General Barron

I agree, especially in American politics, we tend to be very "tribal", and always divide ourselves into "us vs them" situations, where we vilify our opponents, instead of trying to understand them. When it comes to the topic of social welfare, I think it would be much more productive to focus on the most needy, and how to best help them. The problem is, we are increasingly focusing on middle-class welfare. The masses have discovered that they can vote themselves money from the treasury, so they are starting to do so. By middle class welfare, I mean recent programs like "free" medical insurance and "saving" homeowners from foreclosure. If you can afford a home, you can afford private medical insurance; even if you have to choose only one. If you can afford a home, you can afford to have it foreclosed and return to renting. These people do NOT need my tax money in order to survive. I don't have a home because it is cheaper to rent. Why should I subsidize someone who chooses the extra expense? I spend less money on my car, movies, etc, so that I can afford private health insurance. Why shouldn't I be able to expect others to do the same? I would be much more open to discussing socialist welfare programs, if I knew they would only apply to those who are truly in need. The problem I see, is that the definition of "those in need" gets broader and broader over time.

A corporation is specific people. And even federal laws have small-scale impacts on specific people. That's the problem: when you force people to do your bidding for you via a distant, massive organization like the federal government, it is psychologically easy to separate yourself from any hurt you (the voter) cause. Often voters are willing to inflict suffering on other people that they would never inflict on themselves. They want someone else to pay for X program (internet filtering, medicine, etc), but they wouldn't want to pay for it themselves. "Someone else" is usually termed "the rich", which is conveniently defined as "someone who has more money than me" (no matter how rich I am compared to other people in the world).

I didn't vote for Obama, but I do have a lot of respect him as a person. I have even more respect for the thousands of anonymous people like him who choose to become business leaders instead of politicians, though. I think they do far more good for humanity than any politician ever could. Absolutely. Exactly. Its funny, but we are slowly starting to try and legislate certain people into happiness in non-financial aspects as well. Example: they passed a law in Spain banning models under a certain weight from being on the catwalk of fashion shows. Somehow this is supposed to make other people (not the models) healthier. It's absurd. Happiness (and unhappiness) comes from within, not without. That goes for health, wealth and relationships. Some people need to stop blaming others for their own problems.

Let's say I go out today, withdraw my life savings, and spend it all on lottery tickets. Every last penny. Heck, say I max out my credit cards on lottery tickets too. And I refinance my house, and spend that on lottery tickets too. Now say I lose the lottery. I am now thousands of dollars in debt, and have no money to speak of. Would you say that my situation was caused by my actions (buying the tickets)? Or would you say that it was due to circumstances outside of my control (losing the lottery)? A case could be made either way. Personally I would argue the former. I could just as easily NOT taken those actions, and I wouldn't be in the situation. By making better decisions on the things I can control (my actions), I am able to put myself in better situations then if I rely on things I can't control. There really is no point in either of us trying to convince the other to change (or even understand) each others world view. Instead, I should try to convince you that we should both be allowed to have and live our respective views on the world. You should have the right to live your view, but I should also be given the right to live my own. If you believe in higher taxes, you should be given the right to pay them. If you believe in socialized medicine, you should be given the right to pay for it. Likewise, if I disagree with these things, then I should be given the right to opt out of them. There is no need to have the views of 51% of the population be forced on the other 49%. Both should be allowed to keep their beliefs, and live together in harmony.

What if the owners of those companies want to spend their money on something else? What if they don't want to be in business anymore, and instead want to retire to spend time with their families? How can you say it is "ethical" to force them to spend time away from their family, to take care of someone who didn't pay for it? Instead, wouldn't it make more sense for you to spend the extra hours working to take care of that patient? After all, you are the one who thinks it is unethical to not care for them. Or is it just a matter of "I think this should be done, but I want someone else to do it"?

I need to correct something here: "the government" isn't providing you with ANYTHING. It is the taxpayer who is providing you with those things. And they are only doing it because they are being forced to comply, under threat of imprisonment. What if those people who are funding all these government programs suddenly decided they weren't going to work anymore. Say they went on the government dole too. Where would these amazing "free" services come from then? THIS I agree with. If you feel compassion for the poor, you should donate your time or money to charity. You should not force your neighbor to do the same via government. That is just forcing your beliefs on someone else. We should live in a world where you and I are free to have our own beliefs, without forcing them on each other. If 52% of the US wants Obama's socialist programs, then those 52% should pay for 100% of them. The 48% that don't agree shouldn't be entitled to those programs, but they shouldn't have to pay for them either. That way we can all live our own beliefs. I am not talking about qualities, I am talking about actions. I could go out today and ruin myself financially. Or, I could start the next Microsoft in my basement, setting myself up for financial success. Instead, I am sitting here on my computer, typing. So my financial situation isn't changing at all. Either way, I am making a choice, and that choice determines my financial future. If you really want to help the "poor", you should teach them how to make better financial decisions. In the US, we leave that to parents to teach. Hence, the rich teach their kids rich habits, while the poor teach their kids poor habits. I learned some of both as a kid. Since then, I have made it my mission to learn rich habits. I don't play video games. I read books on money. I have nobody to blame for my lack of knowledge but myself. Your example is so moot to me. I know or have read about so many women, minorities, uneducated, non-native, ethnic, you-name-it's who have become wildly successful financially. How come they weren't prevented from succeeding due to their race / whatever? Do you really think that only for those people, race / etc didn't matter, but for those people who fail financially, it was in fact due to race / etc? Wouldn't it be more logical to look for some OTHER explanation for why some people succeed, and others fail? Person A: sits on his butt all day playing computer games, and spends all of his money on beer for himself. Person B: spends all his time finding out what goods his neighbors need, and trying to build a business to provide those. All his money is spent on that business that helps other people, not just himself. Which person sounds more likely to succeed? Which one is more deserving of our "compassion" if he fails? You should date a debt collector. I did, and she told me all sorts of stories about people who can't "afford" to pay their debts back. Yet they have cable TV, new cars, etc etc. Meanwhile we made less money then those people, and had none of those luxuries. Yet we paid our bills. It *is* a choice. Most people just don't realize that. My beliefs are empowering and inspiring. I believe that the individual has control over his own life. This belief applies to all three aspects of a successful life: health, wealth, and relationships. This is what drives me to become a better person every day. I have friends who feel that nothing in their life is in their control. I've got a fat friend who blames his weight on "genetics". He eats fatty foods and candy all the time, and never exercises. He's got a brother with the same genes, who works out and eats well, and isn't fat. Its a choice.

No matter how "essential" you think a given product or service is, I personally think it is immoral and unethical to force someone to provide you with that service, against their will. That is a mild form of slavery, in my opinion. It also hurts society as a whole, to benefit a small group of people. The Australian government creating some giant filtering scheme is doing the same (wrong) thing, only on a larger scale. It is forcing taxpayers to fund a service they wouldn't otherwise pay for. The government is coming in and benefiting a small group of people (those who want the filter) are going to benefit at the expense of society at large (those who don't want it). And, as always, they will justify it using all sorts of "good intentions". No matter if the end result isn't what society would choose on its own. But, I guess the government is smarter than society, right? A short, easy to read, yet mind-changing book that I would recommend you read is called Economics in One Lesson. It takes about 5 minutes to read "the lesson". The rest of the book is examples of it in practice. Heck, I'll even post the lesson here: ----- Edit Blah, I had written a really big post, but I see that its taking things totally off track from this discussion. So I've shortened it above, and brought it more in line with the topic.

As is often the case, "conventional wisdom" is completely wrong. I have no idea how that rumor got started, because it is completely FALSE in most situations. CfgPatches and requiredAddons[] determines addon loading order. This is controlled by the addon maker, NOT by the end-user! Only when you have two pbos that both require the exact same addons, does the modfolder order or pbo name matter.

I was specifically responding to a comment that someone else made about gun politics, and I had no reason to suspect the issue was off-limits. I guess I didn't read far enough back to catch that bit. Now I know though. This belief really scares and confuses me. For example, when I was in school, I worked 30 hours a week at a minimum wage job to pay both tuition and my bills. Yet, I was able to fully pay for myself, in addition to actually saving money. And I was living in a relatively expensive part of the country (between Seattle / Tacoma). I wasn't getting money from my parents, nor was I working at any sort of a skilled job. I simply reduced my expenses as much as possible, lived with two roommates, and didn't buy luxieries. How come I was able to do that, but others can not? I have NEVER lived paycheck to paycheck, nor will I ever. Not because of the amount of my income, but because I have always made sure to keep my expenses as low as possible. I save money so that I have months of emergency funds, and I spend lots of money on insurance, instead of luxuries. If something goes wrong, I am protected. I do this because I believe it's my responsibility to take care of myself, instead of forcing other people to do it for me. Other people have a horrible attitude towards money. They live paycheck to paycheck, even though they make more money then I did working 30 hours at minimum wage. What we need is education about money in schools. Not social welfare programs. We need to "teach a man to fish", not give him fish. Read The Millionaire Next Door, and then tell me if you still think there is no difference in thrift and attitude towards money between the "rich" and the poor / middle class. Example: Rich: want to drive used cars Poor / middle class: want to drive new cars

"democratizing"? You are talking about forcing someone to provide a service that they might not want to provide. If I go out and start up an ISP, why should I be FORCED to provide the kind of internet service that YOU say I should provide? That's like slavery in a sense. A free society would be one in which I offer my service in the market, and if not enough people want to buy it, then I go out of business. I should never be FORCED by the power of government to provide the service that one group wants, no matter how "unfair" you think it is. Would it be "fair" for me to force you to work at a job you don't want to be in? What if I thought that job was "democratizing"? It isn't your "right" to force other people to provide you with a given service. No matter how essential you think that service is.

I guess I'm a bit confused them, as to what the "head of state" means here. As for the "head of government", I'm arguing that the president is NOT the head of government. Theoretically, he shares the power equally with the other 3 branches of government. I guess its like the knights of the round table (to make a lame analogy): nobody sits at the "head" of the table. All 3 are equal. ------ Here's a practical example: say Obama decided overnight that he wanted to confiscate all guns in the US (I'm not saying he wants to do that). First of all, he couldn't do that because he can't make laws (he can only veto them). But say he issues an executive order, like what was used to imprison Japanese-Americans during WWII. The congress would still be able to overturn this order by passing a law. Or, the order could be challenged in the courts, eventually being ruled on by the Supreme Court, who would (supposedly) have to decide if such a law violates the US Constitution. As you can imagine, this could be fairly difficult in practice. The president has power, but it is "checked and balanced" by the other 2 branches of government.

I'd be willing to bet FAR more kids die from drowning in their family's pool, compared to accidents with firearms. Would you support sending the UN in to fill in all residential swimming pools? After all, nobody "needs" a swimming pool at their house, right? I never understood how people can be so afraid of guns, but not other, far more risky inanimate objects. But then, I guess they have no real knowledge or exposure to them. People always fear the unknown, right? Actually, in the US we have something called the "balancing of powers" or "checks and balances". There are 3 separate branches of government: executive (the president and cabinet), legislative (the congress), and judical (the federal courts). Each branch holds certain powers, and has a certain ability to override another branch's power (kinda like a big game of rock-paper-scissors). So the idea is that no one branch of government can become too powerful. Typically, it seems that people think the president has far more power then he actually has. In reality he is only 1/3 of the whole equation. And that is only considering the federal government. The US is a bunch of individual states, each of which was originally supposed to have more power than the federal government. So, suppose there is a 50/50 split of power between the states and the federal government: that would leave the president with only 1/6th of the total governmental power in the US. In the earlier days of the country (when the states had more power), that number would have been even smaller.

The problem is the voting system used. In most elections, you get ONE vote, even though there may be more than 2 choices. Say you really support candidate #3 (a third party), but only candidate #1 or #2 seem likely to win (the two major parties). Say that, given a choice between #1 or #2, you'd prefer #1. But more than anyone, you prefer #3. Since you only have one vote, you have to decide whether to "throw your vote away", and vote for your favored candidate, or whether to vote for one of the two major candidates. Most people will take the lesser of two evils, and vote for one of the 2 major parties. This is why we have a 2 party system in the US. (It has nothing to do with money; that is a consequence of the above, not a cause). An alternative would be "approve/disapprove" voting. In this system, you vote for as many candidates as you approve of. So, in the above example, you can vote for #1 and #3. Effectively you are voting against #2 in this case. You don't have to stop voting for the 3rd party candidate, because you can vote for both them and the major party. What would happen under such a system? 3rd parties would start getting much more votes, even if they don't start winning elections right away. More votes means more recognition, more support, more money. Eventually, it would be possible to have more than just 2 major parties. You would have more choice, and wouldn't have to vote for someone who you only partially agree with. There are other alternative voting systems, but most of them are even worse than the current one, in terms of you "having" to vote for someone you don't fully agree with. There was a really great website that discussed them very well, but it seems to be down now. Here is an archived link though.

Interesting to see someone made this. As for the above point, people need to realize a couple things about the existing (non-modded) collision shape: 1) It does not change depending on weapon, just on animation. So all primary weapons have the same size geometry for the weapon, be they a .50 cal sniper rifle, a carbine, or an SMG. 2) The shape does not bend with your character. It only rotates to match your direction. So, if you point downwards or upwards, the collision shape still points parallel to the ground. Meaning, it does a poor job of blocking where your weapon is really pointing. 3) The collision shape, not including the part representing the weapon, is already considerably larger than the character's body. It should even contain the chamber of most weapons within its bounds anyway, which means it would be impossible to shoot thru walls in those situations. So, while it is true that the current system gives an advantage to pistols over primary weapons, I do not think it is overall more "realistic" then this mod. The problem is that SMGs are just as hard to move around in a hallway as a sniper rifle. And in reality it is MUCH easier to turn around in a hallway then in default Arma, anyway. It is already considerably harder to move around in a game using a keyboard, compared to movement in real life. Complicating simple things such as turning your body doesn't really help a game's immersion or realism, imo. Until we get some better then a keyboard to control an avatar in a game, I don't think it makes sense to worry about tiny kinetic nuances, such as the differences between a 12 or 18 inch barrel on movement in a hallway. The way you control movement just isn't good enough to allow you to worry about such details. In real life, I don't have to think about how I'm going to rotate my body in a hall. So why should I have to think about the controls to do the same thing in a game? How does that help realism, or immersion?

Meh. I'd argue that part of a truly free internet is one in which an individual ISP is allowed to filter or prioritize content. You always have the option to choose another ISP, if you don't like your current one. This website seems to be against that. This is what I'm talking about. When you start passing legislation like this one, supposedly to protect somebody's "rights", you suddenly open the floodgates to other legislation, protecting other "rights" that you might make up. Case in point, this stupid AU legislation. Governments should keep their hands off the internet in all cases, no matter which group they think they are protecting. The reason why it is such an innovative place is because it's basically the freest place on Earth, due to lack of government regulation. And if you don't like it, you can simply turn it off.

Oh god. Didn't this same government spend millions of dollars on a filter for schools that some kid figured out how to bypass the day it launched? I'd say "good thing this can't happen here in the USA", but I don't really think that is true. We already have an FCC that is just dying to get its filthy little hands all over our interwebs. They've already started regulating what the ISP's can freely do with their own internet (i.e., prioritizing traffic). Its just one step in that direction. Oh boy, I just can't wait for the day when a little old lady can make a telephone call to the government about an "offensive" website, and then it gets shut down. That's pretty much how TV and radio is regulated here. When are we going to grow up as a society, and realize that we should take matters into our own hands, instead of always wanting the government to "protect" us? How is the government supposed to "protect" us from something that is completely subjective, like what is "offensive"? Good luck fighting this one. Like you said, the internet is already terribly slow and expensive in Oz. But hey, I'm sure there's nothing better to spend your tax dollars on, right? Why not just send out a free blindfold to every internet user instead, with instructions: "put this on when you see offensive content".

Most likely I'd say your DB level for the sound is way too high. I've made a couple posts explaining how this value works, maybe do a search...

Abandoned Armies essentially WAS that mission where you could go and kill the general back at a camp. Yet, the mission still managed to tell a story, and be incredibly fun. You just might not manage to "find" all of the story on your first play thru. However, that isn't the only way to make a fully dynamic campaign. Obviously, real conflicts span weeks, months, or even years. Nobody can or will sit down at their computer for that long, even with breaks between playing sessions. So if you really wanted to simulate a "real" conflict, you would need to break that conflict up into episodes. Then, you can play only the "interesting" parts, and all the boring, realistic stuff like days or weeks of movement, logistics, and waiting aren't actually played in real time. You can describe this stuff in summary between the episodes. So what you'd end up with is a series of episodes or missions, where the results of one mission then affect the next mission. You can make this as dynamic or random as you want.

There's some discussion of the subject in this post here. But I'll try to give a better explanation now. DB And Distance -The DB specified in the config is the starting decibel level for the sound file. -The DB level of a sound decreases depending on how far away the sound source is from the player / camera. Obstructed line of sight (occlusion) between sound source and the player / camera will also reduce the DB level. -So, starting with the configured DB level, and reducing it according to distance, you get the modified DB level for a given sound. -This is on a per-sound basis, meaning every time the same sound effect is played, it can end up hitting your player's ears with a different DB level, depending on how far away it is each time. -I do not know at what rate the DB level deteriorates over distance, but I'd think there is a standard real-world formula that applies. DB And Volume -A given sound effect will never be played louder than its recorded volume. -A given sound effect will be played quieter than its given volume, depending on its relative DB level. -Relative means you take all the sound effects that are currently being played, and you look at their modified DB level. Out of that set of sounds, the one with the highest DB level will be played at the highest volume (up to the full volume of the recording, but no higher). All sounds with lower DB levels will be played at lower volumes. -I'm not sure exactly if / how the volume of the highest DB sound file is modified. -Sounds with a modified DB level of below -70 will never be heard. Examples -A weapon is reloaded 1000m away from you. The DB level configured for this sound is like +200. Lets say it drops by 100 db over this distance. Its modified DB level is still 100, which is likely to be the highest sound at that moment. The sound file is then heard at its recorded (maximum) volume. -You are standing next to a tank, firing your DB+20 rifle. You hear your rifle at full volume. Then, the tank fires its DB+50 cannon. You will hear the tank cannon at full volume, but your rifle sound file will be played at a reduced volume. -A db-40 butterfly is fluttering around, say 100m from you. Lets say that makes the modified DB level -80 when it reaches your player / camera. The sound file will not be played at all, because it is below the cutoff value. -You are in an empty field. You should be able to hear the flies buzzing around you. You should be able to hear your footsteps, and the sound as you go prone. Next, enemies appear, and a firefight ensues. You will no longer hear your footsteps or the bees, even though they are just as close. The much higher DB level of the weapons causes the footstep and bee sound effects to be played at a much quieter level.

Skill reducing the AI dispersion coefficient was introduced in one of the Arma patches. I don't remember which one, but if you search through all the change logs, you'll see it. This was not present in OFP, or the original Arma release.

What he said. Also, the skill level of the AI reduces this value. So, if AI has skill of 1, then the AI dispersion coeff. goes down to 1. If AI skill is 0, then it uses the full dispersion coeff.

All I'm saying is that you could do the exact same thing, by simply configuring 4 different islands. Use the exact same source data, just swap out some textures between the 4. Put them all in the same pbo if you want. That just seems much easier than trying to create some crazy scripted solution. And I don't see what the difference is. Unless you want the player to see a seasonal transition within ONE mission, there is absolutely no need to let the map dynamically change seasons. Within a campaign or series of missions, the player won't be able to know or care one way or another.

I'd think it would be MUCH, much easier just to release multiple versions of the map (one for each season). Just modify the textures / etc for each season. No need to mess with funky scripting or anything. Plus, mission makers / players won't be forced to download the winter textures, if they are only making/playing a summer mission.

Urgh.... don't put CfgModels and CfgSkeletons info directly in your config; rather, create a model.cfg and binarize your model. Otherwise some users will get errors when they use your addon.

No, this depends on your dialog. Why do you need different dialogs for each aspect ratio? If you want your dialog to stretch across the entire screen, then yes you will need this. An alternative would be to 'blank out' the extra parts of the screen in higher aspect ratios, but keep your functional dialog the same size/shape. For example, look at the mission editor. But for dialogs that don't take up the entire screen, I don't see why this would be necessary. Remember: with wide-screen aspect ratios, you actually get "more screen". So if your dialog was designed using the available screen space on the standard aspect ratio, what are you doing to do with the "extra" screen space? Do you need to use it at all? Do you need to stretch / distort your controls to be wider than normal? Will that look right? If you want to see what your dialog would look like "stretched" across the entire screen, then change your aspect ratio (on your widescreen monitor) back down to the standard. Your dialog will now be stretched across your wide screen. Chances are, it won't look as good.