I think that it is very wrong to say it led to WW2 as WW2 had really already begun. I think it was about taking all reasonable steps to avoid the inevitable. When a paramedic arrives at an accident and the injured person is purple, he still tries to resuscitate, does he believe that he will succeed? No, but he knows that he must try. Did Chamberlain believe that he would succeed? I do not know but could he commit the British people to that level of death and destruction without having tried?
Unfortunately by waiting, instead of committing, and saying "NO MORE!" Hitler had time to divide and conquer Poland and then rapidly go around the Maginot line. At least it gave us time for one of the largest evacuations in history.
By being indecisive and not committing lives up-front due to recent memories of war, we let Hitler dig in, and learned that he was far more vile then the Kaiser. Many soldiers died on the beaches of Normandy, and subsequently against any entrenched Germans because of this.
Chamberlain thought he could appease a charismatic egotistical megalomaniac, and he was wrong.
One fact you may not know about WW2, during some daylight targeted bombing runs (on war industry like ball bearing factories, while Britain did cover of night area bombing) with 1,000+ bombers in the air at once, we took 30%+ losses.
The problem is the use of placebo in practice is dishonest. A doctor you are supposed to trust inherently is essentially lying to you, this is the problem. Now when testing new drugs it is ok because you are not yet sure of the new substances efficacy. Now, if that drug is dramatically beating placebo it becomes unethical to continue. The Tuskegee syphilis studies became unethical as penicillin was discovered to be effective, and was withheld.g
Ther is a deeper problem, a sectarian one, Though they seek "pure" Islam, there are two "Islam"s to seek. Obviously the Sunni see the Shia as heretics, and their reverence of Ali as idolatry. And the Persians have this "hidden Imam" thing going on. With each revolution of Earth, this gets more and more interesting.
I hope Israel's renewed diplomatic relations with Turkey does something to keep this part of the world from melting down.
True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?
Biblical scholars (as opposed to the nutjob putting up this award) theorize that the books of Moses are assembled from at least three traditions. This becomes more clear when looking at the original Hebrew - the words used for "God" change where in English they are translated into the same word. As a Catholic, disproving the Bible means little to me since it is only a part of my faith, not the whole foundation of it. Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct because of their subscription to the sola scriptura heresy which separates them from Catholicism.
To me, Genesis is a collection of myths with a spiritual truth to be discerned from them. They are instructive stories, not a literal chronicle of events.
Do you think that is because the Catholic church forbid non-priests to read the bible for a bit more than a millennia, or another reason?
After your toddler blows her head off, you realize that the teddy bear was a loaded custom-designed teddy-bear-shaped semi-automatic pistol with the safety off.
Dutch authorities and the police have made several attempts to enter the bunker by force but failed to do so.
From TFA:
Cyberbunker brags on its Web site that it has been a frequent target of law enforcement because of its “many controversial customers.” The company claims that at one point it fended off a Dutch SWAT team.
“Dutch authorities and the police have made several attempts to enter the bunker by force,” the site said. “None of these attempts were successful.”
In other words: Cyberbunker is not currently under assault by police, and we have only their word that they ever have been. I suspect that at one time they were successful in having visiting cops think nobody was home by being real quiet and quickly turning off all the lights.
Why would you turn the lights off? It's very apparent visually, and confirms people are there. I'd leave them alone, people leave some lights on in their house... or bunker, even when absent.
Wow, anthrax that is 20% pure and nuclear bombs which fizzle scare me and guns which work 80% of the time should be of some concern to them.
Besides the metal 3D printer I've seen could spit out air-cooled, motor-driven chain guns! You could just buy or repurpose barrels as they aren't regulated at all. I bet guns made with that machine would be on their radar. Some one who could purchase a few of those, or even just one and some CNC machines could turn out many guns quickly.
It would be cool if in a US military armory you could print your gun and snap it together, and then just store the metal powder in different alloys and the ordinance, and maybe a nylon and a synthetic rubber printer for making pads for stocks, grips, casing. I've thought a fiberglass or carbon fiber 3D printer would be cool, if it was just heat activated resin applied in very thin strands.
Some time ago a normal looking guy tried to bum some money from me, supposedly for a cup of coffee. Instead I offered to go into a deli with him and pay for his coffee, which he declined. I talked with him some more, and he told me how he asks strangers for money daily, but not because he needs the money. It's a game of points to him. One dollar is one hundred points. I realized that he obviously had some deeper mental issues, and after (unsuccessfully) trying to explain to him why he shouldn't do that to people, I left him.
To all outward appearances this guy seemed 'normal', but he did have his own weird point scoring game inside his head that he plays on people. (And I thank God that the 'points' he plays for are really just pennies.)
He may have looked normal but I bet that 500 points got him a rock of crack, a shard of meth, a bag of heroin or a bottle of cheap wine. The game where you want to win but no one ever does.
> I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.
This wouldn't be the same pilots who missed a audible LORAN transmitter's approach turn signal in the Andes and killed 200 people crashing into a mountain?
Because of course, all pilots are "experts" at what they do and they never make poor choices killing hundreds of their clients.
And it is a flagrant violation of FAAs clean cockpit rules.
I think parts of the presidency are more detailed than you think. Think of OBL raid in abottabad. There were probably several scenarios, each described in detail, and repercussions of each discussed. Then the president sat there with his cabinet and watched it unfold.
A lot is necessarily delegated, but on the important stuff, I bet all good presidents have been very well informed of varying plans, contingencies, pros and cons ect.
I'm sure the good people of New York will tell you Obama learned from Bush's mistakes and was careful to have a more coordinated response when a major hurricane happened on his watch. The people of Staten Island were well cared for in a timely manner in spite of the pressures of election day politics.
Oh, wait...
.
If Obama had only gotten his congressional caucus to vote for Aid! Wait, you mean the President is head of the executive branch? You say it was the opposite party who blocked aid funds, while one individual (R) a few months before stood there and requested funds for damage from Katrina!
There is a reason (Gov of NJ- R) Christie had very much anger for his party in the legislature.
Again, all you have to do is compare the population vs death toll. With many multiples of people more, two digits of people died, instead of 1,xxx.
True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk. Banning things can be doing something about it if the thing being banned is just too damaging vs any possible benefit.
This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason. The possible abuse of pot and the resulting damage vs the number of people who would responsibly enjoy it or use it for medication tilts towards legalization. The risk of damage caused by heroin vs any possible benefit is heavily tilted towards damage. This is also why I dislike rules created to address a single, small, event. All too often people (especially parents) will push for new laws every time someone is killed or hurt. Repeating events should be addressed but not a single isolated event unless the cost of the fix is moderate (e.g. a plane crash due to a malfunctioning part).
Your black and white position on cannabis/heroin (di-acetyl-morphine) is simplistic. In some EU countries, heroin is made available to addicts. Properly crime and IV disease transmission plummeted rapidly. With drugs, there should be no illegality, just levels of control, if that.
We got on for 6000 years with opium, with the main problem starting with the British controlling it and forcing Chinese addicts to subsist on it making them (the British) rich. Along similar but less damaging lines the British also introduced tea to India (well not tea itself but how to drink a bunch like a Brit) then sold it to them! The British were one of the biggest bullies and thieves of the 19th/20th centuries.
I've always found this "French surrender monkey" thing odd. Did this start with Bush or WWII?
I mean, not only does France have one of the highest military expenditures currently, but when i think of the French military i think of Austerlitz and Napolean's "Grand Armee." France raised the largest army on earth which then conquered most of Europe and remained undefeated for more than a decade until it grew over-confident.
A French general will always grace the ranks of Alexander, Cesar, and Hannibal.
I guess i shouldn't have said ethanol, just culloistic fuels in general. What is butanol? I'm looking at VW or Audi's tdi (turbo diesel) right now for the next car.
Slashdot Mirror
We shall have evolved as a species when value stops meaning dollar signs and means quality and compassion. Two non-virtual humanistic constructs.
In my opinion anyway.
Anyone wanna buy shares in my idea?
If they're stealth bombers, how will the North Koreans notice to get scared?
Because we have no reason to lie, other than to save gas, and they know it.
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.
It was Ghandi's advice, he believed it better to die than fight.
I think that it is very wrong to say it led to WW2 as WW2 had really already begun. I think it was about taking all reasonable steps to avoid the inevitable. When a paramedic arrives at an accident and the injured person is purple, he still tries to resuscitate, does he believe that he will succeed? No, but he knows that he must try. Did Chamberlain believe that he would succeed? I do not know but could he commit the British people to that level of death and destruction without having tried?
Unfortunately by waiting, instead of committing, and saying "NO MORE!" Hitler had time to divide and conquer Poland and then rapidly go around the Maginot line. At least it gave us time for one of the largest evacuations in history.
By being indecisive and not committing lives up-front due to recent memories of war, we let Hitler dig in, and learned that he was far more vile then the Kaiser. Many soldiers died on the beaches of Normandy, and subsequently against any entrenched Germans because of this.
Chamberlain thought he could appease a charismatic egotistical megalomaniac, and he was wrong.
One fact you may not know about WW2, during some daylight targeted bombing runs (on war industry like ball bearing factories, while Britain did cover of night area bombing) with 1,000+ bombers in the air at once, we took 30%+ losses.
You're going to have to explain that one to us.
I think it was sarcasm.
The problem is the use of placebo in practice is dishonest. A doctor you are supposed to trust inherently is essentially lying to you, this is the problem. Now when testing new drugs it is ok because you are not yet sure of the new substances efficacy. Now, if that drug is dramatically beating placebo it becomes unethical to continue. The Tuskegee syphilis studies became unethical as penicillin was discovered to be effective, and was withheld.g
Ther is a deeper problem, a sectarian one, Though they seek "pure" Islam, there are two "Islam"s to seek. Obviously the Sunni see the Shia as heretics, and their reverence of Ali as idolatry. And the Persians have this "hidden Imam" thing going on. With each revolution of Earth, this gets more and more interesting.
I hope Israel's renewed diplomatic relations with Turkey does something to keep this part of the world from melting down.
I will gladly fund your novel (kickstarter!). Just tell me, who is David, Pharaoh, and Moses?
True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?
Biblical scholars (as opposed to the nutjob putting up this award) theorize that the books of Moses are assembled from at least three traditions. This becomes more clear when looking at the original Hebrew - the words used for "God" change where in English they are translated into the same word. As a Catholic, disproving the Bible means little to me since it is only a part of my faith, not the whole foundation of it. Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct because of their subscription to the sola scriptura heresy which separates them from Catholicism.
To me, Genesis is a collection of myths with a spiritual truth to be discerned from them. They are instructive stories, not a literal chronicle of events.
Do you think that is because the Catholic church forbid non-priests to read the bible for a bit more than a millennia, or another reason?
After your toddler blows her head off, you realize that the teddy bear was a loaded custom-designed teddy-bear-shaped semi-automatic pistol with the safety off.
.
Whos houses are you visiting?
And I'll take two.
Looking around it seems there are some people upset with spamhaus. Like these guys at StopHaus. Not exactly sure what their beef is:
http://stophaus.com/entry.php?5-The-Real-story-on-the-New-York-Times-Article-and-all-the-SPAMHAUS-stuff
are you concerned about law enforcement?
ddos attacks have always been around
i'd say spamhaus should be concerned about law enforcement
I dunno if they're admitting responsibility, but if they are responsible, they're in serious trouble.
More likely some mafiosi that controls malware and spambots, and their "clients" don't like a bunch of amateurs blocking their messages.
DING DING DING
From the BBC article:
Spamhaus has alleged that Cyberbunker, in cooperation with "criminal gangs" from Eastern Europe and Russia, is behind the attack.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636
No b/s subscription paywall nonsense
More likely some mafiosi that controls malware and spambots, and their "clients" don't like a bunch of amateurs blocking their messages.
This is far more likely. Maybe if the kid rented it from a criminal enterprise, but i doubt some kid is in de facto control of such a vast swarm.
From the summary:
From TFA:
In other words: Cyberbunker is not currently under assault by police, and we have only their word that they ever have been. I suspect that at one time they were successful in having visiting cops think nobody was home by being real quiet and quickly turning off all the lights.
Why would you turn the lights off? It's very apparent visually, and confirms people are there. I'd leave them alone, people leave some lights on in their house... or bunker, even when absent.
Google voice is free and provides speech-to-text. They'll even text it to you.
Wow, anthrax that is 20% pure and nuclear bombs which fizzle scare me and guns which work 80% of the time should be of some concern to them.
Besides the metal 3D printer I've seen could spit out air-cooled, motor-driven chain guns! You could just buy or repurpose barrels as they aren't regulated at all. I bet guns made with that machine would be on their radar. Some one who could purchase a few of those, or even just one and some CNC machines could turn out many guns quickly.
It would be cool if in a US military armory you could print your gun and snap it together, and then just store the metal powder in different alloys and the ordinance, and maybe a nylon and a synthetic rubber printer for making pads for stocks, grips, casing. I've thought a fiberglass or carbon fiber 3D printer would be cool, if it was just heat activated resin applied in very thin strands.
Some time ago a normal looking guy tried to bum some money from me, supposedly for a cup of coffee. Instead I offered to go into a deli with him and pay for his coffee, which he declined. I talked with him some more, and he told me how he asks strangers for money daily, but not because he needs the money. It's a game of points to him. One dollar is one hundred points. I realized that he obviously had some deeper mental issues, and after (unsuccessfully) trying to explain to him why he shouldn't do that to people, I left him.
To all outward appearances this guy seemed 'normal', but he did have his own weird point scoring game inside his head that he plays on people. (And I thank God that the 'points' he plays for are really just pennies.)
He may have looked normal but I bet that 500 points got him a rock of crack, a shard of meth, a bag of heroin or a bottle of cheap wine. The game where you want to win but no one ever does.
> I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.
This wouldn't be the same pilots who missed a audible LORAN transmitter's approach turn signal in the Andes and killed 200 people crashing into a mountain?
Because of course, all pilots are "experts" at what they do and they never make poor choices killing hundreds of their clients.
And it is a flagrant violation of FAAs clean cockpit rules.
I think parts of the presidency are more detailed than you think. Think of OBL raid in abottabad. There were probably several scenarios, each described in detail, and repercussions of each discussed. Then the president sat there with his cabinet and watched it unfold.
A lot is necessarily delegated, but on the important stuff, I bet all good presidents have been very well informed of varying plans, contingencies, pros and cons ect.
I'm sure the good people of New York will tell you Obama learned from Bush's mistakes and was careful to have a more coordinated response when a major hurricane happened on his watch. The people of Staten Island were well cared for in a timely manner in spite of the pressures of election day politics.
Oh, wait...
.
If Obama had only gotten his congressional caucus to vote for Aid! Wait, you mean the President is head of the executive branch? You say it was the opposite party who blocked aid funds, while one individual (R) a few months before stood there and requested funds for damage from Katrina!
There is a reason (Gov of NJ- R) Christie had very much anger for his party in the legislature.
Again, all you have to do is compare the population vs death toll. With many multiples of people more, two digits of people died, instead of 1,xxx.
True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk. Banning things can be doing something about it if the thing being banned is just too damaging vs any possible benefit.
This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason. The possible abuse of pot and the resulting damage vs the number of people who would responsibly enjoy it or use it for medication tilts towards legalization. The risk of damage caused by heroin vs any possible benefit is heavily tilted towards damage. This is also why I dislike rules created to address a single, small, event. All too often people (especially parents) will push for new laws every time someone is killed or hurt. Repeating events should be addressed but not a single isolated event unless the cost of the fix is moderate (e.g. a plane crash due to a malfunctioning part).
Your black and white position on cannabis/heroin (di-acetyl-morphine) is simplistic. In some EU countries, heroin is made available to addicts. Properly crime and IV disease transmission plummeted rapidly. With drugs, there should be no illegality, just levels of control, if that.
We got on for 6000 years with opium, with the main problem starting with the British controlling it and forcing Chinese addicts to subsist on it making them (the British) rich. Along similar but less damaging lines the British also introduced tea to India (well not tea itself but how to drink a bunch like a Brit) then sold it to them! The British were one of the biggest bullies and thieves of the 19th/20th centuries.
I've always found this "French surrender monkey" thing odd. Did this start with Bush or WWII?
I mean, not only does France have one of the highest military expenditures currently, but when i think of the French military i think of Austerlitz and Napolean's "Grand Armee." France raised the largest army on earth which then conquered most of Europe and remained undefeated for more than a decade until it grew over-confident.
A French general will always grace the ranks of Alexander, Cesar, and Hannibal.
What about "HOSHOW"?
Sorry, we're not playing Jeopardy! And the question is not "your Mother's occupation."
=-)
I still think celluloistic ethanol production is most promising as you can grow for the most biomass/m2.
Ethanol is a dream, and a dumb one. We should be making biodiesel and butanol, but we are not due to corporate malfeasance and greed.
I guess i shouldn't have said ethanol, just culloistic fuels in general. What is butanol? I'm looking at VW or Audi's tdi (turbo diesel) right now for the next car.