Frizbee

If they are like the cameras on the trains here in Brisbane, Australia, what happens is that the driver can monitor the footage at any time, and they can broadcast it to a monitoring station when needed. it is also recorded for later playback if there is an incident onboard. So it might not allow for instant response to a crime, but the criminals will be photographed for later retrieval. Also, with cameras installed along the streets those criminals could be tracked right back to their homes. Good stuff in my opinion.

I have to agree. Vietcong was the worst thing I have seen in a long time. But then I have another reason for not wanting OP2 to take after Vietcong. Bugs. In Vietcong I encountered a large number of problems on two seperate systems (and no, it wasn't an illegal copy before anyone asks) The first of these was a "blinking" gun, which meant that you could hit nothing except in a fluke, even at point blank range. Another was enemy and friendly people falling through the ground so they couldn't be hit, but they could still shoot you. And the last, was a bug that meant you could only run backwards. Not very good imo.

As the air pressure inside the aircraft is higher than that outside, technically all of those people were blown out of the aircraft, not sucked out. So it sort of ruins all those sucking jokes you all made However it is a terrible accident, however, police officers and their families were the victims... how long do you think it will be before someone asks if it could possibly have been a terrorist attack?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 22 2003,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess most of you just don't like the learning curve of picking up the complex controls of flying.<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 complex controls of flying<span id='postcolor'> Â Hilarious! Complex? Â Such hilarity...<span id='postcolor'> Yes, complex. I've logged hundreds of hours in Flight simulators. I'm not saying that the Desert Combat mod has realistic flight models or controls for their helicopters, but they are complex and challenging to pick up. Out of the people I was playing with, only one other person could pick up those controls successfully. Even the AI bots can only fly for a few minutes before spinning out of control and crashing. Having said that, I prefer it having this complexity, it stops ever Tom Dick and Harry from jumping into aircraft and flying around and doing stupid things like crashing into you deliberately (ala Operation Flashpoint) If you actually spend the time learning how to fly the helicopters, it makes Battlefield 1942 so much more fun to play. And it is good for those times when you can't find serious players capable of the thought required to play Operation Flashpoint properly.

It's an Alpha version. Do you really expect them to have every single model exactly as it will appear in the finished version of the game? I didn't like Battlefield 1942, but the Desert Combat mod made it fun to have a few games with my friends. Besides, you can't beat having a spawn point in a C-130 Hercules that is actually airborne and circling over the area of operations so that you can parachute down behind enemy lines. The hardest thing to pick up is Helicopter flight, but once that is done the mod is fun to play around with. I guess most of you just don't like the learning curve of picking up the complex controls of flying.

The Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942 is simply awesome. The tanks reload alot faster, and so even with 350% of the normal tickets, you still have a game that is over faster than a standard Battlfefield mission. The Helicopters aren't impossible to fly, you just have to work out the balance needed. Strafe keys and the Mouse are needed to stay level, while holding forward makes you go up. Releasing forward makes you sink back towards the ground. It DOES take a bit of getting used to certainly, but it's not impossible. Download it, you'll have fun.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 08 2003,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes indeed. Soldier of Fortune was even a step beyond that. If you killed civilians in the NYC subway you failed the game while killing Arab and African civilians was ok. <span id='postcolor'> Quite, many UK magazines picked up on that and the developers just shrugged! As for this game, I wouldn't mind sampling it. A computer game from a terroist organisation is going to arouse curiosity. Shame they didn't make it compatible with America's Army!<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, but that's just like in real life. If a covert ops team, or Intelligence Operative killed terrorists in NYC, the government could say it was the police. If you killed a civilian in a NYC subway, the news would jump all over it, and it's likely the truth would come out and reveal that it wasn't a police officer doing the rescue. If however, the same covert ops unit went to Africa or the Middle east and shot a civilian, who is going to start investigating? Certainly not the western world, and it's unlikely any of those African or Middle Eastern governments would investigate for any reason other than to see if you posed a threat to them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 30 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And im just curious about how militias helped in Veet-Nam? -from a toothless, slackjawed, utterly stupid, young, football -liking, muscle car driving American<span id='postcolor'> In Vietnam the VietCong were technically a militia, and though just how successful their operations were could be debated, they did operate against the "enemy" in that case the United States and ANZAC forces that were stationed in Vietnam. There were also south vietnamese people who were trained by U.S. Special Forces to take over guarding areas when the U.S. Forces were forced to move on or elsewhere. They could also be considered Militia.

The news report I saw stated that a few minutes after the crash landing a second AH-64, and a UH-60 attempted a rescue, but were driven back by heavy small arms and anti-aircraft fire. Also, in that photo, the left FFAR pod looks as though it was jettisoned by the pilot before the landing. (I mean, why would the Iraqi's only remove ONE pod) They only jettison weapons like that if something is really wrong, so perhaps it had something to do with why it landed?

As a point of note, how often have "Militia" helped win a war. The American war for independance... the Vietnam war... those are just two. Certainly it is unlikely that ANY country would be stupid enough to try an invasion of United States soil, but the Constitution does allow for such groups and in fact encourages them. What is it that the second ammendment states? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of 'the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 25 2003,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am going to start back up on the reviews very soon. <span id='postcolor'> Christ! The end is nigh! I can't wait to see his review of Raven Shield. 'u can't use a knife.. wtf!! I was in a ctteam, and iused my knife allthe time!'<span id='postcolor'> Just because he's living in his own little fantasy world where he's a CT Operative, a Knight in Shining Armor, Ruler of an Empire, and a Jedi knight... its no reason to start knocking him. Wait, what am I talking about, it's every reason to knock him. Anyone who prefers Counter-strike to OFP or in fact almost ANY first person shooter has a few screws loose somewhere.

No, the Iraqi forces SAY that they will fight every step of the way, but in reality, it's just Saddam's empty words. With vastly superior, and (it's nearly guaranteed after the first few days of the war after the Wild Weasels go in) unchallenged airpower, the Coallition forces can simply pound any and all Iraqi resistance into dust with their precision guided munitions. Iraqi forces will surrender en masse as they did in the first gulf-war, and the coalition will once again emerge victorious. Only this time, Saddam Hussein will more than likely no longer be in control of the country. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 18 2003,02:48) Let's face it folks, if Saddam wasn't going to attack us here in the U.S., he would have used them on jordan, or syria, or saud, or wherever else. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Umm... Why? <span id='postcolor'> Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish people. He attacked Kuwait in an unprovoked assault. And he's attacked Iran in the past. He isn't a rational man. He is probably on the border of being a sane man... and that is why he would use the weapons. He'd use them as a show of his strength, as part of another attack, or just simply because he has no little voice that tells him "Turning your car into oncoming traffic is.. counterproductive" It's a simple fact Saddam has to be removed from power. And THAT is why the UN should all be voting Yes to resolution 1441. The time for diplomacy passed when Iraq first flaunted UN resolutions years ago by firing at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Now it is time for action.

Are you saying System Shock isn't real? That Shodan doesn't exist? *Sniff* Noooooo....... L-l-l-look at you hacker. A P-p-p-pathetic creature of meat and bone. P-p-panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. Ho-how-how can you challenge, a P-perfect, Immortal machine.

Exactly, physical torture doesn't work as the person will admit to anything to stop the pain. Using Mental interogation methods, sleep deprivation etc. (Those methods that don't cause physical pain) ARE effective however. A person in severe pain will often retreat to a single memory (like the Life flashing before the eyes stereotype of dying) in order to shut out the pain. That gives you no information as they won't listen to anything else. A person who is extremely tired or confused will tend to reveal information in small doses, with everything they say. A word here, a name there... Occassionally they will spill everything they know too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I have read the rainbow six novel and i still think the terrorist with all their funding that bush keeps going on about could get a helicopter together and extract while shotting hostages etc. A new type of terrorism, one that ends up eith the CTs pissed off and the terrorists alive! I doubt that even American CT teams would carry a portable AA laucher with them. <span id='postcolor'> No, of course they wouldn't, but think about it logically. Terrorists board the chopper, take off, go to fly away. CT team contacts Airforce. Airforce jets intercept, blow the helicopter out of the sky before the terrorists can get away. Plus, small arms fire can still take out any helicopter a terrorist faction could get a hold of while it was sitting on the roof. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I can't believe UBI still don't let the player pick up weapons from dead terrorists. One time I heard they excused themselves by saying "The operatives only use the weapons they are familiar with etc..." That's BS. If you know how to use a G3, how hard can it be to operate a Mac or a Skorpion etc? hehe and considering allmost all terrorist-weapons are available to the operatives <span id='postcolor'> Familiar with... I think they mean familiar as in "Know that the gun isn't going to Jam on them, and that the sights are actually accurate." Besides, when you have a MP5 which you have trained with repeatedly, and have it zeroed in to a tight grouping at 75 yards, why would you want to pick up a weapon that is "Spray and pray"? You'd be likely to take out hostages. Also, you can't guarantee that the terrorists haven't booby-trapped their weapons. When a CT operative carries enough ammunition on them to complete the mission, why do you need to pick up guns, which would also be evidence afterwards during the mission. And Tex... that guy in the pic is lucky he's dead... it looks like that would hurt otherwise

A wet rag soaked with more water (and the additional tools - there are also other ways of doing this, though as stated previously, it won't be discussed) blocks your airway so you can't breath. Every breath you inhale draws more water down your throat, you start choking but can't draw in sufficient air. You panic, you choke more, you start hyperventilating, drawing in more water. More choking, and then mercifully to you if it is being done to you, you pass out from lack of oxygen, and the interogators remove the soaked object in question. A few days of that, (sometimes once is enough) and you'll spill everything just to prevent that feeling of suffocating.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I stated that torture for NATIONAL DEFENSE OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE. This philosophy comes from the inherent belief that each state has the right to soveriegnty. As for torturing your own citizens, that's a completely different thing. <span id='postcolor'> Exactly Icefire. That's wrong. Especially when you look at the world as it is today, and see that Bush is pushing for a war in Iraq with his allies for reasons of "National Defence" What exactly is National Defence? By your thinking, the U.S. has the right to torture every single Iraqi civilian until they find those they are looking for, get the weapons dismantled that they want, and so forth. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Yes sure, except sleep depravation becomes torture and then a risk of death. In my view, depriving someone of sleep for more than 3-4 days is torture... and it is in fact medically just as bad as any other physical abuse. <span id='postcolor'> No, prevention of sleep is detrimental to your health. Without any REM sleep after 5 days you start hallucinating, and then you start going crazy. Sleep deprevation is not preventing all sleep. They do this in every military special forces training course I have heard of. Waking people up at all hours of the night, using any means neccessary. In the case of these prisoners, it would be loud noises, and switching on bright lights. Not all of these would be deliberate either. If they were dealing with a situation in a cell, they would require backup, which means lots of light and lots of noise. Not everyone is a heavy sleeper. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It doesn´t say that they had a car accident prior to their interrogation. In case they were injured before the interrogation they had the right on medical treatment. The US is no mambo-jumbo country that doesn´t have to follow international rights and law. And even POW´s have rights. At least the right for life. The soldiers took away this rights and I really hope they and the ones responsible for the deaths will be hunted down as the ones that took the valuable lifes of US citizens. <span id='postcolor'> It also doesn't say those injuries WERE caused by the soliders. It just inferes that. The term "Journalistic Integrity" means nothing these days, they print headlines to get papers sold, not to convey the news. In all probability the injuries WERE caused before transfer to Cuba, and could even have been self-inflicted, or inflicted by other prisoners. Don't be so quick to stand against the soliders until it is proven they were beaten to death by those people. THEN appropriate punishment for those soldiers would be in order. I found those UN Declarations against torture ammusing. On one hand it says they can't use torture, but on the other, it says they can. But then, the UN doesn't enforce ANYTHING it says. Iraq = Exhibit A. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's unnatural to have to figure out the best way to win, and then make sure you follow by the rule too at the same time. <span id='postcolor'> The Rules are there for a reason. Some of them are stupid Yes. But the Geneva Convention protects only Prisoner's of War. It's not the rulebook that ties the hands of the officers, at least not until after the enemy have dropped their weapons and surrendered. Look at the Japanese during WW2. That is an example of the horror when the Geneva convention is abandoned by a country. In the end, I think the problem with this entire discussion is that there are so many views of what torture is. And for or against in this argument, there are too many variables between each point of view. I agree with interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and limited usage of drugs as I have already stated. I would also not hesitate to kneecap a person if I had to keep them captive on my own, and they tried to escape. I don't view that as torture... (though the knee-capping is an extreme, and not for every day use ;-) ) But physically abusing someone, beating them, pulling teeth, electrocutions, splinters under the nails, removal of skin, burning eyes etc... there are few if any, reasons that that sort of torture (and that IS torture) would be necessary.

Physical torture (ie. Being punched or kicked, withdrawing ESSENTIAL medications, needles under the nails, wet towel over the head etc.) is wrong no matter who it is done by. Phsycological interrogation techniques (Sleep deprivation, continual repetition of the same questions until the interview is a blur) is however alright. Making someone exhausted, and asking them questions they have already answered correctly makes their tired mind confused, and they are then more likely to give the required information. Also, I believe the use of SOME drugs to get answers is alright, depending on who it is used on, and why. For example, some car thief off the street getting given mind altering drugs for information on who his gang members are, is stupid and wrong. Using them on a senior terrorist who would have information of other terrorists, planned bombings and support networks however is alright, as it would save the lives of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. As you can see, I disagree with the physical torture of anyone, but at least you know the U.S. wouldn't torture innocent people. Those people are terrorists and murderers. Iraq simply tortures whoever they feel like. Innocent or not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 09 2003,13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know that in real life everything in these missions is preplanned and there is very little deviation from the plan. Which i think is okay but they should try to add random elements, let's say the terrorist revealed halfway through the mission that there was a bomb in another part of the map or even a whole different area and you had to react quickly. Or the tangos decide to bring in reinforcements.<span id='postcolor'> If you have read the Rainbow Six novel though, there is no way that the terrorists could bring in reinforcements. A police cordon is set up around the area, along with Rainbow and Military elements. Then they plan just like SP-forces. Basic assault plan for if they need to do an immediate breech (ie. Hostages start getting killed) and then an in-depth detailed plan. If in a mission something changed and they found they had another bomb on site, it'd be too late to pull back from the insertion once they had already engaged and taken down tangoes, so they could only hope that they stormed the entire building quickly enough to prevent detonation. Usually however, observation (both from Hostages they get outside before the entry, cameras, and sniper /observer teams) give them all that sort of information, and the floor plans to the building give them prior knowledge of where the best places to put explosives would be to cause the most damage, so they plan their entry accordingly if there is a threat of a bomb.

Yeah, but that carrier is still designed for STOVL aircraft (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) and helicopters. I don't think they are capable of having catapults simply due to the large upward curve "ramp" at the bow of the ship. As most of the Europian countries have STOVL and VTOL aircraft on their carriers, they only need small mission capable vessels. America on the other hand makes their huge nuclear carriers capable of engaging and destroying an enemy airforce without outside assistance. Hence, they have over 100 aircraft on board very few of which are helicopters or STOVL. (Excluding the Marine Corp Helicopter carriers of course)

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ This webpage has a large range of warship classes from various countries (Including Italy etc.) Anyone interested in the Naval fleet of a country... go here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 02 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Mar. 02 2003,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">is it true german have the best europeen army? <span id='postcolor'> i don't think so, Brittian has the best european army i think.<span id='postcolor'> naaaaaaahhh , France all the way ....<span id='postcolor'> France has never won a war they have been involved in. Not even when they fought against themselves in the civil war Seriously, it depends on what you mean by "Best" There are different advantages and disadvantages of every countries Armed Forces.

But on a current long-distance International flight, there are 4-6 aircrew on board. (Not counting Stewards) 2 Captains, 2 First Officers, and occassionally Two Junior Officers. (Depending on what route is being flown, and the size of the aircraft) Now, on a computer controlled aircraft, you'd only need 1-2 people trained to make input decisions for the computer in an emergency, with basic skills in how to fly and land. That means at least 4 out of every 6 pilots would no longer be needed. Stretch that across the entire aviation fleet of every airline company in the world, AND the military, and it's a hell of a lot of pilots out of their jobs. I know it might not be for a while (after all, the technology is hardly going to be given up by the military when it is brand new) But the technology is still THERE, with this eventual use just waiting to be exploited.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Feb. 27 2003,13:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is about getting a job done - as cheap and with only as much risk as absolutely nescessary. War is not about enjoying your ride, but about achieving some political goals by killing foreign people. If you do not need to risk your own people to do the same job at lower risk and a better price, then this is the best solution.<span id='postcolor'> Okay, initially this technology would be military only. You have them used in ground strikes. Then as the technology improves, they start getting fighter aircraft as well, and as the military technology gets better and better, the older original technology gets passed onto the civilian airlines, who, because of the cost of paying Pilots and the amount of R&R they need between each flight, could get a hell of a lot more value for money out of these automatic aircraft. Soon, the only real "pilots" left, will be the 'amateur' light and Ultra-light aircraft pilots, and the occassional "Middle-of-nowhere" transport, or crop duster. That is at least until space flight becomes a big thing and we have shuttle pilots entering and leaving the atmosphere continually. I just think that there are occassions where technology can go Too Far, and destroy the joy in doing something the way it was created.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 26 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Feb. 26 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More highly trained pilots lose their jobs. Â Â <span id='postcolor'> Beats losing your life...<span id='postcolor'> But the whole joy of flying is the freedom that being up there gives you. Hell, otherwise it's just like flying Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002. Or working behind any other desk. Only difference being you can't take coffee breaks while the computer is paused.