I still don't agree... Our tanks sucked against Nazi Germany, the Panzer Mk V (Panther) was the best all around tank of WWII, the M-4 Sherman couldn't hold a candle to it...

That doesn't exist today... Today we have the best tank in the world (or close to it anyway), we have a modern air force, etc.

If we went in actually prepared (not like the crappy invasion of Iraq that was poorly done without enough planning), I think we'd walk it.

Of course, if we decided to attack tomorrow and took the military we have today, we'd lose a lot and it would be rough.

It is all about being prepared.

---

Side note: Neither of us are professional Generals, so who really knows, we could both be out of our minds. :)

If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?

Yes it is, and I'm as pro-gun as you'll find, owning... well, more than one gun. :)

That being said, would I shoot someone over a modest amount of property? What if I had $500 in my wallet, would I shoot someone over that?

No, never...

It is not worth taking a life over that. Likewise, I wouldn't shoot if someone stole my truck, I have insurance and my deductible is $500, I'm not going to kill someone over that.

I have spoken to people who have actually shot someone in real life, it is not fun, it isn't pleasant, and it sucks. Every single person I've ever met (including a police officer) who has had to shoot someone says that it sucks.

So I personally would choose retreat if I can, the only real exception is my home. It is not being a coward to flee a fight if you can, unless it is your home. Where my children sleep is the only exception.

I can only speak for the laws of Texas, however I do have a concealed carry permit and I have been to the classes to learn about the rules, so I can share what I know...

In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force for three reasons:

1. To defend yourself against what you perceive to be a deadly threat to your life. If you are in fear for your life, you may shoot someone to stop them from being a threat. This doesn't mean your intent can be to kill them, you NEVER shoot to kill, you only shoot to stop. One the person is on the ground and not a threat, you cannot shoot them again.

2. To defend a third party who has a threat to their life. If you see someone being attacked and you feel their life in danger, you may use deadly force to stop the threat.

3. To defend your uninsured property. For example, if someone were to grab your purse and it had $5,000 in cash in it, that is likely not insured. You can shoot the person to stop them from getting away with your stuff. This has been extended by the courts to include the deductible on some insured property such as cars, but I personally wouldn't chance it. The example held up in concealed carry class was a guy was stealing a tractor trailer rig from a man's home. That is an expensive item and while it is insured, it also has a large deductible and it is the source of this man's living, so he would be without an income without it. The guy picked up his AR-15 rifle and went outside and saw another man inside his truck hotwiring it and starting to drive it away. He shot the thief several times through the front window of the truck and he ended up dying. It was ruled a justified shooting due to him defending his property.

---

Note that trespassing on LAND is not on that list, that topic has been brought up in class before and the instructors made it pretty clear that someone JUST WALKING ON YOUR LAND is NOT enough of a reason to shoot them. If you are not being directly threatened or they are not actually taking your property, then NO, you cannot shoot them for being on your land.

If they break into your physical home, then yes, the courts have ruled that can be, by itself, taken as a direct threat to your safety and the use of deadly force is normally acceptable. Not all states and countries agree with this, some states actually expect you to retreat from your home if possible, leaving it to the burglar. I think this is nuts, but that is what it is.

I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.

Not Walmart, not Best Buy... nothing...

I HAVE seen guards with guns at the bank, but I'm still not convinced they would shoot you if you grabbed money and ran away. The issues of private security actually shooting people are such that I'd only think they would do it to protect human life, not material items that are easy to replace.

I disagree, it would not take nuclear weapons...

We invaded and defeated Nazi Germany and Japan and those were MUCH tougher enemies...

What we CANNOT do is just go attack tomorrow without preparing.

If we decided to prepare and gave ourselves 3 years to build up our military and produce weapons and train soldiers, we'd win hands down.

The real trick to winning wars is not just having the best tanks and bombers, it is winning the war of supply. Amateur Generals talk battlefield tactics, professional Generals talk logistics and supply. Wars are often won or lost in the supply chain, not the actual battlefield.

Stop smoking... whatever it is you're smoking...

All other issues aside, attacking Iran is nothing like attacking France or Germany would be...

France actually HAS nuclear weapons, and Germany has a first class military with modern weapons. Iran has none of that.

True, but that doesn't mean our military won't built robots over the next 30 years to fight, I'm sure many parents will be happy when a robot is destroyed instead of their child killed.

Then what?

You haven't watched a little movie series called Terminator, have you?

No, they are Android tablets... but nice try...

(yes, yes, I understand the base under that, but no one cares and it isn't going to carry over in the desktop market)

My solution was to continue to run Windows 7. I never used 8 on anything other than a test system.

Once 8.1 came out, I gave it another look and was impressed at the changes made. Someone at MS did listen.

As for "waiting for MS to fix it", well, that is their job. At this point, Windows has such an installed base that it would take years and years of massive stupidity at MS to really change anything.

All the software that I need to run, generally runs best on Windows. This is true for most people, hence the market share of Windows.

Good for you, but that isn't what is being discussed.

The original point is that Linux has "growing share" or "growing gaming share" or "more interest in Linux gaming", etc.

Which is a bunch of bantha dung.

By all means, use Linux, no crime in that. Just understand that you're using a very marginal (in terms of market share) desktop OS that will never be anything other than such.

Fair enough, but then frankly you don't really count.

Why? Because you've used it for 10 years and in case you haven't noticed, it's usage on the desktop has gone exactly nowhere.

I have no doubt there will continue to be people like you, 20 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, some people like to tinker with such things. But you'll always be in the vast minority.

None of those are reasons Linux is better on the desktop for the average consumer.

Linux has less than 2% desktop market share for a reason. That doesn't mean YOU can't like and use Linux, but don't confuse a techie's likes with the mass population.

If you like Linux, go ahead. Just don't have any delusions of grandeur that "The Year of the Linux Desktop" is near, because it isn't.

No, that isn't what I said or what other people are saying.

"Windows is better than Linux for the desktop for most people."

^ That is what I'm saying.

Why? It runs the programs that most people want to run, Linux does not.

It is not about technical abilities, it is about "does it run my software".

That is really what people care about. Linux is indeed "good" from a technical point of view. Linux is indeed "good" from a server point of view. Linux is NOT "good" for the average consumer's desktop computer.