4ntifa

Is there something wrong with the reference files, since I cannot view them with Mozilla which DOES definitely support XSLT. Also, why the heck isn't there a plain HTML version available? It sure wouldn't be hard to generate from the XML. Anyway, only supporting IE is definitely *EVIL*. I'm not the only one who will NOT in any circumstances use IE, Outlook, IIS, etc - the reason being that they're hopelessly insecure. Heck, I wouldn't even use Windows if UNIX variants were a viable gaming platform.

I think the most important would be the ability to join games during the game. Playing OFP online is a pain because it takes half an hour to even get to play, only to find out the missions or the players on the server are a pain in the butt, then search n+15mins for another server, etc, ad nauseaum... Well, this isn't a black/white issue. I agree there are valid arguments against this. But limited to respawn-enabled non-coop missions, mid-game joining would dramatically improve the online OFP experience. Another enhancement would be server/mission specific parameters controlling the use of AI on the server. I think two params would suffice: aiPlayers - controls wether or not AI players take up vacant slots, but naturally the good ol' Disable AI button would be available aiReplacements - controls wether or not AI takes over soldiers whose players have disconnected For maximum configurability, each mission's description.ext could set the params. Server's config could override the settings in it's mission segment, or override all other settings in it's general parameters. Comments on these or additional ideas extremely welcome.

I'm 25 years old. I live in Helsinki, the capital of Finland, and I've lived here (in a couple of different locations) whole my life. I love this city. To an extent, I also love my country. I do not love the system - I'm a leftist libertarian and fiercely oppose neoliberalism, militarism etc. I work as a solution developer (nice title, eh, but what the heck does it mean?) for a multinational capitalist consultant company. I have very little formal education, but I'm generally a civilized and knowledgeable guy. I'm applying to the Helsinki University's department of computer science. I can speak fluent English, some Swedish and German and just a little bit Russian. I also "speak" Java and Unix shell, I used to know Perl, PHP and TurboPascal, and I have an ongoing project of learning C/C++. My favourite OS is FreeBSD. In addition to computer stuff, I love Star Wars, movies in general and science fiction literature. I collect CDs, most of my collection is rock and industrial, but also some techno, instrumental, pop and what not. Favourite bands include nine inch nails, Ministry, U2, Pet Shop Boys (yikes!, the Doors, Rage Against the Machine, Bob Marley & the Wailers... and lots of others, too many to list here. And I'm a damn good cook!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sandman @ Feb. 24 2002,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 24 2002,08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention the NATO aspect. This is clearly another step to smuggle Finland to NATO. I'm extreeeeeemely pissed indeed.<span id='postcolor'> Tell me....how did you figure that one out?!? I really want to now....<span id='postcolor'> I guess you haven't been paying attention to Finnish politics? Step by step, the Finnish army is being more and more "NATO-compliant" and there is a purpose. Finland will eventually join NATO. The citizens won't be asked. A politician (Jan-Erik Enestam, IIRC) recently said that "there is no need to let the citizens vote".

The Yanks and Canucks are being biased as much as they dare. Take hockey for example. They wanted a North American final and the refs were clearly advocating that. Take the third period in CAN-FIN for example. The Finns were dominating the game and would have surely scored, but the ref obviously put the whistle in his pocket. The Canadians were free to use whatever means necessary to prevent Finland from scoring. Especially Selänne was taking a really brutal beating, being crosschecked and slashed all the time. I'm sure the same happened when the Russians were playing USA. Well, this is nothing new. Everyone's doing it. Just take a look at the Mid-European Skijump Week (or whatever) and watch the Germans and Austrians congratulate each other which outrageous points.

A great movie. It's got a shitload more real content than 99,9% of Hollywood flicks. The movie made me consider starting doing martial arts. The point is that modern man has to hide his anger and aggressiveness, which can't be very healthy in the long run. I do that very much, since I'm a pacifist and a nice and calm guy (except when I get in the ranting mode when someone starts me up on politics). So it would be quite healthy to start boxing or something, to let some steam out in a healthy way. Well, I didn't have time for a new hobby. But I haven't gone berserk, so I propably can handle my negative feelings just fine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tymi @ Feb. 23 2002,02:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finnish army is buying 100 Leopard 2 tanks. Finally we have some state of art MBT's.<span id='postcolor'> How much taxes are you paying? I'm quite fückin' pissed to see my tax money wasted like that! Raise nurses' and teachers' salary ferfockssake, or anything, something useful. I don't want to see my money wasted by some retarded gun freaks. /meh is totally pissed. Not to mention the NATO aspect. This is clearly another step to smuggle Finland to NATO. I'm extreeeeeemely pissed indeed.

http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/monbiot_blackhawk_down.cfm

Full Metal Jacket.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 22 2002,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 21 2002,211)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I know there is inequality based on socio-economical status and I devote a fraction of my time and energy to opposing it. (I just came home from a meeting of the local Leftist Youth) Inequality is nothing new, but that doesn't make it a bit more acceptable. My fears about genetech increasing inequality are based on exactly what you said: "Now if you want to have a mod for your kid, you just cough up the dinero and your offsprings evolution goes to that direction." In that scenario, privileged status is even more inheriditary (sp?) than today. Not only can the elite afford better education etc, but also better genes! If genes ever become subject to large scale testing and modification, they will surely become a part of job interviews etc. There will be an uncrossable barrier between the privileged and the pariah. Now is that the kind of society you want for future generations? And is that the kind of society which can exist in peace and wellbeing, or a society that gives birth to huge conflicts and possibly the end of civilization?<span id='postcolor'> You know, there is an instinct on ownership in the human psyche, just like there is the instinct to breed. This ownership instinct is very wide spread in the mammalian kingdom (just try to take a bone from a dog for example). While your dreams about a socio-economically equal world are very noble, it will never work, since it is in the human nature to feel good about having more property than thy neighbour. This instinct has formed during the course of evolution, because it improves the chances of survival of individuals. Leftism just doesn't work, because it is unnatural for humans in their current state. So it is your opinion that the rich should not get better genes just because the poor cannot afford them? You'd ban better life for everybody just because not everybody can have a better life? Your nobility sounds very scary. Don't you understand that if improved genes are at first the priviledge of the rich, the procedures will get cheaper in time and genetic modification will eventually spread down to the reach of the poor as well. You know, pretty much everything new was at first only the priviledge of the rich. There will always be huge conflicts, it's the human nature. There is going to be no peace for us. And about the end of civilization, only science can postpone it. That's why science should be our ultimate priority.<span id='postcolor'> Natural instincts can not be used as an excuse. The life of a modern human is very far from natural. For example, monogamy is quite unnatural. Any man with a normal sex drive can tell that his natural instincts would cause him to have sex with just about every willing woman. Also, if the instinct on ownership was considered somehow "uncontrollable" (sex drive - the most powerful instinct excluding the survival instinct - can be controlled, why not the will to own?) , wouldn't stealing be okay? It's only natural to act on your instinct, you know? Humans also have natural tendency to work as a group, pack, society or whatever. Humans are not solitary predators. If there weren't an instinct of solidarity and altruism, how come the majority of people (excluding Americans to whom selfishness is a religion) are willing to cooperate and share? The idea of selfishness and individualism is a newcomer, so it is quite reasonable to assume that humans are cooperative and altruistic by nature. Humans are highly social animals and selfishness only arises from the survival instinct. Capitalism is very unnatural and disconnects the human from his "pack", making him alone and vulnerable and his fellow humans enemies, members of a competing pack (well, everyone is considered a pack of his own). In such a situation, it's his survival against the others' and selfishness becomes acceptable. You can observe the results of this unnatural behaviour in every western society: mental illness, murder, etc are much more common than in more "primitive" societies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 20 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice one there! I agree, slightly naive (or intentively evil) to post a palestinian-info-site as an "independant source of information". "This is where you will find the truth!" Oh certainly! Must be a realy objective source<span id='postcolor'> And you'd call for example US newpapers and cable TV an independent source of information? Zionist pressure groups continuously interfere with the US media and Israel spends hundreds of thousands of dollars employing US PR agencies to further their cause. A great deal of the pro-israeli stuff gets circulated in the world newsnets and ends up in all the western world's news. The news we get from Israel are very biased. Check out http://www.fair.org, they've got plenty of good media cricital articles on the subject. Given that I read mainstream newspapers and human rights groups' and Palestinian's articles, I guess I have a more balanced view into the matter than most people. Sure, my sympathy is with the Palestinians since they're the ones being oppressed, but I do my best to judge things as rationally as possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Noone @ Feb. 20 2002,14:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">@4ntifa You are trying to convince us that you are neutral on this one, but your own posts say otherwise... "I'm not surprised to see you show off your ignorance again. Get the facts straight: http://www.electronicintifada.net/historicalmyths/index.html" These are your words. So you called Wobble ignorant and pointed at Palestinian web site as an ultimate resource to search for truth... Call yourself objective judge after that ?<span id='postcolor'> I didn't mean to imply that the site is an outlet of "objective information". I was referring to the myth of "Arabs attacking Israel", which is mostly bullshit (except Yom Kippur war). Electronic Intifada has great stuff on that subject, and unlike many pro-israeli sources, Electronic Intifada doesn't simply repeat it's statements until they start sounding like the truth, they actually base their stuff on external sources which they also mention in their articles. I'm not saying the site is to be considered neutral, but if you check out the material it's a great deal more objective and "journalistic" than the site's name suggests.

She's sleeping in the bedroom as I type. Too bad I don't have a scanned photo to show you guys. (Yes, some of us actually get laid! )Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chan @ Feb. 20 2002,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lock this post!<span id='postcolor'> What the #¤!&*% is wrong with you?!!!! If you're not interested, don't read. I believe that even though 95% of this kind of debates never lead anywhere, the remaining 5% makes all the difference in the world! If no-one had never listened to dissents, visionaries and revolutionaries, we'd be still in the Stone Age.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In case you haven't noticed, people today are very inequal, since some of us have a lot of dough a.k.a. squirrel skins a.k.a. dinero and some of us have none. This is a great threat to democracy and equality, not genetech like you said. Having piles of money is an exclusive right of the elite and is a major factor in the success of an individual.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I know there is inequality based on socio-economical status and I devote a fraction of my time and energy to opposing it. (I just came home from a meeting of the local Leftist Youth) Inequality is nothing new, but that doesn't make it a bit more acceptable. My fears about genetech increasing inequality are based on exactly what you said: "Now if you want to have a mod for your kid, you just cough up the dinero and your offsprings evolution goes to that direction." In that scenario, privileged status is even more inheriditary (sp?) than today. Not only can the elite afford better education etc, but also better genes! If genes ever become subject to large scale testing and modification, they will surely become a part of job interviews etc. There will be an uncrossable barrier between the privileged and the pariah. Now is that the kind of society you want for future generations? And is that the kind of society which can exist in peace and wellbeing, or a society that gives birth to huge conflicts and possibly the end of civilization? I know I'm over-exaggerating (sp?), but I'm just trying to make my POV clear.

There is no such thing as "RPG" in computer games. As a roleplayer, I'm pissed off to see everything with "character development" called a RPG! The only computer "RPGs" that come anywhere near to being real "RPG" are Fallout and Fallout 2. And RTS games are not strategy. Strategy is large scale and "deep", RTS' only scratch the surface. I'd call the tactic games, not strategy games. Same applies to a great deal of games people listed in their posts.

Yo Antichrist: "Etot ushe otstrel yalsya"? WTF? IIRC, "etot" is something like "that" or "this", but what about the rest? Huj snayet! <grin>

I voted MOO2, although it was a tough decision. Runner-ups: Alpha Centauri, Civilization (all three).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 20 2002,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now you're making sense. In your previous post, the elitism (me=smart, masses=stupid) combined with the word "superhuman" simply made an alarm ring in my head. I do agree that genetic manipulation is a far too beneficial technology to go unused. There are very serious moral dilemmas, though. Not to mention possible unforeseen risks. I would, for example, allow use of human embryos in research. The benefits are obvious, and I don't believe an embryo is no more a human than an egg or an embryo of another mammal. People are being way too sentimental and irrational in these issues. I don't think "improving humans" is something to take lightly. In doing so, we are imposing our values on the human genome and taking huge risks. Genes work in combinations and we propably cannot even hope to comprehend all the interactions involved. BTW have you seen the movie Gattaga?<span id='postcolor'> Did I call myself smart? If I did, I didn't mean to. Anyway, genetic engineering would be very costly in the beginning, so it could be applied only to few humans (volunteers). From there, we could work out the risks. And if somebody had moral dilemmas with this tech, they shouldn't use it. The real problem is that they try to prevent others from using it as well. Lets consider "imposing our values on human genome". With modern medicine we already do this, since we treat hereditary diseases by attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Thus there is no selection pressure on our genome and poor genes spread like a wildfire. We have ended our own evolution. Now we have the technology to take control of our evolution and drag it forward to a destination of our picking. We could end the deteriorating of our genome and improve it further. The risks are really not an issue, because not everybody will be engineered since it should be a volunteer thing. If something goes wrong, we always have old fashioned humans to carry on. Of course, much research is needed before any of this can be done. But since the tech is banned, no research is being done. I haven't seen Gattaga.<span id='postcolor'> (emphasis added by me) Dragging evolution forward to a destination of our picking is exactly what I ment by "imposing our values on human genome". On what moral grounds do we decide where to take evolution? Which attributes are to be considered desirable, which unwanted? Who's to decide that? Most westerners technocrats have a naive belief that we, the people of today (especially people in the western world), are the ones who are "right" about everything. What we consider "good" or "valuable" is assumed to be some kind of absolute, rational and non-subjective truth. You really should see Gattaga, it's a good movie which deals with the moral issues of gene technology. I fear that gene technology will be an exclusive right of the elite and will be a major factor in the success of an individual (much like in Gattaga, in which people had their genes mapped as part of job interview). It is a great threat to democracy and equality.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Feb. 20 2002,13:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMHO the PA has just signed its death warrant. Before they were just murdering idiots now they are guerilla's. You cant wage a war against terrorists as easy as you can against guerilla's. If the Palestinians want their own state they better start acting more responsibly. They cant control the murderers which some ppl like to call "freedom fighters" so if they get their own state it will be at war the moment another attack on israeli civilians takes place. Then Israel will be in its fullest right to crush the murderous goons.<span id='postcolor'> Murderous goons? They're propably part of the Axis of EVIL!!! <grin>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Noone @ Feb. 20 2002,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 20 2002,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 20 2002,00:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the Arab nations first tried to destroy isreal, not keep it in check, not show the who is boss.. to DESTROY them.. and obviousley they got their asses handed to them.. and ever since they have been bitter for losing a war THEY started.. piss on em.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not surprised to see you show off your ignorance again. Get the facts straight: http://www.electronicintifada.net/historicalmyths/index.html<span id='postcolor'> I doubt that a source called electronicintifada and claiming to be "a resource for countering myth, distortion and spin from the israeli media war machine" can be even remotely reliable. Sorry, it's just another propoganda site. What makes you believe they are telling the truth ?<span id='postcolor'> Ummm, maybe the fact that the Israelis sure aren't? Seriously, I do take everything about Israel/Palestine with a grain of salt.

"There's a right to obey and a right to kill" -- RATM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Noone @ Feb. 20 2002,10:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Besides, even a twisted sense of reality is better than swallowing the pre-processed "truth" they're feeding you!" Don't believe anything, believe your eyes...<span id='postcolor'> My eyes can't be everywhere, I have to trust "second hand" information. The catch is: don't just listen to the loudest voice and believe everything it says. There's a wealth of information sources out there, use all you can and form your own conception of the truth. Be critical. Every media and person has an agenda and is, in very substle and often not conscious way, trying to advocate that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's what always happens when you talk about genetic manipulation of humans. You're a nazi. Right. Maybe I can clarify: What the nazis did is called eugenics, which aims at bettering the humanity by killing or otherwise getting rid of all individuals manifesting hereditary diseases. Eugenics has been proven not to work, since disease carriers are not eradicated. Furthermore every human on the planet is a carrier at least a few hereditary diseases. Somebody might even whine about the non-morality of killing sick people, but I won't go to that, since I already scientifically pointed out eugenics doesn't work anyway. The genetic manipulation of humans however is a completely different thing. Now that we know the whole human genome, we can screen for hereditary diseases. And if genetic manipulation was allowed, we could also cure the diseases by changing the faulty gene to a correct one. End of hereditary diseases and you don't have to kill or get rid of anybody. The next step would be to IMPROVE humans. The human body could be moulded to suit the needs of the particular individual. The possibilities are endless. But our fucked goverments are listening to the fucked masses. And the masses are stupid. The masses resist change. So this beautiful new technology is almost completely banned. Interesting comparison: Do you think industrial revolution would have happened if the rulers had listened to the masses? When did science turn from the saviour to the nemesis? And good luck for trying to educate the masses. It has been tried and it won't work. You have to realize that 90% of people are just too stupid to think beyond sex and food and beer (this we could change with genetic engineering). This has always been so and probably will always be.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The genetic manipulation of humans however is a completely different thing. Now that we know the whole human genome, we can screen for hereditary diseases. And if genetic manipulation was allowed, we could also cure the diseases by changing the faulty gene to a correct one. End of hereditary diseases and you don't have to kill or get rid of anybody. The next step would be to IMPROVE humans. The human body could be moulded to suit the needs of the particular individual. The possibilities are endless.<span id='postcolor'> Now you're making sense. In your previous post, the elitism (me=smart, masses=stupid) combined with the word "superhuman" simply made an alarm ring in my head. I do agree that genetic manipulation is a far too beneficial technology to go unused. There are very serious moral dilemmas, though. Not to mention possible unforeseen risks. I would, for example, allow use of human embryos in research. The benefits are obvious, and I don't believe an embryo is no more a human than an egg or an embryo of another mammal. People are being way too sentimental and irrational in these issues. I don't think "improving humans" is something to take lightly. In doing so, we are imposing our values on the human genome and taking huge risks. Genes work in combinations and we propably cannot even hope to comprehend all the interactions involved. BTW have you seen the movie Gattaga?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 20 2002,11:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Democracy needs to be taken down to a more grassroot level and the power more widely distributed. That is the only way you will ever have a functional democracy, when the people in the communities can actually effect the decisions made in their direct area. Some decisions need to be taken at the top level, that is for sure. But many things should be cleared with the people it effect first.<span id='postcolor'> Amen to that! Power to the people!