Imagine living in China...
polycounter lvl 18
...where women, video games, and penis size are kept at a minimum.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/26/china_game_ban/
Why ban The Sims2?
edit: also, check out the "topless teen game ban" link at the bottom. WTF? who would create and sell, or ever play such a game? that deserves the ban.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/26/china_game_ban/
Why ban The Sims2?
edit: also, check out the "topless teen game ban" link at the bottom. WTF? who would create and sell, or ever play such a game? that deserves the ban.
Replies
How can football harm you? I can understand RPGs and MMORPGS because people get addicted and you have to pay monthly, could with sims 2 I suppose but football?
Because the FIFA recognizes Taiwan and others as sovereign countries.
[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't FIFA; It's the Football Association
But hey, imagine living in Myanmar, a country completely isolated from the rest of creation, where it's illegal to own a modem!
/jzero
china is probly the biggest super power in the world ... it certainly has the largest army and economic abilities.
Fact is, the chinese have a huge amount of manpower which is slowly but surely working it's way up to 'totally developed, with nukes up in space, not-even-second-world' status; those shit poor villages are dwindling. Sure, you get a 5-to-1 ratio of people waiting on you in stores, but these people do have jobs and disposable income...which they're spending on chinese products, thereby keeping all the wealth created in their own country, all the while exporting consumer electronics to their heart's content.
Just too bad they have to live with a mayorly repressive regime. OTOH, not having the Sims 2 available isn't such a bad thing
funny , i sorta enjoyed playing the sims 2 ... its the only one on that list i think ive played.
as for how happy they are in china , im sure they have all the same sorta problems we have , but in different ratios, plus , you can only judge how happy you are , compared to how happy you have been , so while we may think that china sounds crap , im sure the general population just gets on with there lives ... some happy , some not.
Their defense relies mostly on nukes
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true China has the largest standing army on earth. Aswell, the number has 'almost' doubled within the 10 years. That says soemting about their economy. Training and feeding an army the size of a small country is no small feat.
-Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)
-Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)
-Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)
Source
well , there was the time afew years ago when the USA accidently missiled the chinese embasy in or around afganistan i cant remember where ) ... i seem to remember they demanded a big appoligy , but thats about it ...
[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't the United States, it was NATO. It wasn't a missile, it was a bomb. And, it wasn't Afghanistan, it was the city of Belgrade in Yugoslavia. Otherwise, you remember it exactly as it happened
I was thinking more of terrorism to bring the chinese government down. Their defense relies mostly on nukes, nukes are of no use with a location-less threat such as terrorism. Hell, the US wasn't capable of fighting terror, how would China do that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not that it proves anything, per se, but there haven't been any successful terrorist attacks in America since the 'War on Terror' campaign began. It has been three years and four months since the September 11th incidents.
Also, to follow PaK's point, China is probably less reliant on the threat of nuclear weapons as a defense policy than the Unites States is. The world's largest population, occupying the world's second largest national boundary, to go with the largest standing army and air force. Their technology isn't nearly as good as American tech is, but they can win with attrition like no one else, a point they proved in 1950-51. The PRC might not have the capacity to launch a remote attack the way the US can (which is partly why Taiwan is still free), but if it came down to putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm certain they could find a way and do a hell of a lot better job occupying the place. It doesn't matter how powerful your weapons are, there's no substitute for boots on the ground when occupying territory, and the Chinese have more of those than anyone.
[ QUOTE ]
Their defense relies mostly on nukes
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true China has the largest standing army on earth. Aswell, the number has 'almost' doubled within the 10 years. That says soemting about their economy. Training and feeding an army the size of a small country is no small feat.
-Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)
-Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)
-Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)
Source
[/ QUOTE ]
largest standing army, yes. however, how well are their soldiers trained and equipped? im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.
What I was referring to was the backwards 'legislated morality' of the Chinese authorities, and how they are so very Victorian, while at the same time they help manufacture the technology that allows us in the West to produce so much objectionable material. They won't be able to have it both ways, even though they think they will.
/jzero
i did hear that china are actually quite well trained ... but there general foot soldiers arnt as well equiped as americas i think ...
largest standing army, yes. however, how well are their soldiers trained and equipped? im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've no idea what you're talking about. The United States military couldn't even defeat Iraq with air power alone - that's why 100,000+ Army and Marine soldiers moved in after the initial air campaign. The failure of 'shock & awe' in Iraq should make this abundantly clear. It is absolutely impossible to defeat or even dislodge a trained, well-equipped and entrenched army purely with air power. Look at every major international conflict since the dawn of air warfare - no armed force has ever been defeated solely by his opponent's conventional air power.
Thermidor, et al: I wasn't joking, and I didn't mean to sound as though I thought China wasn't a major global player. It is.. sort of. Did you know that the Chinese government is still artificially propping up its currency? If market forces were allowed to 'find equilibrium' with the Chinese currency, they wouldn't be making half of what they are off of us now.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is the Federal Reserve trying to do when it's tinkering with interest rates if not 'propping up' the value of the American dollar? That said, China just has a static system of currency, one that doesn't take part of the usual global speculative currency market. It's a different system, but their money is phony paper money just as everyone else's is. Why is a dollar worth anything? Because the government says so. China just has a fixed market, which really isn't a surprise in a (supposedly) socialist system.
[ QUOTE ]
largest standing army, yes. however, how well are their soldiers trained and equipped? im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've no idea what you're talking about. The United States military couldn't even defeat Iraq with air power alone - that's why 100,000+ Army and Marine soldiers moved in after the initial air campaign. The failure of 'shock & awe' in Iraq should make this abundantly clear. It is absolutely impossible to defeat or even dislodge a trained, well-equipped and entrenched army purely with air power. Look at every major international conflict since the dawn of air warfare - no armed force has ever been defeated solely by his opponent's conventional air power.
[/ QUOTE ]
no im saying we could. we've got nukes you know.
im not suggesting using them, i was just saying we could.
Korea was a draw, Vietnam a defeat, Iraq War I was with an assist from the whole planet and Iraq War 2 continues to be a debacle of poor analysis, poor planning, poor deployment and poor execution.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I disagree with your main point, but the American miltary taking down Iraq with only 300 losses was a major achievement. They had almost a 50-1 ratio of deaths to kills in all of the major battles, I think that shows their might. What happened after that, and their nation building, is a different matter.
And also the first iraq war was the same as the second, almost 90% american, the rest british
there were saudi, free kuwaiti, french and other arab units involved as well.
the people doing the orders give the wrong ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
Be that as it may, the most powerful weapons pointed in the wrong direction still can't aquire the target.
American military might is awesome, no one would deny that, but it's main purpose is the comfort factor it provides people like you, and the intimidation it inflicts on the rest of us. The track record, as Verm mentioned in one of his posts, is mediocre at best.
This whole world runs on perception. Leadership is everything. Good leaders manage the perception of those that they lead. Read Rudolph Guiliani's new book, it's the most recent reiteration of these concepts that I have read.
----
Sundance:aswell being the operative word.
US troops represented only about 74% of the combined force (Gulf War)
So the word mostly is still correct.
Wikpedia source
From the horses mouth
----
[ QUOTE ]
im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.
[/ QUOTE ]
History doesn't agree with you.
The airforce is usually one of the first arms of the military deployed, but 'almost' every conflict in our post-cold war era has seen foot soldiers deployed.
Certainly every conflect against organized troops as opposed to the rabble of disgruntled peasents strapped with AK's that the US has squashed in my lifetime.
The VC had the napalm fighter jets flying home in the 70's. Mission 'not' accomplished. You're presumptions don't stand the test of time dude.
----
I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I'm just trying to shine a light to show a different perception. An elephant can easily squash a sizable target like a watermelon, but 400 sleeper cell ants running around under him (capable of functioning in the absence of central leadership) and now the big guy's stregth becomes his weakness.
I'd argue the exact oppsite. Old school conventional warefare is so much more difficult to contain than big fat juicy targets. China understands this, so did the VC (and the commies that armed them).
-R
Take the discussion not related to the article elsewhere. And I don't mean another post, I mean another message board. These thread-derailings are really dull. Seriously.
.
edit: also, check out the "topless teen game ban" link at the bottom. WTF? who would create and sell, or ever play such a game? that deserves the ban.
[/ QUOTE ]
Take Two
hat said, its unlikely Take-Two executives are thrilled to be the subject of another furor, this time back in the US, courtesy of The Guy Game. The Cox News Service reported this morning that a young woman has filed suit against the company for including footage of her topless, taken during the annual spring break revels on Texas' South Padre Island, without her legal consent.
Why? Because the woman in question was only 17 at the time, and therefore legally incapable of giving her consent to be in The Guy Game, let alone half naked. Furthermore, the assertion that the female plaintiff, identified only as "Jane Doe" in the suit, was a minor calls into question the legality of selling or distributing The Guy Game at all. As part of her suit, according to Cox, the plaintiff asked the Travis County Court in Austin, Texas, that all copies of The Guy Game with her likeness be removed from store shelves. Reportedly, the judge hearing the case concurred, granting a temporary order prohibiting sale of the game. The suit reportedly also said Ms. Doe's image could be seen on the official The Guy Game Web site, which was up and running normally as of press time.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/21/news_6115478.html
Not true China has the largest standing army on earth. Aswell, the number has 'almost' doubled within the 10 years. That says soemting about their economy. Training and feeding an army the size of a small country is no small feat.
-Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)
-Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)
-Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)
The USA also has 12 more aircraft carriers than any other nation on the earth, it would be a hell of a fight between us and china, and unfortunately the only way the war could be won on either side I believe would be if a nuke was used.
That guy game was an idiotic idea anyway. A trivia game where you get to see some average girls topless when you win? Hell, you can pick up a tabloid for 50 cents and have three to four ( sometimes only nearly) naked (privates covered) models to gawk at. And it comes out daily. Not to mention the internet's porn archives but I assume we don't count real porn here...
If you need the trivia stuff, grab You Don't Know Jack or Who Wants to Be A Millionaire. Hold the Bild next to it and you got something that is a billion times better than the guy game.
Fun Fact: Gamespot said The Guy Game would be Gamecube exclusive the first time it was mentioned. Perhaps Nintendo was the only one too scared of losing a third party to protest against that content back then?
Edit: and whoever gets upset by this really needs a break and some fresh air.
I mean another message board.
[/ QUOTE ]
wow, thats pretty harsh. Sounds like you have a bone to pick.
-R