It's a little thing called context, which you blatantly disregarded in your attempt to be pedantic. The entire post was phrased in the context of US-Japanese relations on how individual acts of Japanese aggression caused various responses by the US. Until December 7 (8), 1942 the Japan and US were not at a state of war. Being in a state of war with one country does not prevent you from going to war with a country you were previous not at war with.
Malaysia military reported a radar response for the plane off the west coast of Malaysia over the Straight of Malacca.
What I suspect is they had a depressurization requiring descent to 10,000ft that dropped them off radar. Then they banked to port, turned off their transponder, flew over Thailand (made easier to not having a transponder on) to reach the Straight of Malacca in order to attempt to return to Kuala Lumpur. Why they didn't turn the transponder back on would be a good question but I bet they landed in water in one piece and was submerged.
Given that Thailand and Malaysia have had some soured relations recently....
Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd General Army which was responsible for the defense of Western Japan. The effect of the bomb was to write off the entire army as nearly its entire command staff was killed, it's logistics were thoroughly wrecked, and numerous combat units for that army were entirely written off by the bomb.
Additionally, it didn't matter if plenty of people in high positions believed the war was over and that surrender was the only option. You're ignoring the political climate that lead up to the conflict in the first place and other aspects of the Japanese country. One significant factor was while the IJN and civilian portions (including Emperor Hirohito) were convinced the war was over numerous power players in the IJA were not in agreement with that certainty and that is the critical problem that would have prevented surrended. The entirety of the actions by Japan leading up to WW2 were heavily influenced, caused, or directed by the IJA and Zaibatsu. So much that Emperor Hirohito and other civilian government officials were certain the only thing they could do was "ride the tiger" and try to influence it. If they did otherwise they were fearful of a military coup that would have usurped that far more passive Hirohito and placed his brother Chichibu (a staunch IJA supporter) as Emperor of Japan.
It took both bombs for the IJA power players to get the hint that they lost.
Kokura's population wasn't saved by the decision to use the atomic bomb. It was the primary target for Fat Boy but due to cloud cover the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki instead.
I wouldn't say that Japan started the conflict. They fired the first shot but the US pushed them into a corner where the war became inevitable. That push came after the Japanese invades south east Asia and French forces had surrended to them. The US them came out swinging demanding that Japan leave south east Asia and withdraw from China. The US had not previously demanded Japan withdraw from China when all the atrocities were going on. When Japan made a counteroffer of withdrawing from south east Asia and returning to the status before than invasion the US refused and at that point war became mostly inevitable because the US's demands would have caused Japan to lose a lot of face.
Conclusive proof? Probably not but it was a reasonable expectation. America was well aware of many of the atrocities that were going on during the 2nd Sino-Japanese war leading up to World War II. Japanese soldiers in the army were infused with an utterly bastardized form of bushido and were treated barbaricly by their superiors.
Hiroshima was very must a strategically justified target on military grounds. It was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd General Army which was responsible for the defense of a significant portion of the Japanese homeland. The atomic bomb caused critical damage to that army. It wiped out the headquarters, most of the army's staff officers were killed by it (the commanding general was away when the bomb dropped), the logistics for that army were wiped out, and numerous formations were written off by the bomb's effect. In essence that bomb completely wrote off one of the two armies responsible for defending the Japanese mainland.
Malaysian military radar's last signal for what they believe was this flight was over the Straight of Malacca. More specifically it was roughly 300km NW of Kuala Lumpur. The radar signal that showed the plane possible turning around was roughly 750km NNE of Kuala Lumpur.
If that is true, it means the plane banked port, crossed over Thailand and was probably trying to return to Kuala Lumpur. It likely also touched down on water in one piece and became submerged with a limited debris field. I'm thinking that they'll find it by Friday, submerged in the Straight of Malacca, in mostly one piece.
People are attacking libertarians over it because they don't know the difference between anarchist, minarchist, and libertarian. Bitcoin is the anarchist/minarchist wet dream because it completely eliminates the need for government in money. Libertarians would be, rightfully, more divided on the issue but one thing is certain that the should be generally be constitutionalists. Strictly speaking, libertarians want the USD to be backed by something tangibile (like gold). Many are also in favor of FDIC insurance. Both of those things are part of the powers granted to the US government to regulate the value of money.
Even assuming this wasn't comparing lab to lab and basing it solely on the fact this is experimentation, that is no reason not to take prudent steps and implement prudent safety regulations governing PPE or other behaviors.
Yes, by all means armchair quarterback what you think the market wants and by all means go ahead and disregard what the data shows. It's not like a harvard professor has studied the issue and written a book on why blockbusters are safer bets than smaller productions. This is no 2+2=5. It's all about marketing and with marketing each cumulative dollar adds more effect than the dollar before it. That's what the AAA blockbusters have as an advantage that minor projects simply can't afford. Yes. It is a big bet but the chance it goes bust on you is far lower than the smaller projects that you can't do much marketing on. What happens is that because the company made a big bet, it starts generating noise and reviewers start looking at it, distributors start looking at it, basically everything you want. If you don't push that kind of marketing money behind the product then you have a lot less interest from the chain between you and the customer. It's with the former situation that your chances of success and turning a profit goes up.
But by all means, continue ignoring what and why businesses do things, any study of marketing, or even how the slashdot opinion does not at all capture and reflect popular opinion and reaction and that they are not the target of the strategy. Because the simple fact of the matter is that the high risk stuff is funded because of the AAAs. All you have to do is look at the dollars spent versus the return of AAAs and the smaller projects (factoring in the ones that lose money in both cases) and you'll start to see that the return on value for the AAAs is drastically higher. Those AAAs with their relatively safe bets provide a plethora of cash that lets the publishers go after and attempt those riskier products that have smaller budgets and not a lot of marketing.
Considering the prevalence of the blockbuster strategy in all forms of entertainment media and their coupled spectacular profits, I'd definitely be more inclined to agree with what Miss Anita Elberse has to say on the topic than your rather uninformed opinion that it's "dangerous".
You can put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters and eventually get works that rival that of Shakespear. That doesn't mean it's sane to fund a massive arcology of monkeys and typewriters to try to get great works.
AAA titles are safer bets than an equal amount of dollars in lesser productions. You know why? When you have one title, as opposed to say 10 titles, you're spending X money marketing one game rather than X/10 money marketing each of the individual games. Success of a title does not grow linearly with marketing dollars and more dollars often yields a far larger ratio of value than a small amount of dollars. Your marketing dollars are also not being spent competing against your own titles by having a single AAA over multiple titles.
Because that free product helps collect information on their real product. If their real product isn't using their free products, how do they have information to sell to about their product?
They should just pass a law that states that you must be hands free while driving. Problem solved because that's the obvious reason for the cell phone law.
I think that's a point that is lost on bitcoin supporters. They call it a currency but its value is inflating and deflating by big margins over short periods of time. That behavior isn't anywhere close to a currency. That's a speculative good like crude oil. The only reason I have to buy a bitcoin is I believe the value of it will rise and I can sell it later or there is something sold only in bitcoin, in which case I will buy exactly what I need to purchase the good.
Any vendors who aren't tracking the prices of their goods (in bitcoin) with relation to the inflation and deflation of the value of bitcoin in other currencies is taking a gamble that it's going to increase in a value that exceeds their costs. Especially any vendor who are dependent on vendors which do not accept bitcoin. Sell a $500 item for 1 Bitcoin (which is $700 at the time) and watch that value plummet to $300 and you've taken a loss on that item if you need to get capital to keep your business running.
Even worse, the supporters of bitcoin are telling people to get into it because the price is going to rise. So on one hand they call a currency and on the other they're encouraging people to get involved in it as a speculative good. The whole thing is just insane.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a little thing called context, which you blatantly disregarded in your attempt to be pedantic. The entire post was phrased in the context of US-Japanese relations on how individual acts of Japanese aggression caused various responses by the US. Until December 7 (8), 1942 the Japan and US were not at a state of war. Being in a state of war with one country does not prevent you from going to war with a country you were previous not at war with.
Malaysia military reported a radar response for the plane off the west coast of Malaysia over the Straight of Malacca.
What I suspect is they had a depressurization requiring descent to 10,000ft that dropped them off radar. Then they banked to port, turned off their transponder, flew over Thailand (made easier to not having a transponder on) to reach the Straight of Malacca in order to attempt to return to Kuala Lumpur. Why they didn't turn the transponder back on would be a good question but I bet they landed in water in one piece and was submerged.
Given that Thailand and Malaysia have had some soured relations recently....
Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd General Army which was responsible for the defense of Western Japan. The effect of the bomb was to write off the entire army as nearly its entire command staff was killed, it's logistics were thoroughly wrecked, and numerous combat units for that army were entirely written off by the bomb.
Additionally, it didn't matter if plenty of people in high positions believed the war was over and that surrender was the only option. You're ignoring the political climate that lead up to the conflict in the first place and other aspects of the Japanese country. One significant factor was while the IJN and civilian portions (including Emperor Hirohito) were convinced the war was over numerous power players in the IJA were not in agreement with that certainty and that is the critical problem that would have prevented surrended. The entirety of the actions by Japan leading up to WW2 were heavily influenced, caused, or directed by the IJA and Zaibatsu. So much that Emperor Hirohito and other civilian government officials were certain the only thing they could do was "ride the tiger" and try to influence it. If they did otherwise they were fearful of a military coup that would have usurped that far more passive Hirohito and placed his brother Chichibu (a staunch IJA supporter) as Emperor of Japan.
It took both bombs for the IJA power players to get the hint that they lost.
Kokura's population wasn't saved by the decision to use the atomic bomb. It was the primary target for Fat Boy but due to cloud cover the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki instead.
I wasn't aware that when the Japanese invaded french indochina in 1940 that they had been at war with the US for a decade. Shit, context is hard.
I wouldn't say that Japan started the conflict. They fired the first shot but the US pushed them into a corner where the war became inevitable. That push came after the Japanese invades south east Asia and French forces had surrended to them. The US them came out swinging demanding that Japan leave south east Asia and withdraw from China. The US had not previously demanded Japan withdraw from China when all the atrocities were going on. When Japan made a counteroffer of withdrawing from south east Asia and returning to the status before than invasion the US refused and at that point war became mostly inevitable because the US's demands would have caused Japan to lose a lot of face.
Conclusive proof? Probably not but it was a reasonable expectation. America was well aware of many of the atrocities that were going on during the 2nd Sino-Japanese war leading up to World War II. Japanese soldiers in the army were infused with an utterly bastardized form of bushido and were treated barbaricly by their superiors.
Hiroshima was very must a strategically justified target on military grounds. It was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd General Army which was responsible for the defense of a significant portion of the Japanese homeland. The atomic bomb caused critical damage to that army. It wiped out the headquarters, most of the army's staff officers were killed by it (the commanding general was away when the bomb dropped), the logistics for that army were wiped out, and numerous formations were written off by the bomb's effect. In essence that bomb completely wrote off one of the two armies responsible for defending the Japanese mainland.
Malaysian military radar's last signal for what they believe was this flight was over the Straight of Malacca. More specifically it was roughly 300km NW of Kuala Lumpur. The radar signal that showed the plane possible turning around was roughly 750km NNE of Kuala Lumpur.
If that is true, it means the plane banked port, crossed over Thailand and was probably trying to return to Kuala Lumpur. It likely also touched down on water in one piece and became submerged with a limited debris field. I'm thinking that they'll find it by Friday, submerged in the Straight of Malacca, in mostly one piece.
If those passports were stolen by terrorists, their affiliated organization would have piped up by now to claim responsibility for it.
Leonardo Di Caprio still hasn't won one. Are you sure they aren't rigged?
When the bugs coming, nuking it from orbit is about the only thing you can do.
People are attacking libertarians over it because they don't know the difference between anarchist, minarchist, and libertarian. Bitcoin is the anarchist/minarchist wet dream because it completely eliminates the need for government in money. Libertarians would be, rightfully, more divided on the issue but one thing is certain that the should be generally be constitutionalists. Strictly speaking, libertarians want the USD to be backed by something tangibile (like gold). Many are also in favor of FDIC insurance. Both of those things are part of the powers granted to the US government to regulate the value of money.
Plastics. We're don't burn them and drops of oil are used to create them.
I'll take that retirement fund now, thx.
Even assuming this wasn't comparing lab to lab and basing it solely on the fact this is experimentation, that is no reason not to take prudent steps and implement prudent safety regulations governing PPE or other behaviors.
I thought Charles Whitman used a M-1.
Yes, by all means armchair quarterback what you think the market wants and by all means go ahead and disregard what the data shows. It's not like a harvard professor has studied the issue and written a book on why blockbusters are safer bets than smaller productions. This is no 2+2=5. It's all about marketing and with marketing each cumulative dollar adds more effect than the dollar before it. That's what the AAA blockbusters have as an advantage that minor projects simply can't afford. Yes. It is a big bet but the chance it goes bust on you is far lower than the smaller projects that you can't do much marketing on. What happens is that because the company made a big bet, it starts generating noise and reviewers start looking at it, distributors start looking at it, basically everything you want. If you don't push that kind of marketing money behind the product then you have a lot less interest from the chain between you and the customer. It's with the former situation that your chances of success and turning a profit goes up.
But by all means, continue ignoring what and why businesses do things, any study of marketing, or even how the slashdot opinion does not at all capture and reflect popular opinion and reaction and that they are not the target of the strategy. Because the simple fact of the matter is that the high risk stuff is funded because of the AAAs. All you have to do is look at the dollars spent versus the return of AAAs and the smaller projects (factoring in the ones that lose money in both cases) and you'll start to see that the return on value for the AAAs is drastically higher. Those AAAs with their relatively safe bets provide a plethora of cash that lets the publishers go after and attempt those riskier products that have smaller budgets and not a lot of marketing.
Considering the prevalence of the blockbuster strategy in all forms of entertainment media and their coupled spectacular profits, I'd definitely be more inclined to agree with what Miss Anita Elberse has to say on the topic than your rather uninformed opinion that it's "dangerous".
http://www.amazon.com/Blockbus...
You can put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters and eventually get works that rival that of Shakespear. That doesn't mean it's sane to fund a massive arcology of monkeys and typewriters to try to get great works.
AAA titles are safer bets than an equal amount of dollars in lesser productions. You know why? When you have one title, as opposed to say 10 titles, you're spending X money marketing one game rather than X/10 money marketing each of the individual games. Success of a title does not grow linearly with marketing dollars and more dollars often yields a far larger ratio of value than a small amount of dollars. Your marketing dollars are also not being spent competing against your own titles by having a single AAA over multiple titles.
Painstakingly crafted? You are talking about The Elder Bugs, right? Er I mean The Elder Scrolls.
In other news. Twitch Plays Pokemon beat the game in 18 days. Meanwhile Linux GPU driver support is still shit.
Because that free product helps collect information on their real product. If their real product isn't using their free products, how do they have information to sell to about their product?
If anyone wants to get into bitcoin at this stage they also need to use one of those very exchanges.
They should just pass a law that states that you must be hands free while driving. Problem solved because that's the obvious reason for the cell phone law.
I'm pretty sure it's value is in it being a speculative trade good.
I think that's a point that is lost on bitcoin supporters. They call it a currency but its value is inflating and deflating by big margins over short periods of time. That behavior isn't anywhere close to a currency. That's a speculative good like crude oil. The only reason I have to buy a bitcoin is I believe the value of it will rise and I can sell it later or there is something sold only in bitcoin, in which case I will buy exactly what I need to purchase the good.
Any vendors who aren't tracking the prices of their goods (in bitcoin) with relation to the inflation and deflation of the value of bitcoin in other currencies is taking a gamble that it's going to increase in a value that exceeds their costs. Especially any vendor who are dependent on vendors which do not accept bitcoin. Sell a $500 item for 1 Bitcoin (which is $700 at the time) and watch that value plummet to $300 and you've taken a loss on that item if you need to get capital to keep your business running.
Even worse, the supporters of bitcoin are telling people to get into it because the price is going to rise. So on one hand they call a currency and on the other they're encouraging people to get involved in it as a speculative good. The whole thing is just insane.