So what's with all the wimpy reality TV these days. I never watch the shows except when flipping to catch a few minutes when nothing else is on. I did, however, watch survivor reruns about 6-7 years ago when the station would play them every night. Perhaps that's why I see the difference when I'm unfortunate enough to catch a few minutes of Stranded or whatever the show was called where they're supposed to be marooned on a dessert island (not that survivor was all that 'survivor' either). I mean, the entire time was about various quasi-romantic liaisons, and everyone was nicely showered and wearing good clothes. I really must be missing something here, but where's the 'reality' in this 'reality TV' or the feeling of being stranded and needing to survive?
What I'd like to see is something much more reality:
-Stack an island with props / food / challenges / cameras
-Drop teams at either end of the island
-Leave them to their own devices to get food, water and find the way off
-Each evening the teams do a secret ballot to remove one member. That person is taken off quietly/secretely while the groups sleep.
-Various challenges are added each day, but without knowledge of groups (until the challenges are encountered). That could mean that, as they move through the island, their path behind becomes perilous also.
-Challenges are set so that teams figure everything out on their own, and eventually when getting to the end, there is only one person left
-Important: at no time does anyone from either team come in contact with show hosts or anyone setting the challenges (except when taken from the island or for medical reasons). The challenges are not scripted (i.e. there are no instructions to read, no one telling them what to do). Everything is totally 'real'.
That's what I would called survivor reality TV. Not this club med stuff that's on now.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Of Afghanistan and Video Games
As ever more British soldiers are killed in Afghanistan (204 as of writing), ever more questions are asked by the British media and public. Before I go any further I'd just like to state that I support the idea of removing the Taliban from Afghanistan and I believe it should have been the main goal in the region even before 9/11. The resources poured into the illegal invasion of Iraq would have been much more useful in Afghanistan where they could have actually combated an evil/terrorist supporting regime.
Be that as it may, it seems the US/UK still hasn't learned their lesson (or aren 't actually serious about taking Afghanistan?). Somehow, the governments are still playing at WWII tactics and haven't realized that most of their wars since then have been more akin to guerrilla warfare than European urban warfare. I saw an interview with a government official this morning who insists that over the last few months the troops realize they've been making substantial progress. Then, when questioned further on a timeline, he goes on to say that both he and the general believe that very real progress can be realized over the next several years.
What?
He's spouting such a can of hogwash it isn't funny. The short of it is that, as of now, Afghanistan is basically another Iraq (if you consider the real Iraq battles to have started after Hussein was ousted). And that is precisely because the government is being wishy-washy and is not fully committing either way (going full-on or pulling out). Granted, the terrain of Afghanistan does present some formidable problems as does the guerrilla nature of the conflict against an army of fundamentalist zealots. Which is precisely why the governments need to decide go-or-no-go and stick to it. A policy of perpetual war might have been useful for them in the past, but considering the internet for disemminating information/opinion and considering the financial crisis and a wishy-washy policy is far more detrimental to all involved than almost any other option.
The numbers I've seen are that there are an estimated 20,000 Taliban. The report this morning said the UK military is requesting there be 9000 UK troops and the US around 30,000 troops with a total internation forces of around 65,000.
?
Either someone hasn't been doing their math right, or, as I suggested above, they're treating this as an urban European war. If these numbers are correct, the international forces outnumber the Taliban around 3:1 To have any chance at winning a guerrilla war the attacking forces (us) typically requires 10:1 numerical superiority. So, the numbers alone will tell you that this war will not end any time soon (and probably never with a favourable outcome for us).
Conspiracy freaks have your way with this info (i.e. either someone has goofed big time, or someone doesn't want the war to end).
So where do the video games come into it? Only regarding battle experience in relation to numerical superiority. Anyone who has ever played a real-time-strategy game (RTS) such as Warcraft, Starcraft or any of the numerous others in the genre quickly realizes that without appropriate numerical superiority there is very little hope of victory. In fact, the only thing that stops an devastating counter attack is lack of resources by the enemy.
For those of you who don't like numbers, keep hoping that something good will come of it. Those of us who've looked at the numbers know that a finish to this is very unlikely in the near future--and the finish we desire much less so even then.
Be that as it may, it seems the US/UK still hasn't learned their lesson (or aren 't actually serious about taking Afghanistan?). Somehow, the governments are still playing at WWII tactics and haven't realized that most of their wars since then have been more akin to guerrilla warfare than European urban warfare. I saw an interview with a government official this morning who insists that over the last few months the troops realize they've been making substantial progress. Then, when questioned further on a timeline, he goes on to say that both he and the general believe that very real progress can be realized over the next several years.
What?
He's spouting such a can of hogwash it isn't funny. The short of it is that, as of now, Afghanistan is basically another Iraq (if you consider the real Iraq battles to have started after Hussein was ousted). And that is precisely because the government is being wishy-washy and is not fully committing either way (going full-on or pulling out). Granted, the terrain of Afghanistan does present some formidable problems as does the guerrilla nature of the conflict against an army of fundamentalist zealots. Which is precisely why the governments need to decide go-or-no-go and stick to it. A policy of perpetual war might have been useful for them in the past, but considering the internet for disemminating information/opinion and considering the financial crisis and a wishy-washy policy is far more detrimental to all involved than almost any other option.
The numbers I've seen are that there are an estimated 20,000 Taliban. The report this morning said the UK military is requesting there be 9000 UK troops and the US around 30,000 troops with a total internation forces of around 65,000.
?
Either someone hasn't been doing their math right, or, as I suggested above, they're treating this as an urban European war. If these numbers are correct, the international forces outnumber the Taliban around 3:1 To have any chance at winning a guerrilla war the attacking forces (us) typically requires 10:1 numerical superiority. So, the numbers alone will tell you that this war will not end any time soon (and probably never with a favourable outcome for us).
Conspiracy freaks have your way with this info (i.e. either someone has goofed big time, or someone doesn't want the war to end).
So where do the video games come into it? Only regarding battle experience in relation to numerical superiority. Anyone who has ever played a real-time-strategy game (RTS) such as Warcraft, Starcraft or any of the numerous others in the genre quickly realizes that without appropriate numerical superiority there is very little hope of victory. In fact, the only thing that stops an devastating counter attack is lack of resources by the enemy.
For those of you who don't like numbers, keep hoping that something good will come of it. Those of us who've looked at the numbers know that a finish to this is very unlikely in the near future--and the finish we desire much less so even then.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
If God does exist...so what?
I've spent much of my life questioning the existence of God. I was twelve when I told my parents I wasn't going to church anymore because I didn't believe. And that wasn't just a kid complaining about an unpleasant chore. I didn't believe because it was my impression that the events of the bible could more likely be carried out by aliens than Gods. Seems even at twelve I instinctively understood the burden of proof, or more accurately, the truth behind the phrase: an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
Be that as it may, I think I've reached the point where it's time I've moved on to a new question. I'm now more concerned with the idea that, even if God exists, why should anyone worship him?
Perhaps I come at the whole religion thing differently than most people and that's why I can't understand the common thinking. I believe that, if God(s) exist it/they are simply being of a greater scale than us. Even as we are of greater scale than other beings. They may even have created the universe from an older universe outside ours (or maybe universe creation is just a natural even of the cosmos). But even if they did create our universe...so what? That still doesn't leave any reason, in my mind, for worshiping them.
I suppose many believe that such a god holds the key to other dimensions--afterlives, if you will--and that worshipping them, getting in their good books will come with rewards. Yeah. Whatever. If you believe that a being capable of creating universes has anything but a passing interest in your existence then...well, let's say, I have some property in Atlantis to sell you. Do we take any serious notice of ants? When we stick them in an ant farm, do we really care about them. Do we feel any great, long-lived angst when we empty the farm in the back yard when it's time for us to move on? 'Higher' beings do not, and never will truly care for 'lower' beings except as pets or curiousities.
So whether God(s) is creator, higher being, or imaginary friend, there is absolutely no reason to worship him/her/it/them except self delusion.
Be that as it may, I think I've reached the point where it's time I've moved on to a new question. I'm now more concerned with the idea that, even if God exists, why should anyone worship him?
Perhaps I come at the whole religion thing differently than most people and that's why I can't understand the common thinking. I believe that, if God(s) exist it/they are simply being of a greater scale than us. Even as we are of greater scale than other beings. They may even have created the universe from an older universe outside ours (or maybe universe creation is just a natural even of the cosmos). But even if they did create our universe...so what? That still doesn't leave any reason, in my mind, for worshiping them.
I suppose many believe that such a god holds the key to other dimensions--afterlives, if you will--and that worshipping them, getting in their good books will come with rewards. Yeah. Whatever. If you believe that a being capable of creating universes has anything but a passing interest in your existence then...well, let's say, I have some property in Atlantis to sell you. Do we take any serious notice of ants? When we stick them in an ant farm, do we really care about them. Do we feel any great, long-lived angst when we empty the farm in the back yard when it's time for us to move on? 'Higher' beings do not, and never will truly care for 'lower' beings except as pets or curiousities.
So whether God(s) is creator, higher being, or imaginary friend, there is absolutely no reason to worship him/her/it/them except self delusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)