Fox '09

Eisenhower warned us. I think the worst development is what happened after 9/11. You're either with us, or against the troops and the country. In 2006, I think it was 60 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was personally involved with 9/11. The bush administration lied about 600+ times between 2002 and 2003 about iraq and its involvement with 9/11 and WMDs. And worst of all, an incumbent that probably would of agreed that the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary. (not to say what bush did is anything near to what happened in WWII) This looking forward nonsense is dangerous. As if the american people weren't apathetic enough.

I understand that's what libertarians believe, but if you didn't know that it sounds like a cop out. Progressives think that we can manage corruption by accountability and by ending the influence of money in politics. There will always be corruption, and it could be argued that libertarians will never have their way by the very nature of the political system. If there is no regulations on campaign finance and lobbying, then there will never be a libertarian idea of goverment implemented. You can't legislate human nature away.. just like you can't end disease. You can do your best to end it, and libertarians can work with the other side on how to solve the issue, but saying that there shouldn't be a role in goverment for that seems absurd. Two sides need to argue to find a middle ground. If you want to take more libertarian position, I accept that. But it seems like madness to believe in the absolute of any ideology. I don't want an entirely socialist economy, nor do I want an entirely capitalist economy. It's not black and white. Ending the power to regulate is impossible, nobody will go along with that. Find a libertarian leaning middle ground, but not this absolute position. I don't think you will never defeat the power structure if you insist that power doesn't need restraints like glass-steagall, or separating ratings agencies from the companies they regulate. you need to define regulation for me, maybe that would help the discussion.

I somewhat agree with him, I don't like the way people like ron paul and peter schiff phrase things. Big goverment, bureaucrats, etc. No liberal is in favor of wasteful spending, yet they try to portray it as that way. Neither are they in favor of wasteful federal workers. They portray their view as goverment can't do anything right, and that goverment thinks they know whats best for you. Government can do some things right, and quite frankly progressive democrats represent their constituents, not ron paul's. It's very polarizing because quite frankly the country is mostly progressive on most issues. I don't think ron paul will win a general election solely because of this. I think it's sad, I want him to win the presidency but his rhetoric is not unifying apart from his foreign policy and drug policy. Though my main problem as far as working with people like peter schiff is that they use a very wide definition of regulation when debating progressives. Progressives think that goverment should be the cop that prevents financial meltdowns, and perhaps even helping low income families get loans. But they aren't in favor of making this convoluted, complex system that ends up destroying the economy. Libertarians on the other hand portray regulations while debating progressives as helping low income families get loans. Yes, I get it's a regulation, but if you're going to make the case against a progressive argument, understand that the problems arising from that aren't necessarily part of their philosophy, but rather part of a corrupt system. Don't get me wrong. I want Ron Paul to win the presidency. I just think he won't because he doesn't use unifying language. I agree with most of what he says, even if I disagree on what he wants to do to fix it.

I would imagine the goverment might contract contour or archos for a secure system as well, though that's speculation. I'll look into it further, thanks for the input DaveP.

I think those would be easier to model though a retiring SF operator was using an archos 500 helmet cam. (according to a collector who brought his gear) My question is what helmet cam features a stream? If i remember during the bin laden raid it was said that they had a direct feed from the SEALs. ---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ---------- Good ideas, I'll take note of them. As far as shaking effects, I think that should be done in a video editor. Mostly because my knowledge of scripts is very limited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJsyxyWUW0s&feature=g-all-u&context=G29e1665FAAAAAAAAWAA best explanation of SOPA imo

No luck right now, It doesn't follow the head selection when I replace neck with head. It could work as a shoulder cam but even then I think this way would work better. I was hoping that arma 3 will allow for render to texture, and make available some sort of render to texture camera object that feeds into a display , hud, or computer. here's some photos, I moved it forward. first photo is a prone one

I addressed that a bit in the OP. I don't think attachto would be able to follow the head animation when the soldier tips his head back.

It doesn't glow at night, only in shadows. BIS proxy. I'll try replacing it perhaps.

isn't that wonderful.

Megaupload gone huh. What a shame. If understand SOPA correctly, it just makes it easier for something like this to happen.

mostly the pouches, they're too high poly to be included into the shadow lod. at the moment, I'm working on making them lower poly, they look so much better when they cast shadows on each other. Aside from that, my head lod is incredibly bright when inside buildings and shadows. Ie no shadow cast. That I have no idea how to fix.

Patience I must ask. I wanted to release a version with at least one SFOD-D unit. I'm in the process of doing so, but I'm running into a couple brick walls as far as shadows go. upcoming update: accurate NVG gear will have to wait unfortunately, but I promise it in the future.

he made army, 2005, not 04 marines or what have you.

Thank you BIS. Looks like my senator decided to knock it off (rubio).

you'd need to put it up in the request thread. I think it's possible, given the addon for arma 1 that somehow copies the texture the unit is on.. chamelon kind of effect. I can't remember where I saw it, it popped up earlier this month.

Paraclete SOF BDU. some shadow issues though. I need to get one of these damn things in game or in Modo, normal maps make all the difference with my style of texturing. obviously will be colored coyote once I'm finished.

awesome! thanks martin.

thanks Martin, map works great for me and haven't ran into many issues. I did notice a pole in the water near the ferris wheel: minor obviously.

I understand Israel is a "secular Jewish state" but I've seen some articles about discrimination against muslim inhabitants as far as settlements go. I'm not coming at this at an ethnic point of view, but I get what you're pointing out. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/world/la-fg-israel-arab-laws-20110324 for example. It's no different then proposed US voter registration laws, if you know it will affect minorities and you know that there is little to no voter fraud, you are indirectly targeting minorities. But it isn't sufficient enough to say that Israel is necessarily a "jewish" state I will agree. I still stand by what I said; I don't think there should be a jewish state. Secular it may be - but the idea that any religion deserves any land because they deem it holy is wrong in my eyes. @Walker, are you going to bring in the sergeant at arms now? :) I don't see how it isn't relevant. I would understand if we were talking about china or what have you, but we're still somewhat on topic. It's your thread and I will respect that, but the reaction to my comment is a bit inflammatory (warranted or not) and I would rather explain it in the same thread I posted it in.

If they think they are unsafe, absolutely they should leave. I didn't know I was the spokesman of the Israeli people. I said they should go back to europe and the US, never said they will or have to. I object to the state of Israel because it is a jewish state (obviously). If it was secular I would be more inclined to help but I don't think the rest of the region cares for the difference. Secularism needs to come at the grassroots. The region wasn't ready for it, and I still don't think it is. I don't want a single taxpayer dollar going towards a middle finger in the region. That's my bottom line. I could care less about the religious conflicts. The US is a majority religious nation, and they will never give up supporting Israel. Hence why I think Israel should dissolve. How that policy is enacted, by what country, I don't care, so long as it is peaceful. Show me a good argument and I will consider amending that belief. I don't know if you guys know this, but I'm the most open minded man In America. :p I mean it though. If you see a serious problem in what I'm saying then please point it out. I like this conversation.

I'm not disputing that, but I think overall we're carrying israel's water more than the brits ever have. Do they even give foreign aid to Israel? This article is a testament to that. We may have been furious internally but I don't see any serious repercussion from this.

To be honest, the current updates really render this thread useless. The game is far more efficient than it was a year or so ago.

That was a dumb question that reporter asked about Ron Paul not shaking someones hand. On the other hand he could of answered the question, but it has malicious intent. If you vote for someone based upon the shaking of that persons hand then you probably don't care that much about what he says.

Perhaps what I said wasn't describing exactly what I meant. I was trying to paraphrase what helen thomas said. I do think people should leave the country if they want peace. If they want to stay, they stay as the country dissolves itself. It's absurd to suggest that the people who live there are responsible for any of it, but so long as there are jews there, there is going to be conflicts. Without a Jewish state then there would be a much better chance of peace. As I said, it's a big middle finger. not the jewish people, but the state itself. Mind you not everyone in Israel is Jewish, though an overwhelming majority is. I also don't care what country takes the jewish people. The US should take the most responsibility though, they're the ones who have been funding and perpetuating the state. Nobody is suggesting that jewish people should be killed or removed from the area. That hatred belongs to religion. When people seek refuge, yes, they do carry suitcases, that's kind of how it works does it not? This discussion is indeed not very relevant to the thread, if you have interest perhaps PM me or start another thread.