alanschu

I was reading your post, until I came up to this. I never once said that the vaccine was basically useless. How you were able to come to this conclusion: when I stated straight up in this very thread that I have zero issues with pharmaceutical companies making drugs and vaccines and making money off them. Merck and Co., Inc. can do whatever the heck they want to do. Furthermore, coming to the conclusion that I feel the vaccine is "basically useless" is equally absurd. The funny thing is that, the reason why I spout off all of these other reasons, stems from the fact that it's utilizing public funds in doing so. And when I say stuff like HPV induced cervical cancer is rare, it's because places like the National Cancer Institute and Center for Disease Control say so. I've seen you pull stuff like this out in other arguments before, and I will not be bothered to respond anymore to someone that either chooses to not read what I type, or is incapable of understanding it. Have a nice life.

Tasers are very effective non-lethal takedown. THe biggest issue with them is, as far as I know, if you miss, you're in trouble. And you won't have the benefit of deterrence on yourside.

I have already acknowledged that this idea would not work. Aram pointed it out already.

I seriously doubt any law enforcement officers are trained or even allowed to fire warning shots. There's too much risk in firing a bullet in a public area to waste one making noise. You'll find situations where law enforcement officers do fire warning shots. Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes not. But they have fired them. Maybe it's policy now days not to do it to avoid hitting non-hostile targets, but that part is irrelevant. If warning shots were used in the past, I'm guessing it was for a reason. And I doubt that the only response that a suspect had was to immediately fight back because of it. A situation in Taiwan was immediately subdued when an officer fired a warning shot. Yes, there was concern that things would have been different if his shot had accidentally hurt someone. But if the only response would be to fight back, the warning shot would not have worked. If you're immediately threatening the life of someone, all bets are off. Is it safe to assume that the mere presence of someone in your house is an immediate threat to your safety and life? Even if you catch him 20 feet across the room raiding your refrigerator, both hands in plain sight and not carrying a weapon? Air forces and Naval forces also fire warning shots to subdue planes and naval vessels. The shot across the bow used to be a signal that we cannot see what colours you are flying. I would argue that they aren't a waste of time. I'm sure they'd be effective. You say your gun encounter was anti-climactic. Do you think you'd still feel the same if he fired a round inches from your head? Your point about too much chance of an innocent getting hurt is a good rationalization of why to not fire a warning shot. Keep in mind of course, that my initial (impossible) idea was about a blank round. My discussion with Aram is about whether or not the sound of a bullet does anything more than convince the person being fired at that the person firing the gun only means to kill them, and should therefore fight back.

There was an expansion called Unfinished Business, but I was never able to find it in stores.

I strongly recommend it. It's an excellent strategy game with RPG elements. Insanely fun.

Hahaha. Took me a moment to figure out what you were talking about.

Because it's what Canadians want to see! I wonder if Toronto games were still all the rage in the 80s on CBC.

People are in fact spooked by loud noises. Go into a public place and fire your gun in the air, see how many people stop in their tracks. If someone means to kill or otherwise harm you, the chips are already stacked against you. I hope you sleep with a loaded gun and a bullet in the chamber. The thing is, if you look at the thread, the idea going around is to shoot the intruder under any circumstances. It's a bit bold to assume that simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him. If that was the only response a target would have, warning shots would not be utilized by police or military forces. I'll admit, I've never been in a situation where I'd need to coerce someone with a weapon, but I'd be very surprised if firing a warning shot would not demonstrate illicit a fear response from the intruder. And I was unaware of any significant differences between blank rounds. Obviously my idea would have limited success.

It did not look as though your argument was directed that way. Especially considering your current post includes amendments not originally stated, and excludes an amendment originally stated. It certainly looked like you were arguing that if he were to want to get rid of the second amendment, we might as well start tossing out other amendments just because.

Fair enough. Just to make sure we're clear though, only 10,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with it each year. So the level of effectiveness of the Texas initiative declines immensely. Who said that they were against the vaccine being available? Don't play that card. I'd say the same thing if it was addressing a condition that may lead to prostate cancer. There's one big problem with that number though. HPV has many, many different types. Only a few of which cause cancer. So no, those numbers in particularly are not as significant as you'd think. Given the vaccine only target 4 specific types, I doubt you'll see these numbers you posted change at all. To make things clear, the vaccine does not cure cancer, nor does it target cancer. It targets a disease believed to cause cancer. Furthermore, the trials done were only done to show a reduction in symptoms at precancerous stages. The trial did not go on long enough (as stated by the FDA) to see if it actually prevented the cancer (though I suspect it probably will. I'm not a biologist nor a Medical Doctor). There have been no studies done to see how it reacts to women that are unknowingly pregnant. I suppose that this is an advantage to giving it to 9 year old girls, since they likely will not be pregnant. At the same time, the only studies done with girls aged 9-15 included an injection of vaccine, and a comparison to the immune system. Unless other cancers are caused by a virus similar to HPV, I wouldn't hold my breath that this is a huge breakthrough for the future of other cancer vaccines. It may be a breakthrough for fighting cancer because it prevents the causation of cancer by a particular disease, I don't know how helpful it will be for other cancer research or other cancer vaccinations.

I don't believe it. Actually, according to their schedule, I believe they play every Saturday. http://origin.www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/tvschedule.html

Here we go again..... Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it. Slippery Slope fallacy.

Goddammit, I just _had_ to click on that link..... EDIT: Anyone else think this game would be super sweet with a co-op multiplayer

I was wondering about the Battlefield element as well Mr. Elite. According to the two reviews I read yesterday (CNET and IGN), most of the time in the single player game is actually spent viewing a tactical map and giving out orders (depending on which stage you're at in the single player game, since you start off as a lowly PT boat skipper up to Captain of the USS Yorktown at Midway). I guess the big difference between the two from a Battlefield perspective is that you have control over AI units. Here's a shot of some tactical map views: EDIT: Also, if it's anything like Pacific Storm, you can still watch all the action unfold and give orders despite not being at a map view. Just because it's an action shot, doesn't mean it is an "in unit" shot. Speaking of Pacific Storm, some people over at the War in the Pacific Forums compared Battlestations to it, but because of Battlestations smaller scope, feel they executed the muliple gameplay elements better.

The Oilers finish the season I believe with 6 road games. 5 road games in a row seems like the standard road trip. I think it might seem odd, because the Maple Laffs typically return to Toronto for a home game every Saturday for Hockey Night in Canada.

I'm most intrigued how you knew I was going "Hagagagaga" while I typed that though.

That is Jagged Alliance 2

Wow, Montana sure did well when in the Superbowl!

I'm thinking more your standards are different. I have played computer games since the Apple IIe.

Alas, the demo is a multiplayer demo. Since I do not feel like testing out the demo against strange people on the internet, I won't be able to give it a playthrough unless you also want to download it. If you talk appropriately to Nick, we can make arrangements to gang up on him and kill him. But it's a bit disappointing.

I'm installing the demo right now, so we'll see how it is.

I don't think it's that simple, because it assumes that the rest of the league remained static, and that the skills of all players involved have also remained static.

Suddenly I feel a whole lot less bad about the whole thing :D

Unfortunately, it's going to cost the same amount as a Grade 7 student that probably still won't be having sex for a few years.