Fuck me, if the world can't get any crazier.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html
Printable View
Fuck me, if the world can't get any crazier.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html
See, the irony here is that SLLA went belly up months ago because its members quit when it was discovered that SLLA was founded by a corporate intelligence firm.
http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...ond_life_.html
Mala, I don't think we should fuck! It would get weird.
Now -that- is bizarre! Not the sex thing, though that's also a little strange. I hear about Second Life once in a while because of things like this, but I have never actually heard of people sending resources to combat terrorism in a virtual world.
Throwing in my ever unseriousness... that WOULD help make the world get crazier.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
Mala, I don't think we should fuck! It would get weird.
Come on... I haven't played the game in question and I'm just guessing about its arsenal, but are we really supposed to believe that a cursed-soul-sucking sword (+5) and magic missiles are the things we should be worried about in the fight against terror?Quote:
Kevin Zuccato, head of the Australian High Tech Crime Centre in Canberra, says terrorists can gain training in games such as World of Warcraft in a simulated environment, using weapons that are identical to real-world armaments.
Well, the US Government licensed a game technology similar to Second Life called "There." "There" failed as a game, but it was a useful tool for simulating real cities and then using it to train soldiers on how to protect visiting diplomats, practice watching a check point, etc.
If the software can be used for counter-terrorism, surely it can be used to train for terrorism.
The article seemed to focus on Second Life, which is a lot different than Threshold type games. In games like SL and There you can actually build replicas of real life locations, benefit from a pretty decent physics engine, and actually simulate situations. I can see how that could definitely be used for terrorist training.
Sorry, no. There is nothing that even approximates to Douglas Adams' Babelfish. Anyone who's worked with either linguistics or computer file formats (the two are quite similar, actually - but the latter is FAR simpler and more straightforward, imo!) will know that a language reflects its culture. Every language has words and phrases to express concepts unique to the culture that created it, and these concepts simply aren't reflected in other languages - so when you translate, you have to approximate somewhat. Hardest to translate are acronyms (do you translate the individual words, or do you transliterate the acronym and then explain it in some other way?), slang expressions, and humour. There will never EVER be an automated translator that can handle these. It's hard enough for a human to do it.Quote:
...spread across the world, using instant language translation tools to communicate...
English, in spite of its many stupidities (in spelling, pronunciation, etc), has by far the richest vocabulary of technical terms. To see what happens when you translate things that don't translate, just look at a lengthy piece of software documentation that's been translated into German, or Italian, or Russian (especially as Russian doesn't use the Latin alphabet). You'll see a LOT of English words interspersed - because it's easier to transliterate and then explain a term, than to come up with a translation. Example: http://cvs.drupal.org/viewvc.py/drup...ru?view=markup mentiones TeX, LaTeX, HTML, latex2html, and even "footnote" (presumably because it's a keyword that the program recognizes - Russian users of the program would simply have to know that that's what to type).
Yes, this simulated world MAY be a problem. But it's nothing like the degree of problem that someone's hyping it up to be.
And vice versa.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
If the software can be used for counter-terrorism, surely it can be used to train for terrorism.
Ever since their invention, simulators have been used for both sides of the law. Computers are now powerful (and cheap) enough that anyone can have a pretty decent simulator in his hands. Game, or training tool? Apart from the increased cost for the increased realism, what's the difference between a flight trainer simulator and the flying games that people play on their PCs at home?
Computerized enviroment helps terrorism a lot.
I'm a bit skeptical about simulators and the such, but for example, the best practical software terrorist organizations use is GoogleEarth. The program enables the terrorists to pinpoint their targets without ever seeing it with their own eyes (though this method is of course still used if the target is near) and adjust their weapons (be it rockets, anti tank missiles or whatever) to the seeked target. An organization can plan a raid over a base that is basically far from sight - know its size, know how to get there (hidden spots) and many other details.
An then there's encrypted communication over the internet...
Anyway, I really don't think simulators pose any serious threat over the western world, but there are many other programs that do, and unfortunately, there is little we can do about it.
Never say never ;). At my workplace for example, remarkable results have been achieved using genetic algorithms and sophisticated neural networks. I estimate than in a few decades (maybe 50 years?), such a translator could exist with stunning accuracy.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
There will never EVER be an automated translator that can handle these.
Actually, I will say never, on this. Yes, translators can and no doubt will improve. But some things are impossible to translate, and no amount of technological improvement will change that. If it's possible to translate perfectly from one language to another, then the second must be a superset of the first (or else they're completely identical), such as semaphore signals and "Here Come Dots" - as far as I know, any semaphore message can be translated into Morse.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Never say never ;). At my workplace for example, remarkable results have been achieved using genetic algorithms and sophisticated neural networks. I estimate than in a few decades (maybe 50 years?), such a translator could exist with stunning accuracy.
As a simple example of how subtle differences make perfect translation impossible, some years ago I read 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (in English - translated from the original French). It puzzled me why Capt Nemo, lord and master of the vessel, should address the Professor as "Sir" - a token of some deference, in English. The original French used Monsieur(sp?) which is slightly different in meaning, carrying respect without so much deference. The translators had two options: Either put in a similar, but not identical, English word, or transliterate the French word and expect people to understand the nuances of the French (which, in this instance, is quite reasonable - and I've seen a number of translations of French works that do precisely that). This sort of thing will always happen, and as cultures change and shift, so will the language, making it impossible for human or computer to keep up.
I picked a slightly bad example above, actually. Semaphore and Morse aren't languages, they're encodings - on par with handwriting, ASCII, EBCDIC, and so on (they only render letters, not words/sentences/thoughts - the message can still be in English, Latin, or REXX, and the encoder doesn't care). The same translation issues occur with encodings as with languages, but it's easier to find perfect translations between encodings than between languages.
I'm not saying that computerized translators can offer a 'perfect' translation (in fact, to quote myself, I said they could be stunningly accurate), but they should be able to achieve a level of accuracy comparable to human translators.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
it's easier to find perfect translations between encodings than between languages.
Also, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea isn't what we were originally discussing, but rather the following phrase from the article:
"The bomb-maker and his students could be spread across the world, using instant language translation tools to communicate."
You said this wasn't possible, but I believe a future automated translator would be sufficient to accomodate this.
Right. No human translator is perfect at handling poetry, humour or slang, and no computer ever will either. (Just look at the multiple translations there are of opera - I am personally familiar with three quite different English versions of Lehar's "Merry Widow", and that's not including parodies).Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
I'm not saying that computerized translators can offer a 'perfect' translation (in fact, to quote myself, I said they could be stunningly accurate), but they should be able to achieve a level of accuracy comparable to human translators.
The one thing that a computer-based translation tool can offer that a human can't is: Speed. There's NO WAY that you could have real-time chat in multiple languages with human translators. The trouble is, even allowing for technological advances, translation of pure written word is HARD. Really hard. If you have a lecturer with a translator standing beside him, the translator has more than just the words to go on, but real-time chat doesn't offer that. And what about abbreviations, which become _more_ common, not less, in the situation suggested? Extra difficulty for a computer.Quote:
Also, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea isn't what we were originally discussing, but rather the following phrase from the article:
"The bomb-maker and his students could be spread across the world, using instant language translation tools to communicate."
You said this wasn't possible, but I believe a future automated translator would be sufficient to accomodate this.
But who knows? Maybe I'll be proved wrong in a few years or a couple of decades. If so, I'll eat my words with pleasure - technological advances delight me, regardless of what uses they may be put to.
Well anyways, when I was on SL fighting LePen's groupies, most of the anti-lepen activists were french or german, and most of the lepenites themselves were french. I just had google translate up the whole time and copied and pasted. It probably added a couple of seconds to the conversation and that's it. SL has an addin that uses google translate called the babel fish also which broadcasts your speaking into another language. As you say, it's not perfect, but it allows communication.
Now sure it's true that people could communicate with eachother on these games but I don't buy the physics thing. Buildings aren't affected by weapons in SL, there's a flash of light and some particles, but that's it - the buildings are untouched. Neither do weapons affect people in the same way as they would in RL. The worst that can happen to you is to get orbited (where you're pushed thousands of feet above the ground and have to wait ages while you gently float back to the land) death itself, just teleports you to your grid of choice.
Every example the article used was either wrong, invented or exaggerated - bad journalism with what in mind? To create enough dread and alarm to make people want secret services across the world online and logging your every move?
Second Life trains you to conduct terrorist actions in the real world like playing doom trains you to fire a sniper rifle.
That is to say: not at all in any remotely meaningful sense.
While it is a helpful tool to have things like online recreations of various areas and locations, if you have appropriate data to recreate them accurately enough in the first place, you have enough information to make the same 3d modelling using pretty much any tool you would care to apply.
More and more, as computers, and the online community advance past the understanding of those who weren't raised understanding it, so to increases the ignorant fear-mongering about how the internet is going to destroy the world.
This would have been wildly incorrect if you had chosen a more realistic shooting game, but that topic is a thread unto itself.Quote:
Second Life trains you to conduct terrorist actions in the real world like playing doom trains you to fire a sniper rifle.
That is to say: not at all in any remotely meaningful sense.
Yeah. Doesn't the Army actually consider the America's Army game to be a useful tool for familiarizing people (mainly potential recruits) with basic weapons and tactics?Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
This would have been wildly incorrect if you had chosen a more realistic shooting game, but that topic is a thread unto itself.
I seem to remember reading interviews with people from the Army saying the game was useful for those purposes - which was why they funded its development in the first place.
I also believe that development is still ongoing.
Even outside of America's Army, any game that can teach you how to place an aiming point (and many games do this on actual weapons) is useful from a training perspective. Games that incorporate slow variations in fixed-point aiming due to breathing are helpful even moreso, but now we're off topic.
But there is still a -vast- difference between
"This game simulates some aspects of firing a gun, such that people being trained to fire a gun might find this game helpful in that regard"
and
"This game is a murder simulator that teaches people to want to kill, and teaches them how to kill"
Which is not an uncommon statement to hear about these kinds of games in today's society.
You generally can't teach a person to want to kill (not just with a videogame, anyway), but densitization to violence as well as a good grounding in the fundamentals of shooting probably doesn't hurt. Besides, the original point of the article was that Second Life was being used for a method of communication, not that the game interface itself was actually being utilized as an insurgent trainer.
You might want to go back and re-read the article, because they actually are saying that people are using Second Life as a terrorist trainer. Here's a quote straight from the article:Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
Besides, the original point of the article was that Second Life was being used for a method of communication, not that the game interface itself was actually being utilized as an insurgent trainer.
Surprisingly, that's not even the stupidest thing they said in the article. Check this out:Quote:
Originally posted by theaustralian
With the game taking such a sinister turn, terrorism experts are warning that SL attacks have ramifications for the real world. Just as September 11 terrorists practised flying planes on simulators in preparation for their deadly assault on US buildings, law enforcement agencies believe some of those behind the Second Life attacks are home-grown Australian jihadists who are rehearsing for strikes against real targets.
I sincerely hope this is a case of somebody being misquoted by a sensationalistic reporter trying to make something sound dangerous. If not, Malacasta has a right to be extremely pissed off at the way her tax money is being spent. The utter cluelessness of the above quote is mind boggling.Quote:
Originally posted by theaustralian
Kevin Zuccato, head of the Australian High Tech Crime Centre in Canberra, says terrorists can gain training in games such as World of Warcraft in a simulated environment, using weapons that are identical to real-world armaments.
This story is at least 3/4s gameophobic bullshit on the level that Jack Thompson spews. It makes it hard for me to take seriously the other 1/4 that -might- have some accuracy.
Having had several professional discussions with Zuccato, I would have to say probably not, Leira. He's not exactly a tech savvy type of fellow. "A cop working in a technology area" would be a fair assessment.
Well, on the bright side, once terrorists start launching attacks with a six foot long glowing sword that shoots lightning bolts in each hand, the Australian police are going to be ready for it.
Fair enough, I was apparently sidetracked by the discussion about translation and language and did not go back to re-read the original article. I will agree that it is incredibly stupid. Incredibly.
What exactly are we supposed to learn from World of Warcraft that assists in terrorist training? I guess it helps with coordination on Vent or TS. ("Group 1, 3, and 5 left. Watch the whelps!") Couldn't that be argued with ANY team sports? Winning a game of basketball or football is much, much tougher and requires much more critical thinking than downing a boss in that game.
It sounds like these people are talking out of their butts and just jumping on the "violence in videogames" bandwagon. I bet the movie industry is funding this research!! :D