I'm just glad it didn't blink :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Strategy

kettle, pot. pot, kettle.

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.

let's see if quotes still work.

so copy the link and open it up in a new window to get rid of the referrer.

unless you log out, even posting ac will wipe the the points

I've seen mass effect comics around. I don't know which came first and I'm too lazy to google, but the whole franchise could've been spawned by the comics and not the game.

"Invisibility cloak?!? Ha! I'll believe it when I see it!"
so, do you believe it now that you can kinda see it from an angle? :-)

damn you! I spat my coke out and then nearly choked reading that! I'll see you in small claims court for a new keyboard!
seriously though, thanks for the laugh.

The point of hollowpoint ammo is to give off as much energy as possible (ie expand) when it hits the target. effectively that means a lot of tissue damage - much more than when using ammunition with a steel core (FMJ or ball ammo I believe it's american name is). FMJs hardly expand - especially when used against soft targets. Thus, the damage these bullets do is considerably less than HPs.

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.

"would you like to see all the colors?" yes
"(..) 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.

totally agree with you both. I think it could be interesting as a way to control a computer as a supplement to a mouse for instance.
I'm not a fan of all of these hand-holding technologies. it just makes people lazy and more often than not complicates things.

oh and I do not grant wiki acedemic status. after you posted that I could've changed half of the info to fit my claims. cite a source that has a reputation to lose (or gain).
peer review, this is somersault. somersault, meet peer review.

never.