s heroes and saviors in the valiant struggle against modern urban politics
We yahoos in the backwoods would argue that attempting to enforce a national urban politic on American as a whole is actually a sort of fascism on the part of the left.
Well, look at how many hundreds of years, wars and world wars it took for the printing press to trump governments and it still doesn't do that in most of the non-western world. The only technology that usually always wins is guns, and that is why we have a 2nd amendment.
The unfortunate problem with a deregulated economic system is that, companies want to use deregulation but the power to enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete. Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation simply because the smartest thing for a company to do is to not have to spend money and take the sort of risks needed to actually compete. They confine themselves to areas they can patent, they make principals sign non-competes and non-disclosures, obfuscate the relationship between pricing and product all so they can minimize how much they have to actually compete. IF we are to say that companies are to have the means of giving themselves monopolies, then it is fair for liberals to demand that companies accept certain social obligations in exchange for that letters patent effectively granted by the government. Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government. Only as much as conservatives demand companies have less monopoly powers can they demand that the government have less power over the companies too.
Make sure there's only one female in the crew, and the problems will be clear enough.
She's a ruthless fighter jock too. If Eileen Collins was up there, she'd have all the men quacking in their boots before too long and install herself as queen bee.
It could well come down to it that Scott McNealy was actually right when he said that we had no right to privacy. In other words, the social interest in aggregating all the data about us, and its utility to society, might well outweigh our right to privacy. Think about it.
A meaningless measure, like task points is often used to overcome these problems.
We go from task points to estimates, and then attach hours to the estimates. Our problem is that we have a culture of unrealism in our task points, but then do not change any practices needed to reduce the complexity, and therefor, size our task estimates to match the point, and just wasted another two days on sprint planning.
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Unfortunately, half the country hates corporations trying to control their lives, and the other half hates the government trying to control their lives, and so we've caught up into so much finger pointing that both corporations and the government control our lives.
Well, let's see. I guess we should read the fine print: anyone that works for, owns stock in, or sells to a telco has less rights than someone who is entitled to free broadband.
Way to go Spain. Let me know when there's a point to someone actually working for a telco. Make getting enough stuff for free a right, you'll have a hard time finding someone actually willing to do it.
The Zimmerman telegram wasn't even a good hail mary. Given US and British Naval supremacy there was no conceivable way that Germany could have supplied Mexico with any meaningful military aid
Agreed. About the only chance the Germans had would have been to send the whole fleet out against the British and hope for the best.
It might not have kept the US out of the war but why anger the population of a neutral country for no conceivable gain?
We can't harvest any oil from space, but I'm sure we could with Uranium?
Ironically, its easier to find natural gas in space than it is uranium. I do not know of any discovered off-earth uranium source, but everyone knows Titan has a methane atmosphere and probably rains hydrocarbons of various kinds.
I do not really understand what you mean by "hours burned."
We assign each task prior to the sprint a set of hours. We track hours spent vs hours burned. Hours burned is an increment towards the completeness of the task, based on sprint start estimates, and hours spent is the semi-actual hours actually spent on task. What happened is that we have low estimates going into the sprint, so we get killed every scrum.
Oh and by the way, we didn't get a whole lot of help from the Russians in the pacific theater. You like to take a lot of credit over the Nazis and you forget that the Italians and Japanese were allied with Germany and someone had to deal with them, and it sure wasn't the Russians.
The USA was a machine during the war, of that, you can't argue. The Japanese scrounged up maybe 13 aircraft carriers and the USA cranked out 26 awesome Essex class plus more jeep carriers than we can count. By 1944, the USA could put more aircraft in the air just from carriers than Japan had in their entire air force. That's just awesome, and the planes were better.
In the ETO, it is pretty fair to say that the Russians could have beaten the Nazis by themselves simply because of two things: a) the Russian economy was much stronger than the German economy, and b) the Russians had more people. People think of Germany as an economic powerhouse and Russia as weak but in the 1930s and 1940s the situation was actually in the Soviet favor. Germany and Russia were both state run, centrally planned economies, but Germany was just crushed from losing World War I and the French occupation did Germany absolutely no favors. By 1941, Russia was producing more and better tanks, had their own capable ground attack aircraft, far more artillery than their German counterparts. Just look at how many T-34s the Russians were producing per month. I mean, yeah, the Russians did lose 20 million people, but a lot of those were civilian deaths. If you go soldier for soldier, Russians butchered as many hapless Germans in 1944 / 1945 as Germans butchered hapless Russians in 1941/1942.
And, in any case, the United Kingdom cannot be underestimated. They knocked the Italian navy nearly out of the war, grabbed control the Mediterranean, blocked even the threat of any German attempt to invade the main islands and within a year or so had waves of lancasters firebombing the shit out of German cities.
I mean, when Great Britian, with a fraction of the population, produces more aircraft, more warships and has vastly superior electronics than Germany does, you really begin to understand just what a disadvantage a totalitarian regime has in war.
There's a pretty good factual argument to be made that the USA literally picked the English side in World War I precisely because of the massive debts England and France racked up. Yes, there was a common heritage with England, but the USA at that time was nearly as much German as it was English, or had a huge German minority - particular in the midwest.
The fact is, Imperial Germany bent over backwards to avoid war with the USA and the Zimmerman telegram was basically a "WTF do we do if the USA goes against us... maybe Mexico will join us"... but the German high command KNEW they were losing the war, KNEW the war was over if the USA joined it, just on naval strength alone and they threw the hail mary. The british intercepted it.
The West owes Russia no debt for her actions in WW2.
We don't "owe" the Russians anything, per say. But to say that the Russians are all bad is a pretty big distortion of history.
We have to remember that we entered World War II with our own motives as well. Despite his critics, Roosevelt was no fool, and he very clearly understood the economics that the USA could actually fight and win a two front World War and come out with total dominance of the seas, and with it, an unprecedented period of American dominance that we have well, squandered. But hey, World War II bought the good life for almost three generations of Americans, brought freedom and a better standard of living for damn near the whole planet overall, and thanks to free trade, it did elevate the overall lifestyle of Americans, even if the consequences of that trade, that the third world would erode American manufacturing and inventiveness, were entirely unforseeable in the racist minds of those long ago policy planners.
The German General Staff in WWII suffered from the same sort of flaws that pervade the American military today. To wit - the commanders are superb tacticians but terrible strategists. By comparison, American generals in WWII were aweful tacticians, when Patton's yer best, you got problems, but, super strategists. Right now, in our present wars, I would much rather have an Eisenhower or a Marshall, someone that can think of the whole picture, rather than Rommel-esque guys that can carve up a country in a few weeks but can't hold an inch of the pie.
I would make the argument that in our admiration of skillful German tactics, we underestimated the civil engineering heritage that used to be a hallmark of the academy prior to MacArthur's bringing in all the sports and placing an emphasis on warfighting rather than army running.
When push comes to shove, I'm pretty dour on old D-Mac and I wonder if he might not be those most overrated American generalissmo of all time. He blew the defense of the Phillipines, he was nothing compared to Nimitz when it came to the Pacific, and he damned near blew the Korean war both before Inchon and after, and he almost blew Inchon as well.
Stalingrad is a prime example where hubris played a part in Germany's defeat. More than anything, Hitler's hubris defeated Germany.
That, and the hubris of the entire German General Staff AND industrial complex. They never did appreciate until it was way too late that the T-34 was a better tank.
Of course, the Russians have to take a lot of responsibility for that, because right up until the morning of the Nazi invasion they were shipping steel to Nazi Germany.
Dude, we were lending Hitler money. Everybody but France was trying to throw money at Hitler thinking it would avoid a war. He took the steel, the money and everything else, and bought weapons. Major jerk.
Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism
While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely disagree with the parent post. I am one of the backwoods yahoos that he talks about. But, what this guy wrote is not flamebait.
s heroes and saviors in the valiant struggle against modern urban politics
We yahoos in the backwoods would argue that attempting to enforce a national urban politic on American as a whole is actually a sort of fascism on the part of the left.
Same story... "Hi, I'm Mac guy, and I've got nothing to do...because I have no software..."
Patents are not part of the libertarian ideal, therefore your logic fails.
Libertarians argue in favor of property rights, and that includes intellectual.
Well, look at how many hundreds of years, wars and world wars it took for the printing press to trump governments and it still doesn't do that in most of the non-western world. The only technology that usually always wins is guns, and that is why we have a 2nd amendment.
Palin might make you read the bible and believe in creationism, but other than that, her government wouldn't be involved in this sort of stuff.
The unfortunate problem with a deregulated economic system is that, companies want to use deregulation but the power to enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete. Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation simply because the smartest thing for a company to do is to not have to spend money and take the sort of risks needed to actually compete. They confine themselves to areas they can patent, they make principals sign non-competes and non-disclosures, obfuscate the relationship between pricing and product all so they can minimize how much they have to actually compete. IF we are to say that companies are to have the means of giving themselves monopolies, then it is fair for liberals to demand that companies accept certain social obligations in exchange for that letters patent effectively granted by the government. Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government. Only as much as conservatives demand companies have less monopoly powers can they demand that the government have less power over the companies too.
Make sure there's only one female in the crew, and the problems will be clear enough.
She's a ruthless fighter jock too. If Eileen Collins was up there, she'd have all the men quacking in their boots before too long and install herself as queen bee.
It could well come down to it that Scott McNealy was actually right when he said that we had no right to privacy. In other words, the social interest in aggregating all the data about us, and its utility to society, might well outweigh our right to privacy. Think about it.
PJM does this already,
http://oasis.pjm.com/drate.html
A meaningless measure, like task points is often used to overcome these problems.
We go from task points to estimates, and then attach hours to the estimates. Our problem is that we have a culture of unrealism in our task points, but then do not change any practices needed to reduce the complexity, and therefor, size our task estimates to match the point, and just wasted another two days on sprint planning.
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Unfortunately, half the country hates corporations trying to control their lives, and the other half hates the government trying to control their lives, and so we've caught up into so much finger pointing that both corporations and the government control our lives.
Well, let's see. I guess we should read the fine print: anyone that works for, owns stock in, or sells to a telco has less rights than someone who is entitled to free broadband.
Way to go Spain. Let me know when there's a point to someone actually working for a telco. Make getting enough stuff for free a right, you'll have a hard time finding someone actually willing to do it.
The Zimmerman telegram wasn't even a good hail mary. Given US and British Naval supremacy there was no conceivable way that Germany could have supplied Mexico with any meaningful military aid
Agreed. About the only chance the Germans had would have been to send the whole fleet out against the British and hope for the best.
It might not have kept the US out of the war but why anger the population of a neutral country for no conceivable gain?
Agreed. It was just foolish.
We can't harvest any oil from space, but I'm sure we could with Uranium?
Ironically, its easier to find natural gas in space than it is uranium. I do not know of any discovered off-earth uranium source, but everyone knows Titan has a methane atmosphere and probably rains hydrocarbons of various kinds.
I do not really understand what you mean by "hours burned."
We assign each task prior to the sprint a set of hours. We track hours spent vs hours burned. Hours burned is an increment towards the completeness of the task, based on sprint start estimates, and hours spent is the semi-actual hours actually spent on task. What happened is that we have low estimates going into the sprint, so we get killed every scrum.
Oh and by the way, we didn't get a whole lot of help from the Russians in the pacific theater. You like to take a lot of credit over the Nazis and you forget that the Italians and Japanese were allied with Germany and someone had to deal with them, and it sure wasn't the Russians.
The USA was a machine during the war, of that, you can't argue. The Japanese scrounged up maybe 13 aircraft carriers and the USA cranked out 26 awesome Essex class plus more jeep carriers than we can count. By 1944, the USA could put more aircraft in the air just from carriers than Japan had in their entire air force. That's just awesome, and the planes were better.
In the ETO, it is pretty fair to say that the Russians could have beaten the Nazis by themselves simply because of two things: a) the Russian economy was much stronger than the German economy, and b) the Russians had more people. People think of Germany as an economic powerhouse and Russia as weak but in the 1930s and 1940s the situation was actually in the Soviet favor. Germany and Russia were both state run, centrally planned economies, but Germany was just crushed from losing World War I and the French occupation did Germany absolutely no favors. By 1941, Russia was producing more and better tanks, had their own capable ground attack aircraft, far more artillery than their German counterparts. Just look at how many T-34s the Russians were producing per month. I mean, yeah, the Russians did lose 20 million people, but a lot of those were civilian deaths. If you go soldier for soldier, Russians butchered as many hapless Germans in 1944 / 1945 as Germans butchered hapless Russians in 1941/1942.
And, in any case, the United Kingdom cannot be underestimated. They knocked the Italian navy nearly out of the war, grabbed control the Mediterranean, blocked even the threat of any German attempt to invade the main islands and within a year or so had waves of lancasters firebombing the shit out of German cities.
I mean, when Great Britian, with a fraction of the population, produces more aircraft, more warships and has vastly superior electronics than Germany does, you really begin to understand just what a disadvantage a totalitarian regime has in war.
Why is this a troll?
There's a pretty good factual argument to be made that the USA literally picked the English side in World War I precisely because of the massive debts England and France racked up. Yes, there was a common heritage with England, but the USA at that time was nearly as much German as it was English, or had a huge German minority - particular in the midwest.
The fact is, Imperial Germany bent over backwards to avoid war with the USA and the Zimmerman telegram was basically a "WTF do we do if the USA goes against us... maybe Mexico will join us"... but the German high command KNEW they were losing the war, KNEW the war was over if the USA joined it, just on naval strength alone and they threw the hail mary. The british intercepted it.
Woops.
The West owes Russia no debt for her actions in WW2.
We don't "owe" the Russians anything, per say. But to say that the Russians are all bad is a pretty big distortion of history.
We have to remember that we entered World War II with our own motives as well. Despite his critics, Roosevelt was no fool, and he very clearly understood the economics that the USA could actually fight and win a two front World War and come out with total dominance of the seas, and with it, an unprecedented period of American dominance that we have well, squandered. But hey, World War II bought the good life for almost three generations of Americans, brought freedom and a better standard of living for damn near the whole planet overall, and thanks to free trade, it did elevate the overall lifestyle of Americans, even if the consequences of that trade, that the third world would erode American manufacturing and inventiveness, were entirely unforseeable in the racist minds of those long ago policy planners.
The German General Staff in WWII suffered from the same sort of flaws that pervade the American military today. To wit - the commanders are superb tacticians but terrible strategists. By comparison, American generals in WWII were aweful tacticians, when Patton's yer best, you got problems, but, super strategists. Right now, in our present wars, I would much rather have an Eisenhower or a Marshall, someone that can think of the whole picture, rather than Rommel-esque guys that can carve up a country in a few weeks but can't hold an inch of the pie.
I would make the argument that in our admiration of skillful German tactics, we underestimated the civil engineering heritage that used to be a hallmark of the academy prior to MacArthur's bringing in all the sports and placing an emphasis on warfighting rather than army running.
When push comes to shove, I'm pretty dour on old D-Mac and I wonder if he might not be those most overrated American generalissmo of all time. He blew the defense of the Phillipines, he was nothing compared to Nimitz when it came to the Pacific, and he damned near blew the Korean war both before Inchon and after, and he almost blew Inchon as well.
Just admit it, the Russians shot themselves in the foot......
If there's no Russian front, there's another 300 divisions, including the 6th army, sitting in France on D-Day,
Stalingrad is a prime example where hubris played a part in Germany's defeat. More than anything, Hitler's hubris defeated Germany.
That, and the hubris of the entire German General Staff AND industrial complex. They never did appreciate until it was way too late that the T-34 was a better tank.
How's that? The fact that they suffered higher casualties does not at all correllate to their contribution to "saving Western Europe".
Stalingrad and Kursk. Defense rests.
Of course, the Russians have to take a lot of responsibility for that, because right up until the morning of the Nazi invasion they were shipping steel to Nazi Germany.
Dude, we were lending Hitler money. Everybody but France was trying to throw money at Hitler thinking it would avoid a war. He took the steel, the money and everything else, and bought weapons. Major jerk.
Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism
While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons, more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.