Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

blue blaze

Terrorism

Recommended Posts

Ph3L1z14n0
Well, for me, the main benefit of progress is that I know that I will have food and medical assistance if I need it.

 

In case of jets, for example. Yeah, the ability to fly to another country might not seem like all that important when the cost is a world war. But even not counting impact on economy, look at the helicopters used in rescue operations and by hospitals. Helicopters were also developed in WWII, and modern helicopters are mostly turbine-based. So we wouldn't have anything even close without the development done during the war. I can go on with this. Wasn't penicilin developed during WWI? Computers came out as a result of interest in trajectory computations. Many advances in surgery were made during Korean War. If you discard everything developed in wars during XX century, you end up with economic, medical, and technological conditions very close to early 1900's.

 

Now, there might be people who feel that they are happier living in similar conditions now, but how many of these who are unhappy with their "civilized" life move out to simpler places? No, everyone tries to get into countries with better technological and medical achievements. I think, the reason why people in highly developed countries might not feel as happy is just because they know more about how life can be lived, so their life, while being much better than these of the neighbors, might still seem insufficient.

Well you know, we can't really say what could have happened if the wars had never appeared, nevertheless that sounds more like a better way of progress, my point is that rescue helicopters could have come in through different ways, if someone had helped Da Vinci at that time, PROBABLY we would already have helicopters, who knows!!!

 

My point on people leaving their countries came from something a teacher said in a class of "Culture, Society and Individual" (i am studying psychology), my teacher said that people born in countries like Germany or France left their nation and came to different parts of America (the real america, which is the continent), sometimes because they felt their nations restrained them too much, so ironically they felt better in our countries with corrupted politicians who couldn't care less for the law dozingoff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy.

 

The most effective thing the US could do to deter terrorist attacks in the long run (after It pulls out of Iraq) is distance itself from Israel. One of the main reasons, if not the main reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us is because of our close alliance with Israeel. Every time Israel is threatened the US comes to their aid and it is becuase of the US that Israel has one of the biggest nuclear stockpiles in the world. IMO, If the US stopped protecting Israel, the "terrorists" will have much less motivation to attack the US. It would probably be bad for Israel, but I don't feel the US has an obligation to protect Israel.

 

I absolutely agree. However, it looks like our ties with Israel will be getting much stronger.

 

US accused of fuelling arms race with $20bn Arab weapons sale

 

 

The Bush administration is facing claims that it is fuelling an arms race in the Middle East following the disclosure of a plan to sell $20bn (£9.8bn) of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

The plan, which will be announced today, will be balanced by a 25% increase in US military and defence aid to Israel. A further $13bn will be pledged to Egypt...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Well you know, we can't really say what could have happened if the wars had never appeared, nevertheless that sounds more like a better way of progress, my point is that rescue helicopters could have come in through different ways, if someone had helped Da Vinci at that time, PROBABLY we would already have helicopters, who knows!!!

Consider this. Helicopoter requries strong metal alloys, not even available until early 1900's, and a powerful lightweight engine. There weren't any of these before then either. And once you have that, you need to spend a silly ammount of money to actually develop a machine that will fly safely. Yeah, there were some rotorcraft before military took it up, but they were toys. Millitary had the budget. No private company did. Look at SkyCar, for another example. Private company attempted to develop it. They ran out of money, and that's despite 200M$ of investments. Military had developed far more complex flying machines. It was the millitary that built working rocket packs, VTOL craft, and yes, first helicopters. For each of these machines, the base technology already existed. All it needed is a lot of money for development and testing. And the source of money has always been the military.

 

So would we have helicopters without the military spending? We'd certainly have some sort of rotorcraft, but things like sky cranes and rescue helicopters? Almost certainly not. And I'm only using helicopters and jets as some of the more obvious examples. You can trace almost any piece of modern technology back to when it was developed by the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*gta star*

 

With conflict - everyone suffers a little all the time. Without conflict - no one suffers right now, but everyone suffers greatly some time later. Conflict is a better way.

 

So, you are saying that conflict means everyone suffers a little at a time ?

 

Ok, a typical example, the Iraq war ?

 

How are the likes of me, or you suffering from that ?

 

I'm not actually participating in the war, my country is, but I totally disagree with it.

 

Justify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You have to keep in mind that it is a rather minor war, so the stress on your country's economy is probably not strong enough for individuals to really notice. It is there, however. Whether you are having higher taxes right now, or down the line, you, personally, will pay a share of costs of running that war. Of course, it is hardly "suffering", more like a mild pressure, but as I said, it is a small scale war.

 

And of course, some people will suffer a lot more than others. Most of all, people who just happen to live where the war takes place. They suffer more than anyone else, and for someone else's goals. But that's the nature of the conflict in form of wars. Some countries grow stronger from wars. Many just suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickstick
1. Bush isn't holding Blair on a lead anymore, like he did for the past few years.

2. Blair isn't the leader.

 

Let's see what the outcome is with Gordon Brown, yesterday he landed in the USA, the first topic that would be discussed between Brown and Bush was the situation in Iraq.

 

 

A good point. It's good to see that people on these forums actually take other people's opinions seriously, unlike some other forums I have used. I won't name names.

 

Going back to the subject, I have infinitely more respect for Gordon Brown than I did Anthony Blair. I hope he finds a way to sort Iraq out, but to be honest I feel he has to sort out things here in the UK first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--Cole--

@K^2:

 

I really don't agree that massive conflict and suffering is necessary for progress, and using the two world wars as an example is a false dichotomy. Look at the "Cold War" for example. It wasn't a war, it was a series of loosely related, geographically isolated, limited, minor conflicts over a half century of international tension. In fact if things had have escalated into a full scale nuclear war, it arguably would have destroyed all life on earth, give or take. Yet- that was a period of intense technological development fueled not by total warfare but relative peace.

 

It is true that militaries are responsible for a significant ammount of technology invented, but not all of it required the suffering of millions. It didn't take millions of people to die in a nuclear war to realize that ARPANET (an teh intranets) was capable of surviving it. Though, yes, millions did die in WW1 before pennicilin was thought a good idea. It's just not the rule.

 

Your theory of "conflict + suffering = progress" is just flawed. There is a limit to how much "suffering" humanity can endure in order to progress. Africa has been suffering since colonization, and they've been floundering ever since. The average westerner hasn't suffered much and they've progressed astronomically. Now any conflict America gets into requires no progress, because the "enemy", "terrorists", whatever the hell you wanna call 'em, is fighting so primitively, the latest and greatest stealth bombers and ICBM's are useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Cole, I never said that it has to be intense conflict and that everyone must suffer. The point is that there has to be some conflict. To some point, the more conflict you have, the more you develop. But you can obviously have too much conflict.

 

Cold War is a good example of a relatively non-violent conflict, but it was a very serious conflict. There doesn't have to be a full out war, but there has to be a convincing threat of a war. That is what really mobilizes people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Cole, I never said that it has to be intense conflict and that everyone must suffer. The point is that there has to be some conflict. To some point, the more conflict you have, the more you develop. But you can obviously have too much conflict.

 

Cold War is a good example of a relatively non-violent conflict, but it was a very serious conflict. There doesn't have to be a full out war, but there has to be a convincing threat of a war. That is what really mobilizes people.

This kind of conflict K^2 is talking about is more like a dilemma or a problem to solved, something to keep our hands busy, it's because of this situations that derive phrases such as "learn from your mistakes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I am really thinking of conflict as a specific case of a zero sum game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
I am really thinking of conflict as a specific case of a zero sum game.

bored.gif is that a joke i didn't get???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

It's not a joke. As for you getting it... Do you know what a zero sum game is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
It's not a joke. As for you getting it... Do you know what a zero sum game is?

definitely not wow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

The term is from game theory. In terms of a game, this means that if I get points, somebody else loses these points. In most basic scenario, it is a game where if I win, my opponent loses. Id est, zero sum. But game theory can be applied to just about anything. If you and your co-worker are trying to get promoted to the position with just one vacancy, it is a zero sum game, because only one of you will get the position. You cannot both 'win'. This is a conflict situation, and cooperation is not in your interest. On the other hand, there are 'games' where your gain is not necessarily causing someone else loss. In that case, you might want to cooperate to maximize the common gain and consequently get a bigger share.

 

Economies tend to be centered heavily around zero sum games. If you bought something, then sold it at a profit, somebody else has lost the amount of money that you made. You are always in conflict with somebody else's interests. You can still cooperate with someone, but there always has to be a third party to take that loss. If such competition is not stimulated, which can happen in event of deflation, for example, the economy starts to slow down, which is bad for everyone.

 

For a gamer, the best analogy comes from deathmatch. Deathmatch mode is typically a classic example of a zero sum game. Example of a non-zero sum game is a coop. But real situations are more of a mix, which is like a team deathmatch. You cooperate within the team, but overall, it is still zero sum, because victory for one team is defeat for the other. And just like the game would not be fun if the teams are greatly unbalanced, so do economies have problem when some group has nobody to compete against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
The term is from game theory. In terms of a game, this means that if I get points, somebody else loses these points. In most basic scenario, it is a game where if I win, my opponent loses. Id est, zero sum. But game theory can be applied to just about anything. If you and your co-worker are trying to get promoted to the position with just one vacancy, it is a zero sum game, because only one of you will get the position. You cannot both 'win'. This is a conflict situation, and cooperation is not in your interest. On the other hand, there are 'games' where your gain is not necessarily causing someone else loss. In that case, you might want to cooperate to maximize the common gain and consequently get a bigger share.

 

Economies tend to be centered heavily around zero sum games. If you bought something, then sold it at a profit, somebody else has lost the amount of money that you made. You are always in conflict with somebody else's interests. You can still cooperate with someone, but there always has to be a third party to take that loss. If such competition is not stimulated, which can happen in event of deflation, for example, the economy starts to slow down, which is bad for everyone.

 

For a gamer, the best analogy comes from deathmatch. Deathmatch mode is typically a classic example of a zero sum game. Example of a non-zero sum game is a coop. But real situations are more of a mix, which is like a team deathmatch. You cooperate within the team, but overall, it is still zero sum, because victory for one team is defeat for the other. And just like the game would not be fun if the teams are greatly unbalanced, so do economies have problem when some group has nobody to compete against.

Cool, very interesting, thanks colgate.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.