Investors walk away because investors walk away. Investors walked away on almost all major artists of the 20th cent. If it's not the perception of piracy, it'd be the perception of poor sales figures, or the perception of public backlash, or the perception of of being under/over perceptive. Investors in the art industry mostly suck at recognizing new talent. Old (as in provably profitable) talent they have no problem with. Go figure.

get a notebook (not net , note) with the new intel core i7 640M (U or L - http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43563,47700,). The U model at 18W TDP gives the atom chips a run for their money (well, not really in same category, but much better performance/wattage than anything before mobile nehalem came along). Lenovo has the x201s, but I'd take a look at the fujitsu P770 series - http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecommerce/buildseriesbean.do?series=P770. Not really in the netbooks price range, and not featuring ION (which is a true shame) but more than adequate from power consumption versus performance standpoint. If you want a portable gaming platform, either alienware or one of the eurocom models ( http://www.eurocom.com/ ) might suit you better.

http://www.mtechmiddle.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=58810&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=87933&hideMenu=1&rn=8708720

Let me get this straight - If someone wrongs you, it is OK to wrong them in return? so far this is a symmetric argument that can go both ways, yet you only apply it to Israel. that is what I mean by impartial objectivity - can you come up with an argument that can be applied only to one side and not both? or else can you accept that both side have some blame in the current situation? So far I only see Israel bashing from your side, but no good justification for your non-neutrality.

I accept wiki's limitations. Wikipedia has many reliable and verifiable articles. The one you brought is not one of them. That usually means that a biased party edited the article.

I would, however, suggest you read a little before going into a definition war on what is terrorism. Despite all contrary noise, the only currently undisputed war crimes in the current conflict are the HAMAS rockets. All other actions, while alleged to be war crime by one side or the other, are not proven or generally accepted as such by UN security council or general assembly.

I fail to see how your logic works, here. The question was not of using any and all possible means to to obliterate the enemy territory. The question is much more pragmatic in nature - should two military forces face off in armed conflict - what could possibly motivate one side not to use superior arms in such a conflict, should it have them? Not the usage of ultimate weapons, just weapons that enable it to inflict damage while minimizing the exposure of it's own troops?

Again - this whole sub argument is concerning your "they should use roughly symmetric forces" assertion. I agree with many of your points, but fail to see how you could reasonably expect from any military force to handicap itself to accommodate an enemy that by all indications does not respect any rules of conduct whatsoever.

As for pragmatic - it can be argued that deterrence is working - re current avoidance of Hizbualla from formally opening a second front in support of Hamas.
Deterrence might buy Israel a few more years, by which time perhaps a more lasting solution can be found via diplomatic channels.
It has been argued that deterrence, at least partially, was responsible for the Israeli-Egyptian peace, after all.

A language changes and evolves. The definition I gave, while not thought out thoroughly or formally, is the working definition for many people, with quantification. A terrorist is most often perceived as acting against civilians, not military targets. that doesn't appear in the league of nations definition either, yet is the current state of affairs.

I would imagine, from purely pragmatics POV, that this is an argument for a systematic genocide, not against. How do you ensure no new combatants emerge in a few years? you kill them all now. And yet, despite that, no such methodical killing takes place. And still you avoid the question - why should a greater force endanger itself just to convenience it's enemy? I'm yet to hear a good argument.

The poll was not conducted among a fringe group which the general public tends to regard as extremists. The poll was conducted among the general public, with a 91% approval rate for murder. What does that tell you about the populace?

from personal experience - none whatsoever. Can the reverse be said of the other side? But hey, if you can provide hard evidence of majority Israelis cheering, I'd be happy to denounce them.

That is a whole new subject, and not quite as simplistic as you present. A couple of things to keep in mind - that money buys the US political leverage, and quite a lot of it. Also consider the fact that several Israeli weapons contracts have suffered due to US objections - a deal with china comes to mind, the fact that not a single instance of bid for armor (tanks) involving the abrams, also included the merkava MBT. The US is quite open in it's repression of Israel's military industries when seen as competitors to US mil industries. The so called give away munitions you complain about gives the US the right to monopolize (as in curtail competition) the weapons market, amongst other things. Not quite as one sided as you presented.

And the main question remains - why on earth would a people who are being slaughtered for fighting back not simply surrender and save themselves? why keep on fighting, when it is quite obvious, even to them, that surrender would guarantee (not virtually but actually) their survival?

Knowing the military strength differential, why start a fight you can't win?

Stopping the occupation is not valid reasoning when they are self governed and without military presence in their current land. The blockade is a rather cynical manipulation of the facts - it has started only after HAMAS who promised as part of their election campaign to murder civilians as much as they could, brought the blockade on themselves. Would you open your borders to a people who promise to kill you given half a chance?

It is well documented that Israel officials promised better relations with HAMAS should it renounce violence as legitimate diplomatic practice, and change it's charter to something which has any kind of semblance to tolerance towards Jews in general and the state of Israel in particular. HAMAS leaders were adamant in their refusal, and to this date continue calling for the total anihilation of all thigs Jewish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/middleeast/29hamasx.html

What are you basing your analysis on? A simple counter argument would go something like:

If Israel had even slightly bad intentions you would see carpet bombing and death tolls in the tens of thousands by now...

And yet, for all your rhetoric, I fail to see a single justification for hamas actions or stated intent, in your argument. Israel bashing is all nice and well, but why throw impartial objectivity out the window?