Schnittertm

Again, the case of logic would dictate that the many outweigh the few, the other thing starts to go into what I said, that morals are subjective. You might go a bit further though. Are the adults still able and willing to procreate? If so, then the loss of the child is acceptable, as they can easily 'make' more. If, however, they are barren, then let them die. The only logic, if you could call it that, is for the life to go on multiplying and spreading and adapting if it wants to survive. In this case only ability and willingness to procreate would be the logical choice. You could go even further, to show how logic can be quite contratry to human decission making, by saying that the child is terminally ill. In this case let it die each time, every time. But what if you don't know that, but see a lot of 90 year olds on the other track. Then you might try to safe the child, as logic would dictate that it is able to procreate, whereas the others aren't. The end result being, that you effictively 'removed' five people that weren't able to procreate at all to safe a child that won't get old enough to procreate, so effectively you would have changed nothing, no matter the decission. Yet your logic would have dictated that you were right. A whole can of worms you could open up there. Heck, even in the natural universe are things that we can describe by mathematics, but can't really fathom. Electrons being all over the place and measuring them would change their state, meaning the measuring is pointless. We can only describe it by probabilities, which are mathematically logical and coherent, but give only a description of reality, yet do not necessarily depict the real, current state of a system. Many are the times when logic fails and we can't make a decision or have to make a gut decision. Some decissions we can put off until later, until we have more information, but most of the time we just don't have all the information we need and need to decide on the information we have. I think there was a TNG episode where Geordi explained it in some such way to Lal (Data's daughter), after Lal had asked why decisions are not made with all data available.

I guess mainly because in the case of the trolley experiment it would be the logical way to have one person die, no matter how that is achieved, to save five other people. Yet, somehow, when we would have only one way to do it and that is by shoving someone in front of the trolley, it feels to us wrong, even though logic would say it is right.

Even the soldier that jumps on the grenade to save his team mates? Killing yourself doesn't look like such a big advantage to me.

Your answer to where do morals come from is logic and then you post a formula? Let's go by that then: X is right Y is wrong X can't be Y X is killing Y is not killing X can't be Y Therefore: Killing is right Not killing is wrong Killing can't be Not killing There is a problem with logic as a basis for morals, because logic just is. 1 + 1 = 2 That is something that will never change, no matter how much we would like it. Morals on the other hand, are something quite different. Killing yourself is, by your Hitler example, therefore a moral thing to do, yet many do not see it thusly, mainly because death in and of itself is seen as a very bad thing and because we evolved into a social species that would at least like to try to help someone that has thoughts of killing themselves. That is the current moral standard. Someone killing Hitler in self defence or defence of others is okay, yet what to do if not killing Hitler in self defence was the right thing to do, because the person that would have replaced him would have been 20 times worse. Someone just killing Hitler for the heck of it, well, knowing what we know now about him, it might have been acceptable from our viewpoint if it could have prevented several tens of millions of deaths, but at the time of the deed it would have been looked at with a very harsh view and as bad. Another example, torture, it was widely accepted as a means of getting an admission of guilt for a very long time and was used as that. Many were maimed and judged guilty because of that, yet at the time it was the moral, the right thing to do, as if one was not guilty, then even under torture he would not have to confess to something that that person clearly did not commit. The problem with logic is, that it usually is binary, it deals with absolutes and morals, as I pointed out with the example of Robin Hood, are not absolute. If they were, then every killing, regardless of circumstances would be wrong, otherwise it would look like this: X is wrong unless Y happens or Z happens but not if A is involved though possibly if B is there If morals where logical and ingrained in the nature of the universe, then you would have something that you could explain by mathematical formulas. Yet moral behaviour is still deeply subjective. Some of it comes from our evolution, it makes us look for ways to survive, which is why someone that is hungry and can't afford food may know that by the standards of human society it may be wrong to steal food, but he still thinks it is morally right, because the death of himself, of a fully grown, consious and sentient being would be wrong. Lets just forget for a moment in this case that food was free for the taking a few ten thousand years ago, first come, first served. Usually it is just assumed that killing or stealing is wrong, because it is something that we ourselves would not want to have done to, but to derive from this circumstance the point of argument that therefore there is an objective set of morals is, in my opinion, quite wrong and certainly not logical. If morals were logical you'd have no philosophical arguments about them, no tests to see how people would react, like the trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). In the case that morals were logic no one would hesitate to state that shoving off the fat man to stop the trolley would be moral, however it is not seen like that by most people (the need of the many outweighs the need of the few). It is a very ambiguous problem that serves to show that morals are a case were logic fails. Therefore I can not, in good conscience, share your thought of morals being logcial, objective or absolute.

The main question here would be, where would objective morals come from? A God? Unlikely, as he would also be a subject and would only enforce his subjective rules on us, as is evidence by religion, which tries to claim that moral objectivity can only come from its supernatural deity. The physical rules of our universe? Again, no moral objectivity here, as the physical laws that govern our universe are no sentient beings and therefore can't care about morals and can't enforce them. Right now I can't see evidence of an objective moral law giver, as any of those things would have to have sentience and a certain understanding of things to create morals, which in turn would make it a subject and that subject would only infuse its subjectivity into the moral code. Many of the moral behaviours we as human species exhibit can also be seen, albeit to a lesser extent, in animals. Usually there are very specific cases when one being of a species kills another one of its own. Usually it has to do with culling those that are not of its own genes (male lions for example) or it is ingrained in the species (certain female spiders eating the males after sex). You have birds that have strong alpha males that give food to weaker or less successful males to garner favor with the females. Most of the things we do, that end up as one part of our moral code, have to do with the continuation of the species as a whole. Each individual being has his own set of moral rules that are influenced by genetics, the community, life experiences and other things. A lot of individuals that share similar (not necessarily the exact same) outlooks on certain deeds like killing or taking something agree on a set of rules, those rules are then made into laws for that society and most of the time the effort is made to make them as objective as possible, yet we still need judges and juries to determine a sentence in the case one of the laws has been broken, as each case is again a very subjective matter. To say that slavery or killing or stealing are wrong in an absolute manner is just a very untrue statement in my opinion, as absolutes never cover everything. There are exceptions to each an every case. Killing in self defence or the defence of others are examples when killing is seen as a necessary 'evil'. Stealing bread from the rich might not be 'right', but then again, how did the rich get their money? Often by exploitation of those that were less crafty than them, which, by the way, still is the case. Now certainly two wrongs don't make one right, but still, in the hearts and minds of the exploited a person like Robin Hood is a hero, he may that even be to some of the law enforcement, even though they might not admit it, yet he is a menace to those he takes from. It is here just the concepts of right and wrong are ingrained in us from our childhood onwards. We are able to change our view of things, but many things we do pick up from our parents and the society we live in. Our 'enlightened' western society sees killing someone for adultery as a bad thing, in certain islamic regions it is just and right to stone adulterers to death. There are so many more examples that you could show that morality is both subjective to individuals as well as to a certain type of society and that it has and will change with the circumstances and pressures put on those individuals and societies. This does even extent to less intelligent beings such as animals, as even they do form societies with rules and regulations, which certainly are not as complex as human societies, but they are there.

Hey, I know a solution to that. I build a timemachine, travel back, interview all the people in question with modern technology (its small enough to be hidden) and get copies of the test results and papers and then report back. Ok, then on to building that time machine.... Now, where did I put my flux capacitor?

Nah, he didn't know the whole of it, because they didn't chase the ball for 90 minutes, but for 120 minutes (or 129 minutes if you factor in additional time and the 2 minutes the referee put on top at the end of extra time).

Dang, I must have missed all of the North Korean games. They must be really good.

Unreal, that is the only word with which I can describe this game.

Well, if Germany doesn't do anything stupid then they will play the next time on Sunday.

It really came down to the wire, but Neuer ensured the german victory.

Certainly they would have lost, it can not be disputed among the facts of having to fight in Mussolinis wars, not securing North Africa and Russia first, attacking targets of little strategic importance, not having long range bombers and having the german industrial centers bombed nightly and after declaration of war against the US even during the day didn't help. Add to that not attacking the british and irish Isles, which had a not unassialable but hard to attack stating area that was ignored the whole war and you certainly got a recepie for disaster where attrition will get the better of you in the end, even with the fairly high production numbers of military hardware for such a small country as Germany. That there were no truly dedicated long range bombers in the german arsenal at the beginning and even towards the end of the war also didn't help, as strikes agains American production lines and research centers were not possible. Even if they were, the sheer size of the US would have made it possible to have these in places hard to reach or bomb, easily hidden away from view. Without a large enough navy and landing operation the US wouldn't have fallen anyway and won almost by default. But in the end I believe that we still ended up with the better deal here in Germany with Hitler losing. On the other hand, would I know any different if he had won (disregarding the fact if I would even be here then)?

Maybe because we first need a proof of concept working and then refine it. Look at the first tanks in WWI for example, they were huge, hot lumbering beasts with underpowered engines and small weapons if at all, that over time were developed into mobile weapons platforms able to engage targets even while moving with high accuracy. The same can be said for most technologies. The first iterations, when looked at, seem by todays standards simple and outdated, yet without that first computer, the first wheel, the first car, the first plane, the first whatever built, there would not have been a process of refinement. Naturally, it shouldn't be assumed that all paths will lead to success, but to start a path one has to walk one with the first, very basic prototypes and go on from there.

Now, if I would want to employ any type of Mech it certainly wouldn't be those from the Battletech universe, as they are just more or less lumbering hulks. If I had a choice, I'd rather chose Wanzer form the Front Mission universe, as they are modular (different types of legs [two, four or hover], arms and weapons can be fitted) and very mobile, at least if you go by certain ingame rendering in say Front Mission 4 (see here ). They can be fitted as long-range artillery (mostly missile based), snipers, medium range attackers, scout/forward missile controller or even with melee weapons. They'd be also small enough with about 5-8 meters height (2.5-4.5 times human).

So, I did a little more digging and got confirmation from Precise 3D modeling that he does not have the license to use the picture. I also sent an inquiry to SCN Studios regarding the similarities and they just sent me a link to the Unity engines assets store, but it was very enlightening, see here: https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/13420 It seems that his whole simulation is just based off of an asset pack created by an Indian compay called Hardworker Studio costing 50 US$. Now he might have just bought it and modified it, as he probably is allowed to do, but it certainly is not his own work and I believe I should create a write up to Steam and Kickstarter about it, as I believe what he is doing is very close to fraud.

Well, I did ask the dev a few hard questions on his comments page (see exchange in screenshots below) and it turns out that any and all comments critical of this development are deleted and not answered. He even wrote that it apparently there are some groups working against him to stop his project and he may be right about that, because it more and more looks like a scam. Also, someone else inquired at Precise 3D Modeling and it seems he did not acquire a license to use the picture that he used for his "package" shot. I believe I shall inquire, too, just to make sure.

That was pretty much the first thought I had, after finding his project while browsing on Kickstarter, which eventually led me to the Steam page. Naturally, realistic and flight sim did pique my intrest and the nice picture of the Yaks that accompanied it led me to click the link to the project page, but I also found it strange that it should only be 500£. There is always that ringing when some things don't fit together and sometimes I do a bit of digging. So far it seems that the Deluxe Air this James Callum offers is the exact same game as the Android application Air Strike 3D made by some SCN Studios, however there seems to be no contact information for them. Air Strike 3D is free, so it might be that all the assests where just ripped and converted for PC. As I'm not programmer I don't know how hard or easy it would be to do in this case (maybe even with an Android emulator in place). I also don't know if he, in fact, is a or the sole member of SCN studios or not related to them in any way. They seem to have a webpage, but it is shut down ( http://www.scnstudios.com/cgi-sys/defaultwebpage.cgi) . Another thing that does raise a red flag is the comments section. Comments that are positive are the only thing you see there, but critical comments are deleted, apparently in a way to make the game more appealing. My guess at this point is, that this person is someone who wants to use Steam Greenlight to get the game onto Steam, very likely as an Early Access version, in the hopes of trying to make money, without actually doing anything at all or much to the "game". I did download his development version and tried it (after looking for virii) and let's just say that this version is even further removed from reality then the BF3 + BF4 flight models. You roll, but fly on straight, so turning is only possible by pitching after rolling. The aircraft also has no change in pitch on roll and since speed is fixed you can also not play around with that. Unlimited ammo, a piss poor model of the P-47 and the F-16 and something ripped from Star Wars, a tower a gun and a desert. This put together does show that whatever he is trying is in for a very long haul, but he promised to add more views (outside and such apparently) in the future. Kickstarter goals are also quite intriguing, for 60£ you can help in designing a ground object. So, all in all, I do quite strongly believe that, if he gets the chance, he'll be trying to abuse the Steam early access system for an imagined "get-rich-quick" scheme. There are other projects on Steam that are quite intriguing, but ultimately only play with expectations of people. If you want to have a look at another flight "simulator" on Steam, just look at Air Control ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/295810 ). There is also a bit of controversy going on on the attached forums to that "game", as the dev was (I think he isn't anymore) banning users critical or at least deleting or changing posts entirely. But I guess its to be expected that there will always be a few black sheep, trying to use assets or tools they barely understand (or don't even own) to create a "game", that is not worth be called it, much less even a simulation. I just don't know if I should feel sorry or just curse the people guillible enough to buy into those schemes. Probably a bit of both.

No problem, I just called Death and he'll set your life clock 45 seconds back.

Flies just as silly, too. If you roll, you'll just fly straight on, no descent, no turn, just like in BF, which is why I tried it shortly and then turned away in disgust.

Even as arcade game I find it lacking. There's games from the 80's that had more content. To be honest, though, I don't even know if that guy on Steam is related to/working for/owing the SCN Studios, which release this game as Air Strike 3D for Android. A Kickstarter campaign for only 500£, so that he can get the game on Steam Greenlight and what he promises on his Kickstarter and Steam concept pages seem rather fishy to me. I certainly know that the game is as far removed from a simulation as can be, there is certainly one offer on Steam that is better and that is Goat Simulator (... you didn't think I was talking about DCS, right? ;) ). To me this whole thing seems fishy and he might just have ripped the free Android app and put it up on Steam for a quick cash grab. Ah, I don't know, but the puzzle pieces just don't fit right for me.

Here is a concept for an advanced flight simulator on Steam Greenlight, enjoy the realistic handling and graphics of a renamed Air Strike 3D (for Android) and if you'd like pledge in the kickstarter. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=260025161 Pffffffffffffff HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! :megalol: Okay, just have a laugh, guys.

You know, it's a bit late for that now, isn't it? You would've had to delete your account before the hacking to prevent your personal info from getting away. But it seems that, as is the case with many of these hackings, they weren't able to get payment data and Kickstarter had the passwords encrypted, making it harder to decrypt.

Uhm, SkateZilla, light years are a measurement of distance, not one of time. ;)

As Dark Eagle said, 1.2.7 is the current stable non-beta release build, but seeing as DCS World is in a continual flux, being upgrade, fixed and having new aircraft, systems and technologies added, your wish for a final stable release, that does not need any more updates will not be granted for a long time. Also, as this is quite a complex piece of software, you will not get it fault free at any point in time, same thing with almost any type of software out there that is more complex than a 'Hello World' program. The issue can be exacerbated by outside software, including, but not limited to, the OS, drivers, third party software running in the background, etc. etc. On a PC (in comparison to consoles), as it does not have a fixed hard- and software base, you'll never be totally free from trouble shooting problems, you can only use good habits to reduce the amount of trouble shooting that you have to do or the time spent with it (e.g. keeping drivers and software current, trying things without overclocking, using fairly common instead of specialized hardware). If you, however, find that as a detraction, that things might break or that you'll have to do troubleshooting at times, then maybe DCS World isn't for you right now. On the other hand, if you can adapt to and live with the reality of the situation, enjoy the sim while it lasts and just have fun with it. ;)

Don't know if this is any help, but to get the intermediary patch 1.2.6999999-something, I first had to start the updater from the Windows Start menu. That will download a new updater and then it update normally for me. If that isn't the problem, then I don't have a clue as what else you could do other than wait.