xawery

Hehe BlackScorpion, I've been keeping track of DEFCON ever since I played Darwinia and Uplink: Hacker Elite. Introversion truly makes some excellent games. Mr Burns, I know the feeling, haha. I was playing as China and obliterated Africa by carefully targeting their military infrastructure first. I also managed to intercept a massive US fleet in the Pacific. I was quite content with myself, when suddenly a fleet of US submarines emerged from the Sea of Japan and turned Asia into a radioactive wasteland. No amount of AA will stop 25+ incoming ICBM's... I learned that the hard way

According to Wikipedia, ICBM's can be intercepted. The fun part about this game is that if you orchestrate an organised strike, no amount of AA will save the enemy. Give it a go

Perhaps the topic should be changed to "What will kill the human race, other than Aliens From Outer Space" It even rhymes! With regard to global warming: it's true that there is still no consensus on the causes of the temperature changes. However, this is one of those issues where I would rather err on the safe side. We know the greenhouse role CO2 plays in the atmosphere, and we know that the CO2 levels have risen by 40% since the industrial age began. We also know that we're responsible for the majority of CO2 output. It is indeed difficult to say whether global warming is a natural phenomenon or the product of human behaviour. However, this issue is far too important to ignore until the scientific community reaches consensus. If we limit our CO2 output now and later find out that it has little impact on global warning, we haven't lost much while managing to improve air quality. If, on the other hand, human CO2 production turns out to be the major culprit, then at least we've done a bit of damage control. Either way, limiting CO2 output is mildly beneficial at the least and vital to our survival at most. I'm usually very opposed to acting upon contradictory evidence, but having witnessed two hottest years of the past three centuries in a row, with a difference of 1.6 degrees celcius between them, I'm inclined to err on the safe side. Especially since my house would become an underwater terrarium should the sealevel rise dramatically.

This would be the same Home office who's head of department publicly declared it as unfit for purpose. And as recently as yesterday re-admitted that it is still unfit for purpose. The same Home office responsible for admitting and administering all immigration? 5 Pounds bets they say mass immigration is a really good thing. Not exactly a quality indictment considering the source. First of all, the Home Office was described as "unfit for purpose" by John Reid because of its inefficient managament structure, not because it was intrinsically flawed. Second, the report was commissioned by the Home Office, not performed in-house. However, if you insist on rejecting research a priori, then there is little sense in trying to present you with evidence.

Great read Stainer, but I think this should go in the War on Terror thread.

Yes, SARS is an excellent example of a hype. I'm not saying that it's not a potentially dangerous disease, but the actually occurances have been blown out of proportion. 774 deaths around the globe, mortality rate of 9.6%. Hardly blood-curling, but the panic which ensued would suggest that we were dealing with some kind of sure-kill Virus of DEATH . Remember that fellow who choked on his Coke when on a plane and started coughing? Panic ensued, the flight was cancelled, and the passengers fled the plane in utter terror. Bottomline: no threat should be ignored or bagatellised, but the response should be proportional.

Nice post Scary. I was going to write a lengthy reply to Baff's arguments, but your post has covered all the points. Instead, I would like to point Baff to the following article: The Local Labour Market Effects of Immigration in the UK. It's a publication of the Home Office, so it should be freely available. It's a long read, but well worth it. Allow me to quote a passage from the executive summary: The data even contains evidence that immigration stimulates the growth of incumbants' wages. The authors, being the conscientous academics that they are, adopt a very tentative stance and warn against drawing strong conclusions from this research. Anyone who has ever done any research in the field of economics knows this is common practice. What we shouldn't forget however, is that any scientific research is better than the tabloid press. I'm not saying anything new, but given the course this thread has taken I feel repeating the obvious is in order: we cannot base our conclusions on anecdotal evidence. I'm sure your mate Derek means a lot to you Baff, but his experiences are isolated and entirely irrelevant to the discussion. For each "Derek tearjerker scenario" I could post a story about how immigration changed someone's life for the better. You would have no way of verifying this story, nor would you be able to determine whether I'm not witholding some crucial aspects. The same holds true for your Derek anecdote. In other words, my story would be as meaningless and statistically irrelevant as yours. If we don't want this discussion to degenerate into an "is so! is not!" slapfest, we must base our arguments on statistics which are actually representative for the entire country. Oh, and if at this point anyone feels the need to shout "ZOMG $tati$tic$ aRe LIEZ LOL!!11!", I would like to refer him/her to my earlier posts about the reliability of statistical research and its safeguards. Regards, Xawery

How is starting an illegal war (attacking a sovereign country) over false reasons (WMD's, immediate danger of nuclear strikes etc.) the "right thing to do", Duke? I know you mean to say that soldiers do their duty no matter how wrong the commander-in-chief is, but don't you think this is derogatory? Don't you think that by saying something like this, you reduce the men and women of the army to simple tools (as in instruments, not idiots)?

Ehm... Baff, have you checked the status of the German and Japanese economies lately? They may be large, but they certainly aren't healthy. In Germany, this is partially caused by the disproportionate power of the unions, which help keep the wages artificially high. Why is there such high unemployment amongst the young? Because the unions are damned if they're going to allow anything to be done to the cushy job protection of the already employed. Everybody's talking about 'solidarity', but as soon as one gets a job he turns his back on the unemployed. First of all, you mean public property financed with public money. Let me ask you this: do think your mate Derek ever contributed a proportional share towards these public facilities, making 250 quid a week? I guess not. Perhaps he should pay more for them as well? Or should he receive preferential treatment, because "he's your mate and loyalty is all that counts"? What about young people and students, who haven't paid taxes yet? Perhaps they should pay more too? Furthermore, how do you imagine such a system of differentation being instituted? Can you imagine the overhead costs? The added bureaucracy, the inefficiency? I hope you realise something like this is a complete fantasy. Now, I don't know whether you're aware of this, but banking IS part of the services sector. The emphasis shift from industry to services is a common phenomenon in rich countries. People need to adapt to this change, rather than shutting their eyes real tight and hoping things wont change if they just don't look. This shift doesn't mean that manual labour will disappear completely, but it does mean that the sector is becoming less lucrative. Hiring cheaper labour is one of the ways to limit the costs and keep the companies running. Innovation isn't some magical process which continues ad infinitum; it has its limits. There are still tasks which need to be performed by hand. If companies want to remain competitive, they must save money on - amongst other things - on labour. Or would you rather force them to hire local labour, out of "loyalty"? With regard to the pensions crisis: I suggest you read some literature on the matter instead of spouting unfounded opinions. A fresh influx of labour DOES alleviate the pensions problem. You are correct in saying that outside workers 'only' contribute to the pensions of the currently retired, but that's exactly how the pensions system works. The currently employed pay for the pensioners, it's called intergenerational solidarity. Note that I'm not saying this will solve the pensions problem - this requires a more structural approach, e.g. more investments in securities rather than gov't bonds. But that's a different discussion entirely.

@Paindealer: That's a legitimate concern, which is why statistical research pertaining to government policy is conducted by quango's, which in turn are supervised by independant commissions to safeguard impartiality. Part of these safeguards is the full disclosure of methodology. If you want to find out how things are being calculated, you need only to visit the website of Statistics Finland. As it happens, Statistics Finland was the first European statistical organisation to grant public access to its figures via the internet (in 1995! ). Incidentally, I can strengthen my argument with personal experience. My MSc thesis involves a lot of statistical analysis. Various European and non-European countries make up my research sample, and I must say that the Finnish governmental bodies keep the best, most easily accessible statistical records. Of course, from a statistical point of view, this is an isolated and negligable experience Oh, and if you're wondering what you gain from EU membership, reliable statistics are exactly that: the EU imposes strict rules and standards with regard to disclosure and statistical analysis. Rejecting statistics simply because they do not coincide with your opinion is uncalled for. Having established that statistical figures can and should be trusted, let's return to the topic at hand. Let's not forget that economic migration isn't limited to low-skilled labour. Polish nurses are in demand with Dutch retirement homes, because the number of Dutch citizens willing to take care of the elderly is dwindling. Many Polish dentists open clinics in Sweden because they can offer the same quality for a much lower price. Is this bad? For the incumbants, perhaps, but not for the general public. They receive the care they demand at more favourable rates. Unfortunately, the professional lobbies have a much louder voice than the consumers. They realise that their comfortable position is at stake and raise a ruckus. Most politicians are more than happy to pamper to their demands out of some misguided economic patriotism (Italy and France being the most obvious culprits). This only helps to feed the myopic anti-globalisation sentiment. "Oh noes, the free market is endangering our vested interests with its foul competition! ZOMG!!11!" Of course, everybody carefully ignores the fact that it's the EU with its free market policies which has opened up new markets for our Western European companies to peddle their products on. A clear case of hypocrisy and wanting the gains without the burdens. Another good example of such protectionism is ABN Amro's battle for Antonveneta. The head of the Italian central bank did all he could to prevent ABN Amro from entering the Italian banking sector, again out of some xenophobic sentiment. It was truly sad to see that the government, supposedly acting in the interest of the general public, supported his line of action. The fact that an Italian consumer was paying five times us much as a Dutch one for a simple paying account due to the stagnant and inefficient nature of Italian banks was carefully kept secret from the general public. Thankfully, the European Commission intervened, Fazio withdrew, and the merger went ahead. What is the moral of this story? Protectionism, whatever its guise, is harmful to the economy and the public. Its only beneficiaries are industries with vested interests.

And that's a good thing? They work their asses of here in Sweden, get no social benefits whatsovever, get used for almost non-existing paychecks and have unstable employment contracts. (all of this assuming they are not working legally and paying income tax) I don't really care how it effects the economy, what I do care about is that the Poles get shittier deals than the Swedes doing the same kind of work. Even if they make less money than the 'natives', it's still much more than what they would make back home, which is nothing or very little. As Denoir said, your reasononing is the oldest trick in the unions' book. "We can't say outright that we don't want them here just because they endanger our vested interests... Hmm... I know! Let's just say we couldn't possibly stand by and watch them toil away for little money. Yes, that's sounds better. We must thus forbid foreign labour! ...for their own good."

And that's a bad thing? They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades. Furthermore, the vast majority has no desire to settle in the Netherlands.

They do indeed. Again, I'm sorry for hijacking this thread to pimp Zeus, but I just need to say this. Ebud, I felt exactly the same way as you about MP gaming, especially on public servers. THat is, until I ran into Zeus a few months ago. While it's open for everyone, the Zeus gaming nights are usually attended by a close-knit group of regulars, who know how to cooperate, communicate, obey the CO etc. The Zeus server features realistic scenario's on a big scale, usually at least on platoon or company level. This is achieved by having the human players control AI squads. Throw in WGL 5.1 and CoC arty, and you have SP-scale engagements with intelligent (well, usually ) human opponents. No DM's or CTF's, but realistic scenario's like capturing & holding key locations, destroying enemy assets, convoy escort, assassinations, etc. Zeus = realism + fun. Check this thread for details. Now, to get back on-topic. I don't see why another company wouldn't be capable of developing a game which could rival OFP/ArmA. Obviously the people at BIS are very talented, but that isn't their core 'competitive advantage', to use a BA term. There are many talented people out there. What seperates BIS from other companies, is the willingness to create a game which doesn't conform to the rather poor standards set by the gaming industry. Less complex shooters generally sell better, but BIS consciously chose to make a niche game. This is commendable, and rather unique. Of course, I haven't played ArmA yet... Some people claim that is has been dumbed down, but that's a whole different discussion Regards, Xawery

This may be slightly off-topic, but you should really try playing a nice, large-scale PvP on Zeus. Essentially, it's coops with human opponents. What else could you wish for?

Sorry for not showing up last week - the missus required attention, and who am I to refuse? Either way, I will be present tonight. I hope at least some of you haven't forgotten about Zeus now that ArmA is out.

Billybob, you do realise this is some very flawed reasoning? Regardless of who dropped the detente when, the reasons for dropping this policy might very well have been personal, irrespective of its actual effectiveness. Unless of course you consider all US administrations in the 80's infallible.

You can still get version .751 from the main page, and most mods are still compatible with that. I especially recommend The Last Days (LOTR mod) and Storymod, which introduces an excellent plot, new units and a crafting system (craft your own armour, weaponry, rear horses, fletch arrows, make primitive gonnes etc.). Incidentally, does anyone remember the great rpg "Darklands" from 1992? Well, it appears that some very talented people are making an actual port of that game to M&B. The new module version makes a lot of interesting things possible...

This has been said before, but as it doesn't seem to reach everyone's ears, I'll say it again. When OFP 1.0 was released, it was CRAP. Full of bugs, unrealistic, what have you. It took quite some time before OFP was brought to a decent level (Resistance) and even then it wasn't that good (think of the sounds, the AK47 burst mode, one shot kills to the leg etc.). What we currently associate with OFP is the result of years of modding. ECP, WGL, FFUR, COC - all these mods are what makes the game great even after five years, but we seem to be forgetting that they weren't part of the original game. You can't tell me you didn't see this coming. Months ago I made the concious decision not to buy ArmA when it was released, because any game of such complexity was bound to be ridden with bugs. Besides, after getting used to WGL, going back to original OFP gameplay (and judging by the reviews, ArmA doesn't even achieve that) would be impossible. Of course, one might say that in 2001 OFP was a revolutionary game - the combination of scope and depth was unrivalled. But even now, in 2006, the only competitor is OFP. No other contemporary game can match ArmA in terms of scale and potential. I say, give it some time. Let the developers and modders do their work. They made OFP great over the past five years, and I can't imagine why they couldn't do the same for ArmA.

Quite happy, thank you. The game's cheap as dirt because it's still a beta. As you know by now, purchasing the game at this moment entitles you to all future patches as well as the final release (which will be twice as expensive). 14 EUR incl. CC fees is very cheap for a game, no reason not to get it

You should upgrade to 0.803 (links can be found in the forums), this should fix all the bugs introduced in 0.800. The reason why 0.800 was so buggy is because the team had partially developped a lot of new features which had to be rolled back. The best part is: the new module system has been developped! Judging by a quick look, this version makes a whole lot of new features possible: siege engines, destructible walls, new large creatures (ogres in the LOTR mod, perhaps even dragons! and many other goodies. Too bad I'm rather shite with Python... Guess I will have to wait until the pro's get a-workin'.

Killing me almost wasn't necessary: this glorious Soviet commander managed to clip through a wall and fall from the top of the factory building. I felt a bit like Attila the Hun

Good games last night chaps, The Port was especially fun. Surprisingly enough, I even managed to enjoy Mortar Pit. May have had something to do with me not dying in the first three minutes.

This thread definitely needs an emoticon of buttocks being squeezed firmly together. Oh, and just to avoid further confusion: buttocks being squeezed firmly together by the buttock owner's muscles.

The bus is back, w00t! I'm sorry to hear you had a bad game, despite the bus being included You're right Cibit, people seem to be very reluctant to lead - I hurry to add that I'm one of them. It's usually you, Og, Ryan, Lwlooz, Terox or Ms. Jinny who take the lead. Which is a shame, seeing as the community is much bigger than that. DJ Tano's willingness to lead, despite having little to no experience in this department, was a refreshing change. Well, I promise to change my ways and lead some mission on saturday. If anyone wants me in that slot, that is

Hi BillyBob, you are correct in your quotes, but they in fact strengthen my argument. The first designs were very religious in nature, but were rejected in favour of a neutral Seal. Charles Thomson's quote says it all: No mention of Christianity at all, only references to vague and abstract notions of 'providence'. I'm not saying he was a freemason (although George Washington and many other US presidents were); I'm saying that the original regalia of the United States of America consist of neutral and/or ambiguous symbols, chosen over explicit Christian symbolism which had been considered an option. If that doesn't tell you (and Sophion-Black) something, I don't know what will. All the references to god are a recent phenomenon devised to distance the USA from the "atheist" USSR. I use quotation marks because religion in communist states was simply replaced with another cult: the worship of the leader. But that's another story... However, let's not get lost in minutiae. This whole discussion started with Sophion's assertion that the US was founded on Christian principles. I think we have managed to prove that the USA, while certainly a religious country, wasn't built around the Christian faith. Gnosticism, a belief in some supernatural power, yes, but not Christianity per se. It is thus all the more surprising to see how hostile some Americans can be towards other faiths or the lack of one (vide Bush Sr.'s remark about atheists not being true patriots). Incidentally, Sophion-Black, I must say your recent string of posts has brought a grin to my face. On numerous occasions, you have (indirectly) threatened Denoir with bodily harm for his lack of respect for your religion. Boy, doesn't that sound familiar?