weaponsfree

Sorry if there are some doubles from previous suggestions. I did a quick search, but you never know. A heartbeat or motion sensor would be interesting. Perhaps a deployable one. You place it on a flank, or an expected egress route. Good way to know if you are being surrounded when in small special ops team missions. A working out of the box C130 gunship system would be another nice touch. The existing mods work great, but having a high detail model ready to go on day one would be fun. High altitude bombers would be impressive. Perhaps with visible contrails high above the battlefield, don't know if the map is simply too small for this, or if it can be simulated. Working, mobile aircraft carrier. Perhaps a Tarawa class ship is sufficient. Or a future version can be imagined. The Libyan Rebels have really shown some impressive improvised heavy weaponry. Could be nice to have a ragtag rebel group with some hardware that looks home made: Hind rocket pod on a truck. Anti-aircraft cannon setup on the back of an 18-wheeler, armoured bulldozers that take advantage of the fancy new physics system to clear out obstacles. That's my 2 cents.

The exchange between gammadust and ST_Dux is most interesting. I don't think people should be too vehement about what they debate until they can defend it in this kind of calm and respectful manner. Being able to concede a point is an indicator of intellectual courage, and sadly lacking in many debates today. Just had to point it out :)

I don't see pristine equality or fairness as the objective. Simply increased and sustainable opportunity. The last 3/4's of the 20th century were arguably a reaction to the inequalities of the Guilded Age. Not just in the sense that powerful people had to pay more taxes, but also in the sense that government imposed (with the threat of physical coercion) a concept of equal opportunity onto society: civil rights, welfare system, universal health care in most western countries. As far as I can tell, the objective you seem to seek is still present. Captains of industry still hold a high percentage of the world's capital because the government protects property, banks have merged into larger more powerful and less numerous entities because the upwards concentration of power is not checked, and industries are knocked down by new upstarts all the time (often fuelled directly or indirectly by non-profitable government subsidized research). In addition, contrary to what many powerful people argue when deriding the welfare state, incentive exists inside every human being, it is not the product of market/corporate coercion. This has led me to ask my libertarian minded friends several times "where is the problem?" In response I often hear they prefer to see bigots be free to segregate their businesses, and the top earners to have that extra 20% income in their pockets in the name of individual liberty. Often followed by vague assurances that human depravity would sort itself out much like the market. All I can say is that in my view, if a system allows a large corporation to deny entry because of race, is not based on individual liberty. A system that allows productive workers to fall into life or death situations because the market is not in the right place (you're free to starve) is not based on individual liberty. Rather it is based on the concept that a person can own property. I am personally not against private property, but I think the search for ideologically pure systems is dangerous. It is obvious that government is not a solution to everything. But a representative system that has the consent of the people should be allowed to impose limitations on power (or individual liberty to use your parlance). I do not have a problem in limiting the freedom of those who begin to have an increased amount of power over others. I put government in the same pile as sources of private power. A bloated, overly militarized, secretive government is no better than an oligarchy that controls most of the population. ===================== There is a parallel issue to the issue of the political systems being discussed, that is often not mentioned: The psychological basis for a person's beliefs. I propose a few points that I admit are far from being scientific, but that may be worth considering: - History is filled with religious and caste systems that are in part designed to rid the powerful of guilt. In India, the untouchable is miserable because he was bad in a previous life. So the people born into wealth and influence need not feel bad for them, and in fact should not help them. Obviously Libertarian thought is not as brutal, there is a genuine respect for hard work that pushes your way up the ladder. But I think there is an element of "I have no reason to feel guilty about the plight of others, conscience purged" in Libertarian thought. - I will concede there is an element of jealousy in the 99% protests. When humans see that their status is vastly bellow that of the most powerful, feelings of anger and jealousy are natural and feelings of entitlement do drive some of the protests. - However those that push for a more egalitarian view of the world tend to do so out of a sense of empathy. This is a uniquely human trait and not one to be banished from the political system. Many protesters see everyone as part of the same family, not a dangerous predator you have to beat down through a self-interest driven system. Do not discount the power of encoded empathy to improve the life and liberty of individuals.

Man, that cannon looks very sweet

The goal is not egalitarianism in my view. It's simply a question of opportunity. I think we may have to agree to disagree, because I think the idea that such a system does not promote concentrated power is absolutely incorrect. Wealth accumulates upwards naturally when self-interest is the guiding principle of a society. It is the natural human condition, and once you have wealth and power, it becomes exponentially easier to maintain and increase it, especially when the state's singular purpose is to protect accumulated wealth. I can not think of a single exception in human history. Powerful corporations and individuals will be the masters of such a system (if it wasn't the case, the rich and powerful would be pining for the welfare state). As wealth and power concentrates, having a "powerful mind" won't help you much. There are powerful minds in the ghettos and refugee camps all over the world today, that alone does not give much in the way of opportunity. It takes some measure of power to exploit a person's natural gifts. If freedom is what concerns you, I think you should be wary of such a system. Today's corporate environment does not tolerate dissent. You work under a tyrant that does not need your consent, and in a system where there is no safety net, the whims of the tyrant means you fall in line, or you starve. Tyranny can't be escaped on planet earth. At the very least, you have to face the tyranny of hunger. What we're talking about is where we want that tyranny to be transferred to. An upwards concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands, means the source of tyranny becomes a small group of un-elected individuals. And as seen during the Guilded Age (and today), that increased concentration unavoidably corrupts the political system, further eroding the possibility for people to live in a system they consent to. By the way, there are a lot of parallel discussions going on in this thread, most are very interesting. Thanks ST_Dux for taking the time to plow through these issues, I enjoy trying to wrestle some sense out of and into smart people who feel strongly about their opinions.

*tries to speak, only excited gibberish comes out*

Of course rewards for labour are necessary, and the market system is a pretty good way to divide labour. But the system proposed does not help excellent or productive members of society. It only benefits those who offer marketable or profitable skills. So forget most teachers, firemen, and all the people working on the CERN collider. There are highly productive and hard working people who do not happen to care about accumulating wealth or power, and they will suffer under a system that only protects accumulated wealth. The obvious result is that those interested in power and wealth rise to the top, and productive members of society as well as the "weak and unlucky" become more dependent on them. There is no causation between accumulating power, and progress as you seem to define it. Progress happens despite the machinations of the powerful, not because of it. Most of the leg work done in advancing technology, in educating our youth, in opening the door of opportunity come from people who simply want to produce, to create, to better. The system you propose would allow the powerful to resort to feudal agriculture if need be, regardless of what is produced, as long as the rule is obeyed: I must concentrate as much power as I can, through whatever means, and I must hold on to it at all costs. Musicians, engineers, teachers, firemen, electricians, physisists, doctors, all do what they do because they want to do it. Their motivations are rarely in the accumulation of wealth. That particular desire is the specialty of only a few. From Caesar to Marcus Goldman, to the warlords of Somalia, these few have sought out power and influence. The rest of society continues to advance despite their sometimes necessary, but more often devastating actions. This is true in the smallest tribe to the biggest civilizations that ever existed. I do not think this minority should have undue power, nor do I believe their collective self-aggrandizing opinion that their search for power is the engine of progress.

Refusing to exist under a social contract (which may include putting you in a cage if you don't adhere to it), while demanding protection of basic property rights will unavoidably lead to violent upheaval. Just as it would if you focused all power in the hands of government. The Guilded Age led to unions for a reason. The drive towards the concentration of power and wealth is a part of the human genome, it is perfectly predictable across all cultures: I must concentrate as much power as I can, through whatever means, and I must hold on to it at all costs. The system that "George" proposes is one where the state is a private security firm for those born into wealth, the ambitious, the predatory and the intelligent people in society. The rest will face the tyranny of being dependent on those people. So yes, I accept the validity of the use of force to take from peaceful people what they would not otherwise have given up voluntarily. An inclusive social contract that addresses the problems of society as a whole is possible, and minimizes violence of concentrated power. The rich, the ambitious, the predatory and the intelligent will continue to do great things for society, even if they have to pay bills, they just shouldn't run the show.

When I look at the forest, I don't see a major reason for allowing markets alone to dictate where economic power will rest, and how we divide labour. Market distortions come from many different places. Hurricanes can force a change in how business is done in order to adjust to a new reality. New scientific discoveries change the market and companies have to adjust. When it works, government represents the people's will, and can and should be a force that influences the market (child labour laws is a perfect example). It is up to companies to adjust to it in the same way they have to adjust to the new technologies or natural disasters. Look at the MP3 vs Record Companies situation a few years back. MP3's (itself developed in the non-market academic world) came and "intervened" in the music industry. Record Companies had built their business around CD's and albums, it worked, it was profitable, no problems. But here they were aghast at the pirating potential of MP3's. Most refused to adapt, and declared war on their customers base through ridiculous lawsuits. However those that adapted succeeded and are now viable in the new market environment (think iTunes). Why is it acceptable that the natural world and technology can intervene in the market, making once profitable businesses flounder, but the will of the people through government is an unacceptable force for modifying the market?

As far as I can tell, the CDO's that were the main force in inflating the real estate bubble were wonderful money makers for the banks. Using mortgage debt to create profitable financial products was something the banks did not need to be forced into. They dived into sub-prime because the money had to keep rolling after "safer" debt had gone through the grinder. The smarter banks did bail out of the housing sector towards the end, as some of them knew the bubble would obviously pop. Government was not telling these banks to package debt in such a way, and did not tell them to expose themselves to such a degree to the housing bubble. Businesses make idiot decisions all the time, from truck stop diners to the biggest banks in the world. The difference is that our savings and retirements aren't dependent on a truck stop's performance. Hence it's understandable that the people's concerns (expressed through elected government) should rightly be felt by powerful non-elected entities such as banks. There is a world of difference between telling a truck stop diner to only serve hamburgers of a certain shape (idiotic), and setting standards for banks (reasonable if you care about grandma's pension or you know... the economy).

I know there have been quite a few Arma in 3D threads, but having gone through all of them, my problem has not been solved. I am using Nvidia 3DTV Play software, with an active shutter 3D system (Not Stereoscopic 3D Anaglyph as most other threads seem to cover). It seems Arma 2 is not working with the system. The 3D vision website mentions that Arma has a 2 star Fair rating, but seems to not be working at all using the active shutter system. Other games work fine, so I know my basic setup is correct. Anyone using this setup with ArmaII that may have some tips? I may have missed something quite basic, so even duh answers are welcome. Thanks

I have excellent 3D with other games. Screen is at 120Hz, and I have a GTX 580 SLI setup so framerates are not my problem. Thanks for the tip though!

If all the state does is protect private property, it can only lead to increased concentration of power and eventually violence from the public. There is no difference between a government that uses its power to protect its interests, and private property owners using their power to protect their interests. Both are dangerous. As far as I am concerned, government is not a private security company for the rich, smart and ambitious. If you want a society that doesn't eventually overthrow itself, there must be a social contract that addresses the fate of the weak and non-predatory members of society. As shocking as it may be, there are people who don't live to accumulate power and wealth (or be "productive"). Some of these so-called "leeches" just want help others for low pay, some want to build the unmarketable unprofitable CERN collider and learn about the unknown, some just don't want to work 8 hours a day and others are mentally or physically challenged. This Ayn Rand ideology that pits productive members of society against "leeches" is a fantasy. Her father's pharmacy is stolen by Bolshevik criminal thugs, and she goes on a lifelong mission to imagine a caste system for the modern world. The caste system in India is designed to make sure the most powerful feel guilt free about the fate of the untouchables (it's their own fault). As far as I can tell, this modern proposed libertarian caste system is no different (except that a Harijan can become a Vaishya and vice versa). What's even more insane is that the current welfare state system ensures the weak and powerless have some form of recourse, and yet there are millionaires and billionaires. There are billionaires in Canada, there are millionaires in Sweden. There is recourse for the "productive" members of society to accumulate wealth well beyond the contribution they offer to society. And yet, it's not enough for Ayn Rand's followers. Mind boggling.

I think Instagoat is on the money in terms of accessibility, but there is something perhaps a little more visceral that is required as well. As an example: I remember playing GRAW2 for PC, and thinking that it did an OK job with keeping the Ghost Recon experience, but I especially remember the immensely satisfying gun shooting. The audio, animation and art for the guns was excellent. Seems Battlefield 3 is also doing a damn good job in that department. OFP up to Arma has never had a truly solid gun shooting feel. You don't feel so much that you've just fired a gun, but rather that you've sent a memo to the game asking for the gun to be fired. The poor muzzle flash has been complained about before, and the engine's limitations are well known, but for a new player I think a strong gut feeling pop is missing from firing your gun. Perhaps the new animation system being worked on may improve this, and audio mods have often given the guns more "umph". But I think it will help in making players stick around long enough to realize that the nature of the game is well beyond their first impressions. (BTW, on the receiving end, it's another story. The sound of bullet clips, the dust kicking up around you, a massive RPG detonation next to you, an GAU-8 burst poping at the enemy position in front of you. This I find works much better than the small arms shooting.)

Having the complex number based commands still seems pretty necessary. Any other solution will require some amount of time to punch in since there are vast amounts of possible actions. I don't think anyone has mentioned voice commands as a possible solution. It may piss off the wives/girlfriends/roomates to have an Arma player barking orders into a mic, but seems to me it would be a pretty solid solution to some of these problems. And there are ways of making the existing model at least easier on the player if not simpler. For example, making the contextual popups cleaner and more intuitive. I can't count the number of times I've walked around doors, cars, ladders not being able to get the proper action menu popup. Otherwise, I've found it's really a question of what kind of gamer a person is. Some people just don't like Arma. Even with friends who's expectations I've tried to manage get pretty shaken up when first playing. Playing a first coop game with a friend, he kept repeating "where are they, I can't see them!". But once he understood to look further than 20 meters in front of him, he got into it. Hit or miss I guess.

I'm willing to accept that there it is possible that more murders are prevented than caused through legal gun ownership, but I am wary of stats on this subject. As with a lot of debates, people take the ones they like, and ignore those they don't. But that aside, I use the example of Montreal to point out what I mean. Violent crime is pretty low here, as is gun ownership, and public weapons carrying is entirely illegal. I am not saying that there is a connection, but rather to show that you can have a relatively peaceful society without the requirement of an armed citizenry (especially one that carries in public). Quebec is a colonial society, which means we came from a generally armed populace (fighting and hunting), to eventually get to where we are now. I honestly am not too sure why it's a non-violent city (Quebec City to the east, which is about 1million people is even less violent per capita, and has low gun ownership). I prefer to look to whatever makes these places relatively non-violent without the need to have a carrying public. I think using stats and examples is pretty useless in the end. It seems to boil down to "I want to be allowed to carry my gun in public" vs "I don't like the idea that strangers around me are armed."

Great images. I like the war torn sector of the city. Shows a nice atmosphere.

Yeah, it's an interesting debate. I understand the carry argument, and to a degree I agree with it. A perfect example is from here in Montreal. The Dawson Cegep shooter's rampage was cut short because a police officer (aka an open carrier) was fast on the scene because of an unrelated event. The cop heard the first few shots, reached the shooter, and took him out before he was able to do more damage. In the end, only one person was killed. There is no doubt there would be more dead if an armed person wasn't on hand to stop him fast. This does tend to support the argument for armed teachers/citizens and such. But for every example like this, you can find an example of a wife who would be alive today if her husband didn't have a gun in the house when tempers flared (or inverse the sexes depending on your preference :P). I guess my point is more about what kind of society we want to live in. One where violence is curtailed because people carry weapons. Or one were violence is lessened because it's been stamped out through cultural/economic/social means. The numbers can be used to support either opinion (as this thread shows), and it's clear a person's stance is more ideological than related to what the stats say. In the end it's not much a debate for me. I live in Quebec, it is never permitted to carry a firearm in public. So I already live in the kind of gun nation I want. Don't get me wrong. Guns in the house is something I am less concerened with (being a new gun owner myself). I think the American/Swiss idea of having an armed populace is valid. If government gets out of hand, for protecting the home, etc. I just tend to think that guns in public takes us down an ugly road. Like I said, I don't want to live in a world where the average joe on the street is always an arm movement away from extreme violence.

Very interesting thread. I purchased my first firearm last week (good old inexpensive Remington 870). For me it's entirely meant for hunting. Will be using it for the first time this weekend and I am looking forward to it. However when not being used, it will be under lock and key separated from ammunition (as per Canadian law even if I wanted it more... accessible). I've found TheCapulet's comments most interesting because he seems to represent the "knight in shining armour" side of the gun ownership spectrum. I mean that in a good way. He represents what responsible gun ownership and gun carrying is. If he is true to what he says, then I think he is perfectly safe in public and will show proper judgment when in a situation and maybe one day save an innocent victim or himself from violence. That being said, to me a carrying public, legally or not, ads a level of unwanted dread and alienation to society. If everyone is armed, I can't help but just see a frightened, paranoid society that is constantly terrified of being victimized. I know open carry die hards may see my opinion as wanting to live with your head in the sand, just a victim waiting for an aggressor. But most of the gun carrying talk comes from people who are in incredibly low risk places/cultures/states/etc. So it often strikes me as a matter of principle and ideology more than actual fear of being attacked. It's true that legal gun ownership rarely translates into crime. But I think it's ridiculous to say that if everyone carried we would all be polite to each other. And even if we were, imagine the creepy world it would be where what kept people in line was the fact that everyone was armed. There are other better ways to reduce violence in our society. So speaking from someone in a relatively low violence country and city, I think we should be seeking to be a society that does not need to have extreme violence just a arm movement away at all times.

I had never heard of the island before it was to be in Arma 3. Now I've seen tons of pictures, learned about its history and consider it a possible vacation spot for the future. I assume that was the general reaction of most Arma fans. Where is the problem mister mayor?

Thanks for info. And having a real life myself (I hope), I totally understand. Not sure if it is off topic or if you've been asked this already, but will you hang up your cap when A3 comes out? Or start the process ALL OVER AGAIN?

Hey by the way, is it about 10% left, or 10% done?

Thanks mister powers Too bad for Malden, but patience is a virtue.

Thanks for the update W0lle. The "When it's done" deadline is of course understandable. I know that there has been a lot of talk (including that survey a few months ago) about what to release and when, but I am wondering if Malden is done or just about done. I personally would really like to get my hands on the version you are working on (I have tried URR's version). Not sure if it's complete or not, but would anyone else like to get that island separately?

@W0lle Thanks for the information. I felt a little silly when I realized that all you had to do was run 200 meters to the treeline. But on my first playthrough, there was no waypoint, and the squad just held their position near where the blackhawk was to pick us up. After reloading the mission a few days later, they "snapped out of it" and correctly made it to the treeline. But to date that's the only problem. The demo campaign is great fun, and still getting through it little by little. Looking forward to Malden and the rest of the game!