Actually they are making this for the PC for that very reason. The tech has been out not being utilized. You can read about it here.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109304-DICE-Battlefield-3-Looks-Better-on-Consoles-Because-Were-Making-it-for-PC

They are doing exactly what you are saying and it's going to look awesome for it.

And seriously antimatter? No it doesn't feel like that. Get off the high horse. Like asmo said, you don't like the world condition, go do something about it.
>> ^shagen454:

I'm going to come in hear and spout my gremlin ideas. So, is this for a console as well? It looks good but just imagine if the industry wasn't supporting shitty consoles how much better PC games would be looking right now? Even though PC games are going through a low-fi, indie, artsy phase right now, which I think is totally rad; we could have blazing tech going as well, far and above consoles.
The other thing I had on my mind is these games "look" good but after about five minutes my mind goes numb and I nearly fall asleep. I hate the pacing of games like this, CoD, ect. Give me more games like Amnesia where you almost never see an enemy but you're also about to shit your pants every two minutes or even 50/50 stealth-action like the last Splinter Cell where you actually have a damn choice of anything, shit, I dislike this crap for being war pornography but I'd rather play a massive/realistic game like Arma I or II - hell, I'd rather go back and play the original Operation Flashpoint where you get one-shotted from an unknown enemy after you just spent two hours traversing through a dark forest trying to figure out where that damn tank was that you wanted to avoid. Immersive tension motherfuckers, learn it, use it, enjoy it.

I'm going to come in here and spout my gremlin ideas. So, is this for a console as well? It looks good but just imagine if the industry wasn't supporting shitty consoles how much better PC games would be looking right now? Even though PC games are going through a low-fi, indie, artsy phase right now, which I think is totally rad; we could have blazing tech going as well, far and above consoles.

The other thing I had on my mind is that these games "look" good but after about five minutes my mind goes numb and I nearly fall asleep. I hate the pacing of games like this, CoD, ect. Give me more games like Amnesia where you almost never see an enemy but you're also about to shit your pants every two minutes or even 50/50 stealth-action like the last Splinter Cell where you actually have a damn choice of anything, shit, I dislike this crap for being war pornography but I'd rather play a massive/realistic game like Arma I or II - hell, I'd rather go back and play the original Operation Flashpoint where you get one-shotted from an unknown enemy after you just spent two hours traversing through a dark forest trying to figure out where that damn tank was that you wanted to avoid. Immersive tension motherfuckers, learn it, use it, enjoy it.

isn't this like the time we tried to define porn after someone posted some hilarious and educational videos from the everything is terrible site??

and probably the countless other times we've attempted to collectively define pornography to avoid future confusion?

you can't define this stuff adequately enough to make concrete guidelines that will never be bent or questioned. you can't seal the envelope shut, that's the history of censorship.

(disclaimer: i'm not being douchey and throwing the "CENSORSHIP fit" on this sifttalk post, at all. the tone of that statement was very neutral and matter of fact.)

because i believe it impossible to adequately define and regulate, i remain indifferent to the guidelines that exist now or in the future. i also do not watch any of the videos where people get hurt or killed. my personal preference is to completely refrain from watching them, ever. i even say "i didnt watch this video but.. blah blah" if i want to leave a comment in an interesting thread. i'm perfectly happy sifting this way. a suggestion i would like to make is maybe a tag for "violent/graphic content" maybe those aren't the right words to use, but i really do absolutely avoid watching videos where people are hurt or killed graphically on screen and i suspect im not the only one who sifts this way. i'm not complaining that those videos exist here on the site, and i can usually infer the videos content from the comment thread before viewing... but a warning tag might be nice.

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

According to the current guidelines, the "newsworthy" can be invoked only if the "snuff" portion is a small bit of a lengthy video.

What was posted was less than a minute. So it violates the current guidelines, with no mechanism in place to invoke the written guidelines.

Then there is the separate question of -- why do we even have "newsworthy" in the guidelines at all.

Seems to me we have two discussion statements on one SiftTalk.

1) I think we need a mechanism to invoke the snuff rule quickly, rather than weeks after the fact.

2) I think that the death of a human should never be shown on a video, under any circumstances.

To me, #1 is an easy agreement -- there is already the "ban" function, just use that or create one labeled "snuff"

#2 -- Man, I don't know. My inclination is to leave the guidelines as they are written. If there is a 6-10 minute video that indeed is "lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary", I would hate to ban it for a short bit included in the middle. It is like the Supreme Court ruling. To paraphrase, because I am too lazy to look it up -- "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." I keep putting the word "snuff" in quotes because of what I always understood the word to mean -- the filming of women killed as pornography, which isn't what is meant by "snuff" on the Sift. When the clip is short without "educational" content, then it starts to slide into perverse territory. When do you get there? Eye of the beholder. Hence the need to move the vid to SiftTalk and decide as a community.

My five cents.

For reference purposes, here is what it says exactly:

#

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

>> ^mxxcon:
what does having a 'top security' clearance have to do with child porn? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif">


Having something like that in their background makes the person vulnerable to blackmail. Same reason we don't let people with lots of debt have clearances.

I'm the first part. Muahaha, bring me your views!
>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Mandtis:
"Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees[3] and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel work in the Pentagon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
5200 out of about 26000...?? Not a chance I can believe that.

But this MoxNews fellow is either completely unscrupulous in spreading misinformation to get views, or just not very smart.

>> ^Mandtis:

"Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees[3] and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel work in the Pentagon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
5200 out of about 26000...?? Not a chance I can believe that.


Well, every single word of the title is inaccurate or misleading. It's mind boggling really. The title is taken directly from MoxNews' post, so I don't blame gwiz. But let me try to make a clear list of everything wrong with the title.

1. "5200" - That was the complete number of names/e-mail addresses swept up under ICE project flicker. This was not an investigation into the DoD, but they came across several e-mail addresses that obviously belonged to the DoD. The Pentagon's investigative branch (DCIS) was informed of this and for some reason they checked only 3500 of those names, and of those 3500 found 264 DoD employees.

2. "Pentagon Employees" - No, they were investigating Department of Defense Employees and Contractors, the Pentagon is only one small part of the DoD. The DoD includes Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, DARPA, DIA, NSA, ect. According to Wikipedia there were over 2 million DoD employees in 2009. Plus an unknown number of contractors who are not counted as employees. Coup mentions that Contractors were part of the DCIS investigation at 1:08. So if DCIS did cross check the names against all DoD employees and Contractors, we're talking about basically the entire US Military Industrial Complex. "Pentagon employees" might be 1% of that.

3. "PURCHASED Child Pornography!" - 264 are the number of suspects who were employees or contractors of the DoD. You cannot assume that every suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Coup mentioned that fewer than 20% of them were fully investigated (so less than 52 people). He goes on to say "fewer still were prosecuted", and doesn't mention the total number found guilty.

I agree it's an outrage that they stopped the investigation before looking at the entire list, or completely investigating all of the matches. And it's good to see CNN putting pressure on them to reopen the investigation. But this MoxNews fellow is either completely unscrupulous in spreading misinformation to get views, or just not very smart.

I appreciate posts like this. Thank you bmacs.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Mandtis:
"Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees[3] and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel work in the Pentagon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
5200 out of about 26000...?? Not a chance I can believe that.

The title is wrong. There were 5200 people on the list provided by the sting operation. Only a few hundred of those could be tied to the pentagon/DoD. 1% I can buy.

Your video, 5200 Pentagon Employees PURCHASED Child Pornography!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Mandtis:

"Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees[3] and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel work in the Pentagon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
5200 out of about 26000...?? Not a chance I can believe that.


The title is wrong. There were 5200 people on the list provided by the sting operation. Only a few hundred of those could be tied to the pentagon/DoD. 1% I can buy.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Zonbie:
Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Military Porn"

That's a term I've never heard.


"Military porn" is footage of really cool military gear like tanks and A10 Warthogs and the p173 Self-correcting .50 calibre sniper bullet etc etc. I just read it for the articles.

>> ^Zonbie:

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Military Porn"


That's a term I've never heard.

the "powerlessness" over one's addiction in AA does not presume one's powerlessness in one's life in general. Rather, just the opposite: one recognizes one's powerlessness over addiction in order to gain the control and power over one's life that had created the addiction in the first place. Heck, the entire serenity prayer is about seeking acceptance of the things one cannot change, the courage to change the things one can, and the wisdom to know the difference... If only more people -- addicts or not -- could say such things and mean it.

(Edit: I know this because I'm a therapist who works with many folks who struggle with chemical dependency and addiction -- and not all of them are to illegal substances. Some addictions -- such as with shopping, or working, or pornography, or sex in general -- are generally accepted if not downright condoned... which adds an entirely new wrinkle to what is already a complex issue.)

>> ^blankfist:

I wish he wouldn't "hope" as much as he would actively "look" for a job. But that's probably a side effect of the 12 steps of AA indoctrination, if he's actually in that program, which teaches they're powerless over their addiction and that only a "higher power" can help them overcome it.
Yes I know I just assumed a lot about this man.