The German crew knew their position was untenable - they could stay and get the shit pounded out of them without being able to maneuver or fire back, slowly getting killed, or they could abandon ship. Naval honor dictated scuttling their ship before abandoning so the enemy couldn't have her.
As it happened the RN left the area because they believed U-boats were on the way and they didn't want their nice battleships and cruisers getting torpedoed.
What? No. With WWII tanks you want to have a crew of ~5 men for maximum efficiency:
Commander - spots the enemy and directs the tank crew's actions, sometimes has a flexible machine gun on top of the turret for anti-aircraft use Gunner - controls the main gun and coaxial machine gun Loader - keeps the above guns fed Driver - Moves the tank around Hull gunner - fires the hull machine gun for dealing with enemy infantry
You see this scheme in modern tanks, albeit without the hull gunner because the extra machine gun's been eliminated.
Some earlier designs combined the commander and gunner into one person, which impaired efficiency, and other designs (like the M3 medium tank) had two large guns, each with a gunner and loader. The common German tanks had the same sized crew (5) as a Sherman, differing only in assigned duties for the hull gunner.
Soviet casualties were also higher because the Nazis viewed Slavs as being sub-human, and so were inclined to treat POWs and civilians as little better than animals.
The Soviets returned the favor with German prisoners.
That's a stupid argument. The T-34 was built in large numbers because it was good enough; nobody's going to build a lot of an inferior design just to replace losses.
Japan and the A6M Zero notwithstanding, and that was a bit of a special case because the IJN lagged on getting a newer design to replace it.
The lion's share of those Allied deaths were Soviet and Chinese, against the Germans and Japanese respectively. Both of these countries lost more civilians to atrocities than they did soldiers to battle.
Can someone explain why CDMA inherently forbids SIM cards or an analogous device that lets you move your account over to any old compatible phone without the telecom getting involved?
I'm looking for a technical reason, not "money money money".
We actually did something like that when we interviewed Unix sysadmins a couple months ago, except instead of writing a program they had to install and configure a certain package correctly on a virtual machine.
That does not surprise me, with Romney wanting to grow the US military again without raising taxes to pay for it - sounds awfully neocon.
What does surprise me (but perhaps shouldn't) is that the media doesn't seem to have made the connection. I'd hope the Obama campaign would bring it up if/when Romney's the nominee, but there's only so much competence I can expect out of Obama.
Invading Saudi would never happen, even if we had a major falling-out. That's where a bunch of Muslim holy sites are and an invasion would piss off pretty much the entire Middle East, northern Africa, and a good part of southeast Asia.
Why,/yes/, it was. See: 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights explicitly apply to the states, and the 13th, which said the states can't make slavery the law anymore,
It's been taken too far in various places, but the Civil War forever settled whether the states or the federal government had supremacy.
I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing, idiot; you're reading what I said and assigning a meaning according to your own prejudices.
The difference is that a mere states-rightser will say "OK, you states can be just as tyrannical as you like, the federal government shouldn't be able to stop you", which is the vibe I get off Ron Paul, while an actual libertarian will say "OK, you governments can't be tyrannical".
Well, no, it probably won't. I had some doofus argue with me a couple days ago about how the GOP was the party of civil rights even though all the Southern Dem bigots left that party during the Johnson era and were welcomed into the Republican Party as part of the Southern Strategy.
Perhaps that's because so many Internet Libertarians have a very shallow philosophy that they haven't thought through the consequences of. I know; I used to be that guy.
It's not true of all libertarians, but damnation are there a lot of that kind spouting off.
The best ones are the *atheist* free-market zealots who will get/very offended/ if you compare their zeal to religious belief. They totally can't see it, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
There was an official contest of some sort a couple years back, and one of the prizes was getting a random abandoned low-UID account.
Don't believe Taco ever said which account it was.
The German crew knew their position was untenable - they could stay and get the shit pounded out of them without being able to maneuver or fire back, slowly getting killed, or they could abandon ship. Naval honor dictated scuttling their ship before abandoning so the enemy couldn't have her.
As it happened the RN left the area because they believed U-boats were on the way and they didn't want their nice battleships and cruisers getting torpedoed.
If only we had some kind of missile!
What? No. With WWII tanks you want to have a crew of ~5 men for maximum efficiency:
Commander - spots the enemy and directs the tank crew's actions, sometimes has a flexible machine gun on top of the turret for anti-aircraft use
Gunner - controls the main gun and coaxial machine gun
Loader - keeps the above guns fed
Driver - Moves the tank around
Hull gunner - fires the hull machine gun for dealing with enemy infantry
You see this scheme in modern tanks, albeit without the hull gunner because the extra machine gun's been eliminated.
Some earlier designs combined the commander and gunner into one person, which impaired efficiency, and other designs (like the M3 medium tank) had two large guns, each with a gunner and loader. The common German tanks had the same sized crew (5) as a Sherman, differing only in assigned duties for the hull gunner.
Soviet casualties were also higher because the Nazis viewed Slavs as being sub-human, and so were inclined to treat POWs and civilians as little better than animals.
The Soviets returned the favor with German prisoners.
The Sherman /did/ have two ways in which it was superior to the German tanks:
1) Mobility. They were faster, more reliable, and longer-ranged.
2) Easier to mass-produce, so there were more of them.
I'd still not have wanted to be in a Sherman crew vs. the Germans, though.
That's a stupid argument. The T-34 was built in large numbers because it was good enough; nobody's going to build a lot of an inferior design just to replace losses.
Japan and the A6M Zero notwithstanding, and that was a bit of a special case because the IJN lagged on getting a newer design to replace it.
The lion's share of those Allied deaths were Soviet and Chinese, against the Germans and Japanese respectively. Both of these countries lost more civilians to atrocities than they did soldiers to battle.
No, it would have stayed afloat until the RN captured her, hence the scuttling.
Can someone explain why CDMA inherently forbids SIM cards or an analogous device that lets you move your account over to any old compatible phone without the telecom getting involved?
I'm looking for a technical reason, not "money money money".
We actually did something like that when we interviewed Unix sysadmins a couple months ago, except instead of writing a program they had to install and configure a certain package correctly on a virtual machine.
That does not surprise me, with Romney wanting to grow the US military again without raising taxes to pay for it - sounds awfully neocon.
What does surprise me (but perhaps shouldn't) is that the media doesn't seem to have made the connection. I'd hope the Obama campaign would bring it up if/when Romney's the nominee, but there's only so much competence I can expect out of Obama.
Invading Saudi would never happen, even if we had a major falling-out. That's where a bunch of Muslim holy sites are and an invasion would piss off pretty much the entire Middle East, northern Africa, and a good part of southeast Asia.
SA would require a revolt to topple.
I'm /sure/ you've got a cite for the Iraqis having yellowcake, let alone civilians getting hold of it after the invasion.
Wrong. The 14th says the states no longer have the rights to deny to their citizens
1) the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and
2) other rights as enumerated in federal law.
Why, /yes/, it was. See: 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights explicitly apply to the states, and the 13th, which said the states can't make slavery the law anymore,
It's been taken too far in various places, but the Civil War forever settled whether the states or the federal government had supremacy.
I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing, idiot; you're reading what I said and assigning a meaning according to your own prejudices.
The difference is that a mere states-rightser will say "OK, you states can be just as tyrannical as you like, the federal government shouldn't be able to stop you", which is the vibe I get off Ron Paul, while an actual libertarian will say "OK, you governments can't be tyrannical".
Well, no, it probably won't. I had some doofus argue with me a couple days ago about how the GOP was the party of civil rights even though all the Southern Dem bigots left that party during the Johnson era and were welcomed into the Republican Party as part of the Southern Strategy.
Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a States Rights-er. Big difference.
You have a very shallow view of Libertarians.
Perhaps that's because so many Internet Libertarians have a very shallow philosophy that they haven't thought through the consequences of. I know; I used to be that guy.
It's not true of all libertarians, but damnation are there a lot of that kind spouting off.
The best ones are the *atheist* free-market zealots who will get /very offended/ if you compare their zeal to religious belief. They totally can't see it, of course.
Out here in the real world the rich can afford better lawyers than we can; y'know, /free market/.
Because clearly pollutants are polite enough to stop at state lines.
Fuckwit.
Hmm. It was in the Johnson era that the Dixiecrats left to practice their bigotry in a party that would still allow it.
I'm sure I won't /convince/ you that you're wrong - you seem to be a Fox News true-believer - but I still must try.
Whoo, if you think ESR Firefox is enterprise-hostile, wait until you see RMS Firefox.