It is propaganda, just like a lot of Hollywood war films. And the government loves it - censors out what they don't approve of in exchange for renting out military vehicles to Hollywood for next to nothing.

The funny thing is, I hated that the army made a video game recruitment tool. But, to be honest at least it was difficult as $&&% directly in contrast to these big budget titles that make it "immersive" (immersive as in loud noises and yelling) and easy.


>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ghark:
Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.
Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.
Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.

Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.

Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.

How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.

I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.

A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

>> ^rougy:


The southwest of America is half filled with skanks like her.


Sadly they are not exclusive to the southwest.

She's an opportunistic weasel woman.

Vote for that woman if you're rich or a gun freak.

Otherwise, she'll shit on you at her own convenience.

The southwest of America is half filled with skanks like her.

Southwest is one of the few airlines left that aren't douchebags - No bag fees, No change feeds, No jacked-up fluctuating ticket prices, and one flight free every 8...sorry Kevin, its time to hit the treadmill.

Well, I am 6'5" and flew twice every week for work for a few years, and I can tell you that seeing a fat person come down the aisle looking in my direction as (s)he is searching for the appropriate seat was one of my biggest concerns flying. If you check in online and use seatguru.com you can usually get some extra legroom in the right seats. Nothing you do, however, will alleviate the hell of sweaty odoriferous undulating rolls of girth spilling over into your personal space from your temporary neighbor.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
I'm tall, but not extreme percentile tall -- about 6'2". When I fly, some fat (like, really fat) person overflowing into my seat is way down on my concerns list, which goes a little something like this:
1. Some inconsiderate bastard in the seat in front of me decides that they will be a little more comfortable by reclining their headrest to a position about 3 inches in front of my nose, which leaves me short on breathing room AND legroom. Reclining my own seat relieves the breathing room issue but does so at the expense of the person behind me (which I hate to do), and the lack of leg/knee room remains.
2. Some old woman or young guy decides that riding in a cramped cattle car is the perfect time to wear a full gallon of perfume/cologne. I'm pretty highly anti-'fragrances' in general, and any prolonged exposure to even light applications of perfume or cologne tend to give me a headache. So, being inches away from someone that smells like they bathe in the shit puts me into a "HULK SMASH!" mood pretty quick.
3. Screaming baby. I understand that it can't be avoided sometimes. I know that pressure changes in the cabin affect younger kids eardrums and sinuses in ways that can be painful -- I used to have the same problem. But the parents that immediately give it up as a lost cause and give you dirty looks like "yeah, I know my kid is producing more decibels of sound than the jet engine outside, but I'm not even going to make an effort to try to calm them down" bother me.
...
4,016. Being seated next to a bloated sack of protoplasm.

Hey Southwest. Update your shit...it's been since the 70s. Look at Virgin and Jetblue. Now there's 2 airline companies I can get behind.

There's a lot more to this story.

1. He was able to fit in the seat.
2. He could buckle his seat belt.
3. He could get his arm rests down.
4. (Here's the biggie) A Southwest employee didn't appreciate a sarcastic remark he made in the jetway.

It's a bit of a long listen, but it's highly entertaining, and he tells every detail that was skipped by the news.

http://www.smodcast.com/smods/smodcast106.html

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^Xax:
It's not unreasonable for any airline to be concerned about the comfort of their passengers.

Rubbish. If airlines were concerned about the confort of their passengers they wouldn't make the seats so cramped and have such little legroom in the first place, never mind other issues like food, inadequate air exchange, cramped toilets, narrow aisles... The balance between passenger comfort and company profit is weighed heavily toward the "company profit" end.

There are other factors that effect how comfortable passengers are, of course, but if other passengers are going to make customers uncomfortable, that's an easy thing to fix that doesn't cost the airline significantly.

>> ^Xax:
It's not unreasonable for any airline to be concerned about the comfort of their passengers.

Rubbish. If airlines were concerned about the confort of their passengers they wouldn't make the seats so cramped and have such little legroom in the first place, never mind other issues like food, inadequate air exchange, cramped toilets, narrow aisles... The balance between passenger comfort and company profit is weighed heavily toward the "company profit" end.

>> ^budzos:
I don't think it was ever claimed that "any publicity is good publicity" applied to companies and brands. That aphorism applies to celbrities and other public figures who trade on mere notoriety. >> ^Stormsinger:
Whatever your stance, I think we can all agree that SWA has bought themselves a world of pain...the old meme of "there's no such thing as bad publicity" just ain't so.
I expect to see an apology from them in the next day or two.

I don't think it was ever claimed that "any publicity is good publicity" applied to companies and brands. That aphorism applies to celbrities and other public figures who trade on mere notoriety.
Furthermore "any publicity is good publicity" is not really a meme. I call meme abuse.


Seconded.

You hear of a star in a movie, who recently did something that probably made the baby jesus cry. That's gonna draw a crowd just to see that person. You hear about an airline that screws over its passengers.. you're probably not going to spend 500+ bucks on a ticket to say "Hey, they were right, they DO suck"

Also, it's not a meme, it's a "saying"

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^TerryF:
To you protesters that say KS isn't fat, take a second to google a current pic. The man IS FAT! A video of his head belies the girth below. Check out this shot showing his thighs.
http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/1/2008/11/
Rogen_Kevin_Fat_Guys.flv.jpg


that's an unfair pic. It's a side shot, he's angled away from the camera, foot us under his thigh,
and he's in a zip up sweater. That's not form fitting, they protrude past your girth giving the appearance of a much larger individual.

I'm not saying kevin smith isn't a big guy, he is, but not to the point of being kicked off an airline. If he had the second seat purchased, that's one thing and he should >not< have been kicked off.
Had the second seat been filled however, and it was filled, that's a bit of a different thing. Airlines calculate their fuel intake on an "Average Weight" system. They take the amount the baggage weighs, plus how many people are on the plane and multiply that by the "Average weight", and then calculate how much fuel they need to haul x amount of weight y distance.

Now, I'm not saying that the amount of fuel/weight ratio from kevin smith alone would've been so great the plane would crash, but that's the only legitimate reason I can come up with for them asking him to leave.

>> ^Yogi:
I've seen people MUCH larger than Kevin Smith squeezing into 1 seat and they don't get hassled.


The fact that he NORMALLY gets 2 seats should indicate his actual girth. Remember, he isn't upset that he takes up 2 seats...he is mad that he was seated, then was told later there was only one seat for him not 2. In his tweets, he even comments on this, something to the effect that "Ya, I am the largest I have even been right now". The problem, once again, is that he has to get 2 seats. HIS problem is he sat down and had to stand up again...Hold on, Ill get my roomie to play some violin music.