alanschu

I have heard that they are planning a shorter cycle for their OS releases. Just make sure you don't keep waiting for the next one.

Hahahaha

Well, while things may not be "proven," they do become "really, really certain" when numerous, repeated, falsifiable tests occur. Gravity is just a theory, but as it stands we feel we have a high degree of certainty in using current understanding of gravity to make predictions. Of course this isn't concrete, as demonstrated by that wacko Einstein that told everyone that Newton was wrong, so we had to make some adjustments. (Well, Newton wasn't wrong, just incomplete).

Well, I have actually seen poor shifting of a manual transmission in an emergency situation (well, typically remembering the shift is something that goes out the window entirely. Even with an automatic transmission few people will think to place the car in neutral if they find themselves losing control of their car for some reason). It may be a natural part of shooting, but if pressure didn't affect things, then a typical Green Army Recruit would be just as effective in a firefight as a multi-year veteran. I have fired 9mm pistols at a firing range. My experiences don't go into night shooting, nor shooting at live targets though. Since I had never fired a gun before, I only had the target about 30 feet away or so, and I was pretty accurate at firing the pistol. It was on this experience that led me to the opinion that hitting something 10 feet away would not require the utmost of precision, since I tried doing a variety of things with the 50 or so rounds I bought. I did a "rapid" fire (I use the term "rapid" loosely, as it was hardly fast) as I was curious to see how accurate I could be emptying a magazine quickly. I would return the pistol to eye level after each shot, but wouldn't take my time to ensure that the sights were as lined up as I could make them. Accuracy degraded, but I don't recall missing the figure on the target paper. I tried 9mm variants of 5 different pistols, a Glock, a Beretta, a Sig, an H&K, and some other manufacturer I was unfamilar with. I found myself liking the Beretta the best. I kept jamming the Glock because my inexperience frequently had me absorbing the recoil with my wrists rather than with my elbows. But my experience was in daylight. If it was dark enough that I couldn't actually make out what direction my gun was pointing in, then yes I'd want night sights. But if it's that dark, outside of a silhouette if there happens to be some backlight from a window or something, how exactly could you be sure that you were pointing at the intruder. I'd likely have to see it in order to appreciate it, since the only experience I have shooting stuff in limited light was friends with toy dart guns.

And here you are hoping that they'll do Jefferson.

Build a Biosphere! As for the Solar Activity, there may be research done in 2001 that made it seem unlikely, but continued research done and published earlier this year are starting to state the same thing. I remember an interesting comment that Jan Veizer made a while ago. He said it was tough for him to come forward with his initial findings, because the scientific community had so widely accepted the idea the CO2 emissions were causing global warming that they were quite resistant to other ideas. This wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. Einstein's Theory of Relativity flipped the world upside down, when the rest of the world had so accepted Newtonian Physics that they made his theories Law. Fortunately for Einstein, his theories were easily testable and easily verified. He didn't have to go through the same stigma that people like Galileo had to endure. Copernicus was hesitant to suggest that the solar system was heliocentric. I wonder if similar stigmas exist when discussing Global Warming (which is a misnomer, it seems the idea is now "Climate Change.")

Point taken.

I don't know. Is it a world affair?

Which countries are Allies? Is the conflict a NATO jurisdiction?

Thanks coach.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. But yeah, I'm sure the guy making the push to El Alamein was busy slaughtering Jews when he wasn't making a push or repelling an attack.

I remember seeing one that bounced back and forth almost by the minute over some small detail. I had no idea people would be so adamant.

The death of the Jews are on their hands. And had they refused to go if they stood up for what they believed in, they would have gotten the death penalty. Would it be fair to impose that choice on them? You cannot prove that the death of the Jews is on the hands of soldiers on the front lines, mostly because there was too many people fighting on the front lines.

Here is an interesting article I read. I'm posting it since it's relatively new. Think what you will.

I blame Smyth for his greedy stat padding attempt to fire the puck the length of the ice for blowing Roloson's shutout. And of course Hemsky, who's penalty I think came because he was looking to pad his stats by getting a steal and an empty net goal.

Would a nuclear war cause global warming?

In case it's not clear, my use of the term "awesome" is sarcastic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock

I'm curious as to their usefulness, particularly at close range home defense, and you were talking about how basic self defense courses are going to train you to look down the sights. Are they really necessary, or is it a cash cow market? And is someone that has taken a basic self defense course typically someone that has the mental fortitude to aim their pistol properly with these? Assuming a shoulder width of 2 feet, with the maximum distance of 10 feet (since you specified most encounters will occur at less than 10 feet away), you'll have roughly a 12 degree horizontal range to still hit your target. If someone has taken a self defense course (which would provide the training for the use of night sights) and trained in the use of a pistol, would they still suffer a 6 degree shift in accuracy? If the light is so bad that you need the night sights in order to prevent a 6 degree shift in horizontal accuracy, wouldn't you have problems identifying the intruder period? I was thinking about one thing, as you commented that there are zero cons to night sights. Wouldn't they also provide an opportunity for the intruder to spot you before you spotted them? I can't imagine it's a safe assumption that you'll always spot them before they spot you. EDIT: Changed "questioning" to "curious" in the first statement.

How expensive are night sights?

This guy MUST be an alt

I'm asking questions for a reason (the reason of course, being that I don't have any experience aiming pistols with armed intruders). And trained firefighters will still kick down a door without checking it for heat if it's their children on the other side of that door. Training is a nice thing, but you'll never know how you'll react unless you're actually put into the situation. Then why aren't they standard on all guns? But hey, if you wish to assume I'm a nutcase and move on, have a nice life.

With the larger amount of time you'd have, coupled with the fact that the distance is less than 10 feet, would you still need night sights?

David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert) is a freaking giant!

If the distance is less than 10 feet, would one really have enough time to use the sights anyways?