rabu

Agreed.. or raw silk... Ahhhh....

I wonder what those guys would have thought back then.. "Ay, William, the lads been shooting a tree down, what ya think of that? Is tree don move and no trees flying round er for us to shoot at, doncha know?" "Right-Oh, Billy!"

I bought an Audigy 2zs many years ago and was quite happy with it. Only problem I had one time was with OFF.. the sound didn't work properly with a change of view while flying; it would cut out, then come back on. A update to the latest drivers fixed the problem. What I want to tell you all is that I finally decided to update my sound card a few months ago and after doing a lot of research, I decided on the Sound Blaster X-FI Extreme Music. It's been replaced by some other versions that tend to divide it's features into different models, while the Extreme Music version had everything. I found one new and discounted way down in price to about $70 at Amazon. Box was battered looking, but everything was new and it works great. Best upgrade I could have made. I'm amazed at the sound improvement in my mp3 music with the crystal enhancer, but what really floored me was the surround effect through headphones that it creates. I couldn't believe the effect in games that make use of surround sound. You would swear that you are listening to a surround sound system. I got rid of my heavy Logitech surround sound headphones and am now just using my light weight and comfortable Grado SR60's The other thing I like is the presets for gaming, recording, or music use, you can set up the effects for each type of use, so, for games, I simply change it to the gaming preset and it's set up to emulate surround sound specifically for headphone use.

I obviously haven't thought of every possible question that might be relevant, or the best way to put them.. just wanted to get some thinking and discussion going here, if any one is interested. I think about this subject off and on and am curious about how the rest of you feel. We probably have a wide age range of players here, although I suspect most of us here are older and more interested in the historical element of OFF, but I'm sure there are younger players interested in that or leaning more toward the more game aspect of OFF and other war games. So.. this is open to any one's input, thoughts and opinions, not really a poll per say. Lots of interesting forum members here so am expecting some interesting comments.

Good post, Lou. This can also get into a really interesting discussion, and it actually relates to the thread too. There is a concensus growing in the psychology and socialogy world today that violence itself is a thing of evolution, being only necessary in a world where violence creates violence.. so Jesus was right after all. In other words, as a community becomes more civilized and learns to take care of the needy around them, gives up greed or foreciably controls it for the betterment of everyone, on all levels, there is genetic evolutionary change. The children born of that civilization begin to genetically change into less agressive and less violent thinking humans, physically and emoationally. But just the opposite can happen as well, or in parallel. I feel pessimistic that we are going in the negative direction, that the violent, greedy thinkers out weigh those who are generous and are looking for peace and harmony. Maybe that's why we are seeing more and more violence in the media, entertainment and game industry, and maybe, as I stated earlier, violent video games and other media are just a way of preparing youth for what they will have to face in later life. I noticed back in the 50's-60's there wasn't nearly as much graphic violence in the media, comic books and movies as there is now and it was a much less oppressed economic time we lived it. At the same time, in Mexico, where there was severe poverty (and still is), you had that same graphic violence in comic books and literature and the media that we are now seeing more and more of in this country.

Yep, I understand now, sorry, but it seems rather simple to me, to copy and paste a link, I do it all the time. I guess I just have to remember that for some people, that too is " left wing liberal" thinking and is way over their head. Sorry, Catch, you're going to need arc welding glasses.

Uhh.. I never said you mentioned Australia's crime rate, the link I gave and quote I posted were about crime rate and gun use in general and was an answer to your post #63 As to the link confusion, I didn't realize you didn't know how to copy and paste a link into another brower window.. to me that's simple, apparently it isn't to you, I apologize, And, please, don't worry, I would never quote you on any thing given as evidence on your end.

OK, Lou, but you have to under stand that you are quite valuable here, you not only have a quite neat logo with a BHaH sign on the front and a funny text, but you also answer each one of us in turn, that's quite unusual and appreciated... hay guys, maybe if we keep saying things to him he won't leave! Any way, I understand and wish you the best, but do drop in from time to time, gives us all a reason to feel like we're a squad and it would be nice to hear from you. All the best,

You're lucky you live in the UK.. killings by shootings happen almost every week around here! Uncleal: Now we're going to stray over to guns and yet again, liberals.. thanks for ignoring everyone's wishes. Anyway, again, Uncleal, you're off base with your assumptions and evidence.. or lack of evidence. Here's a good link with rebuttles to most of the arguments for free gun use by gun toteing Americans (click). A quote, Re Australia: ""The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source). Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign."" Also, the gun buy back was not successfull or managed well. Look at other countries that regulate guns heavely like Japan, and you will again see very low violent crime rates. I don't think that video games have actually had an effect on gun use or crime with most people, but I think that un supervised exposure by young kids, say under 15 is not good, simply because young kids are really impressionable.

Post #67 he posted the link: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm - United States Post #68 you quoted his good link, and yet you said, "A working link, if it's not to much to ask" Seems pretty simple, and clear to me. Changing the subject to more political mud throwing/smear statements has nothing to do with it. Again, lets get back on track with the thread subject, OK? Thanks, Uncleal

It was easy before, it worked fine before.. you probably pasted in "-United States" after the actual link, "www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm" ..no wonder you're having trouble finding reputable, reliable information.

I noticed that too, the data presented in Uncleal's link is misleading. This link at Wikipedia is full of working links and a good summation of crime in the USA by year, type, etc.(click here) Violent crime has actually gone down from the 1990 up to 2008. Course, that doesn't mean the advent of video games, about the same period, caused the decrease, that would also be a faulty assumption too.

Really nice work, but what are you doing working on, uhh.. those other guy's planes. You didn't sabatoge them, did you?

Very interesting, but I'm afraid, in this country, we would have a bunch of pumpped up politicians like Schwartzineger (sp?) And the new popular TV shows would be seeing them in a ring together. Would be great if it worked though.

The "Desensitization" issue worries me in the news too. The world gets smaller, but as people are exposed to more and more problems through instant, and often graphic news, and "reality shows," they seem to just tune out the problems or become cold to it all. I think a big part of this is not thinking they can do much, and they're right in many ways, but I fear that as things get worse, they are going to get much worse. Maybe violent games are just part of the process of preparing our youth for a much more violent future then we have even experienced in the past.. Wars have steadily moved away from confrontations to stab you in the back attacks, with no concern whether the targets are civilians of any age or soldier status... true terrorism, in it's worst sense. ..back to the source, the greed thread.

ZZ: Very good point and I think you handled it the right way. That's what bothers me about some of the "games" as well, the level of the graphic violence, whether it's an historical game or not, and worse, when the violence seems to be pointless and aimed at innocent people or animals. (Some of the music today encouraging violence against police really bothers me too.) Why make pointless slaughter out as being fun? Violence in a war game, is more acceptable, it's a war game, and I think if it's handled right, it can have tremendous effect, but I'm not sure if it has to be so graphic and up in ones face to accomplish it.. Like in the the BIA new game Hell's Highway, I started looking at some of the video from the game on the web site last night and I think they too went too far in the gore department, though the aspect of making it more personel, getting to know the team members I think is good.. I don't know.. seeing a guy blown apart in a video game is pretty effective at showing you the horror of war, but do I need to see every detail to get the point? ..I've seen the same in real life, and I couldn't play it over or turn it down, but I think, like in Mafia, I think I would turn the gore slidder down in BIA, if it has one, and if I had younger kids, I wouldn't let them play or see a game like that, or, especially, like the one you mentioned where it throws cruality on top of everything.

Uncleal: Can we just stick to the thread and stop the political bashing? I don't want to see this one get closed too. Thanks,

Thanks, Otto. I've played COD and MOH and though interesting and having historical content, I too agree they are too staged and predictable. The BIA: Hell's Highway looks really interesting. I love the Axis Salley intro on the website and have characters that you can learn about is a great idea, haven't seen that in a sim, except for maybe in the wonderful Mafia game. Unfortunately, it looks like my system can't handle BIA-HH till I upgrade my video card and processor. Has anyone played this, and what do you think about it? Don't know how many of you may have played Mafia, but I was really impressed with it.. you get to know the characters and the story line was first rate. Graphics still look great after all these years and it's one of the few games I've played with really good voice acting, on a par with a good movie. I still have it on my system and still enjoy playing it off and on.

But we aren't doing that, are we? We aren't teaching everyone how to fish, because there aren't enough fish for everyone.. more and more, the fish are all in a private pond owned by those at the top, the "Kings," as it were, who have most of the wealth and the rest have no access to those fish. The Kings have managed to more and more get government to allow them to make more and more money at the expense of most of the rest of the people. They lay off their workers, who have no place else to go, they cut back their wages and benefits, erase their pensions though bankruptcy laws and other means, then hord all the wealth while the infranstructure crumbles and they even sniffle the ability of one to learn to fish, for the dwindling fish available.. we are allowing just the opposite of what you suggest to happen. Yep, I believe in a sharing humanity, where no one needs to suffer, not the survival of the fittest (most wealthy in today's terms or those left in what's left of a shrinking middle class).. we are supposedly above the animal kingdom, though many times I wonder about that too. So, it really comes down to, either you only care about yourself, or you care about everyone else as well. The point you are ignoring is that things aren't at all as simple as you make it out to be.. there are two main considerations that you seem to ignore: We aren't living back in the times when one could easily survive through simply working hard.. ie: farming, trade, etc. We live in a situation of heavy populations with out enough jobs and dependence on national and now global supply, not small rural existence. More and more, the jobs available are only service level, low paying jobs that don't pay enough to support a family, much less keep them healthy and secure. Technology jobs are decreasing as computers (and robots next) take over. The most prosperous years in the USA were in the 50's when tax rates were the highest for those at the top. There was a healthy, well off middle class who could afford to buy a house, raise a family and send their kids to college. Jobs were plentiful, and things were being actually made and sold, not speculation in stock markets, and though those at the top moaned about having to pay so much in taxes, and that it would make prices go up, it did just the opposite and it didn't affect their life styles a smidgen. But starting with the Kennedys, "tax reforms" (loop holes) were slowly passed and then, the later, more drastic "trickle down" theory began to screw down the lid on the coffin.. it obviously didn't work, but it enabled the greedy power elite to get their foot in the door of government and it's been all down hill for the rest of the country, and the world, ever since then. If you are going to set up an economy where most of the wealth is funneled to a small percentage at the top who more and more have almost absolute power, you better try to keep a government in place that doesn't become completely corrupted as their pawns or you will end up with chaos and revolt if nothing is done to take care of your citizens. And then you have to decide if you are going to be a humanitarian and take care of those who can't afford to survive, or say it's their own fault because they are lazy, build bigger walls and hire your own army to keep them out of reach and out of site. It's already happening in other countries and it will happen here too if nothing is done about it. Not a pretty picture...

I don't think you are open to anything.. you've got your mind made up and that's it.. oh well.

Haven't got time to link each fact, but I would like to comment on a few of your statements: Shutting what other ideas out?.. the Republicans were continually asked by Obama and others to come up with something better, or workable, and they backed off each time, only insisting that any change basically only should benefit companies. There were constant complaints, fear mongering and predictions, but no worthwhile proposals. ? They did nothing different then what Republicans have done in the past when they were in majority control.. thats just politics. See my comment above, they have no clear or backed up plan of what to replace it with, they just want to get rid of it to the benefit of health insurance big business, and at the expense of most of us who have to foot the bill for their greed. This is a favorite tactic of those opposing something, making it sound like there is only one answer or the other.. the point is, the race in Massachusetts was won by a Republican because the Democrat running was an idiot and made really bad choices. Here's a good article by The New York Times, if you're interested. (click here) "There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform.." This isn't just an opinion of the NYT either, you'll find it in many reputable news articles. That's just your opinion based on protests that you seem to be aligned to. I respect your view point, and I too think the bill could be a lot better, but I don't share your feelings that it should be scrapped.. if it came to that, I don't think we will ever see the start of a health care plan in this country.

The truth about the new Ready Reserve Corps is a lot less interesting than the conspiracy theories. Before the law was passed, the Public Health Service, unlike other elements of the government’s seven uniformed services, didn’t have a "ready reserve" – a cadre of individuals who could be called up involuntarily in times of need. What it had was a regular, full-time corps of 2,800 doctors, nurses, scientists and other medical professionals, which was the limit under law. It also had a reserve corps. But most of the individuals in the reserve corps, which was larger than the regular corps, were on extended active duty for the duration of their careers; in other words, they worked full-time, just like the regular corps, because they were needed, but the statutory cap prevented the service from bringing them into the regular corps. The new law eliminates the personnel cap and brings the members of what used to be the reserve corps into the regular corps, which as a result now numbers about 6,600, according to an official at the Public Health Service who spoke to us on background. And the law creates the ready reserve of individuals who can be called up for service by the U.S. surgeon general in times of need; the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is often used as an example of an incident that might trigger a call-up. Officials at the PHS are in the process of developing regulations that will determine how the Ready Reserve Corps is populated, but the person we spoke to said there will be limits on how long individuals could serve on active duty. Those who are activated will be paid for the duration of their service, and the bill provides $12.5 million per year through 2014 for the Ready Reserve. It’s unclear at this point how large the Ready Reserve will be, but a number in the neighborhood of several thousand has been mentioned. The PHS had been hoping to create the new team for several years, for reasons that may have been best described in a 2008 report, Blueprint for a Healthier America, published by a nonprofit group called the Trust for America’s Health to help guide the next administration and Congress: Blueprint for a Healthier America: There are not sufficient numbers of public health professionals to respond during major health emergencies, and when Corps members are called away to respond to emergencies, it means their ongoing functions are often neglected. If a “Ready Reserve” program was created, retired members of the Corps could become reservists who could be deployed on short notice during emergencies, or could fill in at federal agencies when active members are needed during emergencies, to ensure ongoing functions are carried out. Reservists would be required to participate in an appropriate number of drills and training throughout the year. Members of the reserve could also help fill in to provide services for underserved communities where health problems are the greatest. Jerry Farrell, executive director of the Commissioned Officers Association, told us that the Ready Reserve can help the PHS avoid situations such as what happened after Katrina, when so many members of the regular and reserve corps were dispatched to New Orleans and other areas hit by the 2005 hurricane that "the corps discovered, for instance, that they had deployed a whole surgical clinic of the Indian Health Service." Needless to say (we hope), there is absolutely no support for this chain e-mail’s speculation that uniformed members of the Public Health Service would be ordered to give "lethal injections (a.k.a. vaccinations) to ‘unworthy people.’ " –Viveca Novak Sources Hamburg, Richard. Deputy Director, Trust for America’s Health. Interview with FactCheck.org. 6 April 2010. Trust for America’s Health. "Blueprint for a Healthier America." October 2008. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub. L. No. 111-148. Enacted 23 March 2010. Farrell, Jerry. Executive Director, Commissioned Officers Association. Interview with FactCheck.org. 6 April 2010.

I'm going to just spout off some mind dribble, with out really thinking about it all. I was brought up in the 50's in a very patriotic country.. the USA.. which I now also realize was very blind, how ever well intentioned it's patriots were. who had to go out there and do the dirty work of war. I don't think things have really changed too much in the last 60 years, though. As a young kid in Viet Nam, my eyes were opened to a lot of truths and realities that I had never imagined, and they were a real shock at the time. I agree with much of the intelligent comments so far. I agree that the historical part is educational and I think that, picking an answer, mine would also be, "It depends on the game/sim." Some really seem well done, informative, sensitive, and educational. Others seem only capable of sensationalism and gore and I am repulsed by them and worry how kids can grow up with this; maybe I'm out of touch. When I was a kid I too had guns, arrows, swords, and all manner of child weapons and the imagination to go with them based on books I read by Stevenson and other writers who glorified adventure, but also seemed to instill a sense of honor to all of it. When I shoot some one down in OFF, I never relate to a person being in the plane, a person with a life and story. I guess because it is first of all, only a "game" and also because it is so removed from the actual person in the plane, and even more so because I know it isn't real. As the games get more and more real looking it gets harder for me to accept that it is acceptable, but again, maybe I'm just out of touch. But shooting a plane down is easier then stabbing some one or shooting them at close range, even if they are pixels on a screen. Don't know if any of this makes any sense.. Maybe kids today are also benefiting by seeing the absurdity to it all? Enough rambling for tonight...

I like em.. lots of talent on this forum, always amazing to see the skins, videos, etc. that members create.. keep em coming!

Will have to finish reading these this evening, got to run off to work, but the few I read I think make really good sense and I agree with most of them. This was interesting, this morning this article popped up on my home page news page (click here). It's a very positive, related story, about roll playing games helping some kids in school who have social issues. See you all later