In reality the defeat of Hitler was caused by a mixture of two flaws the first was the resource costs of the whole 3 front war, in Africa, against Russia and the UK, as long as none of them went down all of them took resources that could have been spent to beat the others.... The second flaw was the Nazis insufficient respect for the greatest Russian general, General Winter which cost them dear. Hitler was already defend at that point without too much further ailed intervention, but without the allies forcing the issue early Russia would have simply steamrollered Europe as their opponents ran out of resources (and probably finished the UK as part of that), and so for saving us from that I am definitely grateful to all those who fought.
I highly recommend you read about the German desert campaign. It was a tertiary front for Germany and a secondary front for Italy. The Germans never gave any serious consideration to it. In fact, if it hadn't been for Churchill pushing for an intervention somewhere else in the Medeterranean in the middle of Operation Compass that made the British stop short of Tunisia which provided the breathe needed for the DAK to get deployed. The Axis forces were constantly struggling with a lack of mechanization. The majority of Italian infantry units, for example, had no trucks with which to move their troops long distances make them only really useful when sieging cities like Tobruk or in places where dug in positions could be created for the soldiers. The 15th and 21st Panzer divisions did a large amount of the heavy lifting during the conflict with the Italian Ariete and Trieste divisions providing some help though in most situations they were outgunned by British armored units and could often times not even penetrate the British tanks.
Perhaps the most chilling thing about the DAK is that when you look at the units commited by Germany to Africa, they total head count was only a fraction of what was contained in a single army on the Russian front. In all, the Africa campaign and the committed to it by Germany was a token gesture in light of the alliance with Italy. Nothing more, nothing less.
France and Britian as a second front. Most of the units stationed over there were units that had been taken from the lines in Russia and moved to France in order to rest and rebuild. The majority of effort in that theater was performed by the Luftwaffe which was perfectly acceptable as the Soviets had entrenched and the air commitment of a Blitzkrieg was no longer as supportive.
That brings to the primary front. While "General Winter" played a part, it was by no means the significant reason for which the Germans became crippled fighting the Soviets. There were some significant strategic blunders put into play, not the least of which resulted with the total loss of an entire army group.
I agree with you, which is why I wasn't responding to you.
Jumping to conclusions without evidence at this point is frankly, indicative of a behavior I would expect from the pleb and not from the type of people that I would normally assume browse this site.
In the deaths of most young people an autopsy is performed precisely for the reasons you state. Unless the cause of death is readily apparent, most younger people are healthy enough that they do not just fall over dead. The results of the autopsy won't and can't be known for a couple days but there are plenty of non-spectacular causes of death the least of which is drugs or alcohol.
It's a grand strategy game but it's not turn based. Everything progresses for all "players" at the same speed though you have a variable speed control. Make sure you understand succession laws and exhibit foresight on marrying off your children so as to accumulate titles or claims to titles in order to expand your domain.
I know this will get downmodded into oblivion but.....
It's pretty obvious you're a Microsoft shill. Your usage of 'ya know' is horrible grammar and you should be ashamed of that odiferous basement dwelling Captain Kirk loving body of yours that no woman would be caught dead near. You probably even think that these ringtones are acceptable to use http://xkcd.com/1241/ just like the guys think it's okay to replace their car horn with the General Lee's.
As if you want this for efficiency reasons, provide a citation to prove it rather than labeling your opinions as facts.
Illegal orders also haven't featured Americans as the target of said orders. That is a key and fundamental difference. As long as the target is not American it can be reduced to less than human and not create a dissonance strong enough to require objection. The same cannot necessarily be held to be true when the target is Americans en masse. In such a case there are three outcomes as you're attempting to convince the soldier that Americans are less than human and by extension he himself is less than human. The first is that he rejects the notion and from that he will reject and defect or he will reject and desert. The other option is that they will accept it.
While the US military uses logistics on par with Walmart there's some huge assumptions in play that may not be viable during a rebellion scenario in the US. The big assumption is that there is a unbroken front which has protected major supply lines. The US rail system and road system in conjunction can get supplies moved around rather efficiently but in a widespread rebellion there's no guarantee that these lines will be safe.
The email service that Microsoft hosts for free is hosted on Exchange if I am not mistaken. This is this likely target of the NSA or other government agencies when they're talking about Exchange encryption keys and not Exchange in general.
It's a non-binding statement and given that a majority of nations have not agreed to it indicates that the UN is certainly not the proper place in which to vest control of the biggest tool that enables free speech. That's the problem. Most of the 48 signing nations have either demonstrated that they have a much lesser respect for freedom of expression than the US or they have questionable clout.
Further you seem to be comparing a violation of X and Y humans rights as a sign that Z will be violated. It is a strange position for you to take as the rights and violations you are noted have typically been against non-citizens and certainly haven't been done in ways that are visibile to the American public at large. There are plenty of groups in the US which are very vocal regarding protection the free expression rights of Americans and given the nature of the Internet most things that would restrict that free expression would likely be very vocally protested and fought in ways that simply cannot occur when you're dealing with a group that represents nations rather than people. In essence, the free expression of all people on the Internet is also protected and defended by the groups which protect and defend it for Americans.
You're also confusing my dislike of having the UN run it with ethnocentricity. The US has certainly taken actions which I consider a risk to free expression. However the only solution that I've seen that I feel is a better step rather than a worse one is the suggestion for decentralizing control but that will never happen.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
The UN claims that Freedom of Speech is a core freedom for all people and yet member states completely ignore that declaration, which they agree to.
Recent murder statistics show that over 50% of murders are committed by black individuals. The majority of murders are conducted by young males over the age of 18. The black population of the US is about 13.8%. If we exclude that subset of population the murder rate for the US drops significantly and falls much closer in line with Europe as a whole. Further, if we look at the murder rates in states which have low black populations we start to see murder rates that are comparable to the "best" of European murder rates.
It doesn't take much to realize a lot of the problem, as far as rates go, for the US is disproportionately caused by black communities but no one seems to want to look at or address an obvious problem. There's no attempts to identify the problem and there's no attempts to solve it beyond a vague idea of throwing money at it.
There's two parts to the airport. Their is the entry part and the terminal. Getting into the terminals with a weapon is a whole different story from walking around the non-terminal locations that are open and public access.
Any nation on the planet can implement PRISM and just like the US they can only really adequately collect data that is within their borders. Any data not within the borders requires the complicity of other nations. Who has "control" of the Internet (by virtue of top level DNS servers) really has no impact on whether the programs can occur. In fact, maintaining freedom of speech is actually in the interest of a program like PRISM as people would feel freer to speak more and with others more permitting a bet data collection.
That aside, the US still does have one of the best freedom of speech while the UN doesn't seem to have any desire to enforce or even go after member nations that are hostile to freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Azotic Technologies
Azotic Technology
Azotic technology
Az technology
Aztechnology
We're screwed.
Screw that. A picture of a grizzly bear with chainsaw arms would be awesome enough.
In reality the defeat of Hitler was caused by a mixture of two flaws the first was the resource costs of the whole 3 front war, in Africa, against Russia and the UK, as long as none of them went down all of them took resources that could have been spent to beat the others.... The second flaw was the Nazis insufficient respect for the greatest Russian general, General Winter which cost them dear. Hitler was already defend at that point without too much further ailed intervention, but without the allies forcing the issue early Russia would have simply steamrollered Europe as their opponents ran out of resources (and probably finished the UK as part of that), and so for saving us from that I am definitely grateful to all those who fought.
I highly recommend you read about the German desert campaign. It was a tertiary front for Germany and a secondary front for Italy. The Germans never gave any serious consideration to it. In fact, if it hadn't been for Churchill pushing for an intervention somewhere else in the Medeterranean in the middle of Operation Compass that made the British stop short of Tunisia which provided the breathe needed for the DAK to get deployed. The Axis forces were constantly struggling with a lack of mechanization. The majority of Italian infantry units, for example, had no trucks with which to move their troops long distances make them only really useful when sieging cities like Tobruk or in places where dug in positions could be created for the soldiers. The 15th and 21st Panzer divisions did a large amount of the heavy lifting during the conflict with the Italian Ariete and Trieste divisions providing some help though in most situations they were outgunned by British armored units and could often times not even penetrate the British tanks.
Perhaps the most chilling thing about the DAK is that when you look at the units commited by Germany to Africa, they total head count was only a fraction of what was contained in a single army on the Russian front. In all, the Africa campaign and the committed to it by Germany was a token gesture in light of the alliance with Italy. Nothing more, nothing less.
France and Britian as a second front. Most of the units stationed over there were units that had been taken from the lines in Russia and moved to France in order to rest and rebuild. The majority of effort in that theater was performed by the Luftwaffe which was perfectly acceptable as the Soviets had entrenched and the air commitment of a Blitzkrieg was no longer as supportive.
That brings to the primary front. While "General Winter" played a part, it was by no means the significant reason for which the Germans became crippled fighting the Soviets. There were some significant strategic blunders put into play, not the least of which resulted with the total loss of an entire army group.
I agree with you, which is why I wasn't responding to you.
Jumping to conclusions without evidence at this point is frankly, indicative of a behavior I would expect from the pleb and not from the type of people that I would normally assume browse this site.
I thought of Lost Vikings.
In the deaths of most young people an autopsy is performed precisely for the reasons you state. Unless the cause of death is readily apparent, most younger people are healthy enough that they do not just fall over dead. The results of the autopsy won't and can't be known for a couple days but there are plenty of non-spectacular causes of death the least of which is drugs or alcohol.
It's a grand strategy game but it's not turn based. Everything progresses for all "players" at the same speed though you have a variable speed control. Make sure you understand succession laws and exhibit foresight on marrying off your children so as to accumulate titles or claims to titles in order to expand your domain.
Do you watch article comments looking for posts related to slashdot UID so you can waltz in with your 1926?
If Blizzard were to seek independence from Activision then it would just become the vassal of Activision's liege.
Hasn't Crusader Kings 2 told you anything?
Hyundai.
For when you absolutely must escape the zombie apocalyse, trust no other vehicle.
Stainless Shrewnado?
Thank you very much.
I know this will get downmodded into oblivion but.....
It's pretty obvious you're a Microsoft shill. Your usage of 'ya know' is horrible grammar and you should be ashamed of that odiferous basement dwelling Captain Kirk loving body of yours that no woman would be caught dead near. You probably even think that these ringtones are acceptable to use http://xkcd.com/1241/ just like the guys think it's okay to replace their car horn with the General Lee's.
As if you want this for efficiency reasons, provide a citation to prove it rather than labeling your opinions as facts.
Treason convictions require a confession or a sworn statement by two witnesses as laid out in the Constitution.
No person involved with the Confederates was charged or convicted of treason.
Illegal orders also haven't featured Americans as the target of said orders. That is a key and fundamental difference. As long as the target is not American it can be reduced to less than human and not create a dissonance strong enough to require objection. The same cannot necessarily be held to be true when the target is Americans en masse. In such a case there are three outcomes as you're attempting to convince the soldier that Americans are less than human and by extension he himself is less than human. The first is that he rejects the notion and from that he will reject and defect or he will reject and desert. The other option is that they will accept it.
Without armed citizens having the risk of being fired upon there isn't as much reason for the military units to defect.
While the US military uses logistics on par with Walmart there's some huge assumptions in play that may not be viable during a rebellion scenario in the US. The big assumption is that there is a unbroken front which has protected major supply lines. The US rail system and road system in conjunction can get supplies moved around rather efficiently but in a widespread rebellion there's no guarantee that these lines will be safe.
The email service that Microsoft hosts for free is hosted on Exchange if I am not mistaken. This is this likely target of the NSA or other government agencies when they're talking about Exchange encryption keys and not Exchange in general.
They are all of equal importance.
However to answer your question, you rank their importance by which one appears to be most violated and easy to attack the culprit with.
It's a non-binding statement and given that a majority of nations have not agreed to it indicates that the UN is certainly not the proper place in which to vest control of the biggest tool that enables free speech. That's the problem. Most of the 48 signing nations have either demonstrated that they have a much lesser respect for freedom of expression than the US or they have questionable clout.
Further you seem to be comparing a violation of X and Y humans rights as a sign that Z will be violated. It is a strange position for you to take as the rights and violations you are noted have typically been against non-citizens and certainly haven't been done in ways that are visibile to the American public at large. There are plenty of groups in the US which are very vocal regarding protection the free expression rights of Americans and given the nature of the Internet most things that would restrict that free expression would likely be very vocally protested and fought in ways that simply cannot occur when you're dealing with a group that represents nations rather than people. In essence, the free expression of all people on the Internet is also protected and defended by the groups which protect and defend it for Americans.
You're also confusing my dislike of having the UN run it with ethnocentricity. The US has certainly taken actions which I consider a risk to free expression. However the only solution that I've seen that I feel is a better step rather than a worse one is the suggestion for decentralizing control but that will never happen.
Read the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
The UN claims that Freedom of Speech is a core freedom for all people and yet member states completely ignore that declaration, which they agree to.
Recent murder statistics show that over 50% of murders are committed by black individuals. The majority of murders are conducted by young males over the age of 18. The black population of the US is about 13.8%. If we exclude that subset of population the murder rate for the US drops significantly and falls much closer in line with Europe as a whole. Further, if we look at the murder rates in states which have low black populations we start to see murder rates that are comparable to the "best" of European murder rates.
It doesn't take much to realize a lot of the problem, as far as rates go, for the US is disproportionately caused by black communities but no one seems to want to look at or address an obvious problem. There's no attempts to identify the problem and there's no attempts to solve it beyond a vague idea of throwing money at it.
There's two parts to the airport. Their is the entry part and the terminal. Getting into the terminals with a weapon is a whole different story from walking around the non-terminal locations that are open and public access.
Any nation on the planet can implement PRISM and just like the US they can only really adequately collect data that is within their borders. Any data not within the borders requires the complicity of other nations. Who has "control" of the Internet (by virtue of top level DNS servers) really has no impact on whether the programs can occur. In fact, maintaining freedom of speech is actually in the interest of a program like PRISM as people would feel freer to speak more and with others more permitting a bet data collection.
That aside, the US still does have one of the best freedom of speech while the UN doesn't seem to have any desire to enforce or even go after member nations that are hostile to freedom of speech.
Don't forget about the traditional Royal Canadian wedding. It was such a shame that the traditional bowl of pudding was tipped.