Boeman
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Boeman
-
-
Would it surprise anyone to realize that human science knows more about Mars than what's under the sea?
The oceans, much like the rest of nature, is something we've never been able to fully explore much less tame.
It seems however, that the world is content to let the oil industry do the exploration for them. If they uncover any species that have been previously unclassified during an excavation, scientists will be the first on the scene to observe and tag their object of desire as they simultaneously watch its habitat being dismantled in the quest for oil.
As for manned space exploration, one can only assume that the ultimate goal is colonization. If so, would it be out of line to speculate that initial colonization efforts of Mars could perhaps, mirror that of Australia's convict past?
With the incredible amount of risks incurred on such a journey, let alone surviving on the planet's surface, only the most desperate would be willing to undertake such a venture. Deathrow criminals would fit that bill; allowing governments around the world to kill two birds with one stone - saving on the associated costs of housing them in their country of origin while providing a cheap and highly expendable labour force to build the foundation on what will ultimately become a major population center.
The motivation for the signatories apart from avoiding immediate death to accept such a predicament would lie in the solace that they are supporting whatever family they leave behind with the remuneration they receive on a space expedition.
I don't necessarily expect the proposition of commuting a death sentence to life in a hostile environment roughly 54.6 million to 401 million km from Earth to be politically expedient in North America or Western Europe in the near future - but leaping ahead a generation down the road when ethical considerations become muddled with fiscal conservatism? Who knows?
Today, the convicted criminal manufactures license plates for GM. Tomorrow, the convicted criminal could be operating machinery to dig trenches on Mars' surface for NASA.
Yes, a prison colony as a start is not an illustrious mark in the annals of space exploration. As history has shown however, seldom has colonization and the labour of condemned men ever been a mutually exclusive affair.
-
Gumph. "active sleeper cells" is an oxymoron. There is no "flow of human traffic" in "a tightly controlled environment" to observe.
If AQ has cells in the continental US, they either active (given that they are in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out fight for their survival), or the AQ leadership has determined that the US is doing a fine job of furthering AQ's goals with its current strategy. If the need for Guantanamo has strengthened, will we see an expansion of it's capabilities? Do you think there might be obstacles to this?
Ron, boeman, at some time you will have to examine your belief systems for internal consistency. I myself cannot reconcile a living christian ethic with the desirability for torture (and humane torture is another oxymoron, Ron), nor can I reconcile the need for rule of law with denial of legal due process. The US military finds itself in a position similar to that of the late Vietnam war - it has abandoned those behavioural codes it determined as necessary for good maintenance of the organisation and, as a result, finds itself with a diminishing support base in the civilian population. The clearer thinkers in the leadership have left the organisation or been sidelined and those left have been those parroting the propaganda line. The eventual failure of the operation(s) will be blamed on the economic circumstances we're enduring (and they're going to get worse, much worse), but a more disciplined examination will show that the stated goals were unachievable without internally consistent philosophies backing up the reasoning behind the planning of the operations.
Sadly, US (and allied) military personnel, having repaired their reputation through the eighties and nineties with the adoption of those behavioural codes so easily abandoned through this last decade, will find themselves painted with the broad brush of condemnation that characterised the popular view of the military through the late sixties through to the late eighties.
By "traffic", I'm referring to the movements of external personnel be they auxiliary staff from other branches of the US military, foreign/human rights dignitaries, members of the press or otherwise.
Greater degrees of transparency was one of the chief aspects upon which the current administration promoted from the last election cycle - this includes the activities within Guantanamo. As such, the compound has been made slightly more accessible to the media than was possible in years prior. This was particularly true during the Omar Kotar case, where Canadian officials provided legal counsel and met regularly with Kotar who, himself, was a Canadian citizen detained within Guantanamo Bay.
The point is that people are coming and going at regular intervals and the need to process and screen these "visitors" is quite crucial for maintaining security - especially in the wake of the James Yee incident.
With respect to sleeper cells, if there is one attribute for which Al Queda is famous for, it's their infinite patience. They have no qualms about waiting it out, for years if need be, until complacency becomes the norm. I suspect that from their vantage point, facilitating the escape of any detainees from US custody would immediately prove a useful PR construct - one that surely places the United States in a very precarious position; to say nothing of the deep embarrassment such an episode would entail.
The effects of the Afghanistan jailbreak are already being felt and my sense of it is that a similar scenario on US soil, no matter how implausible, is something the US government desperately wants to avoid.
Will these recent events prompt the expansion of Guantanamo? Not necessarily. What it will do, as I tried to infer with my base post, is that it will give advocates in favor of disbanding dismantling Guantanamo pause. At the very least, Guantanamo Bay will once again be relegated to political limbo (i.e. nothing will change).
-
With the recent Taliban jailbreak in Afghanistan through which a sizable number of the most dangerous insurgents garnered their freedom, the case for retaining Guantanamo as an operational prison can only be strengthened from this point forward.
For practical reasons, it's simply easier to control and observe the flow of human traffic in a tightly controlled environment that is far removed from civilian population centers within the continental US where active Al Queda sleeper cells continue to reside.
-
Would it be fair to say that the independence thing is why no one wants to pony up the funds to colonize Mars?
-
Wargaming popularity has been, and probably will always be, in this order:
Western Front (1944-45)
Eastern Front
North Africa (and Italy)
Western Front (1940)
It might also be that North Africa is more popular than something like Barbarossa East Front, but overall the above is a pretty accurate reflection of the WW2 wargaming community's interests.
If I had to hazard the relative size:
Western Front (1944-45) 50%
Eastern Front 30%
North Africa (and Italy) 15%
Western Front (1940) 5%
The rest, like Poland, would be negligible in terms of interest.
For most of you reading this you probably have interest, perhaps even strong interest, in more than one area. But when you add up things sell I think the above is pretty accurate.
Steve
P.S. Merry Christmas from someone who is unfortunately used to working 16 hours a day and can't simply go to bed early for just one night. Bah.
Would it be fair to say that interest for a particular theater might be correlated to the level of popularity enjoyed by battlefield commanders who received the most coverage during and after the conflict -be it from documentaries or Hollywood films?
Assuming an American player base with, at most, a high school education in history. The top rankings for famous personalities of WWII might go something like this:
General George Patton
General Dwight Eisenhower
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
General Douglas Mcarthur
General Bernard Montgomery
Notice who I didn't include. I suspect that few students fresh out of high school could name any generals from Canada, Italy, Russia, France or Japan apart from their heads of state.
Even someone with a casual interest in the subject is more likely to be "wooed" primarily first through accounts of the bloody struggle at Omaha Beach, The Desert Fox's exploits in Africa, the fight against the U-Boat menace in the Atlantic, Pearl Habor, the tenacious American defense of Bastongue, El Alamine and Wittman's handiwork at Caen.
It's at the serious hobbyist or scholar level, do players gain a real appreciation for areas of the conflict that were relegated to being footnotes such as the Eastern Front and the Mediterranean. Yes, as absurd as it sounds, few history books in a US/Canadian high school actually cover Stalingrad or Kursk at any length despite how pivotal they were.
So, at least here in North America, much seems to be slanted in favor of the Western Front, the Pacific and North Africa in that order; thanks in large part to the media that seem to favour men like Patton and Erwin Rommel.
-
However, thanks to Wikileaks, we know that in the considered opinion of the US State Department, more than a few US "allies" have plenty of citizens funding Al Khaida, and those allies aren't doing much about it.
Probably because they can't.
I believe it was an official representing Saudi Arabia, where much of Al Queda's funding is sourced from, who said, "The money will go where the money will go." And he's absolutely right.
After all, how successful has American law enforcement been in stemming the flow of US dollars into the coffers of Mexican/Colombian drug cartels? Not very.
-
Insofar as the sheer amount of subject matter covered, this one is pretty hard to beat.
-
I wonder how much tax revenue garnered from legalizing "soft drugs" would help.
-
Yep - and it's pretty understnadable - the general public mostly dosen't actually think that this war is worth people dying for - or at least not their own people!
It seems wherever you go in the western world, budget cuts to the military are popular trends. If anything, it certainly helps to explain the massive resurgence of mercenaries in recent years. During the economic downturn, virtually everything saw decreased levels of investment - except in private security contractors.
Although costing more up front than what it would ordinarily take to keep regular trained infantry in the field when dealing with top tier security firms, they offer a number of advantages:
1. Private contractors relieve the burden of logistics on a government as they handle the internal supply of everything from arms to toilet paper for their employees;
2. Political expediency. If a mercenary dies, no one outside of immediately family members will care - making them highly expendable. Therefore, no civilian protests to bring our troops home, no contemplation of the draft or other political hot potatoes need to be dealt with other than justifying the presence of said private contractors (a much easier job to handle than the former two);
3. Deferral of accountability. If a criminal act is committed by a member of a private security firm and is subsequently uncovered by the civilian media, the buck is passed to the company in question who will simply terminate the employment of the alleged perpetrators;
4. No moral divide. Many private security firms are given complete immunity such that their actions go unnoticed due to the lack of any effective laws governing their operations. They can achieve mission objectives through methods that would otherwise mar governments in scandalous episodes. Remember, that not a single private interrogator within Abu Ghraib was indicted while 64 military personnel alone were charged with murder-related activity.
5. Endless pool of recruitment. Not enough boots on the ground? Just hire more mercenaries. The number of impoverished warriors looking for better pay from across the globe is infinite. Whether their home country opposes the war you're waging is immaterial to a starving man with a gun.
Given that the largest impediment for democratic nations to wage war stems from domestic casualties, private contractors seem to be the answer.
I suppose the only question now is, who will be running the war in the future? The government or Walmart?
-
Along comes this!
Tax dollars at work, indeed.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/30/flying-humvee-a-step-closer-to-reality-still-seems-like-a-reall/
Flying Humvee a step closer to reality, still seems like a really bad idea
It looks like AAI Corp has, indeed, landed the contract for feasibility studies of the Transformer flying Humvee project, which as far as we can tell takes a lightly armored (if armored at all) four man vehicle and puts it in the air, practically begging to be hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. And if that doesn't sound sketchy enough, keep in mind that among the design considerations are gas tanks in the craft's wings which, as Spencer Ackerman at Wired points out, would make really obvious targets. The testing should last about a year, and cost DARPA a cool $3 million. If all goes well, AAI could have a partial prototype in 2013.
-
Speaking of which, I'm curious; has there has actually been an FPS game with an official Axis campaign produced in Europe or the United States by a major publisher? I'm not talking about fan-made modifications here.
First Person Shooters seem to be the last bastion of resistance where consumers in North America are not given the opportunity to experience the war from the vantage point of the Axis.
In fact, both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty depict the German and Japanese as inhuman blood-thirsty gluttons. The COD brand in particular tends to take the easy (and often times cheesy) way out with respect to its treatment of WWII - only their Russian campaigns were given what one might call an interesting deviation from the norm.
Some of the popular suggestions I've seen for workable scenarios involve the Africa campaign for both the Germans and Italians and a series of short missions in 1945 featuring a tattered regular German army formation in the east attempting to escape the Russian front in order to surrender to the British and Americans instead.
Given the unfounded fears by authority figures that such games could elicit sympathy for "evil Nazis" and "barbaric Japs" by giving them a human face and having the player fire on Allied troops, this probably won't happen.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to play as Axis forces in other games so long as they are represented by generic icons or figurines and the results of engagements are visualized as such.
My guess is that had Battlefront's Shock Force game enabled players to kill NATO forces up close and personal, it probably would have come under the scrutiny of the press.
History really is written by the victors.
-
As for the idea that Al Quaeda is getting weapons from the Iranians I would take that with a healthy dose of scepticism. Al Quaeda (and the Taliban for that matter) hate the Shia Iranian clerics possibly even more than they hate the west. If Iran was giving them weapons they would be playing a risky game indeed!
Human nature throughout history often tells us that race, religion, creed and all manners of affiliations are factors that can be easily overlooked when the stakes are high enough.
There's no doubt that Al Qaeda may have a disdain for many secular societies. Nonetheless, all nation states have their own subsets with priorities and agendas that do not coincide with the status quo.
From gangs and organized crime families to corrupt officials looking to make a quick buck; if the money pile is large enough, anything becomes possible (as evidenced by capitalist corporations who continued to do business with Nazi Germany throughout the war). If it just so happens that Iran is Al Quaeda and the Taliban's meal ticket for acquiring hardware for the foreseeable future, so be it.
Keep in mind as well that Iran has continually denied involvement in Iraq's political future despite clear indications to the contrary. For the moment, the West (namely the United States), is a considerably bigger concern for them than Al Qaeda. If Afghanistan becomes the proxy for which Iran can hinder American efforts indirectly, so much the better.
Would it also surprise you to know that the greatest source of small arms for Palestinian militants during Ariel Sharon's tenure were actually from the Israeli soldiers themselves?
-
Just my own comments with respect to the story.
Avatar has faced a lot of criticism since it's opening day on the simplistic narrative and the various comparisons ranging from "Dancing with Wolves" to "Pocahontas in Space".
In the original scriptment written by Cameron years ago for the film (then titled project 880), one can see the plot thicken considerably. Just a few of the differences between the film and the original script follows:
- The environmental catastrophe that encases Earth are explored. A news broadcast declaring the death of the last lion in captivity in the beginning rams home the symbol of a dying planet.
- The RDA isn't the only major corporate entity at work.
- We are given more insight into the major characters and they take on a less cookie-cutter form; each with their own complex dispositions and relationships. Some that never made it to the film include a former Avatar operator, a video journalist, the head of the Avatar program and a corrupt bioethics officer.
- The "consciousness" of Ewayah is revealed and it is determined that the Na'vi diety consideres the human presence to be a viral infection. As a result, the planet has been besieging the base with hostile plant and animal life (thus the name, Hell's Gate).
- There is no Unobtanium by Home Tree in the scriptment. Rather, the corporation wants to adapt the Na'vi as a labour force. Wiping out a local tribe would signify to all Na'vi that the human occupiers must be obeyed.
- In the end, Hell's Gate is conquered not just by the Na'vi, but with the aid of a rebelling faction of avatar controlers and humans.
- Earth is warned that any humans who return to Pandora will be infected with a plague that will wipe out humanity.
At first glance, Project 880 holds more promise as being a better film than the final version we saw in the theatres. The differences in the details are striking and one would wonder why Cameron choose to cut large swaths of the original script and give us a much more distilled product.
Having thought about it, I realized why Cameron is the visionary genius that he is.
Can you imagine trying to cram all the added complexities with the shades of grey and moral ambiguities into a 2 and a 1/2 hour film? It would have been a muddled mess.
By simplifying the first film, Cameron is merely providing a prelude; one with just enough plotline and just enough visual effects to achieve a perfect blend that won't distract the audience from the true star: the world of Pandora.
Yes, I said the "first" film. It was planned as a trilogy. Sam Worthington (Jake Sully) and Zoe Zaldana (Neytiri) have already signed on to reprise their roles in the second installment.
With the stage now set, we should see a fair bit more complexity in terms of story from here on out.
-
The journalists were with JAM. JAM had RPGs. Do you think they were planning on not using them? Do you think the journalists didn't intend to get some Pulitzer winning shot of a burning Bradley? I shed not a tear, they sealed their on fate when the decided to party with JAM..
Were it this clear cut, why the attempted cover-up?
Could it be that the higher echelons were not even aware that all but two children were members of the same guilty party as you inferred? As such, did they privately fear what many have speculated about the mini-van to be true and were simply gambling on an assumption when releasing statements to the press in hopes it would be verified later in their favor?
Either something isn't adding up or pre-emptive cover-ups to almost any major incident is par for the course in the US military - a practice which can only be derailed by an internal whistle blower or through arbitration by media outlets with deep pockets.
This is just one in a pile and I shudder to wonder how many more cover-ups from Iraq and elsewhere will never see the light of day.
-
ETA: Some of you are armchair quarterbacking...er...general-ing with little or no operational experience. War games and actual shoot-mutha-frackas-in-the-face war are two completely different things. Sometimes you have seconds to make a decision that is no-s#!t life or death, sometimes you make the wrong decision and the wrong people die. If any of you feel that you could have made a better decision, I invite you to try: CLICK ME [/rant]
War Games? Let's have a look.
Based on the radio chatter heard in the footage we see the Apache pilots:
1) Gun down a block of people with gleeful excitment;
2) Mock an injured man (the surviving journalist) who is crawling and likely bleeding to death. They are itching for him to pick up a weapon as he is apparently holding up their fun in his current state;
3) Plead with their superiors to unleash the same destruction on an as of yet, unidentified van (which they do);
4) Cackle as a Humvee runs over a corpse.
If one were unaware of the fact that this took place during actual combat operations, the behavior of the pilots could easily pass for that seen in typical pre-teen FPS gamers. Their verbal de-humanization and admiration of their handiwork suggests that to them, it may as well have been a gaming session.
You know what else is ironic? The US military's tool of choice for recruitment takes the form of..... wait for it..... a video game titled "America's Army". That doesn't bold well for an organization that wants to avoid blurring the reality of war for eager young minds, does it?
Having said that, I can agree that hesitation can cost the lives of your fellow soldiers.
The pilots had a judgement call to make as to whether the AK-47 and RPG wielding individuals presented an immediate threat to friendly ground units. This, of course, assumes the suspected insurgents were positively identified as hostile (which does not appear to be the case). The Reuters reporters knew the risks and unfortunately for them, the lost their lives doing what few have dared to do - trying to give the rest of us a glimpse of the conflict from a vantage point not encumbered by military censoring.
In any case, trigger-happy cowboys such as those heard in the footage would be best served remaining in the military as a controlled instrument of war; segregated from the rest of civilized society in the absense of a straitjacket. We have enough psychopaths running around as it is.
The cover-up attempts by the brass for what is clearly a disastrous blunder only serves to signify to the rest of the world that accountability in the US military remains as elusive as ever.
-
Here's an excellent interview conducted in 2006 with a former WWII German tank commander.
Most interesting were the sections covering tank maintenance and the complicated business of bore sighting. Very illuminating stuff overall.
It is good to see there are still veterans from the axis powers who are willing to offer insight from their own perspective.
-
I had to misfortune of learning that the iMax theater near me in Toronto was booked solid until the end of January so I viewed the film using Dolby Digital 3D.
Let me tell you, if you have the option of choosing, do NOT see this in Dolby Digital 3D. The images are considerably darker and the 3D very blurry. Opt to see this in Real3D or preferably, in iMax if you can.
As for the film itself, the storyline has been recycled from many films that have come before it so do not expect any considerable depth plot wise. However, few went into the cinema expecting this to be a smart film so that is really inconsequential - apart from the fact that some denounce it as anti-American propaganda as the human antagonists are quite one-dimensional.
The 3D effects are nothing short of amazing, despite the fact that I saw it in the worst possible format and sat in the front row. One could almost say that the film was created to showcase the potential of 3D if not set a precedent for future films to follow. The 3D glasses can be worn over prescription glasses. If you want the best viewing experience, come an hour early and pick a seat dead center in the room.
It's been said that the Hallmark of good CGI is when you don't notice it at all. This is where Avatar totally hits the mark as even veteran effects artists have trouble distinguishing it from live action. Everything from the Scorpion hovercraft to the bi-pedal mechs blended inconspicuously with other non-CGI elements.
If there was anything for me to complain about, it's the fact that there are no periods of intermission. So word of advice, make sure you eat and do your business before arriving - you'll get ripped off at the concession stand anyway since that's how theater companies make their money.
Above all, do NOT wait for the release of the Blu-ray/DVD; you must see it in 3D.
P.S. Rumour has it that Avatar 2/3 are already being scripted.
-
Diamond, IIRC, posits something along the lines of centralised govt, coupled with easy travel /within/ China but difficult travel to more distant locales, which together consipred to rapidly diffuse innovations within China, but prevent new ideas coming the outside. Or sumfink like that (maybe: easy internal travel that fostered strong central govt which then limited external contact?).
If I'm not mistaken, China itself wasn't a wholly consolidated nation as such but a landmass that was segmented into mini regions each with its own feudal warlord. Even after the conquest by the first emperor to unify the warring states, much of the establishment within the independent states remained as they originally were which became a hybrid of complex centralized bureaucracies. Provided that each feudal lord supplied the dynasty in power with tribute and manpower, they could remain in power within their given district.
Such circumstances were more likely to foster a static way of life that saw little need to extend beyond what was necessary for peasants to work the field.
Another problem, and one that persists to this day, is the different dialects in each province. The Qin dynasty established the basis for a universal script but spoken dialogue remained unchanged. This is unfortunate as only scholars, administrators and the nobility at the time were literate. Compounding matters further, was the measure to ensure stability, by putting to the torch any books which did not idolize the emperor.
Much like modern North America, China was an inward society that had little interest in anything beyond their own borders. In fact, after Marco Polo's visit, the Chinese established the first customs via a string of outposts where foreigners attempting to smuggle out silk worms were searched. More effort was expended on isolating China rather than seeking knowledge outside of its own territories.
The net effect of the miniscule amount of foreign trade would certainly slow the pace of scientific progress or, more importantly, assure numerous other applications of technology China had already invented such as combustable powder and the printing press were never fully realized.
Other scientific blunders could simply be attributed to mundane human nature. Supposedly, China had or was constructing a grand fleet of ships with plans to explore beyond her shores. However, a large argument erupted in the Emperor's court that resulted in the scrapping of the fleet.
In contrast to Europeans, who had the benefit of settling areas with a more temperate climate, lush forestry, vast mineral wealth and excellent farm land, it is something of a tribute to the Chinese civilization for the feats they have accomplished.
-
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq
An interesting test to check your colour acuity. Here are my results:
* Your score: 12
* Gender: Male
* Age range: 30-39
* Best score for your gender and age range: 0
* Highest score for your gender and age range: 1324
I'm actually somewhat disappointed with my score. I do enjoy the graphic design process on occasion but never managed colour correction workflows professionally as it relates to print. Still, I had hoped to get at least under 10.
P.S. Yes, I live in Canada and this is how we spell "colour" despite the website's American bias
-
Here's to hoping some nice guy will have an archive available on a torrent tracker somewhere
-
I'm not sure if my trick will help you. Sounds like your situation is much more dangerous for your equipment than mine is, but I keep a wooden toothpick on my desk to pull hair out that has fallen between the keys. Truth be told though, I can see plenty that has gotten so far in that it can't be retrieved by this method, so I guess that I too will be in the market for a new keyboard one of these days.
Michael
It's precisely for that reason why I despise modern keyboards. You can't remove the key caps to clean the keyboard!
I use to have an IBM XT keyboard. Those things were not only rugged but you could lift the key caps and shake out the dirt or wipe it clean. They certainly don't make them like they use to.
I'll be in the market for a Macbook Pro once the new revisions are announced by Apple this coming January/February and I intend to pick up a suitable keyboard cover.
I recall watching a commercial that featured a keyboard cover which even protects from liquid spills. But sadly I can't recall the product name.
-
Activision claims Infinity Ward's latest shooter breaks host of 24-, 120-hour entertainment records spanning games, movies, books; LA Times pegs budget at $200 million including marketing and distribution.
Taking into consideration just North America and the UK, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's launch could be considered a resounding success. Two days after Infinity Ward's modern military shooter's November 10 launch on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC, Activision said that the game had sold 4.7 million units in the two aforementioned territories in 24 hours, generating revenue in the neighborhood of $310 million.
Modern Warfare 2 brought in more than half a billion dollars within a week.
Today, Activision returned to provide more blockbuster Modern Warfare 2 sales statistics. According to the publisher's internal estimates, Modern Warfare 2 generated $550 million during its first five days on the market, a figure that sets a new entertainment record for the period. Activision did not provide a unit-sales update, however, and had not responded to requests for clarification as of press time.
The publisher did make claim to a variety of first- and five-day entertainment records spanning movies, books, and games. Beginning with the most direct comparison, Activision claims Modern Warfare 2 bested Grand Theft Auto IV's first-day worldwide game sales records of 3.6 million units and $310 million. The game also apparently busted GTAIV's five-day global haul of 6 million units on $500 million of gross revenue.
As for other media, Activision said that Modern Warfare 2 broke Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince's five-day global box-office record of $394 million. The game also eclipsed The Dark Knight's first- and five-day domestic theatrical opening, which stood at $66.4 million and $203.8 million, respectively. Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows' first-day book sales record of $220 million was also surpassed.
In terms of usage, Activision said that more than 5.2 million hours of multiplayer matches were played through Xbox Live on November 10. The publisher also noted Xbox Live's new concurrent user record of 2.2 million following Modern Warfare 2's launch, before saying that some 11 million achievements were earned within 24 hours.
[uPDATE] According to the Los Angeles Times, Modern Warfare 2's success didn't come cheap. The paper reports that the game had a budget between $40 million and $50 million before the cost of worldwide marketing, disc production, and distribution to retailers. Once those costs and the royalties paid to Microsoft and Sony are factored in, the game's final overall budget is estimated at around $200 million. The figure means that Activision spent far more producing, distributing, and marketing Modern Warfare 2 as it did developing it.
It certainly looks as though the bad press has actually helped Activision here.
If anything, it's yet more proof that far from being shunned by the consumer, the appetite for violent games by gamers has become even more voracious.
I will say, however, that it is a good possibility that many of those purchases were made by would-be tournament players. Rather than blood and gore, it is the need for mastering the multi-player aspects of the game which is driving sales. The supposition is that the quicker you can get your hands on a popular game, the greater the period of time you'll have to practice for online competitions.
PC gamers, on the other hand, seem to be less than ethusiastic with Infanity Ward's offering; many of whom cite the lack of dedicated servers and the ability to easily modify the title as being an utter disappointment.
-
I don't see how this is different from, say, GTA or Hitman games. Except maybe that CoD series is rather cheesy in how they always try to throw those 'shocking' spectacles at the player, like the Volga crossing in CoD 1, for the sake of cheese. It got dull really quickly.
I remember the Volga crossing in CoD1. On Veteran difficulty it took the better half of the day just to run 150 yards!
-
This has been something I've been curious about. Nonetheless, out of respect for current events as of late, I opted to wait until after Veteran's/Remembrance day before bringing it up for discussion.
I want to state for the record that I do not own Modern Warfare 2. In fact, the last Call of Duty game I played was COD 2 (owing to the fact that I'm on a 5 year old laptop).
It was, however, all but impossible to escape the news articles from the NY times and other publications regarding Modern Warfare 2 in addition to the leaked airport level footage.
Insofar as this discussion board is concerned, the topic on video game violence is as old as dirt. We've even engaged in heated discussions about the inclusion of civilians in both shooters and larger scale war simulations.
Now, it seems we've finally reached that apex in the form of a mainstream title now under the intense scrutiny of the mass media. No doubt, the timing for the game's release could not have been any worse for Activision with the Fort Hood massacre.
The video game industry was never a stranger to controversy. On one hand, dispatching civilians en mass is nothing new nor is the glorification of criminal aspects in and of itself. On the other, such landmarks have often warranted the attention of certain key officials, bent on leveraging their influence to further restrict the content of mature game titles.
As we arrive at this familiar junction, the question is reared once again, has Modern Warfare 2 set a new precedent with rippling repercussions for the gaming industry with the airport level, or will this just be another episode of realism being upped a few notches followed by, as expected, media disapproval?
Opinions welcome.
Modern Warfare 2: Examining the Airport Level
We take a closer look at Infinity Ward's now infamous airport level to try and make sense of the carnage and the chaos.
By now, most gamers have heard about or seen the grainy leaked footage of Modern Warfare 2's airport level and read the subsequent media coverage. This is a shame, because as a result they no doubt have an assortment of preconceived notions and expectations. I'm actually in a very small group of people who experienced this whole scene with a clean slate when I was invited to Infinity Ward's offices for a two-day review session (you can read my review of MW2 here) about a week before the footage leaked; in short, I experienced the level the way it was meant to be experienced.
It's interesting to be in that position and watch the ensuing melodrama. What's most unfortunate about the whole thing is that much of the commentary is a response to something taken completely out of context: the brutal carnage makes sense within the narrative of the game but when it's stripped out and presented in a vacuum, the only thing you can take away from it is "terrorists kill people in an airport." What's missing is the culprit's twisted rationale behind it, something Activision tried very hard to reiterate in their prepared statements, and the ramifications that it has on the game's plot--the plan to leave behind a dead American spy as the lone culprit of a massacre that involves Russian citizens is as evil as it is deviously inspired and helps frame the "American invasion" subplot that follows. But the leak's worst offense is that it's muddied the real conversation that should be taking place: what is the "point" of the level and is it ultimately successful?
The answer is far more complicated than the brutal footage would lead anyone to believe. It's a bold narrative maneuver, a calculated gamble done for the sake of not only shocking those who witness it firsthand but also to raise the stakes of the subsequent missions. It's one that Infinity Ward didn't have to take and you could easily argue that they shouldn't have taken it at all--Modern Warfare 2 is, with apologies to Assassin's Creed II, the highest profile release of the upcoming holiday season and putting in something this controversial is like giving your worst enemy a loaded handgun and your home address; as I write this, there are already talks of having it banned in Australia, a knee jerk reaction borne, as these things almost always are, out of ignorance and hysteria. But Infinity Ward took the risk anyway and you have to extend kudos to them for having the temerity to try something that bold.
But you also have to stop short with your praise because the level doesn't go far enough, not in terms of brutality or violence but in terms of storytelling: it's a progressive step forward but it could have been a great leap with just a few minor tweaks. As my murderous cohorts advanced through the airport, casually spraying bullets the way we might throw away a gum wrapper on the street, I brought up the rear as a passive observer. I had a gun in my hands but I had been so completely and utterly shaken from my tree by the initial shock of it all that I didn't even think to pull the trigger.
Then I began to wonder whether or not I should become an active participant; I was, after all, an undercover agent--would it look suspicious to the others if I didn't take part? Would my commitment to the "cause" come into question? Would that blow my cover and compromise my mission? That ultimately brought me around to the most important question: what was worth more, the actual lives of several hundred innocents or the potential lives of several billion?
I'm guessing that was Infinity Ward's intent all along and it's fairly effective--at first. I decided to stick to my morals and not fire a single-shot in the airport itself but once we got outside and the airport SWAT team arrived, I decided on another ploy: I would shoot but I would purposefully miss. This would allow me to maintain cover without spilling any blood. Unfortunately, I hit a design flaw that wouldn't let me stick to this strategy: at a certain point, it became painfully obvious that the mission couldn't proceed until we had cleared the area of enemies, something the AI couldn't seem to handle on its own. After waiting behind cover, I finally broke down and cleared the area myself, simply to move things along; it was a disappointing break of the scene's tension to say the least.
I later confirmed with my Activision contact that you could indeed play through the entire level without once firing your gun, but that raised yet another red flag: without any consequences, why bother even challenging the player's morals? The lack of pressure to act decisively one way or the other ultimately renders the tension meaningless; it would have been even more interesting if, at a critical moment, one of the terrorists had turned in my direction and gestured with his head towards a cornered civilian, as if to say, "You kill this one."
It's a cliched device used by countless movies and TV shows but it, or some other alternative, would have worked to literally put me in a life-and-death situation: do I pull the trigger or do I refuse? However, there is no moment of reckoning: the members of the terrorist cell you've infiltrated barely even look at you during the course of the rampage. The level slowly progresses and comes to climactic and logical conclusion but there was so much potential for more missions of this type later on that it's a shame it wasn't fully mined for all its worth. The tension of having to walk the tightrope between staying true to your mission versus your own morality was there but it wasn't touched upon in the level itself, nor was it carried through to the rest of the game.
The airport level still stuck with me long after my time with Modern Warfare 2 had ended and it affected me in ways that few video games have before and yet, I can't help but wonder "what could have been." Infinity Ward opened up a Pandora's Box of possibilities but just as the wonders trapped inside were about to leap out, they slammed the lid shut. And yet, it remains a fascinating piece of video game narrative, one that will hopefully still reverberate with the community long after the controversy it sparked has died down. I can only hope that game designers will pick up the loose threads that it created and find a way to tie them all together into something that builds upon Infinity Ward's brazen shot across our collective bows.
The article (with accompanying video) can be found here: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/212923/modern-warfare-2-examining-the-airport-level/
Space, the lost frontier
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
The contrasts between flying a shuttle and conducting menial labour on a far flung colony could not be more different; at least in terms of prestige, if nothing else.
Astronauts are and have been elevated to the status of living deities in human history. Thus, despite the dangers, there are always volunteers available to pilot shuttle missions given just how few have had that privilege.
Have miners and general labourers previously enjoyed that level of status? I don't believe so.
Something else that is worth considering is that the initial journey to Mars will be a one-way trip. Whatever vessel is used to land the first colonists will likely be cannibalized upon reaching the surface. Those who elect to go to Mars are going to stay - they're not coming back. Even shuttle pilots and astronauts aboard the international space station are not faced with the prospect of never being able to return to civilized society; barring any unforseen difficulties.
The point is, it will require more than simply appreciating the intrinsic value of being a scentified pioneer when making the decision to permanently leave Earth. I suspect that having nothing to lose is something the first batch of colonists to Mars will have in common.
I do agree with Michael Emrys that some of world's best will be needed as part of the initial effort to survey and catalogue the Martian landscape prior to any serious attempt at colonization. I can only assume that scientists will be confined to a small outpost - sending data back to Earth via satellite uplink for however long provisions are available.
Dr. Jon Copley, a marine biologist and oceanographer, disagrees with you. He recently took part in a learning initiative program where he responded to an elementary student who posed that very question:
So, apart from maintaining that, in fact, our knowledge on the surface of Mars exceeds what we know about the depths of the sea on Terra Firma, the above also seems to infer that we have quite a long ways to go before we can declare that we've fully mapped out the bottom of the world's oceans.