No, these were simply the two options asfaik seen at the time as solutions which are likely to lead to the desired result. I
The military commanders weren't even consulted before the bomb was dropped.
"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
Eisenhower recommended against dropping the bomb.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Admiral Lehay opposed the bombings, stating that they achieved nothing.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
The vice chairman of US bombing survey said that the a-bombs were not necessary.
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... (I) concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)
However the most damning evidence came from the Director of Naval Intelligence.
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Ellis makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that the a-bombs were dropped for POLITICAL reasons, not MILITARY reasons.
These repeated restrospective justifications that the a-bombs were dropped to "save lives" are lies. They are lies that you wish to believe because otherwise you might have to face up to the reality that sometimes the USA has done evil things. It's better to accept that the USA is fallible - just like every other democracy - and admit that the a-bombs were a MISTAKE.
PS: all credit goes to DABANSHEE for the research.
On one hand, I agree completely. I used my PDA to take notes for about a year while I was in college. My stated reason was because my handwriting had gotten so bad that I couldn't necessarily read my notes after class, while on Graffiti I can write almost as quickly as I can with a pen and paper, and my accuracy is damn near 100%.
Write Graffiti with pen and paper. I've found it's faster to write than handwriting and much easier to read afterwards.
I, of course, learned this famous equation back in grade school. And I understand the relationship between matter and energy (at least as well as most physics students do and better than most lay people, if anyone really understands it).
But I have a few nagging question about this famous equation. People just tend to explain c^2 by saying something like "a little matter represents a lot of energy, and c is a big number and so c squared is even bigger". Well, that certainly is true if c is measured in meters per second or any other common unit. But it's all about the units. If c is expressed in light-seconds/second rather than meters per second, or worse yet light-years/second then the "logic" of that argument is exposed as just hype.
I don't think you understand the equation - or even the concept of units - nearly as well as you think you do.
and only because there is currently no legal way to use either of them in Australia,
Tough. That's the "rationale" the OzTivo users use to justify their behaviour to themselves, but they're delusional. They're copying Tivo's software without permission, modifying the software to get Australian guide data (thus circumventing Tivo's subscription business model), and using Tivo's software without a valid license. Whiny excuses like "but Tivo doesn't sell in Australia and I reaaalllly want to use their software" are bogus, and if you think about it enough you'll realise that too.
The OzTivo users want something and they're quite content to break the law to do it. I don't mind - I really couldn't give a crap about Tivo and I agree the police have better things to worry about - but let's not sugar coat this and pretend the OzTivo users aren't breaking the law.
If you use a Tivo in Australia then you are using illegally copied and illegally modified software. It's morally no different to using pirated copies of Windows or burnt copies of video games.
I pay about USD 20 cents per kWh of electricity with tax, so the electrical equivalent for a gallon of gasoline would be about USD 6.80. Or, I can buy gasoline at about USD 2.15.
Third time in this article I've seen someone make this mistake. It's an epidemic.
The gasoline powered car is only 25% efficient so although you pay $2.15/gallon you only use a quarter of the energy. Electric motors are very efficient so you don't need 1:1 energy equivalent with gasoline. The "electrical equivalent for a gallon of gasoline" is actually closer to $1.50, using your figures.
I do believe that the generators down at the power plant are in general more efficient than the engine in your car (though it's tricky to make an apples to apples comparison, as few power plants run on gasoline (though some probably do run on diesel)) but I suspect it's not a LOT more efficient.
They are, in fact, a LOT more efficient. An ICE in the modern car converts gasoline into kinetic energy with about 25% efficiency. The modern power plants exceed 60% efficiency in converting fuel (typically oil) into electricity.
The reason the ICE efficiency is so low is that there is considerable wasted energy in the form of heat. A power plant burns fuel to boil water to drive a turbine, so heat is in fact desirable.
Unfortunately, assuming 36 kWh per gallon of gasoline, and $.12 per kWh of electricity, the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas in electricity costs $4.32. This doesn't take into account relative efficiencies, but electricity is definitely not free.
The energy efficiency of an ICE is around 25%. So you only get 9kWh per gallon useful (kinetic) energy from that gasoline. That means you're paying the equivalent of $1.08 per gallon when charging your EV from the wall (the energy loss from charging is negligible and motors are nearly 100% efficient).
In the hub is a bad idea. It would increase the unsprung weight of the wheel. A practical design would place the motor at the end of the shaft that previously connected the hub to the diff.
Tony Fadell first conceived of iPod outside Apple; he had difficulty finding funding for a MP3 player he had designed. When he demonstrated it to Apple, the company hired him as an independent contractor to bring his project to the market, putting him in charge of assembling the team that developed the first two generations of the device. --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod
Of course, the argument stems from whether the time of invention is when the idea is conceived, when the product is designed, when the first working prototype is built, or when the public can buy the final product. I'll steer clear of that argument.
Nobody cares that a few years ago Slashdot decided to start listing user ID numbers right up on top, like a weenie BBS full of 15 year olds back in the day where 'rankings' determined your standing.
Way to miss the point, newbie. The low userid shows that I've been using computers long enough to know that Linux is just a kernel. Your lecture was worthless.
I'd be embarassed to admit that I'm such a suckup to the Slashdot Cult that I haven't quit in disgust and thrown away a whole handful of accounts. Almost all of which had high positive karma before I changed the email address to a nonentity, changed the password, and kissed Slashdot goodbye for a few months.
Oh yeah, you're way too cool for Slashdot.
/laugh
Don't be a dink with an attitude.
You're aware that dink means "Dual Income No Kids"? You're such a buffoon.
Yes, but without the force required to bend iron, it stays unbent (unported). Your analogy says nothing for the flexibility of NetBSD compared to the flexibility of Linux.
I intentionally said nothing about NetBSD vs Linux, because I'm not stupid enough to get involved in that pointless flamewar.
Um, no it doesn't go to show that there are more ports because of its flexibility. No doubt Linux is flexible, but so is NetBSD (some have argued more so). The reason that Linux has more ports is because there are more people doing porting.
Well if you're going to be pedantic, flexible refers to how far you can bend something without breaking it. It is irrelevant how much force is required to bend the material. For example, iron is more flexible than dried spaghetti, even though it requires a considerably greater force to bend iron.
So it's irrelevant how many people are coding the ports (aka force). It matters how far you can bend (aka port) the software before it breaks.
Well yes, that was my point, that the argument is wrong. It's wrong in the hypothetical I gave, and it is also wrong when idiots try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima.
The most salient fact? About 10,000 people per day were dying per day in the Pacific theatre, mostly civilians in Japanese-occupied countries. Any alternative to the bombs that would have caused a one month delay would have wound up with more dead than the bombs themselves.
I really dislike that "justification" for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here's a similar hypothetical justification to show why it is so distasteful. Bear in mind the following is an example by parody, not my actual belief.
The US was dragging its heels in joining the landwar in Europe. Millions of people were dying each year; often through starvation and disease in addition to the horrors of war. Even when the US began to commit troops it was a paltry offering in comparison to the hardships of other nations. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that the US citizenship woke up to the reality of the war. That single strike by the Japanese helped to galvanise the US into action. They were suddenly committed to the war because they themselves were under threat. The US assistance in Europe helped speed the downfall of the Axis. It is fair to say that despite the tragic loss of life at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese strike brought forward the end of WWII and saved countless millions.
Remember this before you rattle off about some alternative scheme to end the war.
It is impossible to forget that "justification" seeing as it's trotted out so often, but I certainly don't give it any credibility no matter how often it is repeated.
Slashdot Mirror
The military commanders weren't even consulted before the bomb was dropped.
Eisenhower recommended against dropping the bomb.
Admiral Lehay opposed the bombings, stating that they achieved nothing.
The vice chairman of US bombing survey said that the a-bombs were not necessary.
However the most damning evidence came from the Director of Naval Intelligence.
Ellis makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that the a-bombs were dropped for POLITICAL reasons, not MILITARY reasons.
These repeated restrospective justifications that the a-bombs were dropped to "save lives" are lies. They are lies that you wish to believe because otherwise you might have to face up to the reality that sometimes the USA has done evil things. It's better to accept that the USA is fallible - just like every other democracy - and admit that the a-bombs were a MISTAKE.
PS: all credit goes to DABANSHEE for the research.
Because there are only ever two options.
Was that... supposed to be... a William Shatner impersonation?
I have 26GB of legal 192kbps OGG ripped straight from my CD collection. Once you throw on podcasts and a backup or two, that 40GB doesn't go very far.
Write Graffiti with pen and paper. I've found it's faster to write than handwriting and much easier to read afterwards.
I don't think you understand the equation - or even the concept of units - nearly as well as you think you do.
Tough. That's the "rationale" the OzTivo users use to justify their behaviour to themselves, but they're delusional. They're copying Tivo's software without permission, modifying the software to get Australian guide data (thus circumventing Tivo's subscription business model), and using Tivo's software without a valid license. Whiny excuses like "but Tivo doesn't sell in Australia and I reaaalllly want to use their software" are bogus, and if you think about it enough you'll realise that too.
The OzTivo users want something and they're quite content to break the law to do it. I don't mind - I really couldn't give a crap about Tivo and I agree the police have better things to worry about - but let's not sugar coat this and pretend the OzTivo users aren't breaking the law.
If you use a Tivo in Australia then you are using illegally copied and illegally modified software. It's morally no different to using pirated copies of Windows or burnt copies of video games.
Not a single launch title I give a damn about.
Flame? That wasn't a flame.
Afraid so. Compilation aborts at the first error.
You can list many types of loss, but they are all very small. For example, losses due to transmission and distribution are about 5%. Info http://www.energy.qld.gov.au/infosite/eff_trans_di st.html
Third time in this article I've seen someone make this mistake. It's an epidemic.
The gasoline powered car is only 25% efficient so although you pay $2.15/gallon you only use a quarter of the energy. Electric motors are very efficient so you don't need 1:1 energy equivalent with gasoline. The "electrical equivalent for a gallon of gasoline" is actually closer to $1.50, using your figures.
They are, in fact, a LOT more efficient. An ICE in the modern car converts gasoline into kinetic energy with about 25% efficiency. The modern power plants exceed 60% efficiency in converting fuel (typically oil) into electricity.
The reason the ICE efficiency is so low is that there is considerable wasted energy in the form of heat. A power plant burns fuel to boil water to drive a turbine, so heat is in fact desirable.
Your calculations seem off.
That final figure of 34 kWh/gallon sounds about right, from memory.
Also electricity is rarely as expensive as 30c per kWh. It's closer to 10c (US) where I live.
Your argument is still correct. Electricity is far cheaper than gasoline to move a car, when all is considered.
The energy efficiency of an ICE is around 25%. So you only get 9kWh per gallon useful (kinetic) energy from that gasoline. That means you're paying the equivalent of $1.08 per gallon when charging your EV from the wall (the energy loss from charging is negligible and motors are nearly 100% efficient).
In the hub is a bad idea. It would increase the unsprung weight of the wheel. A practical design would place the motor at the end of the shaft that previously connected the hub to the diff.
From wikipedia...
Of course, the argument stems from whether the time of invention is when the idea is conceived, when the product is designed, when the first working prototype is built, or when the public can buy the final product. I'll steer clear of that argument.
Way to miss the point, newbie. The low userid shows that I've been using computers long enough to know that Linux is just a kernel. Your lecture was worthless.
Oh yeah, you're way too cool for Slashdot.
/laugh
You're aware that dink means "Dual Income No Kids"? You're such a buffoon.
I intentionally said nothing about NetBSD vs Linux, because I'm not stupid enough to get involved in that pointless flamewar.
Well duh. Look at the userid, newbie. You think this is something I don't know?
Well if you're going to be pedantic, flexible refers to how far you can bend something without breaking it. It is irrelevant how much force is required to bend the material. For example, iron is more flexible than dried spaghetti, even though it requires a considerably greater force to bend iron.
So it's irrelevant how many people are coding the ports (aka force). It matters how far you can bend (aka port) the software before it breaks.
Especially if you're doing any of the sciences where you need to write down mathematics and diagrams in a hurry during a lecture.
Well yes, that was my point, that the argument is wrong. It's wrong in the hypothetical I gave, and it is also wrong when idiots try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima.
Try to pay attention.
I really dislike that "justification" for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here's a similar hypothetical justification to show why it is so distasteful. Bear in mind the following is an example by parody, not my actual belief.
The US was dragging its heels in joining the landwar in Europe. Millions of people were dying each year; often through starvation and disease in addition to the horrors of war. Even when the US began to commit troops it was a paltry offering in comparison to the hardships of other nations. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that the US citizenship woke up to the reality of the war. That single strike by the Japanese helped to galvanise the US into action. They were suddenly committed to the war because they themselves were under threat. The US assistance in Europe helped speed the downfall of the Axis. It is fair to say that despite the tragic loss of life at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese strike brought forward the end of WWII and saved countless millions.
It is impossible to forget that "justification" seeing as it's trotted out so often, but I certainly don't give it any credibility no matter how often it is repeated.
Right, so you're not a big man and you lash out at people who correct your mistakes.