syedalijafri
Syed-Ali Jafri
syedalijafri

There's never a shortage of interesting places to visit nearby, but the further you go, the less you will find in common with what you are used to. I appreciate Texas a lot more after visiting Europe and realizing just how much was different that I had previously taken for granted.

Gawker's timing could not possibly be better. After some recent horseshit, I was quite ready to stop browsing io9 altogether. I decided to check back after a few days away and noticed this article and the new setup. I don't know how I feel about the execution yet, but I definitely like the concept much, much more than

Bob Munden, a trick shooter with an exceptionally fast reaction time, can draw, fire, and reholster a revolver in roughly 150 milliseconds. This thing is over 100 times faster than him. I don't think your nerves can even transmit data as fast as this thing can observe and react. I really, really want to give one of

Yeah, assembly line workers might not be the best example. I chose them because of a series of studies that showcased how repetitive, tedious work lowered your IQ. I think the ideal comparison would be between someone who is forced to think conceptually constantly (such as a programmer or lawyer) versus someone whose

I can't think of a single martial art that teaches striking and not groin kicks. That's not the point. You're completely ignoring the difference between using the most force necessary and the most force possible. If you're simply going to use the most force possible, your opponent will use the most force possible. If

I'd be fascinated to see a study comparing these statistics across different professions. For example, how would energy consumption vary between a group of anti-virus programmers and a group of assembly line workers (not to say that assembly line workers are less intelligent, just that they probably aren't applying

You are not being trolled, though I'm genuinely wondering if I am. Krav Maga (which I'm assuming you teach) teaches the same principles that I'm talking about, and does not advocate the use of unconditional overwhelming force, because it immediately puts you in unnecessary danger. When you're dealing with drunk frat

When I was studying Karate in Alief, Texas, I spent the better part of two years patiently explaining to testosterone-loaded teenagers who wanted to learn self-defense why they can't simply resort to overwhelming violence in a fight. Alief is not a nice area. It's not as bad as, say, parts of Detroit, but there's

Fair point, it has been used for aggression more often than not. But when you get to a national scale, you still need organized warfare in the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands. Otherwise, you can't collectively repel the greater magnitude of threats present to a larger nation.

And please, do tell me what you plan to do when you pull out your handgun and this guy pulls out his, or his friends pull out theirs? Did you ever think that far ahead, or are you just fixated on the idea of being able to shoot someone? There's a reason these things don't happen in real life, in spite of what all your

Your father served, and you've got police training, but you're referring to anything short of a street brawl as sports? There are more rules in the military and police force than there are in most sports. If you can't understand the distinction between sport and organized combat, where does that police training get

Large-scale warfare can very easily be used for self-gain, but it's also essential for maintaining order in large societies. If you are harboring a large force, you can more easily hold off smaller, less organized forces (for example, individual farmers would stand no chance against a band of raiders, whereas

I'm sorry, I simply don't believe that. I studied Shotokan Karate under Sensei Rick Davey in Houston, Texas, then Sun Taijiquan under Sifu Tom Fowler in Cypress, Texas, and I have never met any self-respecting martial arts instructor who would advocate the nonsense you do. Where are you from, where this is acceptable?

Ideally, these rules of engagement are for the greater good. Feigning surrender is the perfect example. If you feign surrender and then attack the enemy when they are treated you as a prisoner, regardless of whether or not your superiors see you do so, you have destroyed the small bit of decency that exists in war.

In acts of random violence or violation of laws (such as assault, robbery, and so on), pretty much all rules go out the window. So yes, you do bash an attacker's head, kick him in the crotch, and do whatever else you need to when such basic principles are violated. But when it gets any more abstract than that, certain

I don't know what you do that keeps getting you into nut-punching situations, or what makes you believe you have the legal right to use lethal force in any confrontation you arbitrarily deem life-threatening, but I sincerely hope you never have to take that attitude in front of a judge. What I'm saying comes from

Understanding escalation of violence DOES help to keep you alive. Make the fight only as lethal as you have to in order to gain the upper hand, because there is always the chance that if you up the violence, your opponent will do likewise. It's the reason we send in ground forces when we could just as easily use

The rules definitely get twisted, and often. What's fascinating, however, is that in each time and place, there have always been, and likely will always be, principles that are more important than life, things that you'd rather die than do. For example, our culture values children a lot compared to cultures of the

This discussion has nothing to do with what you would do in a modern setting. You said you didn't understand why there was always a 'no nut shot' rule. I explained why in a historical context. What you would or wouldn't do today has nothing to do with why such unspoken rules existed historically, which is what we're

The distinction between war and sport was not always as clear as it seems to be today. There have always been customs and principles in warfare that were more important than life. In fact, that still holds true. If war had no rules, we'd simply nuke every country we declared war against and call it a day. The reason