Azarkon

That's always been Al Qaeda's game plan. Doesn't mean they'll able to carry it to fruition if we leave, however. There are other players in the equation, and if we were to depart today, I'd say that an Iran-backed Shiite "crescent" is a definite possibility over Al Qaeda-led Iraq (one has to realize that Al Qaeda, despite being the most visible terrorist organization, has never "ran" any country - they don't have the capability, and can only play a supporting role). Saddam, for all his villainy, was able to keep Al Qaeda in check quite effectively, so their victory sans the US is far from assured. I also don't think the question is whether we should stay, but what we could do if we stay. Prolonging the status quo for ten more years isn't an efficient expenditure of lives and resources; if victory is not possible, then it's better to pull out sooner than later - after we've thrown even more men and money into the hole. You stay the course if it'll eventually lead to victory. You don't stay the course for the sake of staying the course. Delaying the inevitable is great when done to preserve peace and security for just a little while longer, but "peace and security" is far from what I'd describe the state of Iraq today. What if our presence is what produces instability and a civil war is necessary for Iraq to ever see peace? It isn't a simple matter of staying to prevent Al Qaeda from taking over - it's a matter of asking what geopolitical and moral goals are satisifed by staying. Geopolitically, a South Korea-like Iraq is a significant boost to our desired hegemony over the Middle-East, so if we're confident that we can effect such a conclusion, then we should stay. But if we're incapable of effecting such a conclusion, then geopolitically we should leave now, before our national infrastructure and image are strained even more by the war. Morally, we should do what the Iraqi people want us to do, because ultimately that's the only moral justification we have for invading the country and installing a democracy there; if the Iraqi people want us to leave, then that's their right as a sovereign, democratic state. If we refuse to do so "for their own good," then I question the sincerity of our pledge to uphold Iraqi freedom - you can only go so far with the "freedom is not free" routine before you cease to become free altogether.

So why does it seem that Sony is digging its own grave? I suppose one reason they didn't sign exclusive deals with some of the companies in question is because they were confident of their system's competitiveness in the multi-platform market and didn't want to spend the extra $$$, but is that really wise? Still, one can't criticize a trend towards multi-platform games too much.

Good to hear Looks like I'll have plenty to look forward to come this fall.

How many hours did it take you? Ah, but you do tease.

If it's of any consolation, just because public opinion is against the US, does not mean they hate us. People's opinions change at the flick of a political switch: the dramatic mood swings noted in the poll stand as testament to the fluidity of global favor. That's why geopolitics is not done through popular vote - it's too easy to be caught in the rush of the moment, and make terrible strategic decisions.

Disclaimer: I make no claims about the accuracy of this poll; the standard statistical arguments about poll bias apply, etc. etc. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256 Most of it is unsurprising and probably what you all expected, though I should point out African countries' optimistic attitudes towards both the US and China, which I thought was rather interesting.

GD gave a good answer, but the more pratical one may simply be - through education, environment, and good sense learned early in life. Don't get me wrong - effecting such change in society is not easy, but then progress never is. If history is of any inspiration, however, we may hope that future politicians will be less capable of excess than contemporary ones, just as today's leaders are less capable of excess compared to their predecessors in the past. Of course, this trend is never a certainty - and that's why it's so important to keep the debates and discussions alive.

Absolutely, and I'm not saying it's a bad idea to start posts about China or other parts of the world - merely that it's understandable that people don't jump up and down whenever China does something, like they do with the US. The only way to "stop" them is through economic threats, since that's what China is most vulnerable towards. Unfortunately economics is a two-way game and the US risks its own assets in China if it threatens to, say, impose duties or stop trading altogether. Failing that, it's possible to restrain China by playing up the image game. Sudan is a good example of this - the Chinese are not deterred by liberals working up a storm over its arms trade, but they are deterred by the possibility of losing face on the international stage, particularly prior to the 2008 Olympics. You see, Chinese leaders are very much interested in portraying a powerful, independent, and "responsible" face to the world; this doesn't mean that they won't sell to the US's enemies, but it does mean if selling to a particular client represents a big hit image-wise, they might be inclined to limit their trade, or even effect change in the regime in question. That said, I'm curious as to why you think China selling arms to our enemies is a big deal. Russia has been doing it for years, and neither Russia nor China will stop so long as they remain rivals of the US. This is realpolitiks, and a rival nation has every incentive to engage in arms trading within its own clique. In fact, the US consistently sells to China's (and Russia's) enemies and rivals and until we stop doing that, I doubt any diplomatic solution is possible - the Chinese are not stupid and they're not blind to the US's strategic moves in their own turf. It's only natural that they respond in kind. Incidentally, we are no longer in the era when we can afford to treat everyone who acts against our interests as our mortal enemies. There was a time, perhaps, when selling weapons to a nation's enemies meant that you risked full-blown war with said nation, and that was natural. The Cold War, however, changed that nature, and we realized that sometimes it's not possible to go to war, that instead geopolitics was like an elaborate game of Go (Wei Qi from China) where rivalries are resolved through containment, regime change, and proxy battles. The goal remains the same: filling the entire board with pieces of your own color, or global hegemony as it's known in political circles, but the means by which you achieved said goal are different. The contemporary world is full of ambiguities, and China is one of these - part enemy, part rival, and part friend by necessity. Sorry to hear about your job losses. But yes, I, and I think most people, do expect the highest standards from the US - not necessarily because it's by far the most powerful and influential developed country in the world, but also because the US constantly assumes the mantle of world leadership. When you strut around claiming that you represent the free world and can act unilaterally in spite of the UN, you had better set an example yourself, first. It's no different, really, than expecting more from your leaders than from the people below them. As I think I've said before, things would be very different if the US minded its own business and let another nation do the leading - then that nation would be the one under constant scrutiny. Such is the price of leadership: when you're number one, everyone judges you and with the highest standards. After all, if you're not the best, then what business have you got to be number one? Which, again, explains why China is not under the same sort of heat the US is, even though it's got a worse record in just about everything (of course, countries with even worse records are plentiful).

Well, there's also the practical side to it: if a thread was made about countries outside of the US, Europe, and Israel/Iraq/Iran (the three I's), how many people here will really care enough to respond in an informed manner, and how many people will really be informed? When the "liberals" on this board, so to speak, criticize the US they're reasonably sure of their audience and their own knowledge, but if we were to shift focus to China that wouldn't be so true. Yes, we can rage against China all day long, but unless there were a few informed Chinese posters, or at least Chinese scholars, to answer our criticisms, it'd be a pretty one-sided debate and might just consist (as this thread did for a while) of us Westerners patting each other on the back going, "you tell'em!" Not exactly a stimulating debate, and it gets boring fast. Well, if you have the card, you're going to play it as long as you could - that's just good politics. As for when we should stop listening to it, I cannot say - it largely depends on the person. Some people have already stopped giving China a pass, while others will continue to do so until China overtakes the US on the international stage; most fall somewhere in-between, and in this case it does depend on the particulars of the excuse. For example, if it were an issue with sweat shops and labor abuse, I'd stop excusing China when the country can actually afford to employ all of its citizens in better work. As it is, though, that's not very true - companies go to China for the cheap labor, they expect cheap labor, and the large body of unemployed bread earners don't have alot of choice. Cutthroat local competition ensures that if you're not willing to work unreasonable hours, someone else will, while cutthroat global competition ensures that if China enacts extensive labor laws, companies will move their production elsewhere and development will grind to a halt. In this particular subject looking at China through our own standards is not at all helpful, because labor welfare is tied to the level of development, and that's why the excuse works. On the other hand, an issue like coerced organ donation from prisoners is less capable of being excused - sure, there's a demand for it in China, but there's a demand for it everywhere, and it's more of a moral question than an economic one. It's arguable, but with respect to the current government, it doesn't matter - the Republicans look out for big business, if you'll recall. The Democrats, as I said, might bring change in this matter and the US's relationship with China could take a nose-dive if they win. I'm not sure "need" is the right word, but China definitely can't "afford" to lose their weapons markets, given that they can't sell to anyone else. It's all supply and demand, really - the US (and Europe, for that matter) has the superior technology that everyone wants, and so it can pick and choose who to sell to. China gets the leftovers, and that means countries that, for whatever reason, the US and Europe don't want to sell to. It's either sell to them, which China is currently doing, or not have an arms trade at all, which liberals would of course prefer. On this matter, though, I think you're giving the liberals too little credit - there is plenty of vitriol from the left on China's arms trade and I'm sure more than a few people are aware of the liberal attack w.r.t. Sudan. It's caused enough of a stir, in fact, that China has had to revisit its hands-off approach (though what'll come from that is anyone's guess). But, it is pure perception - people don't talk about China and Sudan much on these boards because it's not what they're most interested in and while they'll be quick to condemn China should a debate emerge, it's not going to emerge simply because it's there. Perception, or more specifically point of view, is everything in politics.

There's plenty of vitriol directed at China by liberals, but my impression is that people on this board, in particular, are less concerned about foreign affairs than they are about domestic issues. Still, your question is somewhat valid with respect to the US at large, and I pose five answers: 1. There's the assumption that China is getting better. In some respects this is true - compared to the hardcore Communist days, China today is, at worst, mellow. It isn't actively antagonizing other countries (even the popular anti-Japanese sentiments have become restrained), the status quo is being preserved (ie with respect to Taiwan), and people's freedoms and livelihoods are gradually improving. Given such a progressive trend it's difficult for people to zero in on China when they could be zeroing in on much worse targets, like North Korea and the Middle-East. This accounts for the moderate viewpoint. 2. There's the understanding that China is a developing country. Here, I should stress a point that I often see missed in the classic divide between liberals and conservatives: that's not all there is to a person's political viewpoint! Liberals aren't only liberals and conservatives aren't only conservatives - they also hold other views towards other issues beyond that which can be clearly defined by liberal and/or conservative ideology. The right to self-determination is one of these issues and it's hard to classify as liberal vs. conservative - there are people from both camps who subscribe to it, just as there are people from both camps who subscribe to interventionism (for different reasons, but nonetheless). Viewed from the context of self-determination, China's modernization efforts aren't exactly out of line. After all, it's not a developed country, and where poverty reigns so do problems with human rights, environmental exploitation, quality control, wealth distribution, etc. I mean, you can criticize China for having a bad environmental record, but it just doesn't have the same force when the comeback is "look, we have strict environmental laws, but we can't enforce them because you can't expect starving villagers to care much about the environment, sorry." The same is true for numerous other issues, and so they're often just dropped. 3. A lack of information. Media focus has largely shifted away from China and since the media determines, largely, what the average person knows and what the average person worries about, China has fallen out of scope and out of mind. Part of this is standard operation - China hasn't changed much since it was in the spotlight prior to 9/11, and while certain sticky issues have persisted (ie trade imbalances and Chinese mercantilism), they're just not as sensational as the War in Iraq. The media thrives on sensational stories about terrorists killing a busload of children, or a US politician being unveiled as a pederast. It doesn't thrive on the lack of new information coming out of China, particularly since the Chinese government is very good at controlling the flow of information to foreign journalists. 4. The US benefits from trade with China. With #3, I indicated the lack of sensationalism associated with China, but that's not all there is to media ignorance. You see, the media is always interested in what the government is interested in, because naturally anything that the government is interested in is of relevance to the people it represents. The problem, however, is that the US government isn't interested in turning the spotlight on China - because it's cognizant of how much it has invested in China and how much it could lose if a chill develops between the Chinese government and the US government. It's the same problem with, say, Saudi Arabia (which also engages in alot of human rights abuses but is ignored because it's a key ally of the US) - except that the relationship with China is more mercurial and could change depending on who comes into power. The Bush administration is very pro-China (even though it started off anti-China) because it needs China to support its adventures in the Middle-East. The Democrats are less likely to be so, and we might see a shift in focus if they take power. 5. Finally, like I said in the beginning, people simply care less about other countries unless they're directly affected by the going-ons in those countries. What China does is largely irrelevant to the average US liberal - so long as the flow of cheap goods continue unabated and China doesn't invade anybody that US liberals like. It takes an active lobby - like the Tibet and Taiwan lobbies - to push real Chinese issues through, and even then so long as the US government prefers the status quo, little is likely to come out of it. That's just the way it is, and I have no doubt that if you go over to a Chinese forum, or a Taiwanese forum, or a Japanese forum, you'll find very different concerns and priorities than what you find here. There will still be the obvious liberal vs. conservative divides, but what each side worries about is very different.

You didn't pose it as a question ... But, the assessment is sound; however, the Japanese are just as capable as the Chinese of "neo colonialism" - and African intelligentsia are quite adamant about applying the term to anything that benefits the host country more than their own. Rotten history, you see.

In terms of fruit cakes, you can think of it as being offered a fruit cake and told that if you eat the fruit cake, you had better change your mind about politics. Oh, and you had better stop bullying your neighbors, too

I don't know, the BBC posts (or used to post?) quite a bit of anti-China articles. At least that's how I remembered it when I was discussing Chinese geopolitical strategy on another board and having a plethora of such made-for-public-outrage-writing thrown at me At any case, foreign investment is a necessity for Japan given how scarce their island is of vital industrial resources; bumping heads with China is just a bonus, at least among Japan's resurgent nationalists. Of course, the real unspoken faction here is the ambiguous "West," which, regardless of whether China or Japan succeeds, will have been shown that its policy of demand-based diplomacy is the real lame duck. I find it just a tad ironic, as such, that the "West" would rejoice at a Japanese victory in Africa, given that the tactics Japan has adopted exhibits the same qualities that they first criticized in China: aid with no strings attached. Indeed, one would think that if the West considers such a move beneficial to its interests, it should modify its own strategy towards Africa... But that's not what's happening. Instead, we cheer on Japan because it's anti-China. How lame.

But that's not what Goering said... He's not saying that war is bad (in fact, given who he is, it's just about the opposite) or that peace at any price is the way to go, just that it's easy for leaders to persuade the people to go to war, no matter the reason. The "voice" of the people cannot be depended on as the sole safeguard against war or the atrocities associated with it, because in the end people are malleable and fall easily to demagoguery. I don't think Goering is at all wrong in this, and what you're talking about is actually one of many arguments politicians commonly use to incite the public to war. Certainly, there are times when war is unavoidable (WW II, for the US, was one such time), but there are also times when war is actually avoidable, but can be argued to be unavoidable in order to serve political interests (WW II, for Germany, was one such time). People must have the ability to make such a distinction for themselves, or be eternally led around by charismatic and self-serving leaders. This is true moreso, perhaps, in a dictatorship than in a democracy - but it is true in a democracy nonetheless.

Practically speaking, I'm fairly confident that no US administration can ever go too far from the desires of the American people, and the Constitution is simply one of several safeguards against that. The danger, therefore, lies not in the threat of tyranny, but in the threat of demagoguery. People, with whom all power supposedly lie, can be surprisingly easy to persuade, unfortunately - as Hermann Goering once testified to U.S. Army Captain Gustave M. Gilbert. For those who have not heard of the exchange: "Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Keeping terrible leaders from power is one thing, but the more important task, I've always thought, is to cultivate a population that refuses to be led by terrible leaders. That, unfortunately, seems the more daunting task by far.

The idea is interesting, but it needn't come with all the drawbacks of aging. See EVE Online for example of a system in which "age" rather than "exp grinding" develops your character. One problem with EVE's system that's worth mentioning, though, is that it's pretty hard for newer players to catch up when the older players have an intrinsic advantage in age...

Is that you roshan? Seriously, though, I don't think a sequel would do the game justice, so I'm not going to ask for one. A spiritual successor with the general design goals of PST, set in a setting just as evocative, however - that I could go for.

Let's hope you're right. It's difficult to pin point the reason for issuing this directive now, though. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the context of the Civil War break out; the Iraq War, by comparison, has been going on for a while and doesn't seem to justify this sort of domestic directive. Does the White House think that another attack is imminent, or is Bush just trying to push through change that would favor future presidents in similar situations? It's hard to tell.

To be perfectly honest, I would've expected more discussion about this sort of thing, so I'm starting to wonder whether there's something I'm missing here. Still, I've been sitting on this for a while and haven't had much time to research or ponder it, so I'm just going to throw it out in hopes of evoking some response. Just so I don't misrepresent the info, peruse these sources: The article can be found here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....CLE_ID=55825%20 A video interview with the author on C-SPAN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatpX6kuxHQ I'm not going to draw any conclusions, since, like I said, it feels a bit unreal, particularly since there's been no major news buzz about it. Well, what do you think - nothing of concern, or is Bush really making a power grab?

Besides, we all know that banning something only increases its cult appeal, and could end in more people playing the game than less

Do games shape the way people think? If so, then we must recognize that games influence society and that people have a "right" to be concerned. If not, then we should stop talking about "serious" games because it's all just mindless entertainment that can't possibly affect us in any significant way. Personally, I'm willing to entertain the former in order to prove the latter. If games can affect the way we think, then that makes the medium all the more powerful and therefore meaningful to develop in. If not, then we might as well stick to shallow crap in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator, since no one ever takes games seriously anyways. Of course, just because games have an effect on society, doesn't mean we should endeavor to ban the unwholesome among them. Take books, for example - we know that they affect society in a deep and profound manner, but banning a book because we disagree with its contents is an act of censorship that most of us would consider wrong. The same should be true for games.

That is true, but really then it comes down to a what-players-want issue and in that respect roshan has a point regarding Obsidian "caving in" to today's ease-of-play sensibilities. But then again I've long since accepted the fact that CRPGs were more interactive books than tactical combat simulators. It'd be nice, though, if combat could be made meaningful beyond the motions you go through to reach the next plot point. Besides, as much as we might hate to admit it, the save anywhere, reload anytime paradigm could use some rethinking.

The DM can also say, "you attempt to backtrack, but runs into a HUGE dracoliche, which you left for dead but is, in fact, ALIVE (err, relatively speaking, anyway)!" (rolls dice) "You die." It depends on the DM, in other words, how difficult the move is in a game. With CRPGs, a program (or more accurately, the devs who design the program) is the DM, and while the computer is not nearly as flexible as a human, it can still make many of the same decisions. The example you gave would be rendered moot, for instance, if the player could instant map travel from anywhere, presuming that he's not in a "dire" situation and has a clear path to the exit (all calculable variables). Might make for a rather short game, it's true, but then who really enjoys walking anyhow

I saw the trailer from PoTC 3 and the anti-religion message does come out.