Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
may I kindly ask you to go to the posted link, fill in the form and hit the "Donate" button. Thank you.
no, no you certainly may not. seeing as the next regime will be worse than this one, probably with very strong islamic influences (sharia law) and even more persecution of coptic christians.
I for one welcome the old overlords of egypt.
And what's more fun, tags no longer appear to work, including retroactively. See look, not italics.
let's see if quotes still work.
so, do you believe it now that you can kinda see it from an angle?
seriously though, thanks for the laugh.
the point I'm trying to make is that the aim in war is to incapacitate the enemy and *NOT* kill them. the reason for this is to bind resources. all a dead soldier needs is a box and someone to slump him in it. A wounded soldier needs his buddies to carry him off the battlefield, a medevac, a doctor, treatment, rehab, his pay etc etc, all of which cost time, money, manpower and other valuable resources.
viewed from this perspective, it makes little sense to use HP ammo instead of FMJ (on a side note, ballistic armor is a lot more effective against HP ammo than FMJ). Now whether it's allowed under geneva conventions or others and if the americans are party to those, I don't know.
having said that, seeing that the war in iraq and afghanistan are actually insurgencies and any resources bound by incapping insurgents come out of the west's pockets, it might make more sense to kill rather than incap.
also, seeing as incapping is actually a form of weakening the enemy state and bringing about an end to the war, it might miss it's effectiveness against radical fundamentalist muslim insurgents, as it's an ideological war and not a conventional one.
"(..) like everyone else can?" no
that's exactly the point she's making.
having said that, this isn't really new in any way. there have been genocides of non-conforming people - and many of those who were persecuted acted like they were "normal". for instance jewish people in nazi germany, christians today in many predominantly muslim countries like egypt for one.
all that has really changed is that it has now become a personal choice (speaking of DNA - not religion).
furthermore, if anything, this is an ethical question. Morals are subjective and I don't give a flying frack about anyone else's but mine.
I'm not a fan of all of these hand-holding technologies. it just makes people lazy and more often than not complicates things.
peer review, this is somersault. somersault, meet peer review.