NEpi

I think putting Hitler side-by-side with the jedi fat kid is a little too much, even if they're both on youtube. anyway, WWII is not about one person doing this or doing that. It's about a continent-load of people being nasty on global scale. a large portion of the world at the time have done evil to some degree. some kept doing that after the war ended. making fun of a movie about a head of state that derailed nations has nothing to do with the public image or historical facts.

a few fun facts about color blindness: 1. many have that, at least partially. IIRC, it's about 10% of male population (who's bloody idea was "let's have males with non-identical 23th chromosome"?). 2. most colorblind are only blind to red-green. 3. usually you don't know about it if it's partial, since there are differences in luminance between red and green: red is more saturated, usually, so most greens around us are not as bright as red (or is it the other way around? been some time since I messed with color). 4. usually, color blindness has no real-world implication (see #3), though complete color blindness does. I've never heard about an advantage in low light because of extra color processing. basically, the cones are all connected to one vision system which is in charge of high-definition color-contrast processing. rods are very very very sensitive to light, and are connected to a different vision system, which is much cruder, but is very sensitive to change and movement. during the day, the rods are absolutely overwhelmed by light, and are more or less disfunctional. only by night, they kick into action. color processing is very complicated. in low-light conditions, cones might not have enough input to register color (lots of connections between different receptors), but have enough information for brightness. then we get that lovely black&white night vision (under moonlit skies, for example). retinal hypersensitivity is a very nice thing to have when traveling by night, but I don't see any connection to color vision. I think both are unrelated. I see no point in not enlisting you, since only a jerk designs a tool that make differentiating between controls critical, yet fails to take color blindness into consideration. they're just making an excuse

a journalist wearing that outfit might get sexually harrassed, though

I disagree. In Gaza, unlike Iraq, both sides have a common interest not to shoot journalists. If you are spotted hiding somewhere on a battlefield that you are supposed to be neutral in it is more probable you'd be perceived as a threat. the only problem of a journalist is how to persuade the unmarked fighters to stay away from him.

these excerpts have nothing to do with what we're talking about now. if you want to discuss that, let's start another thread. I'm not going to branch out in this one.

If you mean a couple of years ago, then it was in Lebanon. a different place and a different situation. If you mean about 5 years ago or so, those were two 100kg (220lbs) IDEs detonated under the belly. They are supposed to have them now in Gaza (I can't see any reason why they don't, anyway).

don't take it the wrong way, but have you ever been fired upon? because they are tankers. the worst thing one can do is trust the armor to stop a missile. wearing a bullet-prooof vest is no reason to get shot. anyway, being hit by an ATGM is not a particularly nice experience, even if the copper liner doesn't pass through your flesh. your ears ring, you lose balance, and you lose orientation. you won't let that happen just to make sure you are fired upon. also, one of the problems for the israeli armor in Lebanon two years back was that too many tankers felt too complacent with their armor, being used to small-arms and RPG fire, and they let themselves take bad positions for too long. you should NEVER trust your armor so much as to take an intentional hit. it does, when you're fired by someone you don't know about. it helps to keep you fighting when the battle gets intense (as in SB), and it lets you be more aggressive, since you are protected to some point. when you percieve a threat to your life, and this time I can't blame them to think so, you couldn't care less for media cryouts. you do whatever you can to remove this threat. Palestinians have a tendency to tell how israelis mercilessly killed their kids. sometimes, it's true. too many times it is not. maybe then the gunner could see the reporter certificate the cameraman was wearing. I think something about wearing distinctive clothes is mentioned in international law, but I might be wrong. military action in Gaza and its surrounding is not policing. it's war. israeli troops don't control Gaza, Hamas does. the IDF fights an organization that systematically and perpetually attacks israeli territory and its citizens. a tank is never good for police work. it never makes anyone cool down. it was there to kill palestinian fighters engaged in battle with infantry, not to parade around and cool things down.

double post. hmmm...

I just popped in after quite a long while to find this... well, let's start: 1. those "conscripts" in the tank proved to be quite effective in the past, both on the battlefield and in the practice ground, against "professional" soldiers. shouldn't underestimate the men due to the way they are enlisted, really. 2. usually in that surroundings, vehicles are not fired at. 3. the tank positioned itself to help infantry fighting nearby, so they knew hostiles are in the area. from what I could see in the pictures and the video, the truck was at least partially covered. the cameraman used a tripod to stabilize his camera, on a berm, with a truck hiding behind a berm. it took the round about 2sec to arrive. that means the tank was over 2km away from the camera (another reason to believe it was attached to a tripod). a guy standing on a berm 2km away with a big thingamajig (with a lense) on a tripod, looking straight at you, and there's a vehicle in the bushes behind the berm. what does that look like? 4. TV on the hood means almost nothing in Gaza. one of the latest attacks on the passes to the strip was held by jeeps marked as TV crews. It won't be the first time palestinian terrorists do that (when you kill two civilian tanker drivers, you are a terrorist, no doubt). They tend to try to smuggle personnel and weapons through in ambulances too (first-person evidence there). so don't expect that crew to think "they look like an ATGM crew, they act like an ATGM crew, but they carry a big TV sign on their vehicle, so I'll ignore them".

the Dark Side of the Force > where the sun doesn't shine

Eric Carpman > Eric the fish

Here have a tissue! > skin transplant

BOOM! > whaddapenned?

Charrrge It!> Clear!

Which one? > the other

the M1A2 and the Leclerc?? > yes. please pack them for the road.

Hunter Killer > right behind you, Elmer!

that's no reason to paint her in the nude > nude painter > striptease artist

good front > looks innocent

so walk all over me > bad back

Old threads don't die, they just go to hell to regroup. > fiendish sweater

Please!! > Don't Die On Me, Thread!

ha, I always thought it's "bouncie-bouncie". I guess it was lost in translation.

by translating samite language into germanic language. samite-germanic is much more different than latin-germanic, especially after william the conqueror. the reason it is hard for non-natives to use a language is most of the time we simply translate our own language, which might result in strange phrasing. for example, in your post, I think "could" is more appropriate than "would" :-)

in one sentence: "I would not buy this record, it is scratched". (if you're unfamiliar with this sentence, be ashamed and google it) don't worry about your English. there are plenty non-english speakers around here, with worse languages than yours ;-)