Sparq

Got bored, played Assassin's Creed again for a dose of ultraviolence. Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2, as always.

Well, I mean, I can just play it there. But...yeah.

http://www.pixeljam.com/dinorun/

Not bad, but I was looking for the Dodge commercial. Edit: someone just sent this to me:

Yeah, they don't have to be mutually exclusive (most of the time...). The failure to realise that seems to be the defining factor of a Fundie. On either side. It's less common to be sure (since there's not much to get defensive about) but I'm sure somewhere out there, there's a self-righteous fundamentalist atheist. And he's probably really annoying at parties.

Not Youtube. But I love this one: http://vimeo.com/3434096

It WASN'T tough enough. The Sherman was a terrible tank....they were just cheap enough to build thousands. Fast. Sorry, can't resist the military topics. Uhhh... Most of the time you weren't sure of anything. You usually didn't have a real target, you never had all the information. You played the percentages, you played hunches. You prayed a lot, said the words anyway; or you swore, using a lot of the same words, and you knew it didn't matter a damn either way. If the universe decided this was your time, it was going to nail you whatever you did. -Redliners Eh, close enough.

Maneuver for a firing solution. In that case, the sub with the rear-firing tubes has the advantage, assuming the collision was a head-on sideswipe. In the current political climate, a direct confrontation seems....unlikely. Especially in the Atlantic. For the record, I don't know whether modern subs usually have aft tubes. My knowledge is primarily air and land, theoretical and current weapons. Naval surface ships next. Sub-surface last.

At that distance, a single torpedo from either sub would most likely destroy both. Shockwaves from submarine explosions are a lot more damaging than shock waves in atmosphere. Of course, with torpedo tubes generally mounted forward (sometimes aft) that would mean the submarines would probably have had to collide head-on....guaranteeing major damage to both unless they were both travelling dead slow. Even then...6 or 7 thousand tons makes for a lot of inertia. Still, it's unlikely the nukes would go off.I haven't been following closely....were they missile subs or hunter-killers? the H-Ks would generally be nuclear powered, but not armed with nuclear weapons.

Not really. The likelyhood of a nuclear warhead detonating properly in an accidental collision is extremely low. Even if the conventional explosives packed into the nuke explode (don't get me wrong, that's still a lot of explosives) the weapon is unlikley to go supercritical and begin a fission or fusion reaction unless it was detonated on purpose (requiring a precise sequence of events to occur within the warhead to achieve an actual nuclear blast.) Radiological contamintion, however, is a certainty in that scenario, assuming the hull of the sub is breached. The fissionable core of the weapon will be blown apart and spread into the surrounding water. Anyway. I guess it was bound to happen some day. Probability and all that.

I listened to it for thirty eight seconds. Then I took a bus to Wisconsin and shot twelve people with a crossbow.

I said threat instead of thread, but I stand by it.

I give this threat two thumbs down! Not really, though.

I've been out-slacked?

Unintentional double front flip...with a trophy truck. and a near-perfect, if hard, landing.

If you need a camera anyway, you could get a digital with video capability...instead of directly recording to the PC you just record it on the camera and transfer later. It'll probably exclude the 'use a seperate mic' thing, but my Canon S3 IS gets acceptable sound pickup from the built-in mic, though it also records with almost no compression. I'm not sure of the quality for music and whatnot, but youtube tends to ruin the sound and video anyway with it's own compression.

BMW has a winner with this one. M Power series

I think you mean "The guy who did the 1975 Chrysler Cordoba commercial, and changed the name from CORdoba to CorDOBA on the fly" Soft, Corinthian Leather Edit: I know Dan #3 already pointed it out, but you must experience the commercial to understand.

Oddly enough, grand theft auto is probably safer. I know where there's a 2001 Neon parked in ottawa that's just begging to get stolen....

Kyle Busch, accoring to a NASCAR-fan uncle. Though I have no comparable picture to support the suggestion.

Everyday Normal Crew

Kinda. There is some improvement to be made, but I'm not sure there's all that much to be done in an urban environment. The only way for a power to protect it's own troops fully is to level the city from afar, and that'll mean a lot more non-combatant casualties. Anyway, those contracts for Abrams tanks and Super Hornets are far too lucrative to give up. They're just gradually going the unmanned route....Raptor UAVs and the like.

Public opinion. The rockets from Gaza are poorly aimed and profoundly ineffective on any scale, but the fact is that they are an attack on Israel. Israel has to do something. If those rockets kill only one person every 6 months, they still have to do something. What else is there? The future of war is urban, and unbalanced - and it is messy. Collateral damage galore. One side should probably stop using moderately accurate airstrikes in densely populated urban areas, and the other should probably stop building it's military installations next to schools and other public buildings. Iraq has proven on several occasions since Desert Storm that doing that is not a deterrent to air strikes. This is the same air force that neutralised one man in a wheel chair with three rockets fired from an attack helicopter not too long ago, killing....what, seven people who happened to be standing nearby at the time? What do they expect? Two wrongs don't make a right, but they can solve problems, for better or worse. That said, I have no real opinion as to which side to 'support'. Doesn't matter anyway, especially once it's been filtered through the media spin cycle. I just tend to look at things from a military perspective. What happens when Israel decides to invade on the ground? Look at Fallujah and Baghdad....trying to pacify one city without killing every occupant can be a collossal, grinding, brutal, high-risk task. Hamas and the civilian population of the strip will not be alone in their suffering.

Please use him to destroy the Senators, post haste. That is all.

It has largely rekindled by love for military jargon, though it is still somewhat dumbed-down...I'm pleased that they didn't explain every single term or acronym that the layman may not know. Hearing things like "CAS sorties", "danger close" and "blue-on-blue situation" undiluted by explanation fill my greyish heart with joy.