The missions did achieve several objectives, including setting back water and electrical production. Follow up raids to halt rebuilding were canceled, so the Germans recovered more quickly than planned. The mission did impress the Russians that Britain could be a useful ally, and it had the unintended effect of disrupting food production far more than anticipated.
Perhaps the most important effect, IMHO, was in restoring British moral badly damaged by continual German bombing. Read some of the comments by Brits, it seems that the incident is firmly embedded in the national consciousness to this very day.
The methods used to gain precision were limited to the particular operation. Two searchlights were mounted on the underbody of the aircraft in such a way that the beams converged at the right altitude. A scope was developed to take advantage of the fact that there were two towers at either side of the dam. When the towers matched up with the arms of the scope, it was time to drop the bomb.
Land shortage? Look at the satellite image of the city on google maps. What the fuck is all that green stuff on THREE SIDES of the city? This is the second post making that outrageous claim, and modded up as insightful. And that's not even the point. The point is, if those 7,000 people are going to benefit from this, maybe they should pay for it themselves. Why should I have to pay for a bridge that will benefit a minuscule minority of US citizens? Why should the bridge be that big and expensive if it serves all of 7,000? And you know what? The narrows there look to be all of 1,500 feet wide. How long of a ferry ride are we talking here? I can't believe you are actually trying to defend this boondoggle. Do you live in Ketchikan?
Classic failure modes of the free market, including imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities are all exploited by large and powerful players in the market. Regulation is necessary to keep the market free. An unregulated market is quickly dominated by the most ruthless and powerful players, becoming unfree.
Even without considering the failure modes of the free market, Pareto efficiency is a regressive measurement. One person owning everything and the rest of us owning nothing is still Pareto optimal. And that is the limit towards which all unregulated free markets tend. The more money one has, the more power one has to influence the workings of the market, allowing one to acquire more money, and more power in an unregulated positive feedback loop. Government operates as a negative feedback loop, keeping the market from becoming dominated by the largest players.
Libertarianism is merely disguised propaganda for the status quo. Libertarians do not want a free, fair, and equitable world, they want an oligarchy or feudal state with themselves as the landed gentry.
Otherwise it would have to be pronounced "Oh, sex."
And that's not something many/.ers say a lot... Yes it is. As in: "Oh, sex. I had that once," or "Oh, sex. I know what that is, I read about it in a book!"
Funny. Women have several different buttons, though, and they work differently on different women. The minor buttons such as the neck, the lips, the ears, behind the knees, and the elbows work similarly on most women. The major buttons work quite differently. Many like strong pressure on the clit, but just as many don't. It usually depends on how exposed it is. Women with a big clitoral hood have more sensitive clits than women with a large or exposed clit.
Same thing with the nipples: some like really hard, rough stimulus, some like a softer touch. And of course, the G-spot is the most mysterious button of all. It's inside the vagina about two to three inches back, on the front wall. It has a spongy texture different from the vaginal walls around it. To really work it correctly, you need damn strong fingers, as it always requires a lot of pressure. But quite a few women don't get much from it at all. Those that do, however, can really get off from it. Some women will even squirt if you work the G-spot long enough.
You'll have to experiment with each woman on an individual basis to find the best combos. Don't expect you will know what any given woman will like, no matter how many others you've pleased with your mad skillz, Make sure she's comfortable telling you what she likes, many women feel uncomfortable talking honestly about sex as they think the man will feel emasculated if they tell him what to do. Be sure to let her know that you aren't that way.
Just thought I'd pass that on, no insult intended, as the majority of Slashdotters probably need the tips. I'd give tips for pleasing men, too, but that is rather unnecessary. We're pretty simple by comparison.
All right, I'll give you that. I still think it's an error, though. But then, I don't believe anything is a thing unto itself, I believe in the doctrine of dependent origination, I think free will is an illusion, and the concept of self is a false concept brought about by dualistic, subject/object based thinking.
Ever heard of it? You are blaming people's character rather than their circumstances. That's usually wrong. Not only that, but it's usually just an excuse to brag about one's own character, which is another example of the same damn logical error.
I trudged through ten pages before giving up. It doesn't get any better. The best way to describe it: a smart author who likes to use big words is trying to explain what is in fact a very simple concept to people he considers to be slightly retarded. I mean, he goes over and over and over the same point, in the same long winded and pedantic fashion. Jumpin' Jeebus on a fricken pogo stick, man, either assume we are smart enough to get it and give it to us short and sweet, or add a little meat to the bones of your argument instead of just repeating yourself over and over.
The answer that many use is given in the article, "I am willing to trade the small amount of privacy loss inherent in a computer directed government search in exchange for the greater security such surveillance will bring." Not that I'm buying it, but A LOT of people do, and that is what the paper is trying to address.
And you'll notice that all the 'freedoms' listed for security are negative, freedom from something. Freedom as a concept transcends that definition, including positive freedoms, freedom to do something. That is all I am trying to point out, freedom->security is not a perfect mapping. I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing about that. Pedants.:-/
If you really want to argue, try to prove that one can never have freedom without security, or vice versa. Otherwise, you aren't saying much. We all know that security entails freedom from violence. That is not the end-all, be-all of freedom. And you know, there is a rather oft-mentioned quote around here, about giving up one for the other, maybe you've heard it? Awfully hard to do if they're the same thing.
Oh. Yeah, sure, saute in olive oil. For those who are unsure of the difference, sauteing happens at a slightly lower temperature than deep frying, and the foods are only half covered by the oil. It is also important in sauteing that the food is not crowded in the pan, sauter means 'to jump' in French, and the food should have room to jump about in the pan. If it is too tightly packed, you are in effect simmering or steaming instead.
Reread my comment. I said sesame has a high smoke point, which is true. From the wiki page:
Cooking. Sesame oil carries a premium relative to other cooking oils and is considered more stable than most vegetable oils due to antioxidants in the oil. Sesame oil is least prone, among cooking oils, to turn rancid. This is because it has a very high boiling point. In effect, sesame oil retains its natural structure and doesn't break down even when heated to a very high temperature. Also it has a good reputation for being safe to the heart just like Olive oil and Sun Flower oil. Because of this, it is ideally suited for deep frying. I said peanut oil is good for frying. I mean, honestly, you are wrong, sesame is good for frying, but I would never use it pure! It imparts too strong a flavor and is too expensive, but it actually is very good for frying because of it's high smoke point. For frying up Asian foods, say crispy pork for sweet and sour, I often use an (approximate) 8-1 mixture of peanut to sesame oils.
Reading the wiki page, low acidity is a criteria. First pressing is also, but the one we both missed is: no chemical treatment or refinement of the oil.
Just to make a counterpoint, in-depth does not mean "long." A concise, well researched, and well referenced blog posting is better than a typical full length fluff piece by many a so-called science journalist.
AND went on to become SeCATary of State, then fucked it up so badly they hung his tail from a plaque as a warning to others. It was a real cat-ass-trophy.
I... I can't believe I actually signed my name to that.
Oh, I see your problem. You've chosen to redefine words to support a particular ideology. Would you lay off? I think freedom is important, okay? I don't need security. But confusing two words with very different meanings is in no way insightful or even useful. I think security is a specific concept, relating to well being. Freedom is a different concept, relating to choice. Why do you need to conflate the two? What possible purpose do you have? If the two words mean the same thing, why even have two words? I could claim that chocolate is peace. For sufficiently weird definitions of chocolate, or peace, that might be true. Is it useful to even state, though?
Are you even engaging your brain here? I hate to descend to ad hominem, but I really don't see any thought going on. Honestly, and I want you to THINK before replying, honestly, can you see no possible scenarios where one might have a measure of freedom without security. THINK, man! You are on a plane that is crashing. You are perfectly free to do whatever you like, no fucking captor is controlling you. Do you have security? Really? You are trapped in a cave in with plenty of food, water, and oxygen, enough to last years. Nothing living down there can possibly hurt you. Do you honestly think you have freedom? Do you think you lack security?
Come ON! There are two different words for a REASON, because there are two different concepts here. I understand that you are asserting that freedom is important, and that in some philosophical sense, one can not have real security without freedom. Okay, I don't agree, but I see where you are coming from. I think plenty of people with no real freedom FEEL secure, and I KNOW that the times I have felt the most free, I have also felt the most insecure.
Have you ever even been at a point in your life where, in the immortal words of Ms. Joplin, you have nothing left to lose? I don't think you would be arguing the point if you had CLUE ONE about what she meant about freedom. I think you must have lived a life of unexamined privilege to conflate the two concepts so vehemently. People who have nothing know a whole lot more about freedom than you do, bucko.
Do you understand it is possible to stretch a damn analogy to the breaking point? Because by insisting that they are EXACTLY the same thing, that is what you have done.
Not just his, but outside the US, everyone's: the first run off from the first pressing of a batch of olives. It contains the purest oil and the least amount of olive solids. The olive solids create acidity, but that is by no means the proper measure of virgin or extra virgin status.
Sesame oil at least has a high smoke point. Does Rachel actually fry stuff in extra virgin olive oil? That's just plain stupid. The high heat of frying ruins the taste and creates nasty, harmful compounds. I mean, regular olive oil is a bad choice for frying, let alone EVOO.
And in case anyone doesn't know, EVOO traditionally means the first oil to run off from the first pressing. Virgin olive oil is the rest of the first pressing, and other olive oils come from the second and subsequent pressings. EVOO has a better taste, but only raw. If you want to fry, the best oil is peanut oil.
Okay, I just read her wiki page. Anthony Bourdain called her a bobblehead. That's all I need to know.
Good lord. You simply can not articulate a coherent argument. Please try to build support for your statements instead of simply making unfounded assertions. I have made my point and supported it. You have not. Explain how and why freedom is security.
If I am in solitary confinement I have lots of security and little freedom. If I am kayaking class 5 rapids, I have a lot of freedom, but little security. I can not understand how anyone can confuse these two very different and unrelated concepts. If you can't explain yourself better without resorting to ad hominems, I give up.
In what way? Your analogy doesn't work, the two are unrelated, and you have provided no argument except asserting that they are. They are unrelated concepts, so the whole Soviet Union thing means absolutely nothing. Please explain, how is the quality of being able to make choices for oneself related to the concept of safety? One can have one without the other, or one can have both, or one can have neither, they are simply not related to each other, and you have not provided an argument supporting your case. All you have done is insult someone asking a legitimate question.
Freedom is far more important than security, I think. But they are not the same. I assert that freedom is the condition of being able to choose from a wide variety of options without coercion forcing your hand. I assert that security is the state of being free from worry about one's physical and mental well being. I furthermore assert that these two states are independent of each other. Please make an argument for your case that is more valid than using scare quotes to imply that I am not being logical.
Freedom is not security, security is not freedom. Freedom is pretty much the absence of security, and security is the absence of freedom. Just because freedom and security are both nice things does not mean they are the same nice thing.
Freedom means being able to make your own choices. Making one's own choices instead of doing what one is told entails risk. I am really failing to understand how or in what way freedom is security. Perhaps you could explain your analogy a little?
Slashdot Mirror
The missions did achieve several objectives, including setting back water and electrical production. Follow up raids to halt rebuilding were canceled, so the Germans recovered more quickly than planned. The mission did impress the Russians that Britain could be a useful ally, and it had the unintended effect of disrupting food production far more than anticipated.
Perhaps the most important effect, IMHO, was in restoring British moral badly damaged by continual German bombing. Read some of the comments by Brits, it seems that the incident is firmly embedded in the national consciousness to this very day.
The methods used to gain precision were limited to the particular operation. Two searchlights were mounted on the underbody of the aircraft in such a way that the beams converged at the right altitude. A scope was developed to take advantage of the fact that there were two towers at either side of the dam. When the towers matched up with the arms of the scope, it was time to drop the bomb.
Land shortage? Look at the satellite image of the city on google maps. What the fuck is all that green stuff on THREE SIDES of the city? This is the second post making that outrageous claim, and modded up as insightful. And that's not even the point. The point is, if those 7,000 people are going to benefit from this, maybe they should pay for it themselves. Why should I have to pay for a bridge that will benefit a minuscule minority of US citizens? Why should the bridge be that big and expensive if it serves all of 7,000? And you know what? The narrows there look to be all of 1,500 feet wide. How long of a ferry ride are we talking here? I can't believe you are actually trying to defend this boondoggle. Do you live in Ketchikan?
Classic failure modes of the free market, including imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities are all exploited by large and powerful players in the market. Regulation is necessary to keep the market free. An unregulated market is quickly dominated by the most ruthless and powerful players, becoming unfree.
Even without considering the failure modes of the free market, Pareto efficiency is a regressive measurement. One person owning everything and the rest of us owning nothing is still Pareto optimal. And that is the limit towards which all unregulated free markets tend. The more money one has, the more power one has to influence the workings of the market, allowing one to acquire more money, and more power in an unregulated positive feedback loop. Government operates as a negative feedback loop, keeping the market from becoming dominated by the largest players.
Libertarianism is merely disguised propaganda for the status quo. Libertarians do not want a free, fair, and equitable world, they want an oligarchy or feudal state with themselves as the landed gentry.
And that's not something many
Funny. Women have several different buttons, though, and they work differently on different women. The minor buttons such as the neck, the lips, the ears, behind the knees, and the elbows work similarly on most women. The major buttons work quite differently. Many like strong pressure on the clit, but just as many don't. It usually depends on how exposed it is. Women with a big clitoral hood have more sensitive clits than women with a large or exposed clit.
Same thing with the nipples: some like really hard, rough stimulus, some like a softer touch. And of course, the G-spot is the most mysterious button of all. It's inside the vagina about two to three inches back, on the front wall. It has a spongy texture different from the vaginal walls around it. To really work it correctly, you need damn strong fingers, as it always requires a lot of pressure. But quite a few women don't get much from it at all. Those that do, however, can really get off from it. Some women will even squirt if you work the G-spot long enough.
You'll have to experiment with each woman on an individual basis to find the best combos. Don't expect you will know what any given woman will like, no matter how many others you've pleased with your mad skillz, Make sure she's comfortable telling you what she likes, many women feel uncomfortable talking honestly about sex as they think the man will feel emasculated if they tell him what to do. Be sure to let her know that you aren't that way.
Just thought I'd pass that on, no insult intended, as the majority of Slashdotters probably need the tips. I'd give tips for pleasing men, too, but that is rather unnecessary. We're pretty simple by comparison.
Okay pommy, does pom mean Prisoner of Her/His Majesty, Prisoner of Mother England, short for pomegranate, or rhyming slang for tommy?
All right, I'll give you that. I still think it's an error, though. But then, I don't believe anything is a thing unto itself, I believe in the doctrine of dependent origination, I think free will is an illusion, and the concept of self is a false concept brought about by dualistic, subject/object based thinking.
Ever heard of it? You are blaming people's character rather than their circumstances. That's usually wrong. Not only that, but it's usually just an excuse to brag about one's own character, which is another example of the same damn logical error.
I trudged through ten pages before giving up. It doesn't get any better. The best way to describe it: a smart author who likes to use big words is trying to explain what is in fact a very simple concept to people he considers to be slightly retarded. I mean, he goes over and over and over the same point, in the same long winded and pedantic fashion. Jumpin' Jeebus on a fricken pogo stick, man, either assume we are smart enough to get it and give it to us short and sweet, or add a little meat to the bones of your argument instead of just repeating yourself over and over.
The answer that many use is given in the article, "I am willing to trade the small amount of privacy loss inherent in a computer directed government search in exchange for the greater security such surveillance will bring." Not that I'm buying it, but A LOT of people do, and that is what the paper is trying to address.
And you'll notice that all the 'freedoms' listed for security are negative, freedom from something. Freedom as a concept transcends that definition, including positive freedoms, freedom to do something. That is all I am trying to point out, freedom->security is not a perfect mapping. I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing about that. Pedants. :-/
If you really want to argue, try to prove that one can never have freedom without security, or vice versa. Otherwise, you aren't saying much. We all know that security entails freedom from violence. That is not the end-all, be-all of freedom. And you know, there is a rather oft-mentioned quote around here, about giving up one for the other, maybe you've heard it? Awfully hard to do if they're the same thing.
Ugh. Me use words good.
Oh. Yeah, sure, saute in olive oil. For those who are unsure of the difference, sauteing happens at a slightly lower temperature than deep frying, and the foods are only half covered by the oil. It is also important in sauteing that the food is not crowded in the pan, sauter means 'to jump' in French, and the food should have room to jump about in the pan. If it is too tightly packed, you are in effect simmering or steaming instead.
Reading the wiki page, low acidity is a criteria. First pressing is also, but the one we both missed is: no chemical treatment or refinement of the oil.
Just to make a counterpoint, in-depth does not mean "long." A concise, well researched, and well referenced blog posting is better than a typical full length fluff piece by many a so-called science journalist.
But Muffins was the first cat on the moon!
AND went on to become SeCATary of State, then fucked it up so badly they hung his tail from a plaque as a warning to others. It was a real cat-ass-trophy.
I... I can't believe I actually signed my name to that.
Oh, I see your problem. You've chosen to redefine words to support a particular ideology. Would you lay off? I think freedom is important, okay? I don't need security. But confusing two words with very different meanings is in no way insightful or even useful. I think security is a specific concept, relating to well being. Freedom is a different concept, relating to choice. Why do you need to conflate the two? What possible purpose do you have? If the two words mean the same thing, why even have two words? I could claim that chocolate is peace. For sufficiently weird definitions of chocolate, or peace, that might be true. Is it useful to even state, though?
Are you even engaging your brain here? I hate to descend to ad hominem, but I really don't see any thought going on. Honestly, and I want you to THINK before replying, honestly, can you see no possible scenarios where one might have a measure of freedom without security. THINK, man! You are on a plane that is crashing. You are perfectly free to do whatever you like, no fucking captor is controlling you. Do you have security? Really? You are trapped in a cave in with plenty of food, water, and oxygen, enough to last years. Nothing living down there can possibly hurt you. Do you honestly think you have freedom? Do you think you lack security?
Come ON! There are two different words for a REASON, because there are two different concepts here. I understand that you are asserting that freedom is important, and that in some philosophical sense, one can not have real security without freedom. Okay, I don't agree, but I see where you are coming from. I think plenty of people with no real freedom FEEL secure, and I KNOW that the times I have felt the most free, I have also felt the most insecure.
Have you ever even been at a point in your life where, in the immortal words of Ms. Joplin, you have nothing left to lose? I don't think you would be arguing the point if you had CLUE ONE about what she meant about freedom. I think you must have lived a life of unexamined privilege to conflate the two concepts so vehemently. People who have nothing know a whole lot more about freedom than you do, bucko.
Do you understand it is possible to stretch a damn analogy to the breaking point? Because by insisting that they are EXACTLY the same thing, that is what you have done.
Not just his, but outside the US, everyone's: the first run off from the first pressing of a batch of olives. It contains the purest oil and the least amount of olive solids. The olive solids create acidity, but that is by no means the proper measure of virgin or extra virgin status.
What did you think it meant?
Sesame oil at least has a high smoke point. Does Rachel actually fry stuff in extra virgin olive oil? That's just plain stupid. The high heat of frying ruins the taste and creates nasty, harmful compounds. I mean, regular olive oil is a bad choice for frying, let alone EVOO.
And in case anyone doesn't know, EVOO traditionally means the first oil to run off from the first pressing. Virgin olive oil is the rest of the first pressing, and other olive oils come from the second and subsequent pressings. EVOO has a better taste, but only raw. If you want to fry, the best oil is peanut oil.
Okay, I just read her wiki page. Anthony Bourdain called her a bobblehead. That's all I need to know.
Good lord. You simply can not articulate a coherent argument. Please try to build support for your statements instead of simply making unfounded assertions. I have made my point and supported it. You have not. Explain how and why freedom is security.
If I am in solitary confinement I have lots of security and little freedom. If I am kayaking class 5 rapids, I have a lot of freedom, but little security. I can not understand how anyone can confuse these two very different and unrelated concepts. If you can't explain yourself better without resorting to ad hominems, I give up.
Chinese Man: You pay now! Now!
Bart: What happened to you, China? You used to be cool.
Chinese Man: Hey, China is still cool. You pay later. Later!
In what way? Your analogy doesn't work, the two are unrelated, and you have provided no argument except asserting that they are. They are unrelated concepts, so the whole Soviet Union thing means absolutely nothing. Please explain, how is the quality of being able to make choices for oneself related to the concept of safety? One can have one without the other, or one can have both, or one can have neither, they are simply not related to each other, and you have not provided an argument supporting your case. All you have done is insult someone asking a legitimate question.
Freedom is far more important than security, I think. But they are not the same. I assert that freedom is the condition of being able to choose from a wide variety of options without coercion forcing your hand. I assert that security is the state of being free from worry about one's physical and mental well being. I furthermore assert that these two states are independent of each other. Please make an argument for your case that is more valid than using scare quotes to imply that I am not being logical.
You argue like a forth grader.
Freedom is not security, security is not freedom. Freedom is pretty much the absence of security, and security is the absence of freedom. Just because freedom and security are both nice things does not mean they are the same nice thing.
Freedom means being able to make your own choices. Making one's own choices instead of doing what one is told entails risk. I am really failing to understand how or in what way freedom is security. Perhaps you could explain your analogy a little?