that could be an allied aircraft; what are the chances you will ever hear that spin in the west.

    • Also, are any of the enemies Chinese-American soldiers? America does have ethinic Chinese in her military, and I hope the PLA is aware of this.

  • by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:07AM (#36218320) Journal

    I can't quite listen to the Chinese audio since I'm at work, but based on the video alone, is it really against American troops? I only saw very generic urban warfare tactics in a very generic Chinese city and a very generic set of bunkers and pillboxes. The only "indication" that it was against American troops was a very fuzzy helicopter that might be an Apache or might be something else entirely.

    In any case, so what? We in the US has been playing games where the Chinese Army was the antagonist for ages. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Battlefield 2 are two that I can name off the top of my head.

    • by gman003 (1693318) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:22AM (#36218534)
      Not to mention actual wargames. 11th Armored Cavalry (to name one, can't remember the others) is actually dedicated to acting as a training enemy during training/wargames. Up until '05 or so, it was a replica Soviet unit, with tanks modified to look like T-80s and transports modified to look like BMPs. Right now, they're a mock-insurgent unit, but I wouldn't be surprised if all the heavy gear is being modified to mimic Chinese gear (shouldn't be hard - most PLA infantry gear is derived from Soviet gear).
    • by Sepultura (150245)

      I personally don't like violent video games or other violent entertainment for myself. But I don't assume that those who do, especially when we're dealing with pretend like in video games, are necessarily going to be violent or "evil" persons themselves.

      However, someone who takes issue with the fact that it was a person of their nationality that was targeted does scare me as it reveals to me that they (1) don't understand that it's not real and (2) they don't have an issue with one of them being killed.

  • When will it be available for the XBox?

    • by gman003 (1693318)
      Well, since that game console is banned in China (as is the PS3, although since Nintendo partnered with a Chinese company to distribute there, the Wii isn't), I would venture to say "no".
  • Every "great" nation has to have its own enemy. For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak, then dissapeared. Later was taliban, Irak again, and the difuse Al-Qaeda. Just like every fascist against every comunist. It's a must to prevent people to think too much in what the goberment is doing.
    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:37AM (#36218742)

      >For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,

      Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?

      Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...

      • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:00PM (#36219032) Journal

        >For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,

        Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?

        Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...

        Where can I buy this game? I must have it!

  • The enemies in FPS games are always whoever the US doesn't like at a given time (this includes most titles produced outside of the US as well), be they russians, germans, vaguely-middle-eastern-something, vietnamese, chinese, the list goes on. Now we finally get a game where the roles are changed. I can see why some Americans are upset, but frankly it's about time.
    • And if you are playing the russians, germans, etc in those games, the US is the bad guy for half the people playing as well.

  • i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows

    but this is entertainment, not government pol

    • by DBNickel (2036716) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:19AM (#36218472)
      I think the controversial point is "Glorious Revolution, which is used as a training tool for People's Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers" + "US Soldiers"
      • by Hatta (162192)

        Why is that controversial? Shouldn't it be entirely expected? I'm more surprised that the US army doesn't* have training sims that include a Chinese adversary.

        *Do they? I know they have terrorist simulators, they ought to have commie simulators too. Same for central american drug lords, middle eastern oil barons, and anyone else the US is likely to go up against.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      but this is entertainment, not government policy

      Actually, since it's being used as a training tool for the army, this does count as government policy. On the other hand, I have to admit that I have a hard time getting offended, since it looks more like Call of Duty than a useful training tool. If China really wants to equate mouse accuracy with martial readiness, who am I to persuade them otherwise?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows.

      Funny thing that, by conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency you join the ranks of those false equivalency morons. And all the times I've seen you do it, it sure looked like wilful intellectual dishonesty on your part. Far easier for your id to paint those you disagree with as "unable to see" than to consider that the arguments are more nuanced than you'd like.

      • "conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency"

        it is entirely fair to criticize the usa, the usa does plenty wrong in this world, and i welcome all criticism of the usa

        fuck the usa. let me say it again: fuck the usa. two things:

        1. i am free to criticize the usa, within the usa, which is an ironic meta-commentary in itself (you can't criticize chinese political decisions in china, do you understand that and why that is so much worse than RIAA and MPAA shenanigans?)

        2. i am motivated by PRI

    • by gman003 (1693318)
      Slight disputes here (I generally agree with you, this is all technicalities):

      "Glorious Revolution" (as it's been translated here, I've also seen "Revolution of Glory", "Battle of Glory", "Glorious War", etc.) is produced by the People's Liberation Army. It is, in effect, a government product, and cannot be directly compared to American entertainment-only products.

      However, we can compare it to America's Army, the game produced by the US Army. Current version (AA3) does not have a foreign force - it is a
  • by NekoYasha (1040568) on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:29AM (#36218638) Homepage

    The game is named Glorious Mission, or sometimes Mission of Honor, not Glorious Revolution, and the plot follows a soldier's life through military camp and cumulates in the eponymous large-scale drill, as reported by China Daily [chinadaily.com.cn]. No US Troops anywhere.

    It also supports 32 person multiplayer. You can watch footages of the game on YouTube here [youtube.com].

  • Download? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:32AM (#36218670)

    Where is the free download link?

    If it's not free and FOSS, it's COMMUNISM.

  • Its coming folks. Some companies are already buying game assets from China.

    The biggest problem for our country is not that China has a videogame with US targets, but that China itself is out to destroy our economy.... and we willfully help them do it.

    So lets keep selling ourselves out boys!

  • From TFA:

    "Admiral Patrick Walsh said Washington is seeking to improve its relationship with the Chiese military, and an officer exchange program would provide a better understanding of Chinese culture, goals and thoughts".

    The Native Americans tried the same approach. The US Gov't was happy to let them think that there was some chance at reconciliation as it simply made killing them all a lot easier.
    br China won't be so foolish as to Pearl Harbor us. We can't wait for that kind of defining event. W
  • by DF5JT (589002) <slashdot@bloatware.de> on Monday May 23, 2011 @11:54AM (#36218962) Homepage
    Does it run on Linux?
  • by pla (258480) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:23PM (#36219318) Journal
    Thanks for the writeup, guys, but really, I have nothing to do with this.

    More of an RPG and puzzle game fan, anyway.
  • by Walt Dismal (534799) on Monday May 23, 2011 @12:58PM (#36219746)
    I'd hate to see anyone develop an FPS with bank and oil company execs as the targets. That would be so wrong. Bankster gibs all over the place; oil exec, headshot, horrible. Just horrible. [cough]
  • and all that implies about their technological capacity to use cheap computing to create endless new resources, than what are they worried about fight over? Naturally, I could, and have, said much the same about the USA:
      http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
    "Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html [pdfernhout.net]
        There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. "

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Working...