America's Army on Linux 530
jojor writes "It seems that icculus.org has gotten America's Army to run under Linux, as this screenshot will attest. America's Army is UT based and free (as in beer). More games for Linux, yippeh!" Awesome. I consider America's Army to be one of the best things my government has funded within recent history.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Good Training (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of the game is to teach you about teamwork. If you try and run it like an UT fragfest, you'll get killed, just like usually happens in real life. The game would bore you to tears if it used the "Hurry Up And Wait" standard of military ops, as well as the BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) when orders are changed. In real life it is very scary to operate for extended periods of time in hostile terrain, without support, but as a game it would no doubt be very boring. There's just no way to capture to lack of sleep, sand in your asscrack, bugs crawling over you which you cannot swat away or you'll be detected, or running into a damn yapping little dog at night in a hostile city.
In a related story: Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black [xnewswire.com]
Re:Good Training (Score:3, Funny)
Really? I get a pretty good sense of a lack of sleep from computer games all the time...
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? - Military Pay (Score:3, Informative)
Base rate for an E-1 w/ under four months service (as of January 2003) is 1,064.70 per mo. That means that as soon as you join, you get get paid over $1,000 a month gross income with no expenses (besides taxes). All that money is yours to sepnd how ever you want. No rent to pay, no food to buy, no utilities to pay.
And very few people ever get enlisted as E-1 anymore. E-2 starts at $1,290.00, E-3 is 1,356.90, and E-4 is 1,502.70.
That's all base rates. Then you can add in cost of living allowances, basic allowance for housing, etc., it adds up to a lot of money. And if you fill out the right paperwork, you won't pay any state income taxes.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, an E1 makes less than minimum wage take-home pay, but lets look at the benefits for a single soldier:
Medical: EVERYTHING is covered. You don't have to pay for asprin or even a bandaid.
Housing: You are given adequate accomodations, even if they are a bit crowded at first.
Food: A Single soldier, living in the barracks is afforded 3 meals a day, free of charge. (And the food is pretty damn good)
Utilities: All provided for.
Uniforms: A Yearly clothing allowance is provided for uniforms.
Transportation: Most military bases have adequate bus service, and for soldiers living overseas, many cities offer local public transportation FREE to US service members.
Comraderie: You will NEVER find better or closer friends than those you make in the service.
Education: Not a formal education, but I learned more about myself in basic training than I did in the 18 years prior.
Discipline: I didn't realize it at the time, but the military taught me discipline. Specifically: self-discipline.
I joined the Army in 1988, right out of High School. After Basic Training and AIT, I was sent to Berlin. I had spent the previous 4 years in Stuttgart (My father was Army), so I was excited to go. I made about $650 a month as an E1, and aside from buying new underwear and personal hygene items, most of that went to computer games (Amiga!), stereo equipment and beer. Anything I "needed", the military provided for me.
I left the military in 1991 when my 3 years was up, because I had other things I wanted to do. I joined because my father was in for 22 years, and I thought I owed him that, but in the end, I was a better man. I never saw combat, I missed Desert Storm by a few months, so I cannot comment on that aspect of military life.
My point is this: Even though soldiers are paid less in actual $$$, they are rewarded with something more valuable than money: Knowledge.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a recruiting tool but not a bad idea overall. Consider how difficult selling enlistment in the armed forces is.Every little bit of positive PR helps achieve that goal. Having served 8 years in the Army, and being old enough to remember the draft, I really appreciate the importance of having a dedicated volunteer force rather than a conscripted army.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, but maybe if they stopped chopping up benefits like the end of the various clubs, the price increases on the bowling alleys, and the re-introduction of the PX as something that actually saves you money (it's tax free, but you can find stuff for way cheaper off-base at Wal-Marts and Target), maybe they could get people interested by giving people benefits to join. Glorifying the Infantry (which, unless you are Special Forces, you probably will never be in a real combat situation) doesn't help much. Besides, most of the people I know who play this game don't want to join the Army. In fact, it sorta turns them off to the idea, because they get 0wned all the time.
I'm joining the Air Force. As a weatherman. In a nice and quiet domestic AFB (I don't fit the physical requirements for a combat-deployed weatherman).
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
I grew up on the Reservation and a friend's mother was a nurse. Well she was technically a Lt. Commander in the Naval Reserve who made around 58K a year and was not uniformed.
So when it was time to go shopping, her sons and thier friends would drive down to the PX at Ellsworth AFB and shop on the tax payer's dime.
As for Infantry not getting to see combat unless they are special forces...that's not accurate.
Most of the forces in-country in Somalia were 10th Mountain Division. In Desert Storm there were tens of thousands of Mech Infantry troops on the ground. In Afghanistan right now there are 82nd troopers. And in the coming fight with Iraq there are going to be around 30,000 non-SF combat soldiers on the ground from the Army and USMC.
And thanks for your service weatherman
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I don't personally play it, but those of my friends who do say that a fair percentage of the servers are German, with other European scattered in there.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually it is money well spent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Me, I'd prefer no wars but it seems to be the losing opinion these days.
This is good how? "Oh, I died, let me just repop." They're recruiting people for war. I personally think they should include a device that gives 10000 volts every time you get killed.
The government didn't fund it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You did.
Re:The government didn't fund it ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mac users pay taxes too. I think that the govt should support more than just the windoids.
Re:The government didn't fund it ... (Score:2)
Re:The government didn't fund it ... (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know. That one guy who is suing McDonald's seems to act as if he was FORCED to go there.
Re:The government didn't fund it ... (Score:2, Insightful)
how do you know that? maybe private roads would work better.
the government is not some separate being, it's just a representation of the people.
This is woefully ignorant. The government is not a representation of the people. In theory(and according to the constitution) it is supposed to be, but in practice it is not. Just take a look at the kind of shit these people legislate. The government only represents special interest groups all fighting for a piece of the government pie, which is made up of taxpayer money.
Other Games (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Other Games (Score:2)
Re:Other Games (Score:2)
I've been playing the First Encounter beta on Linux, and while there are still a few bugs to iron out, I've got to say it rocks! The thought of the Second Encounter as well has me drooling. Flamethrower, here we come!
Not excatly true (Score:2)
Medal of Honor? I've heard about a linux server but not a linux client. Do you have any info to back this up?
Unreal 2 based (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unreal 2 based (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unreal 2 based (Score:4, Informative)
That is all.
Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Immagine all that money being used on education, safety of healthcare instead of being used as some military recruitment/propaganda toy. WHAT A WASTE THAT WOULD BE!
Note: Not a troll, nor a flame. Might be hard to see the difference in this case but I'm actually serious, heh.
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you on crack? $7M Isn't enough to even build a single school, much less fund it.
Every little bit helps.
Only if you end up throwing enough little bits together. One little bit like this is totally irrelevant. If you want to save money, try the various corporate-welfare farm subsidies. Furthermore, I contend that our current problems in education aren't from lack of money-- they're from inept leadership. Here in Los Angeles, our local bureaucrat toads just poured $160M down a rathole called the Belmont Learning Center. It's built on a toxic waste dump over an earthquake fault. It'll never open. That's not lack of money, that's lack of rationality!
Besides, this is the Army's PR budget. If they didn't spend it on this, they'd spend it on TV commercials. Would you rather the money went to programmers, or mutton-head Madison avenue suits?
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
But there are other ways to open schools than raze a building and rebuild it - such as finding an appropriate building that's already there, and adapting it to the needs of a school. Might not make for a good-looking school, but sure is better than no school at all. And I was talking about funding it for one year.
On my calculations, I was taking: hack a building into something that can be used as a school: $200k. Hire 10 decent but motivated teachers at $30k for the year, $300k. Hire a head for the school, and a part-time secretary or two, let's say $120k for the year. Bam, you still have $380k to spend on books, computers and other fixtures, and a school that will be able to take something around a hundred students through the school year.
If you really wanted to, you could open a school for free, in your backyard (if you have a backyard). So you sure can do it with a million bucks too.
People who know that it can't be done shouldn't get in the way of people who are doing it
Daniel
Re:Argh! (Cambodiaschools) (Score:3, Informative)
For less than 10,000 dollars U.S. you can build an entire school with your name on it. And you can add solar panels, thus powering communications where there weren't any before,for just a little extra.
While it sounds inevitable that this would happen (use video games to recruit) and it's been done before (the movie was called Starfighters or some such, an interstellar race was fought by teenagers recruited through coinoperated game machines), anyway you're wrong and that much (or even a lot less) can do a world of good.
You could also do a world of good in the U.S. by funding open-source education.
If you want to buy a school in Cambodia, or assist, contact me or the address (Bernie Krisher should be listed there) on the web page.
Disclaimer: I support this project.
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um.
Without our military, we wouldn't have this country and the freedom that we enjoy. Much less the freedom to worry about and debate education and healthcare issues.
I wish that more people in the post-Vietnam generation would get this into their heads. Our freedom is not free. Our government puts money into the military because it's necessary to ensure our freedom, and our way of life.
Don't believe me? Go find some dude who's come here from a less privleged country and ask him what it's REALLY like out there.
Personally, I think we as a country should be even stronger. It frightens me sometimes to think that in our current state that we couldn't fight on more than 2 Iraq sized fronts at the same time.
I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/complacity is what will eventually kill this country.
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Without our military, we wouldn't have this country and the freedom that we enjoy. Much less the freedom to worry about and debate education and healthcare issues.
Without _any_ military, sure. But we're talking degrees here, not a yes/no situation. Please explain how, say, cutting military funding in half would cause the US to collapse (not that we're talking about anything nearly that severe). Remember that the US is part of the UN, and is _supposed_ to be able to rely on the UN for military assistance. That fact that we ignore the UN so often (think "World Court", or "not paying dues") and choose to get into wars that they do not support is part of our problem. Then again, perhaps that's part of what you meant by "our way of life"?
I wish that more people in the post-Vietnam generation would get this into their heads. Our freedom is not free. Our government puts money into the military because it's necessary to ensure our freedom, and our way of life.
That would be the freedom to own two SUVs while half of Africa is starving, right?
Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but still... the problem isn't that the post-Vietnam generation doesn't think the military is worth having. If nothing else, it's an alternative to college for some people. Rather, the problem is that we know what the phrase "our way of life" really means, and we treat it as the rhetoric that it is. First, we're well aware that other industrialized countries are doing just fine without getting into wars every other year (also see below). On the other hand, we know that the "American way of life" is about having as many luxuries as money can buy, irregardless of the larger consequences (e.g. continuing poverty in much of the world, environmental damage, and for many Americans, excessive spending on credit). I love using my computer and participating in SlashDot discussions and the like, but I know that it's utterly unnecessary and that frankly the world would be better off if I didn't have this computer. You, on the other hand, seem like the type who thinks that society would collape if you couldn't buy your 16-year old a car.
Don't believe me? Go find some dude who's come here from a less privleged country and ask him what it's REALLY like out there.
I've lived in Canada and The Netherlands. They're both "less priveleged" than the US (as is every other nation on Earth, according to the US
And no, cutting US military funding won't cause us to become Cambodia overnight. Nice scare tactic.
Personally, I think we as a country should be even stronger. It frightens me sometimes to think that in our current state that we couldn't fight on more than 2 Iraq sized fronts at the same time.
This is why I assume that you're being sarcastic. Assuming that your statement is true at all, the next question is, how many enemies does the US have exactly? Why should we assume that the US is going to fight them alone? Why should the US have the forces necessary to fight multiple enemies constantly available rather than simply having the capacity to acquire them? Do you really think that the US will have zero time to prepare for the next war?
I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/complacity is what will eventually kill this country.
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)
See, normally you'd be right, if it wasn't for the fact that the UN relies on the US to provide about 80% of their forces. Why the hell else do you think we go where we have no intrests at?
Good! Then we can cut back the US military by at least 20% (more if the rest of the UN starts picking up the slack). Sounds like you're supporting my point.
Assuming you're right, of course. Going to supply me with a reference for that "Fact"?
Research before you post please, it just makes you look stupid and misinforms other readers.
If you're going to disagree, come up with a more intelligent argument! You're giving out information which basically agrees with me even though you claim to disagree with me, point to an obscure "fact" without supplying a reference, then claim that _I_ look dumb? Please.
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Hutu-led Rwandan government the one _doing_ the killing (see summary here [pbs.org])? I agree that the UN should have done more, but comparing this to what would happen if the US was attacked makes no sense.
Either way, time for a reality check. Small African nations are not treated the same as nations which are important enough to be members of the Security Council. It's sad but true. You say below that the UN is dependant on the US for defense, yet you also think that they wouldn't come to our aid? If nothing else, our economic ties to the rest of the world would assure that UN nations would come to our aid, at least in a defensive war (an offensive war is obviously another story!)
Both of those states are NATO members are rely ultimately on the United States for their defense. They could not defend themselves without the US. That's how they pull that trick off.
Defend themselves from who? Who exactly is going to invade Canada in the near future? Remember where I said that you should think about "what's _actually_ going on"? This is what I'm talking about. The enemies of the UN are a few individual nations, not a superpower (a la the Cold War). Some nations actually act like this is the case.
Besides, I've argued that the US military could afford to shrink. I didn't say that it should go away entirely!
Because US allies with the exception of the UK lack the capability to even deploy their forces abroad. Also, they increasingly lack the ability to operate with US forces due to antiquated command, control and communications systems.
Personally, I think that is so wrong it's laughable. You really think that no other military in the world is capable of sending troops abroad except the US and (conveniently) it's one major ally?
So, why do I think you're wrong. Here's a list of UN peacekeeping operations [stimson.org] as of Mid 2002 and the percentage of US troops involved in each. Notice that the US supplies an average of 1.5% of troops to these operations. If this article [globeandmail.com] is correct, then even some smaller nations supply thousands of UN Peacekeepers. There's my proof that other nations can deploy their forces. They could do it last year, and I assume that they can still do it now!
Now, where's your proof to back up your claim that only the US and England can deploy forces abroad?
Because it takes a long time to acquire modern warfighting capability.
Actually, I agree with this whole bit, but I was talking about the US gearing _itself_ up for war, by calling up reserves (or instituting a draft), building more weaponry, etc. We're talking about two different things here.
From the points you made, it seems you need to do a lot more informed thinking about modern military affairs.
I hate to tell you this pal, but unsubstantiated claims and misunderstanding what I'm talking about aren't exactly convincing me to listen to you.
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and so on were not to 'ensure our freedom, and our way of life'. The main issue I have with the American military is neatly summed up in the old adage when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Face it, the US overuses its military, partially due to its sucesses.
The US Military budget is larger than the next 5 largest military budgets, combined. And 3 of the five are close allies. And when was the last time there was a major US military action in more than 2 locations, anyway? Maybe the US should try less unilateral action, and rely on the resources (and advice) of our allies.
Complacency won't kill us -- bombs will. (Score:3, Insightful)
> complacency is what will eventually kill this country.
This may not be the right place to have this argument, but -- I sometimes think it is the attitude that we should be able to fight the rest of the world all at the same time that will kill this country. I'm sorry -- that is killing it.
We wouldn't have to fight a war by ourselves on even one Iraq-sized front if we were able to convince another military power it was worth doing. As it is, we haven't even managed to convince the Republicans in the Senate or more than 40% of Americans.
Yes, it would be nice if we could outspend the entire world militarily, instead of only the next 12 countries -- but you know what? If we took 5% of the current budget, and doubled the budget for diplomacy instead, we might not need to.
You want a little science fiction? Here's one way I can envision our country getting killed: we react to North Korea's nuclear program with threats of war instead of diplomacy. North Korea, being even more aggressive, and having a worse grip on long-term consequences, than Bush, does not back down. Finally their only choices are to admit defeat or rain conventional-weapon hell down on Seoul -- and they make the wrong choice. We can't stop them with the troops we have there. Now Bush has a choice -- does he let millions of South Koreans die, or does he use nuclear weapons?
Well, what do you think?
Of course nuclear weapons do not, in themselves, signify the end of the world. They do mean, however, that from that point on, we actually have to outspend the rest of the world combined -- because who's going to be on our side if we give them a choice?
The trouble is, I don't think we can do it -- and I sure as hell don't think it's a good idea to try.
I agree that we need a military -- but I think the only way that we as a free society can coexist with one is if we question its actions at every step of the way. Right now, I have some serious questions, and they're not just about some computer game.
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
Yeah, how dare the federal government not spend money on things that should be the states' responsibility? Federal money is the solution to all our woes, no matter what!
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:Troll reminds me of bake sale bumper sticker (Score:2)
Re:Troll reminds me of bake sale bumper sticker (Score:2, Interesting)
On the contrary, an illiterate and uneducated population is more likely to follow it's leaders with passionate ferver... even if that leader is suggesting some pretty hair-brained ideas. Whereas, an educated population would be likely to question the motives, consequences, etc. of said idea. Sooo... if I were Al Qaeda or N. Korea, I'd be hoping that Americans are educated, so they don't blindly follow GW Bush to war...
Violence in video games (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard several comments (on TV) from veteran soldiers that have worked with the younger generation of recruits about this. Many feel that many of the new recruits do not have any remorse or feeling for the other soldiers or the innocents in battle. However, most of the comments were talking about soldiers during the gulf war, before the John Carmack revolution...
Granted, correlation does not imply causation; but even I can tell that I have been desensitized to violence to some degree.
Re:Violence in video games (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Violence in video games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Violence in video games (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, here's the thing: Gamers talk shit. All the time. Of course, these l33t h4x0rz are going to talk shit about how cool they are and how many people they are going to kill if they get in. So, if they judge on that, I can see why they make that judgement.
Also, when you're in a battle, you're pumped full of adrenaline and feeling the "fight or flight" and if you choose to fight and you kill someone, the odds are you won't care about it until it's worn off. If they are making judgements based on reactions in battle, I can see why they make that judgement.
But unless they are spending time with the "younger generation" who are in their homes crying in their hands, weeping because they realized that they ACTUALLY destroyed a life, and it sunk in that someone's father, son, or brother was killed in battle by them...unless they spend THAT time with them, it's impossible to make that judgement. And you can't have that reality sink in before a fight, during a fight, or the hours directly following a fight (when your buddies are slapping you on your back for the "good job" you did). It's when you sit down, and you go over it with your mind over and over and over again...that's when it sinks in.
I don't speak from experience on this, but I've talked to Vets, and I know when I've done something bad that I thought was okay at first, that it didn't sink in until I'd actually thought about it.
Re:Violence in video games (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you now? When was the last time you saw someone get shot?
I guarantee you, if you see someone get shot or beaten, or even do it yourself, you'll feel the same way about it as if you never played video games. Have you even got in a fight recently? Doubtful.
Re:Violence in video games (Score:3, Interesting)
About 1/2 the maps are ones where the teams fight with MILES simulation gear, and all the maps are 'one life to live' so when you peek around the corner and get killed, you have a few minutes to think about what would have happened in real life. This game is almost a simulation, and it is very well done.
Great to hear... (Score:4, Insightful)
WOLVERINES!
Team RD AAO [reddawn.org]
shftleft on AA [newsnot.com]
Recruiting (Score:5, Insightful)
It's weird that after a billion years of human evolution, we still solve conflicts by killing each others. The only thing that has evolved is the method used.
I think it's sad that young people are encouraged to kill other people, and the army even sends out computer games to recruit people!
Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?
There should be an political army as well as a millitary army, but then again, it won't be so "fun" to not be able to kill other human beings.
-"Killing people with bow and arrow is primitive. Killing people with nuclear bombs is civilized."
Re:Recruiting (Score:4, Interesting)
This may come as a suprise to you, but there are people in the world who want to kill you and me just out of spite. We who sit around on Saturday mornings sipping tasty caffienated beverages sometimes have a hard time relating to those in the 3rd world raised in highly religious environments where they are taught that all their problems are because of us, and the only way to fix it is with an AK or a suicide bomb.
When you try to act on this problem, you end up making the productive members of society give away huge amounts of their earnings because the only way to *prevent war* on a planet with limited resources and swelling population is to redistribute wealth. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This leads to socialism or communism. People are not naturally inclined to work for the service of others. It is not natural for people to sacrifice the fruits of their labor for some larger social goal. Surely you learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union, yes?
So sorry, but the old saying rings true: The best way to keep the peace is to prepare for war.
Re:Recruiting (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't mean to shave my beard, throw out my peace sign and stop puffing on my bong, but just because the U.S. stops "killing", doesn't mean that people we care to protect will stop "dying". Just look at this crap: Human Rights [hrw.org].
Since these guys are hiding behind a wall of "government", then it requires war to stop crime. Yeah, announce all of your U.S. conspiricies in reply to this message, but that doesn't boil down to reality. The reality is that some people irresponsibly wield a destructive weapon and have gathered so much hatred for others that they are so willing to use it at anytime. This needs to be stopped, whether the country has oil or not. BTW, did Serbia have oil?
Anyway, I'm probably gonna get shot down on this one, especially with
Re:Recruiting (Score:3, Interesting)
Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're lucky, sometimes the threat of force is enough to prevent an attack. If not, you do what you have to and you do it decisively. Look, I appreciate your views and however you arrived at them. You have good intentions.
Unfortunately, there are enough fractured souls in this world who will stop at nothing to lash out, often violently, and sometimes catastrophically. There always will be. Blame it on the human condition.
As shitty a deal as it was for those Japanese who suffered the atomic bombs at the tail end of WWII, something important bloomed from it. We understood just how destructive we as humans can be. And so far while ideologies, politics, and cultures have clashed, the civilized world at least has enjoyed a mostly peaceful, prosperous time. It took a while and a bunch of lives in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan to name a few to get where we are now, but right now ain't so bad.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the third world, the Middle East, all of Africa, and some spots across Asia join the fold? I can, I really can, and what a great time that will be. But we'll never get there watching on the sidelines. When the world can rid itself of despot rulers and give people like the Iraqis a future beyond Saddam Hussein's despotic predestination, we'll be closer to preventing war than anyone can imagine.
Re:Recruiting (Score:2)
And just so you know, being prepared and well equipped to fight a war does in fact keep it from happening. Point and fact--you're still here. No one nuked anyone else in the cold war because each side knew the other could toss it right back at them.
Re:Recruiting (Score:2, Funny)
Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?"
Because that would be unpatriotic, Anti-American, Anti-NRA, which makes you a German (or French) Islamic fundamental terrorist supporter from the old Europe.
You're not going to believe me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we just sue the hell out of each other and nobody gets killed.
Nation states evolved from the personal fiefdoms of kings, but, at some point, the rule of law stopped counting. Oh, that's right, presidents and kings aren't bound by law.
My bad.
Re:You're not going to believe me, but... (Score:2)
Um... how exactly are presidents and kings supposed to be tried in a civil court? And if you do manage to find a court that rules against them, how do you intend to enforce the court's decision on an unwilling participant (say, Milosevic or Hussein) without, oh, I don't know... sending in the military?
You know the people who complain about the US being the world's "police force?" There's a reason why they use that phrase.
kuro5hin (Score:2)
In fact, I would encourage you to develop this idea and post it on k5.
Re:Recruiting (Score:2)
Re:Recruiting (Score:2)
As a veteran, I can say that most of the desire to see "action" is concentrated in those who haven't seen it yet. I found I like boredom better, as do most people.
It's close enough. (Score:2)
1) Prove their worth. "My father fought. My grandfather fought. It's my turn to become a Man."
2) Honor and glory. There's a lot of propaganda about that. Most of it, actually. Fight for honor and glory. Of course, there are people who have pointed out flaws in that thinking, too. [utexas.edu]
At worst you are the murderer when you kill, and at best the dispenser of justice - a hangman of nations. There is no honor in that.
3) To bring our viewpoints to other nations.
I've heard this one a lot. We need to "teach" those ignorant morons about life by killing some of them.
4) To dispense justice.
A nation is doing horrible things to itself, our nation, or other nations who can't defend themselves, and we must stop it from happening.
Actually, I've never heard anyone actually SAY the last one and hope for war. It's not a very good reason to hope for. Numbers 1-3 are selfish reasons. But I think that explains most of it.
Let me say, though, that everyone that I know who is in the military and DOESN'T want to kill people or go to war has given me reason #4 for why they might have to eventually.
Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) (Score:2)
As for the "punch in the face" there are even whole systems of martial art designed to combat a punch in the face that don't involve punching back.
Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) (Score:3, Interesting)
But you can't gain ground without doing damage, or disabling your opponent. So all you can enforce is the status quo.
As for your examples, two of them were killed, and only through wars and acts of civil disobedience were their causes furthered.One is in exile only protected but the might of the country he is in. And one was protected by the threat of outside military forces or revolution.
Do you honestly think that passive resistence would ever work without the threat of military action or civil disobedience? The whole premise of passive resistance is predicated on the fact that at some level *someone* will protect them. Or that they will become martyrs and start a revolution.
Re:Recruiting (Burning Karma) (Score:5, Funny)
get ready... (Score:5, Interesting)
-This game is evil U.S. propaganda! I won't play it!
-I can't believe the government is spending my taxes making video games! This is an outrage!
-Games are for kids, not elite Linux users like me!
-The U.S. spends too much on its military ad nauseam.
-Counter-Strike is better.
Re:get ready... (Score:2)
If this is the best thing the US-government (read US citizens) have funded in recent history, then I'm pretty glad I don't live in the US. Luckily this is just not the case.
But isnt it COOL to be anti-USA now? (Score:2)
A turn around (Score:2, Informative)
wow. (Score:5, Funny)
hey war is online.. yepee!! (Score:2, Funny)
.
Re:hey war is online.. yepee!! (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought AA was a joke! (Score:2)
It was funny. And then it was real. And now I am scared of the depths of the propaganda war.
Re:I thought AA was a joke! (Score:4, Funny)
background (Score:4, Interesting)
From another point of view - it's good there will be new 3D game for Linux. It means more people will hear about Linux (when I played RTCW mp I used nick "Blacky/LinuxPL", so there was always someone who asked what's that), it means - drivers will be improved (there is always some bug related to new game) - and it will be one more title to play.
The question is - do we care about "Linux world" or "Open Source world". Because binary ports has nothing to do with Open Source. And what Open Source (or even Free Software) world needs is more free games. Really free.
Re:background (Score:2)
comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed that recruitement adds for the British army play directly to this in the 'what would you do' campaigns. They are looking for people who want to take up to a challenge, not people think they are good at shooting people.
yeah (Score:3, Funny)
Government Funded Racism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Government Funded Racism (Score:3, Insightful)
Not one who studied geography much, are you? When you think of the stereotypical Hollywood desert, with your rolling sand dunes and the like, you're thinking of either the Middle East or the Sahara region. Places in the world where the vast majority of countries have Islam as the state-sanctioned religion and Arabic as the only official language. The other deserts don't look like that (with scenery ranging from the southwest US to Antarctica).
"Does anyone else see something wrong with calling arabs terrorists"
Um... how does the game say that? Are there no Arab civillians in this particular mission while there are civillians in all other missions?
If anybody is showing predjudicial bias, it's you for assuming that the game is written that way out of some sort of policy of racist bias.
Ratings system (Score:2)
This struck me as amusing. Since that's all it said, it could easily be read as saying that "this is especially recommended for teens, since it contains blood and violence."
The wierd thing about this game is... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a networked multiplayer thingy - and when *YOU* play, you
are always "the good guys" - so who is out there playing "the
bad guys" ?
The answer is that both sides *think* they are playing the
good guys - but the graphics show you as a US soldier and your
opponent as some kind of terrorist or something...one man's "Protect
the Diplomat on the way to the peace conference" is another man's
"Free the Kidnapped Diplomat before he's executed".
What's more subtle is that all the high-tech weaponry that you
have is also being used by your competition! Not exactly
a realistic situation in "the real world".
Aside from that, I think this is a VERY dubious way to attract
testosterone-laden video-game-addicted teenagers into the military
- and I'm horrified that taxpayers are shelling out for this.
Re:The wierd thing about this game is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, a realistic war game! I suppose they didn't intend the irony...
Re:The wierd thing about this game is... (Score:2)
have is also being used by your competition! Not exactly
a realistic situation in "the real world"."
In combat in "the real world," you have to plan for the worst-case scenario. That scenario involves an enemy with technological parity (if not superiority).
The Australians hold a war game every once in a while where the scenario involves staving off an aircraft carrier battlegroup. Is the only country in the world that has such a naval formation going to attack Australia any time soon? No. But if you can hold a US carrier battlegroup, you can defend against anything.
government funding (Score:2)
Funny, I would have thought that the internet would have been one of the best things funded by the goverment in recent history...
but how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exactly! (Score:3, Interesting)
AA is worth it just to watch censors squirm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, censorship. It will make you look like an Dummkopf every time...
but how well does it run? (Score:4, Insightful)
That screenshot attests to the fact that there is a picture of America's Army main menu on a Linux box. That doesn't mean the game runs or runs well. Always the skeptic.
I would be interested in hearing more from people who have actually tried to run it.
dear santa, (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Great. yah. (Score:2)
Re:Your Tax Payer Dollars... (Score:2)
Re:Your Tax Payer Dollars... (Score:2)
Re:This is no good. (Score:2)
Ah, ya gonna tell that to Hollywood now? Boycott the next Arney flick maybe? Didn't think so. See? War IS fun. And profitable.