General Barron

600 billion dollars to date. That averages out to 100 billion dollars a year. Obama's deficit is (so far) 1200 billion dollars/year, so pulling out of Iraq would pay for 8.3% of it. Okay, what about the remaining 91.7%? However, last time I checked, there was nothing in this bill about pulling out from Iraq. You should be pressuring your senators to include such measures, to pay for that 8.3%. I'd encourage you to also worry about the remaining 91.7%. ----- Now, it is very good that you are concerned about the cost of the Iraq War. If you are worried about that, then you will be even more worried when you look at reality and realize that 6 years in Iraq is just a drop in the bucket compared to the money we've been spending recently. Depending on who you ask, the last round of bailouts has cost us 4.5 to 7.7 trillion dollars. That is 7700 billion dollars, or nearly 13x the cost of the war in Iraq. In three months, Paulson and Bernanke spent more than twice the cost of all of WWII. The cost of the last round of bailouts is more than the Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA's lifetime budget -- combined! You can read a short article about it here, or a longer article here. So, if you are truly worried about the cost of Iraq, then you should be HORRIFIED about the recent government spending. It shouldn't matter if it is a republican or a democrat administration that is doing the spending. It was wrong when the Bush administration was doing it, and it is wrong now the Obama administration is doing it. Either way, our country is being ruined, and we are forcing future generations to pay for our mistakes right now. So, while you and I worry about the switch to digital TV, our government is printing money and destroying our economy. In a way it's funny, like when you read history about Roman emperors stealing the people's rights, but they don't even know or care because they are watching the fights in the Colloseum. But I have a hard time laughing, because it is real. I'd trust my 4th grade nephew to run the country better then the clowns we have in there now, or had in there two weeks ago. ----- In my state, the government is forbidden by law from having a deficit. I love that. When it comes to finances, The federal government is morally bankrupt, and has been for decades, as far as I'm concerned. It would be almost criminal for you or I to manage our finances the way the Federal Government manages it's own. Many Americans live their lives entirely on credit, but I think by now we should realize how dangerous of a notion that is. I don't understand how people can think it is OK for the government to live like that.

Ok, good, I think it is more productive to talk about actual, real-world issues, instead of the old us vs them political diatribe. So with that spirit, I'll continue berating our country's overlords. First off, let me agree with you here: I've been reading the news recently, and I'm completely outraged. I've been outraged since this whole bailout BS began under Bush, and now I'm even more outraged with Obama. Latest figures put the cost of Obama's "stimulus" package at 1.2 TRILLION dollars (link). Now, some of the actual contents of this bill are, in my opinion, completely laughable, including the TV coupons. However, I don't want to argue the content of the spending. Instead, I want to take a step back, and look at the big picture. I'm afraid to say it, but I think most Americans are just too ignorant to realize what is really happening here. Q: Does the US have 1.2 TRILLION dollars to pay for this bill? A: No, of course not. We are already spending more money then we have. So the ENTIRE stimulus package will be financed by DEBT. We are putting this on a credit card. So it will be future generations who have to pay for whatever is contained within this bill. Note, those future generations don't get to vote today. Q: Who loans us the money to pay for the bill then? A: Anyone who buys treasury notes from the Federal Government. This used to be the Chinese. But guess what? As of a few months ago (under Bush), the Federal Reserve has started buying treasury notes from the Federal Treasury. This has never happened before. It is a huge deal, for reasons I'll get to next. Every person who talks about politics (meaning, everyone in this thread) should have or form an opinion on this issue, because it is more important than the stimulus package itself. Q: Where does the Federal Reserve get the money to loan us? A: It prints it. It creates it out of thin air. Now this is what I want to talk about the most: We are now literally printing money to pay for government spending. The Federal Reserve prints money and uses it to "buy" treasury bonds from the Federal Government. This is how we are now financing our deficit. The Chinese aren't subsidizing our government anymore. We are using fake money to do that now. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Does the thought of printing money make anyone else outraged, like it does to me? Or does nobody care, as long as they get to see that money themselves, or have it go to their favorite government program? If printing money works, then why don't we just print 1 million dollars per person, and make ourselves a nation of millionaires? Printing money will cause problems in the future far worse than what we face today. Just look at WWII-era Germany, or the current situation in Zimbabwe. That is what happens when the government prints money to make ends meet. People suffer and DIE. Every single dollar in this stimulus package, is going to cause more harm and misery in the future, then it will supposedly prevent today. Regardless of your opinion of how the money is being spent, everyone should have an opinion of where the money is coming from. But I don't hear any talk about that in the news or from Capitol Hill. If you are a Democrat / socialist, and you believe in the spending in this bill, then you should be DEMANDING that congress and the president finance this bill from revenue, not printing money. The democrats should be cutting government spending elsewhere, in order to finance this "stimulus". The democrats have control over everything, so there is nothing stopping them from slashing defense or anything else. They have the ability to do this, yet they choose not to. Nobody should stand for this. But then again, as long as the American people are ignorant of the facts, the ruling politicians of the day don't need to worry about reality. We should blame the media for not bringing the President to task about this, and we should blame ourselves for not caring enough to ask or understand the questions that children ask ("What's the national debt? Who pays for it?"). I could have sworn Obama campaigned on the idea of "fiscal responsibility". The fiscally irresponsible Bush administration left office with a deficit of 400 billion dollars. Obama's "fiscally responsible" stimulus package is going to increase the deficit by 3 times that much in his first year. And to pay for it, he is going to literally print money. New president, same old garbage.

As we've devolved into the usual socialism vs capitalism debate, I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I'm pretty sure I do understand where most socialists like Wolfrug or Akira are coming from. They are concerned about their fellow human beings, and want to see everyone live a healthy, happy life. I get that. But I don't think that they see where people like me are coming from. We tend to be cast as "uncaring" or "selfish". So let me try to explain my point of view, hopefully in a polite manner. My goal isn't to convince anyone of my point of view, but rather to make them understand that the reasons why I hold them are actually quite similar to the reasons why you hold yours. I believe that my beliefs will cause the most happiness in the world, and will provide the most food, housing, shelter, etc for the most possible people. So we both want the same end result, but we disagree on how to get there. Now, real quick: ------------------------------ Point #1: who should be supported by taxpayer dollars? You want to know why I think socialized medicine is misguided? Well, I'll ask you this: why doesn't the government provide free food to everyone? After all, food is more essential to survival then health care is. To me, it makes no sense to argue that the taxpayer should buy ALL of us health care, but should NOT buy all of us food. Okay, now here is the really important part for you socialists to listen to. I'm sure you will say something like "well, if someone can't afford food, then they can/should be able to get government assistance!". Okay, I'm alright with doing that. But my very important question is: why should health care be different? How come we only give free food to people who can't afford it, yet we are arguing that we should give free health care to everyone, including those who can afford it? The same analogy can be made to subsidized / free housing. It doesn't make sense to give free housing to people who can afford it. Â The majority of Americans don't qualify for welfare or food stamps or free housing. This is because they can afford it. Wouldn't it be more practical to do the same thing with health care? We should find the "poverty line", below which someone can no longer afford health care. Anyone below this line can get welfare sponsored health care. The rest of us should be required by law to purchase health care. Just like we are required by law to purchase food (if we have children). My view is that people should be responsible for funding their own survival. ONLY if they can not do that, should the government step in. It makes no logical sense to me, that you have people who can afford boats and plasma TVs, and you want them to get taxpayer funded health care. What is essential for survival? -Food -Shelter -Health care -Retirement savings (for when you can't work anymore) What should any person who has an income pay for, before anything else? -Food -Shelter -Health care -Retirement savings ONLY if you can afford all of these things should you be buying luxuries. How does it make any logical sense to have someone pay for: -Food -Shelter -Luxuries and then have the government pay for: -health care -retirement savings So, to sum up: my belief is that anyone who can afford the requirements for life, should be expected to pay for those requirements themselves. We should ONLY give welfare / socialized benefits to people who can not afford the basic requirements of life. That welfare should be designed to only cover those basics of life, not luxuries like a TV. In practice, this means Americans need to buy less luxuries, save more money, and spend more money on health insurance. I don't own a house or a TV, yet I have health insurance and retirement savings. Back when I was working part time at a minimum wage job, and going to school, I managed to pay for my own food, shelter, and health insurance, as well as school. Plus I stashed money away in retirement savings. How many "gangsters" do you know of who have giant rims on their expensive Escalades? These people are mis-allocating their resources, which is bad for them, and bad for society. We should not enable them to do so. We should require that they purchase the requirements for life, only after should they be allowed to buy giant rims and bling. It really isn't as expensive to live, assuming you can live without massive amounts of material possessions. I honestly believe that it is selfish and greedy to want to personally be covered by socialized medicine, unless you are literally spending 100% of your money on food and shelter, and can not possibly cut down on that spending.

I think that sums it up quite nicely. We have been using debt to make up the .4 billion difference in your theoretical example. Everybody likes getting something for nothing. Hey, as long as I'm benefiting from government spending, why should I care where that money comes from? Isn't it awesome, that we can just vote ourselves rich? "I want healthcare, and I want a big-ass TV. I can only afford one or the other.... Unless we just pass a law that magically makes healthcare free!" This greed and/or ignorance will lead to the end of the republic. This isn't doom and gloom, it is mathematical fact. We simply can't live off of debt forever. Nor can we live a life of luxury off the backs of "the rich". Why would they continue to build businesses and make jobs, if they can live a life of luxury on the government's dime? Is that really the best way to run a society? Based on seat of the pants guessing? "Well, I think this will happen, so why not do this?" Also, again, you aren't looking at the other side of the issue. The "why not" would be incredibly apparent if you were to look at it that way. Why not? Because our government is in massive debt, and will collapse if we don't pay down that debt. Any dollar we spend is a dollar that isn't paying down that debt. So, every program needs a better justification, instead of just "why not?". You are also ignoring the opportunity cost. That tax money would have been invested in something else, if it weren't taken out of the economy in the form of taxes. So, it might have gone towards research for a new technology, but instead the government has taken it and spent it on TVs. This is actually a really profound statement that people will gloss over: every dollar the government taxes, is a dollar that would have gone to something else. If you can understand this point, you can see that government "job creation" is a complete and utter lie. The government can only "create" jobs in one sector of the economy by destroying jobs in another. There is no net gain. Ok, this sounds like something that I could see a sane person try to argue. That would essentially be a social welfare program. But please, let's try to stick with the reality of the situation. Was there an income limit to get these vouchers? Did you have to prove that you made less than X dollars a year, in order to qualify for one? Unless someone shows me otherwise, that doesn't seem to be the case. Bill Gates could have qualified for the voucher. So, in reality, the program wasn't a social welfare program at all. Even the most bleeding hearts should be able to see something wrong with spending government dollars to buy a TV for Bill Gates. To say that "as long as I get something in return, I don't care about higher taxes" is a bit of an illogical statement to make, unless you add qualifiers to it. Let me explain. You can go to the store, and spend $100 to buy food. Or, the government can raise your taxes by $100, and then buy you food. It wouldn't make any sense to do the latter. Why should the government tax you, to pay for something you could have bought yourself? Education, insurance, TVs, etc are all commodities that can be purchased. It makes no sense to have the government take your money from you, just to buy these things for you. The only logical reason to want something paid for by taxes is because you can't afford it yourself, nor can you buy or rent just a part of it. If you could buy it yourself, you wouldn't need the government to buy it for you. So you should be more honest with your statement about taxes. You can choose to pay more for more health insurance or education already. What you really mean is that you only want to pay for, say, 50% of it, and have somebody else ("the rich") pay for the other 50%. This is a fine argument to make, but please be intellectually honest when making it. Bringing it back to my main point of the national debt: in reality, the current taxpayer is only paying for a portion of any given program (say, 80%). The remaining portion is being put on the national credit card. We can't do that forever. And I doubt we could raise your taxes high enough to pay for the difference. Nobody makes enough money for that, not even "the rich".

When the federal government changes the regulations on the manufacture of automobiles, should the federal government pay the extra cost to those businesses? Or a more practical example: what if, to fight global warming, the government passes a law protecting the environment, which in turn increases the cost of producing, say, chemicals? Should the government make up the difference to those chemical companies? After all, the federal government is the one forcing the change, right? Or, let's bring it down to the consumer level. Say the government passes clean energy regulations, which increases the cost of producing electricity. This in turn increases the price of electricity. Should the government pay me the difference in my energy bills? I doubt you would answer yes to these questions. The simple fact is, when the government passes regulations, the cost of those regulations traditionally fall on the people being regulated, not the taxpayer. It reeks of basic politics to make an exception for TVs, which most Americans own and spend a lot of time watching. Essentially it sounds like buying votes. Bread and circuses, if you will. ----------------------------- Aside from the moral / legal argument, I also make a very practical argument: we simply can not afford this. We currently can not afford the government we have. It makes no sense to be buying luxuries, when we are living on credit as a nation. Don't believe me? Watch this video of a guy called David Walker: US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy He's the nation's top accountant, and he says the US government can not maintain its current standard of living. Basically, we are doomed to bankruptcy, unless we make drastic changes. That means, more taxes, and/or less spending. And not just a little. A lot. Everybody's taxes will have to go up, not just some person with more money than you. Everybody's favorite programs will have to get less money, not just your favorite program to pick on like defense or social spending. Everybody in DC knows this, but they don't have to address the problem, because as a people we don't care. Hey, as long as I get a free TV, why should I care how it gets paid for, right? Please, somebody respond to this point, one way or another. So far this month, nobody has responded to this part of my posts, even though it is the most practical matter to talk about. No wonder, as a nation, our politicians don't have to address this issue. We don't even want to talk about it. The simple fact is, we are forcing future generations to pay for our indulgences. This includes the b.s. "bailouts" and free money that we are handing out like mad right now. The nation won't collapse if we go into recession or depression. Both are unavoidable forces of nature in industrial societies, so we are stupid to think we can stop them. But by racking up enormous debt, we are ensuring the nation's collapse in the future, when we can no longer pay for any government services. Thanks Bush. Thanks Obama. Thanks Republicans. Thanks Democrats.

You must include state and local taxes, not just Federal taxes, when checking wikipedia. According to the The Tax Foundation, the average American pays spends 31% of their time working for the government. So it is closer to one third, not half. However, I don't think this number includes the extra 7.65% SSI/Medicare employment tax paid by self-employed individuals and employers, which ultimately is money that would go into the paychecks of non-self-employed too. (Anyone else who files as self-employed knows what I'm talking about) Nor does it include the government-induced inflation rate (maybe "officially" 3.38% on average, though I'd suspect it is much more, especially recently). So add another ~11% to the direct tax rate, leaving you with 42% reduced income due to government. Still not half, but pretty close. And this doesn't include the indirectly increased price of goods due to other government regulations and taxes pushed onto producers. And here's the kicker: even after all these taxes, our government still spends LOTS more money than it takes in. So, in the future, we will have to raise taxes even further, or else reduce government services below the current level (which many seem to believe is too low). Just to pay for the government we are using right now. Please, someone argue with me on the above point, because it is so important; but most people aren't even aware it exists. So even the 41% figure is an understatement. If we didn't run our government on credit, the figure would have to be MUCH higher (current estimates are something like 1 decade of 100% tax, just to pay down the current debt). Eventually we will have to pay back the debt, so that figure eventually WILL have to go higher, assuming our current government is the government we want. Whether you agree with our current level of spending or not, I don't see how anyone can argue that it is even sustainable. Unless you are unaware of the facts, or just choose to ignore them. Again, I'd like someone to argue with me on this one. (And just to preempt some people on this one: yes, the Iraq war has been expensive, but not so much in the big-picture of government spending. The war has cost about 5.5% of the national debt. Bush's prescription drug plan has obligated us to FAR more debt then that. And the recent bailouts have obligated us to roughly an additional 50% more debt on top of that. So yes, war is expensive, but our domestic spending FAR outweighs it. Even if we had a smaller military and weren't engaged abroad, it wouldn't change our overall debt/tax position by very much.) --------------- HOWEVER, my original intention in reviving this thread wasn't to argue whether we should enjoy paying taxes or not. Rather, I was focusing on one very specific use of tax money, and questioning whether that was the proper role of the United States (not Finland, etc) federal government. I'll repose a question I asked: My view is that the Federal government should, in fact, have limits on its power; and that buying TV's for a small segment of the population should be outside of the limits of its power. I believe that the US Constitution backs up my beliefs. If anyone should be buying TV's, it would be the state or local governments, as per the 10th Amendment. From the Wikipedia article: Obviously TV's weren't around when the Constitution was drafted. However, the constitution does lay out the scope of Federal government responsibilities. Even under the broadest of definitions, I fail to see which responsibility includes buying luxuries for a small segment of the population. Discuss. -------------------- Note: If you haven't read the US Constitution, I'd suggest that you do so before posting in this thread on US politics. It's a real short read. My copy is wallet sized, includes the Declaration of Independence, and is still only 58 pages long.

Paying taxes is something we force upon people, against their will. Joining the military is voluntary. And, for the record, taxes don't account for "just a few dollars". They take up almost half of the average person's income. That means, half the time you are working, you are working for the State. I think that gives us the right to be critical about where that money is spent.

You are ignoring my central point: someone has to pay for these coupons. Who should it be? If you recieved a coupon, then you are saying "I shouldn't pay for this". Those coupons were paid for by all the other taxpayers who did NOT take a coupon (regardless of whether they have a TV or not). To me, this is just a case of one special interest group (those who took the coupons) screwing over the rest of us. Why should I pay for your coupon? I do NOT agree with cities paying for stadiums! This is another case of special interests screwing over the rest of us (in this case, stadium goers screw the rest of us, because their ticket prices are being subsidized by our tax money). I DO believe that roads and parks are one of the responsibilities of (local) government. Essentially, the government reserves certain sections of land to be dedicated for these purposes, which is not something that can be done very well via private ownership. Just how much they are funded / etc is the grey area. Road are one of the fundamental reasons why humans live in cities. I don't think it is feasible to have a private road network covering an entire city. So that is one of the core functions of city government, IMO. Parks are a type of public space that are generally not commercially viable (meaning, you can't make money off of them). I believe land should be set aside for them, but very little, if any, taxpayer money should fund them. I'd rather see voluntary funding of parks. If people care about having a developed park, they will voluntarily pay for it. If they don't care, then why should we force them to pay for it? The land should just stay undeveloped instead. -------------------- Again, I believe in limited government. The Federal government should have a specific, limited range of power and responsibility. Same with the state governments. Same with the county governments. Same with the city governments. They should all have their own limited sets of responsibilities and powers, and there should be as little overlap as possible. All remaining powers and responsibilities should be reserved for the individual people. It's funny that this could be considered an "extremist" point of view these days. The USA was founded on this principle. It's written in the Constitution, for god's sake! Read the 10th Amendment! I believe that using taxpayer money to hand out TV coupons to select individuals is outside of the federal government's responsibility. Even if I did own a TV, I would be against this on a matter of principle. You shouldn't agree with something just because it benefits you. Do you believe the government should have limits on its power? If so, where do you believe those limits should be?

Like lecholas, I believe that the government's job is NOT to "make people happy". The government is NOT a voluntary organization. The government runs by taking away the freedom of other people. We should limit the use of that kind of power. (emphasis added) See, the problem with your "middle road" argument is that you are ignoring just where that "government money" comes from: the taxpayers. By arguing that the government should pay for your TV (because "it sucks" that YOU have to), you are essentially arguing that your neighbors should pay for your TV. Against their will. I just don't see why you expect someone else to pay for your own TV. Would you also argue that someone else should pay for your electricity to run the TV? Sure, "it sucks" that you have to shell out extra money to keep watching TV. It forces you to make an abnormal sacrifice, in addition to the sacrifices you already make to watch TV. But I think "it sucks" even more to force your neighbor to make that sacrifice, instead of you. Yes, you didn't ask for your old TV to stop working. But your neighbor didn't ask for you to watch TV at all. One of you will have to make a sacrifice in order for you to continue watching TV. How can you argue that your neighbor should make that sacrifice, not you? And no, I don't agree that a TV in my neighbor's house is somehow part of the nation's infrastructure, or vital for defense. My neighbor's TV only benefits my neighbor, and no one else. But hey, as long as I get my TV for "free", I could give a #$@ less about the guy who I forced to pay for it, right? Is that the "middle ground"?

Do a search; this topic has been discussed many times, even back on the OFP forums. The short answer is that it is not possible purely via configs. You would need a good amount of scripting. It has been done in OFP and in Arma in various ways, though maybe not exactly in teh manner you describe.

Hey awesome. I just learned that my government spent $1.34 BILLION of our dollars to buy digital converter boxes for people who have analog TVs still. Isn't that awesome? Oh, and Obama wants to spend even more money, because there is still a backlog of people who want the coupons. He's adding it into his "economic stimulus package". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28562781/ Garbage. Why should *I* have to buy such devices for other people? Why shouldn't they buy it themselves?! I don't even own a TV! As always is the case with government spending... they are taking money from the overall population, and giving it to a certain sub-segment of it. I don't see how this is the government's job at all. But hey, I guess people today don't really believe in a limited government anymore. We seem to think that the government should be able to do *anything*.

Bear in mind part of the allure of "Commercial off-the shelf" technology is that you can run it on a personal computer instead of a more expensive mainframe or custom-built computer. Now, the cheaper the computer that can run the program, the more cost you are saving. Put yourselves in the shoes of someone who has to buy the hundreds or thousands of computers to run this stuff on. Heck, the ideal situation for that guy would be for the program to run on all of the crappy computers you already have that only need to run word and powerpoint. Lower hardware requirements = lower cost to end customers, with same price margin for the software producer.

Give this man a cookie. He's hit the nail on the head. You'll also notice the difference between a training tool and a video game. Very few of you would play Arma if there was nothing to shoot. No matter how realistic it was.

Bipod or tripod?

Not possible in Arma. Though I do wonder why you would want to do this? I think it would be frustrating to play, myself. And I don't see how a bipod would restrict your turning in real life. You can always just pick the thing up an inch off the ground if you need to rotate it.

I'm surprised nobody seems to have talked about this yet. http://www.cnn.com/2008....ex.html This is absolutely crazy. Open warfare in the streets of Mumbai. I hope that nobody here has friends or family that have been hurt by these evil #$#$-holes. I honestly don't see how we can live in peace with these kinds of people. These Muslim extremists seem to want the death of absolutely anybody who doesn't fall into their narrow world view. I wonder what it will take before we can finally live in peace, free from these bastards...

If you want to do this via config instead of scripting, use the parameter hiddenSelectionsTextures[]. Example: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> class myDude { hiddenSelections[] = {"shirt"}; hiddenSelectionsTextures[]= {"\myaddon\shirt.paa"}; ... };

You can not specify different reloadTimes (rates of fire) for different firing modes. Well, you can, but there is a bug: only one rate of fire will be used for all the modes. So, like I said: it is bugged; all modes will use the same rate of fire, even if you specify different ones in the config.

How are you "calling" the sqf script? call -> calling script waits for script to finish, passes return value to where you called the script from spawn / execVM -> calling script does not wait for script to finish, handle to the script is returned (instead of a return value)

I'm not sure what you think my "model" is here. You ask me to put myself in a minority position, but I am already there. Every day laws are passed that restrict my freedoms, in the name of what somebody else thinks is best. My definition of human rights is basically that "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, as long as I'm not using force against someone else." A couple notes here: -I do NOT believe that a "right" ever includes something that someone else must do for me ("free" health care, for example, is not a right, it is a form of slavery levied upon those funding it). -There are very fuzzy grey-areas, especially when it comes to environmental issues, about whether me doing something actually means I'm using force against you. I am open to debate on these issues, and don't pretend to have all the answers. -These rights include the right to do things you don't like me doing, as long as I'm not using force against you or someone else. Freedom of speech, thought, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, all fall into this category of contentious rights. -The government's sole and only purpose is to protect these rights. The government should not give preference to anyone or anything, it should exist ONLY to protect these rights. It is up to society, not government legislators, to determine how we use those rights. I believe that the above provides for the best possible world, as a whole. Of course, one person is always better off when the government takes his side, but overall society is worse off. I think it is a problem, that everyone wants the government to take their side, at the expense of others. Of course, we don't talk about the expense to others, just the benefit to our side. It doesn't matter if you your side is the majority or the minority, it is still wrong. Government should be a neutral force, instead of this almighty force that is always up for grabs, one way or the other.

You make good points, and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, or jump to any conclusions. My understanding was that the attacks were religiously motivated, although I'm not sure where I may have read that. Maybe I assumed that it was similar to the religiously motivated / Muslim attacks in Pakistan. I certainly don't want to paint all Muslims as terrorists, but I think we'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't notice the fact that currently there are a lot of Muslim terrorist organizations around the world, trying to take down the governments of the countries they are in. That applies not only to western countries, but all nations (the Philippines, the middle east, south east asia, etc). I think a lot of people try to paint this as a US-only or western-only problem, when in fact it is a world wide problem. You may not like Bush's "war on terror", but try not to let that blind you to the fact that a problem does exist. We'd be best off to argue about the best way to solve the problem, instead of turning it into an "us vs them" issue, be it "muslims vs us" or "us vs Bush". Lets try to look at the problem for what it is, without being overly influenced by our biases towards any certain religion or government. Again, I'm not trying to vilify real Muslims, I just lack a better term to use.

Greetings all. Here is a script that is very cool, if I do say so myself. This script allows AI infantry to shoot ANY indirect fire weapon and hit a specific location on the ground. It works best with slow-moving weapons like launched grenades, 'mortars' (rifle grenades), etc; although technically it could work with rockets and even bullets. There is just one small catch: you have to do a little bit of work to let the script work with each weapon. However, I've made that process as painless as possible (instructions are included). Basically, it is like CoC's UA, only for infantry, if you know what UA is. You can adjust the accuracy (impact radius) of the shot--the script can put the round within a couple of meters of the target every time, if you wish. The base script (inf_IF_launch.sqs) only does the above. It is up to other scripts to determine where/when/who to launch the grenades, so the script is very flexible for other scripters/editors to use. For example, I have written a script that allows the player to order his squad's grenadiers to fire by clicking on the map, which is included in the demo. This script could also easily be used like an artillery barrage script, by having a group of AI target a pre-determined position via a trigger (example also included in demo). Or this could be used by an AI script (not included), and so on and so forth. Included in the download is a demomission, the tool to acquire data for other weapons, and instructions for that tool. The demomission gives you a few targets which you can order your squad to shoot. It also has an AI squad behind a hill, which you can order to bombard a pre-determined location by using the radio. Instructions on how to use the script is at the top of the script. This script is not quite finished yet, because it currently doesn't take elevation into account. This script was made possible by Soultaker's Indirect fire with all kind of vehicles tutorial (although the process was slightly modified; ask me if you want an explaination). The script requires Lester's Invisible Targets addon (which everyone should have anyway, since it is so darn useful). DOWNLOAD THE SCRIPT & DEMO HERE

Is this run from an event handler? If so, I suspect that the event handler gets fired just *before* the actual fire event takes place. So, when using call, (which runs all its code in that very frame), you don't have the missile created yet. When you use spawn, the code is run on the *next* frame, at which point the missile has been created. Just a guess, but this kind of frame-by-frame stuff definitely happens when you are scripting with dialogs.

No, I'm a strict individualist. And I'm realizing that a smaller democracy does a better job of promoting and protecting individual liberties. A massive, one-size-fits-all government simply doesn't represent the people as well as a smaller one. Quick question: which election does your vote count more in? A) A place with population = 300 million (a federal election) B) A place with population = 1 million (the state of Rhode Island) C) A place with population = 173,000 (the city of Providence, R.I.) I'd argue that C is a better form of democracy, because it will result in a government that better represents the will of its people. We should keep as many issues on the lowest level of government that is practical. That way democracy works the best. You make the argument that the south might still be racially segregated. My question to you: if you believe in democracy, then shouldn't that be allowed, if that is what 51% of the people vote for? Sure, it hurts the other 49%. But that is how government and democracy works. I'm part of the 47% of the US that didn't vote for Obama, and I feel very oppressed by the 53% of the population that DID. I will be forced to work to support government programs that I don't agree with, and which I think will hurt my country and its economy. That, or I simply don't work and I force someone else to pay my bills. That is an oppressive choice that I don't like. In any democracy, the losing side will feel wronged. That is why we should take steps to reduce the size of that losing side, as much as possible. Of course, better yet IMO would be to reduce the size and scope of government as much as possible. Simply put, lets just vote on less issues, and pass less laws. That way, we have less issues where one side or another is wronged. After all, government is the only organization in the world that can legally FORCE you to do something against your will. We should be a lot more careful about how we use that force then we currently are.

That was how the US originally was supposed to work. Heck, even before the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation, which had even less centralized government power. As mentioned, we have slowly but surely been going towards one massive, all-mighty central government. The Civil War was one step towards that, so were the New Deal policies set during the great depression. I agree, we are way too big. Why should people in Florida be able to tell people in Oregon whether they can own a gun, or take drugs? If someone lives in a state with 1 million people, why should he have to convince 300 million voters to enact policies in his home state? How many other countries have such a massive central government? First off, I'm not sure where in the Constitution it mentions social welfare programs being the job of the Federal government. Secondly, the voters of West Virginia can always vote to raise their taxes higher than that of California. Or, maybe those people don't believe in such programs as much as Californians do. The beautiful thing about the US (as originally envisioned), is that there is a bit of competition between the states. If you don't like the laws of your state, you can move to another one. And the federal Constitution protects your right to do that, because states can't enact barriers to trade or immigration between each other. So to an extent, you end up with states competing with one another. Whichever state has the "best" laws will draw the most people and businesses, and get the most tax money. The same thing happens on the County and City level as well. It's a beautiful thing, but the more power we take from the smaller governments and give to the larger ones, the less this can happen. Stop the trend towards large, centralized government! Give the power back to the people! Vote Ron Paul! Doh, too late...