Donnervogel

It's not only the normal people. It's also often the governments. They use it as an excuse. They say it was decided in Brussels (meaning it was decided by them mostly) and they can't do anything about it in order not to be blamed for trouble in their own countries. That's also something that leads to the people being very sceptical about the EU: Because everytime they hear something about Brussels it's that Brussels decided something that limits them. When Brussel gives them more freedom, better economy or less customs then it's the archievement of the national government of course. And such behaviour is going to pay back. As we can partially see now in those referendums.

Of course it prefers economy over social rights for reasons that were stated many times already. You seem to overrate this constitutions in some areas. This is a threaty for the mainly economical european union. It is not the new constitution for a nation. But your basic social rights and your social system are staed in your national constitution and law that will continue to be in effect. there is no reason to fear that your german social system will be disbanded because of the EU constitution. That will only happen if it is disbanded on the national level by your politicians that you can elect. It's necessary to see that this EU constitution is not responsible for how far your national politics want to go in certain areas. It does not limit them to extend their social network. It only limits them in the other direction. They can not disband the complete social system because the EU constitution commits them to provide a minimal social support. But that's all it says. And it doesn't say more because some member can't or don't want to provide more social support. But that's a matter of national politics and there you can have your voice in parlimentatry elections if you disagree. Also you are wrong about the democary. Of course the EU remains to be quite a bureaucracy and still needs democratic reforms even with the constitution but the constitution does make it more democratic. It does increase the power of the parliament. The european parilament will remain to be less powerful than national parliaments but it certainly gets more powers compared to the current situation. You should read this: Verfassung: Europa wagt mehr Demokratie - in German and this: Die EU-Verfassung im Vergleich zum Vertrag von Nizza - German sorry for english speaking guys. It's quite complicated for me to write the stuff in english. I'll try to give some examples: - The European parliament will have an the power of veto on all decisions involving (qualified) majority voting - The European parliament will also elect the President of the European Commission - A new intervention power for national parliaments. If one third of national parliaments think that a legal reform would be better carried out at a national level, the European Commission has to review the proposal. I think this is not enough. I demand more democarcy of course. But this is a step into the right direction. And you can't have too much changes overnight. You need to apprach this step by step. I also think many people misunderstand the term constitution a bit. Only because it's called constitution it doesn't mean it's a sacred piece of writing that will stay the same forever and will never get changed. This is only another threaty and it will get changed in the future. One has to learn that with the EU you have to go step by step and make many compromises to eventually archieve something big and good. You simply can't rush forward and implement the constitution you would personally like form one day to another. There are too many different opinions around. If you make it more social you'll piss off some people. If you make it more liberal you piss off others. SO you need to go forward in little steps giving each party a bit of the stuff it wants and in return each party has to allow some stuff it doesn't want. The EU needs to grow and in my opinion this constitution was one of the best steps forward in a long time. Although it's far from perfect and it won't make the EU as I want it to be. Still it would have been better than the mess of the Nice threaty that is clumsy and outdated anyway with the extended EU of 25 members and desperatly needs changing. Well I am confident that changes to that situation will follow quickly. But I am afraid we'll get all the changes that don't help the EU citizens much but that the comissions and the council desire. And nobody will be able to influence that much. We'll have to take what they decide. With the constitution we had at least got some new instruments that help the normal citizens. We would also have got some things we don't like. But it's better than getting only stuff we don't like. You have to realise that with the Nice threaty the EU leadership has much more powers to implement laws and for us it's not really possible to do anything against it.

I fail to see how that is a reason to be against the constitution. I mean what if the effective difference if you have rather short, abstract definitions in one document and a shitload of regulations and laws hidden somewhere in other documents that constraint the constitution aricles? If I get you right you'de be pro constitution if there would be written things like "the internal market shall be free of privilegations" and then there are regulations and laws that state thing like "germany may support the east" "a member state can privilege a part of the economy if the EU market competiontion does not get affected in a too big extend and it serves to conserve national heritage and culture" and so on But the effect would be the same in the end. Also as Denoir said this isn't supposed to be a classical constitution like they were written 200 years ago. It's a constitutional threaty that combines different thraties into one set of rules and adabts it to the new situation in order to make it easier to handle. But why don't they do a "classic constitution". It's because the EU is not a nation. There aren't enough common points between it's members nor is the culture and political system compatible between all of the memebr states. So how are you supposed to get a document that everyone can agree on if you don't explicitly state how far the article can be interpreted. You seem to praise the US constiution but you have to see that the aricles of it can be interpreted differently. And because they can be they need further explaination and restrictions. Those things are provided in the normal law which is terribly complicated. I am sure if Jefferson had lived today in the EU he would have written a more complex constitution too.

Well so far the yes camp is leading. However it's gonna be close like everything that has to do with the EU. A large part of the Swiss population is very critical towards the EU. Especially because of fears about jobs and foreign people. Besides Schengen/Dublin threaties are not the same as joining the EU. We have them as part of our bilateral thraties with the EU which is our alternative to get into good cooperation with the EU (that is by far our most important trading partner) without joining it , which has no majority in the Swiss population. But when we want to cooperate with the EU we are, of course, forced to accept some of their rules. Becuase we depend on the EU, they don't depend on us. WHich is also why I would appreciate EU membership of Switzerland, because then we don't have to accept EU regulations on which we have no influence. And we need to accept them as long as the EU exists. Because we are depending on our export business and all our neighbouring countries are EU members. There's no way around the EU for us so we need to cooperate with them at least.

As Denoir already said. That is pretty much logical as the European Union started as a Economical Alliance and it's main focusses are on economics because that's the only area where all the nations are willing to cooperate. However it starts to become a political unions now. Or it tries. But as you can see from all the nationalistic anti EU propaganda in many member states this is something where it is very hard to get an agreement on. It's almost pervert when you see that the French object the EU constitution because it's not social enough while the british people object it for not being liberal enough. You can see the nations have very different positions. But I personally don't understand all the fear of the constitution not being liberal/social enough as it doesn't really matter. The EU constitution wouldn't replace any existing constitution. I sometimes wonder why people put so much weight in it. Their countries will keep their constitutions. Also the EU is very far from becomming a centralised European government. The EU is a federation of sovereign nations and it only tries to become some sort of place where those nations can try to coordinate their politics towards non EU countries. Your national politics will not become obsolete with this constitution. I live in Switzerland and in many aspects it's kinda a mini EU. We are a federation of 26 souvereign states (cantons). Each of those cantons has it's own constitution with very different rules in some areas. Cantonal politcs are still very important. However we realised some time ago that it's stupid to have many weak single states that try to trade or make agreements with our huge neighbours (Germany, France, Italy, Austria - which was bigger in the past than today) so we put ourself together to form an alliance of common policies and common defense. And basicly it's the same until today. We preserved the structure over almost 600 years (with a short intermezzo of 3 years when napoleon conquered us and made of Switzerland a republic) and still all of our cantons have their own culture, their own dialects and we still speak 4 official languages in Switzerland. But we have some things that are commonly regulated on federal level. And that's mainly foreign policy, defense (although the manpower still belongs to the cantons, only the equippment is federal), economics and traffic. Those are the same areas where the EU tries to get common rules. And I see it worked out well in Switzerland and therefore I don't think it will fail in the EU. However the people have too many unreasonable fears in my opinion. They fear about their culture and their national identiy and their constitutions and so on. But I don't think those things are going to be lost. Of course the EU is a much bigger project and there are more complications due to bigger differences in language, culture and economical development than there have been in Switzerland. Therefore the EU can't be an exact copy of Switzerland. But I truly believe it is possible to unite Europe and make it a peaceful but also powerful member of the international community that can represent the needs of it's population in the international competition. I fear that if we don't manage to speak with a common voice we will run into even bigger problems. Espeacially in economic situations. Our living standarts and social security systems are a truly magnificent archievement but we won't be able to preserve them if we continue to waste our ressources by competeting against each other. We need to put our ressoruces together to get into a positions where we can preseve those things for us even though they present an economical disadvantage - at least in the short-medium term.

oh well that was soo funny... sorry annoying

lol wipman. Thanks to the rejected constitution you can force the EU parliament to do whatever you like it still won't have any effect because the EU parliament has no real powers. Besides the left is quite strong in the EU parliament. But that doesn't help much as the comission and the political leaders of the member states have all the legislative power. The constitution would have increased the power of the parliament. Meaning without the constitution you as a normal citizen have almost no influence on EU politics. Also the constitution wouldn't eliminate any basic rights you have in your national constitutions. The EU constitution would not make the spanish constitution obsolete. The EU constitution is more like the common ideas of all EU nations. It doesn't say that single memeber states can't go further though. Therefore you can only have a minimal agreement on social security in the EU constitution. Still your nation can keep or extend it's better social system if it likes (and can finance it).

patience is a virtue. Besides I assume most of the new things regulated in the constitution will now be slowly imposed without referendums anyway. Many things simply need to be done and because the parliament has no say in this, thanks to rejected constitution, the prime ministers and presidents (especially german and french ones) will use their power and probably push for many things to be done through new regulations. ;)

Yeah but Switzerland is irrelevant in international contexts because it wants to be irrelevant. It's our surviving strategy in the world full of big nations. If no one cares about us and we don't take too much party in international affairs people won't bother us too much and we can live as we want it and not as some protectorate ;) All I wanted to say. Referendums and different types of democracies do work. It depends on the country you apply it to. I think the Swiss system is nothing for the EU. But it's a good thing for Switzerland. But ironicly the EU constitutions will make the EU organisation very similar to the Swiss organisation ;)

Yes it does work well but the Swiss situation is different. We are not a fully representative democracy but it's called half direct democracy. Our people have direct influence on certain decissions in the parliament. That's why we have periodic referendums. Those referendums are legally binding for the government and the people can demand those referendums on constitution changes and certain federal laws. Also people can propose their own referendum text. The parilament will ususally make a counter proposal if they don't agree and then the people can vote on which they want or say no to both. You have a far too negaqtive view of referendums anyway. The problem is just that referendums don't work as they should if you only have them exceptionally. Then the people often vote on the government policy and such instead of the question asked. But if you have them regullary it's a normal procedure and people are used to it. People don't have an exceptional situation to take revenge for the bad things the government did. It's normal political business and thus it becomes boring to most people so that they, if they don't care about the issues simply don't vote. Those that do vote are often well informed (media and government provide a wide and objective overview on the issues and the different positions in the government) and they do vote on the questions posed in the referendum. The "human behaviour" isn't that much a problem. People are cerntainly capable of understanding even complex issues if you provide them the right informations in a good way. That's something our political landscape has become used to. Of course sometimes people are scared and prefer to vote no than yes. But in the end that doesn't have to be bad. In Switzerland everything takes longer than in Germany for example. While that is some disadvantage in short term it appears that it provides a lot of stabillity in the long term. Also you can be sure that when we decide something big (like joining the UN or EU) our population and member states wanted it (such decissions need popular majority and cantonal majority). That's the essence of democracy in my opinion. To govern a country as the people wanted it. Not to govern a country as some political elite wants it only to find out the people are getting pissed off and don't trust the government anymore and then create totally blocked politics like in Germany for example. Here everything needs time but it takes effect when the people are ready and it prooved to be a good thing in many cases. Switzerland is developing slowly maybe but steadily and pretty much stable if you compare it to our neighbouring countries. We also don't get involved in short term political hysteria that can lead to catastrophies. What I try to say is that referendums tend to become "the chance to take revenge" if you don't do them regullary. Because thats like a unique chance for many people to have direct influence on the government for once and they will use that influence for all kinds of intentions. If people are used to having direct influence it's not all that speacial. It's pretty boring for most people actually (our voter turnouts are like 35-55% usually). That way most of the ignorant uninformed people stay away from referendums but they can be allways sure they can have their influence on the government whenever they want. Said all that I want to say also that I do very much support the EU constitution.

That's one kind of democracy. However there are other forms that are working well too - although differently. ;)

that's a&d ;) and it doesn't work as coop IMHO. In most games it's simply more effective for people to play ego shooter style against other human players. Don't ask me why ;)

I didn't play it myself but I know some people that just started to play it and they like it very much. I thought about playing it too but I'm not sure yet.

Um...I wouldnt say that. We had the puck for most of the game. We played badly, you guys didnt play much better...we just didnt score. yeah but I'm drunk so don't take me serious ;)

yay canada got owned sorry it's just my czech blood going crazy

The person responsible was cleared of any wrongdoing in this case. uhh well do you think the insurgents will say "oh ok the US court said it was ok, then it must be ok, we love all americans!" ? Even if it wasn't wrong (which I highly doubt) the damamge done is that the whole muslim world could see the pictures over and over on TV and they form their own opinion from it. And it's 100% negative.

yeah why would it be a problem to leave your property behind and to come back some weeks later to find everything is destroyed because the US army could "unleash it's power". /sarcasm off

what? I say that the argument that the best players are playing in play offs doesn't really apply this year. This year the national teams are in "full strenght" at the World Championship. That's all I say.

But that's why it should be put eariler as not to crash against those. It's about a nations honour after all. Who could not be interested in that? BM This championships isn't all that prestigious, its played every year, and the countries who participate don't necessarily have their best players available to play, only those that are not playing playoff hockey. Yes, I do agree that this time of year isn't really hockey season. But the owners aren't going to stop for two weeks now in the middle of the playoffs so some (not all), of their players can play in the tournament. That’s only done for the Olympics, every four years, and that’s been only for the past 2 winter games and the players may not be there in 2006. The Olympics are a much better venue to have the best players of each country play for their nation's honor. But this year most teams have all the players there they wanted. Most playoffs are finsished by this time of the year anyway and the one tournament that mostly isn't, the stanley cup (NHL) isn't taking place this year so most teams have their finest players available.

Take a look here, there's a link to a tool, that removes Starforce if there is something of it left after the deinstallation of the game. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/954105331/m/9791049103/inc/-1

@hardrock 3 things. I also wrote in chat the direction of the enemy and I also marked the units. You could have figured by their direction (somethin o'clock) that they were in our right flank ;) Anyway. it was a communication problem. If I had voice com I could have said it more clearly. I was a bit stressed because alone with 8 enemies near you... ;) Secound thing: I said people don't like doing the "boring" jobs until ordered to ;) Of course people that don't do it at all should not join. But when nobody tells you waht you shall do what do you prefer? Watching the landscape or joining the assault ? It's a game after all and when nobody tells me "watch the flanks" I see this as permission to have some "fun" too and join the "coordinated" attack. Nevertheless I keep an eye on the flanks when I'm on the outside of the formation. But it's not my main interest ususally. third thing: well I sometimes just say "patrol" and "W" (for west) because the patrol is easily spotable and not yet a threat. But when I see nobody is reacting I write "enemy there" to get some attention ;) Dunno if you talked about me there but I always give direction of the enemy I spot.

well there are two problems with that. OFP supports only one leader per squad, so only one can give ingame commands and since not everybody has a microphone you can't always do it over voice com. secound problem is that covering fire is very limited in OFP because AI does not take cover and is not surpressable. So real tactics are not very useable in OFP. Also the any cover your squad uses becomes useless as soon as you start shooting because the AI then exactly knows where you are and can shoot you trough bushes and trees. However it's good to have some people watching a village and shooting AI that is poping up while others approach the village. But that's all use of "covering fire" in OFP I can think of.

Of course nobody likes to watch the rear when the fun is on the other side ;) The thing is just that nobody will really put his main attention on "boring" things when not ordered to. Also we don't have clear tasks assigned to people. Maybe we should define some rules on that, so that everyone knows what to do when the mission starts. Also on a sidenote. I was watching the flanks yesterday in a mission and a 8 man squad was approaching me. I reported but the leader didn't react because I guess he thought I meant the enemies inside the town we were attacking. So I kept asking for permission to shoot because they were coming to my direction and if I moved away I'd be killed pretty surely. In the end they were like 20-30m infront of me when the leader gave order to fire and nobody helped me on the flank because all attacked the village. I luckily managed to take out 7 of the 8 enemies and the last one fled. The morale. Even when you have guys watching the flanks you still need the leader to be aware of who is watching the flanks so he knows that those contacts might be different ones. Therefore it might be a good idea to have roles assigned before the shit hits the fan ;)

About Teamplay. Well Llauma. There is some difference with big groups and small grops. Of course it's easy for everyone to know what to do when there are only 4 or 5 people playing. There is always sufficent cover near the leader and mostly everyone has a specific task given by the type of equipment he has (AT, MG, etc) But if you play with 8 or more people you need more precise communications. It's not really about what the leader orders to them. That should be clear (like waiting for permisssion to fire). But sometimes the communication in the other direction is lacking. When you got 8 people not everyone can find cover in the bushes next to the leader. Also it's not very wise to have all men in the same spot (Grenades anyone?). Therefore those people need to find a suitable position first. Sometimes there is none nearby. So those people run or crouch to the next pile of bushes nearby without the leader ordering it. Another situation is that the leader orders Line formation. A large group can spread over a quite large distance then. Due to Terrain and objects everyone will see different thing. Especially people on the edges of the formations sometimes will see things the leader doesn't see or won't see the things the leader sees. Now when the leader gives order to target a specific group of people those players sometimes need to find a new position to have a sight on them. I ususally try to write that when it happens but sometimes there is no time because the leader already gave fire order. This sometimes leads to people "running around in different directions". Unfortunatly OFP has no suitable menu for fire team based squads. At least it is pretty complicated to handle it. Therefore you need good and disciplinated communication with large groups. Meaning the leader must understand the situation of squad members a bit away from him and give them precise orders. Also the squad members need to tell the leader what their situation is (not too compilcated of course), Ideally that is archieved with voice communication. I have a microphone but for some unknown reason it rapes my voice into unaudible gibberish when using teamspeak. Therefore I can't use it. And writing in ofp is of course a bit clumsy. I often play on the utw servers where they use Ventrilo for voice communications and there my microphone works well. And there it clearly is a benefit when people use communications correctly. I think the problem with large groups sometimes has to to with lacking communication (from both sides). Of course sometimes the problem is that some people don't even follow the most basic orders from the leader (Hold fire guys until told to fire ;)

When there is an update for mozilla ready you get a nifty red button thingy in the top right corner of mozilla. just for next time ;) Updates for extensions are shown with a green button IIRC.