baddo

I support the idea of stopping the war in Iraq as soon as possible - but it must be done carefully so that all hell won't break loose, as is the danger if your troops are just pulled out of Iraq quickly. In that sense Mr. Bush is right that the troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq right now. The damage is done already, now it must be ensured the end result does not become a total catastrophe. This is what I said in another thread here in this forum: U.S.A. must admit their mistakes so the situation can start healing. Then it will be significantly easier to get help from other nations. If the leaders of U.S.A. ignorantly just keeps telling us they are always doing The Right Thingâ„¢, they will not get much sympathy. One comment from the website showing how well the people of U.S.A. are informed: Yeah right... WTC towers are down, go nuke Iraq as a solution! Thankfully there seems to be more people who choose their words better. I remember some European countries told U.S.A. not to start a war in Iraq and yet they did, along with calling French Fries Freedom Fries *sigh* among other childish behaviour like making fun of French and German people (ad hominem at work when reasonable arguments are all used up). You are now paying the price for your leaders not listening to people who knew better and saw further. You know what to do: vote different kind of people to be the leaders of your country. Your country has way too much military and economical power to be lead by people like Bush and his neo-conservative advisors.

So it was Mr. Španěl who put that sheet hanging into the wall? Maybe he just wanted to cover his back.

...so if you write a book of 1000 pages, you do not need to be credited as the author of that book? You do not need to be in control how the book you wrote is distributed? You are very generous! Seriously, think about it

...so if you write a book of 1000 pages, you do not need to be credited as the author of that book? You do not need to be in control how the book you wrote is distributed? You are very generous! Seriously, think about it

Well I will just quote myself so you will see that I agree with you: By "license" I mean any kind of license, not just the commonly used in open-source scene. One can make a new license just by writing a short sentence, no need to take GPL and the friends into it. ...and I agree with you, the open-source licenses are not ideal in many situations, I for example would probably never use GPL for any of my own work. Or BSD, it's even worse just look at how the OpenBSD project cried some time ago for lack of donations... pathetic... they are giving code away and it is free! For all! I am a Linux user so I take advantage of GPL'd products Of course, if someone sees the need to use a more complicated license for their work then Just Do Itâ„¢ it is not a problem for me. Be sure to check that the agreements you have made with BIS are not broken by your own license though. I am more concerned of the fact that in most cases there are no statements at all about the license in documentations. If your work is in public domain please tell it and don't assume we can guess it is. That's my main point here, I am not that interested in introducing long legal texts or similar like standards, I have read such texts enough in education and work that I'd rather not have to bother in a hobby. Also I must add about the legal side: an "international" law is only effective if the local legislators have made it to be in effect as a local law. If it is not, then we do not need to care about such law as no one can enforce it on us in our own country. And about agreements: in my country an agreement which does not follow our legislation has no value, a contract has to follow the legislation or otherwise it is an invalid agreement. Just some points which can have effect when you try to force "agreements" or "international laws" on people.

Well I will just quote myself so you will see that I agree with you: By "license" I mean any kind of license, not just the commonly used in open-source scene. One can make a new license just by writing a short sentence, no need to take GPL and the friends into it. ...and I agree with you, the open-source licenses are not ideal in many situations, I for example would probably never use GPL for any of my own work. Or BSD, it's even worse just look at how the OpenBSD project cried some time ago for lack of donations... pathetic... they are giving code away and it is free! For all! I am a Linux user so I take advantage of GPL'd products Of course, if someone sees the need to use a more complicated license for their work then Just Do Itâ„¢ it is not a problem for me. Be sure to check that the agreements you have made with BIS are not broken by your own license though. I am more concerned of the fact that in most cases there are no statements at all about the license in documentations. If your work is in public domain please tell it and don't assume we can guess it is. That's my main point here, I am not that interested in introducing long legal texts or similar like standards, I have read such texts enough in education and work that I'd rather not have to bother in a hobby. Also I must add about the legal side: an "international" law is only effective if the local legislators have made it to be in effect as a local law. If it is not, then we do not need to care about such law as no one can enforce it on us in our own country. And about agreements: in my country an agreement which does not follow our legislation has no value, a contract has to follow the legislation or otherwise it is an invalid agreement. Just some points which can have effect when you try to force "agreements" or "international laws" on people.

I think this conversation got sidetracked into some odd direction. I think the original point was that authors should declare their work to be under some sort of license, instead of the usual case of not declaring any kind of license and thus implicitly prohibiting any kind of redistribution or redistribution of modified works unless an explicit permission from the author is received. So basically, as I see it, every mission, every addon out there which do not give permission for redistribution in their documentation are not allowed to be redistributed without asking and receiving permission to do so from the author (which in most cases is not what the authors want I am sure of that).

I think this conversation got sidetracked into some odd direction. I think the original point was that authors should declare their work to be under some sort of license, instead of the usual case of not declaring any kind of license and thus implicitly prohibiting any kind of redistribution or redistribution of modified works unless an explicit permission from the author is received. So basically, as I see it, every mission, every addon out there which do not give permission for redistribution in their documentation are not allowed to be redistributed without asking and receiving permission to do so from the author (which in most cases is not what the authors want I am sure of that).

Friendly AI units which are in your team, you as a leader, are tied to work as you order them. That's why they are stupid, you didn't make them do any better. A completely-AI team is not tied to what you do and as such they can perform better than the AI units in your group. So practice giving your AI team mates some orders, you can get good results by understanding how you need to command them effectively. I know it can be a hassle in an intense mission to use the command menus to give orders for AI soldiers but if you don't do it then your AI soldiers will look stupid no doubt about it.

I've played CTF missions and I never noticed players going prone to be a problem. It was actually nice to have a fight in an alley with sandbags, you and your enemy could crawl behind the sandbags towards each other, until getting scared to death being face-to-face. Your script makes such cover objects useless as you can't hide anymore, like you could in real life. Well it's an idea but I hope it doesn't spread too much. Maybe it fits into some mission types but I wouldn't like to see it in a CTF I am playing. In CTF you are not getting anywhere in the mission if you are prone all the time, so that kind of already does the work you are trying to do with the script.

Well I think it would be good if more people would state in their readme's if their work is public domain or not. Usually that info is missing. Readmes in general are very badly written, unfortunately. It doesn't need an EULA of many pages, just a short sentence stating the license so that we know the author's opinion on the subject. It's true that you will be granted copyrights automatically for a work which can be considered "original", it doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere. That's how it is here where I live at least, I see no sane reason why it wouldn't be so in other countries too.

Well I think it would be good if more people would state in their readme's if their work is public domain or not. Usually that info is missing. Readmes in general are very badly written, unfortunately. It doesn't need an EULA of many pages, just a short sentence stating the license so that we know the author's opinion on the subject. It's true that you will be granted copyrights automatically for a work which can be considered "original", it doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere. That's how it is here where I live at least, I see no sane reason why it wouldn't be so in other countries too.

This writing was initiated by thread Local conflicts are coming ? My fears of a conflict in and around Finland are closely related to NATO, Russia and the possibility of Finland becoming a member of NATO. One very important but also very problematic question for us Finns is, should we join NATO to get security guarantees? It is quite certain that we will not form any kind of military alliance with Russia, and the European Union alone is not a sufficient guarantee for military support in an event of war. It has been indicated by NATO officials that Finland will be accepted as a member if only we want it to happen. Some key questions: 1) Will we join NATO? 2) How will Russia react if Finland joins NATO? There has recently been increased tension between Russia and NATO because of NATO spreading its influence towards Russia, as already discussed here. My fears are that Russia would take it not lightly, but would concentrate more of their troops close to the Finnish border, which in turn would force us to strengthen our defence. As Finland has even been part of the Russian Empire, it is understandable from the Russian point-of-view that they would not feel happy if NATO expands to Finland. 3) In an undesirable but possible event of war between a NATO-member Finland and Russia, would other NATO member states really help us? Is USA ready to bombard Russia if Russia attacks only Finland? What would Germany and other NATO member countries do? Sit by and watch or come to rescue? 4) Is the possible threat from Russia great enough to justify our NATO membership? As a member of NATO, Finland would be required to help other NATO member countries in conflicts. That includes also conflicts far away from Finland, possibly no relation to a threat from Russia, which would have been our number one reason to join NATO in the first place. NATO and Russia could even be fighting on the same side. Such situations would just drag us into wars not our own, with the possibility that the biggest fear we had did not happen but we became best friends with Russia instead. The war in Iraq is definitely such a war which is not ours, and many many people are already angry in Finland about it. How would Finnish people react if we were demanded, as a member of NATO, to send troops into such unjustified and idiotic wars? 5) Would it be wise for NATO to have Finland as its member? Regarding the historical burden and geographical location of Finland being, if not in Russia's front yard, at least very close to it. 6) How can Russia assure us not to join NATO? By their actions. Reducing the pressurizing of our politicians in various subjects. Limiting the presence of their military in the Gulf of Finland. Making sure their military airplanes do not cross the border of Finland, as has happened many times during peacetime. Making sure their submarines do not cross the border of Finland, as has been suspected to happen during peacetime. Reducing the amount of military troops located near the Finnish border. Making sure journalists in Russia are not murdered to silence them from making unpleasant arguments. Making sure they do not cencorship any of their media. Making sure they allow free speech for everyone in their country. Making sure the political lead of their country is not in the hands of a few people only. This is so tough and problematic subject for us that our politicians are having a very hard time with it. They either try to avoid the discussion altogether, or try to get us into NATO as soon as possible. Some politicians have the same feelings as I do, not sure yet what we should do. Our primarily goal is obviously to maintain peace in and around Finland and thus our decisions should never be seen as provocative by anyone, do we join NATO or not.

Well as long as other countries understand to keep their militaries away from our soil then this place will remain peaceful. Due to our history and geographical location, our fears come from the East only. Best way to avoid any military conflicts in Finland and surrounding areas is to maintain a constant dialog with Russia and make sure they know that we have absolutely no evil intentions towards them whatsoever, or intentions to help other nations attack them. A fear of military threat amongst the leaders of Soviet Union is what caused them to attack us during World War II, along with an agreement they made with Hitler. The same goes for the Baltic states, they must also maintain a constant dialog with the Russians to avoid any misunderstandings from either part. As I see that my writing fits better into the other thread Should Russia fear NATO expansion?, I will put it there.

Hi Please show us your proof that Armed Assault is multithreaded. Thank You. Baddo

I don't think so... it would be a giant waste of time for the magazines, to keep track of every patch for every game they ever reviewed and write a new review every time they see a patch changed the game more than just a little bit. A computer game magazine can only review a product in its current state. If a game developer / publisher wants better review scores then they better do something about it on their side before release date. If the system was like you describe, it would encourage developers / publishers to publish even more unfinished products and make customers feel even more disappointed. Also I must add about customers getting used to download patches for games. It shouldn't be so. The whole computer software industry is doing the same thing; their products are so complex and so difficult to get right the first time that they just have to release patches. Which is sad but that's how it goes in this industry.

Try disabling your possibly installed firewall program and then try again. If that fixes the problem then you need to adjust the settings of your firewall program. Your post does not contain much information, you'd need to provide us with some details like do you have a firewall program running, what version of ArmA are you using etc...

Hey, I think BIS made a mistake. The mistake is this: Users are able to choose settings too freely in ArmA, or at least without guidance in-game regarding what settings could be appropriate. There should be warnings with big red letters stating what will happen if settings are selected too optimisticly for the user's hardware. It seems that many people just ignore the fact that their hardware is not made in the future and thus has only performance of current level. If you go read the postmortem article in gamasutra.com about development of Operation Flashpoint, you can clearly see that one of the mistakes BIS admits they did with OFP was that quality of graphics was too low at time of release and they indicated they will not make that mistake again in their future products. I think it is very wise to make a game scalable so that users can get even more out of it in the future when there are more capable hardware available. It is in my humble opinion a good thing that you CAN adjust the settings higher (even if your current computer cannot handle it) AND get visual benefits with future hardware. One can wonder why is there not an automatic procedure in the game which measures in some way the performance of the user's hardware, and then recommends some settings based on the results of the measurements? Wouldn't those kind of measures bring some sanity to these discussions? People just put their settings to "high" or "very high" and then complain, like there is no common sense in this World at all. Of course BIS needs to optimize their game engine, of course they need to tweak the settings of Armed Assault to make the game perform better, of course they made a lot of mistakes, of course they could make it more obvious for the users what their hardware is capable of, of course, of course, of course. All this talk about how un-optimized the game engine of Armed Assault is, do you seriously think that the folks at BIS don't know that they need to make it even better? Do you seriously think that they don't want their products to be the best of all and to perform like an insane monkey? I honestly think that they could very much improve the setting-up process so that users are more aware of what their hardware is capable of. A good question is, why on Earth do we have so many options to change? Do you want to change anti-aliasing? Do you want to change anisotropic filtering? Do you even know what those terms mean? Do I need to become an expert on computer game development or on computer graphics hardware in order to understand what settings I am tuning? I think that I should not have to even think about anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering or anything like that, that's tech talk and completely unnecessay terms for the end users (who are nto hardcore geeks and absolutely want to adjust exactly anti-aliasing and the friends. Of course we all want that the games developed by BIS are the most attractive when it comes to visual quality, of course we want their games to have top performance, of course of course of course. I have never seen anyone on this forum say the opposite, fanboy in your eyes or not, we all want the same from BIS products, to be the best games in every possible way. Best Wishes, Your friend Baddo.

Hey, the game has "NORMAL" settings! If you use settings above "NORMAL" then you go to an area where your complaints about not being able to play the game because the settings are too demanding for your computer, are ridiculous. Think about it now, for a few minutes at least. "NORMAL". <span style='font-size:23pt;line-height:100%'>NORMAL</span> Cheers, Baddo.

Hi I quite like the idea, <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">apt-get install nameofaddon apt-get update apt-get remove nameofaddon oh yes that would be wonderful! But it would need an addon repository covering all the possible addons, and possibly also all of the different versions of each addon. No? Baddo

I actually believe this is the exact problem with my system. I'm no computer expert but isn't SLI the way forward with regards to ultimate graphical performance. And if so, ArmA will never be able to fully use the power of SLI. If this is the case then surely ArmA is a step backwards in terms of gaming. It doesn't support dual core nor SLI Hi Well if no one promised NVIDIA SLI or multi-core CPU support being in Armed Assault then this complaint is not valid. I am sure Bohemia Interactive Studio is working hard to make their next-generation game engine multithreaded. As for SLI or ATI's CrossFire, it is a more questionable goal as it will not benefit as many users as multithreaded design will. Many people are reluctant to buy multiple graphics cards, me being one of them. But if they can make that too, it's of course even better. Best Regards, Baddo.

/me applauds Rumsfield's words

Just a sidenote: To my knowledge, NVIDIA SLI works so that if you have two graphics cards, 512 MB VRAM in each, you only have 512 MB of VRAM of total to be used by programs. Reference: http://developer.nvidia.com/ Best Regards, Baddo.

Nobody said religious people are stupid, don't put words into our mouths. All religions are okay, I don't have a problem. The problem begins only when someone tries to feed their religious beliefs for me. That's what some political leaders are trying to do, among a lot of other people. Religion shouldn't be forced on anyone, if a person wants to believe then he believes by himself. I take it if I want it but don't feed it to me by force, like it seems to be the case in this case of "creationism should be taught in schools because it's the truth" case.

Yes that's how it seems to go It wouldn't bother me much otherwise but unfortunately some political leaders are using religion to support their policitical decisions and reasoning. So that there doesn't have to be any logical reasoning, just "faith" in something to start a war for example.