Easy. The electric field of a moving charge when you are not in the rest frame of the charge results in.... a magnetic field. This is why electric fields and magnetic fields are related (although having an inkling about Special Relativity helps too). No video or song for you (believe me, you wouldn't like to hear me sing - although I can dance:) ).
Wrong analogy. It would be more like something like this: you force us to eat a meal together, but I say we can only stop once you've eaten your brussel sprouts. You can't complain that you won't stop eating because of my conditions - you shouldn't have forced us to eat!
The Iraqi and Afghan wars did not bankrupt the US government - far from it. As a percentage of GDP these wars are *vastly* cheaper than any of the previous wars the US fought (although more in absoluter terms due to inflation, those wars are much cheaper due to the massive increase in US GDP since say, the Vietnam War era).
The "bankrupting" of the government is due to a loss of confidence in the ability of America to repay her debts. This is due to the financial sector getting the government to deregulate its activities and do all sorts of shady things. This resulted in a bubble of speculation which looked like an economic "boom" to those not paying attention. When the boom finally bust and all the dodginess was exposed there was a loss of confidence in the US. This is what is causing the current financial woes of the US. Even worse, the financial sector is trying to convince the US government to remove even more protections. Expect another "boom" to follow - which is just as illusory as the last speculative bubble.
The Iraqi and Afghan wars may have been wasteful, but they certainly were not bankrupting.
> They think they are the children of god, and thus being, have a "promised land" that they took originally from others.
Some Israelis think this, not all of them. Israeli Government policy used to be influenced by such people, who believed in a "Greater Israel" but this has been discarded (one of the reasons that Israel *unilaterally* removed itself from Gaza - since they actually want to have a *democratic* state and holding Gaza was incompatible with this).
Actually the current Israelis mostly bought swamp land from the inhabitants of the region (who we now call Jordanians) - note also that most of the "Palestinians" are immigrants from other countries (lots from Egypt) that go back fewer generations than the non-Arab Israelis (ignoring the Arab Israelis here). Then the UN gave land to the Israelis. The neighbouring Arab countries promptly invaded (which means the historical facts are that the Israelis were *not the aggressors*) and the Israelis obtained more land as a result of their War of Independence. The aggressors these days are the militants who fire rockets into Israel, prompting armed response.
Sounds like your grasp on history is pretty tenuous. Which is why I feel the need to point out how wrong you are, in case other readers mistake your historically inaccurate viewpoint as having any semblance to reality. Please check your facts.
I disagree. The Wehrmacht was ruled by Prussians, and they would not surrender on a whim. There was dissent within the armed forces but it was dealt with ruthlessly because that is how the German government did business. Nothing to do with the Allied terms of surrender.
The Iraqi civilians didn't like the American presence but the Shia tolerated them as a necessary evil to get rid of Saddam and Baath. They didn't like when the US soldiers did mindless things - which will happen when you give 18 year old kids with few prospects Hummers, small arms and a license to be bad-ass (as explained to me by an Iraqi Kurd as we flew in to Beirut). One exception to this was Moqtada Al Sadr, the Iranian-backed cleric that had his troublesome 'Mahdi Army' until it was crushed first by the US and then later by the Iraqi Army. So the majority of Iraqis didn't express antipathy for the US (despite the media trying to sensationalising the US occupation as continually losing until *gasp* it suddenly won [basically they ignored the progress on the ground trying to sell press until the reality became too obvious for them to deny]).
A minority of Iraqis, the Sunnis, did hate the Coalition for invading. It turns out that they hate the Shia more and that is where the real trouble was - a sectarian war where the US was caught in the middle.
The US may be filled with many butt-ignorant ignoramuses where half of them can't place their country on the map - but the Pentagon and US Army is filled with smart dudes who actually do know what they are doing. Fighting a ground war in Iraq was pure genius. It meant that all the jihadis were drawn to fight on someone else's soil, where their ideology was shown to be discredited (result: most people in the Middle East now dislike suicide bombers where previously they were admired, especially if they attacked Americans). Plus, the US also got to control Iraqi Oil, which will matter in the next half century (even if the US obtains energy independence they still prevent Russian from energy dominance and have a good lever over China) which was very smart.
There would be no conditions for surrender if the war had not started. It is that simple. If you start a war you cannot complain about the terms the other side will accept surrender on - to do so is ridiculous (as in, don't start the fscking war). Both claims would be true if they were independent, but they are not. If the war was not started by the Axis then the second claim cannot be true or false, it simply doesn't exist (think of it as a logical a NULL value).
As for the Allied terms prolonging the war, that is revisionist b.s. The Axis were never going to surrender as long as they thought they had a chance of winning, and they did think they would win until very near the end - they thought their "wonder weapon" programme would reverse the tide until a few months before the end; this belief meant that the Allies terms of surrender meant nothing to the Germans, and therefore did not result in prolonging the war. It was only devastation of German infrastructure and capacity (that is, civilian population) that brought the war to its conclusion. From this point of view Dresden had its desired effect, ending the war sooner rather than later. The terms of surrender also had the desired effect, no chance of Germany staging Round 3 in another twenty years. The Germans could have accepted the terms in 1944 but they chose not to (still believing they could win).
You assume the current culture of China is 4000 years old. No, the Communist Party of China actively tried to suppress many ancient aspects of ancient China (Confucianism etc). Recently the CCP have woken up and started to re-use the old cultural icons for their own purposes. The real inheritors of the 4000 year old tradition is the Republic of China (kicked out of the mainland as enabled by Stalin and cronies) - but no one talks about ROC in Taiwan anymore since the PRC either bribes (small countries in the Pacfic and Carribean) or threatens (large countries with the closing of access to mainland China's markets) anyone who recognizes the Republic of China as the trues representatives of the Chinese people (the PRC Communists are so tetchy about this because their legitimacy comes solely through force, not through democratic representation as with the ROC).
Sometimes corporations (not usually the US government) do discredit dissidents. Mostly the dissidents work hard to discredit themselves - but they can't see that even though they may have valid points in some areas doesn't mean they always have valid (or reasonable) points all the time. Unfortunately most dissidents have egos that are so large that they fantasize that their government is out to get them. In fact, most reasonable people see them as full of shit (apart from one to two good points the dissidents may make from time to time).
This is not a feature only of US airports, try such and idiotic stunt it in *any* airport around the world. Anywhere in the world if you have a rant like that you will be in trouble - even in countries that don't like the US. So your dig at the US is: -1 Not Insightful.
Since you have used the words "total war", and have a nice German quote there I think I'll supply another for you (which you probably already know, but is for the benefit of other Slashdotters):
Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt erst vorstellen können? I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even yet imagine?
This is a fragment of a speech made by chief Nazi Propagandist Josef Goebbels, and is known as the Sportspalast Speech of 1943. In it he was talking about a total war in the East (against the Soviet Union) but it is clear that Nazi Germany was about to make the transition to "Total War". Given this transition (and earlier indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure in the West, such as the "London Blitz", but also later the V1 and V2 attacks) then why are people re-litigating the decision of the Allies to win such a Total War against Nazi Germany by systematically and thoroughly destroying any means of the Nazis to continue the war (destroying not only factories but the civilians that can be used to create and working in new factories) ?
If someone targets your civilians then they can hardly complain if you target theirs. The debate of whether it is moral or not should center on the first attack on civilians, not on second (since by the earlier attack the aspects of morality have already been waived).
That said, there is one country that still preserves human life even when its citizens have been deliberately targeted. That country is Israel. Islamic Radicals routinely rocket Israeli cities with the express purpose of killing civilians (as there are no military bases in the targeted cities). The Palestinian militants also place their rocket launching facilities amongst their own civilian residential areas, trying to get propaganda coups from any Israeli retaliation. These are both war crimes. So what do the Israelis do? they telephone the inhabitants of the residential block telling them to get out as the building will be bombed. Now you may think that is a shit thing to do, but what else can you do. The Israelis always get a slandered by Slashdotters (especially the particularly ignorant ones, who listen to hearsay and don't actually know the *facts* of what goes on) but in fact that these days the Israelis are one of the most ethical armies in the World (going so far as to honestly investigate and prosecute their own soldiers for breaking their military legal code even when fighting an enemy that is both duplicitous and deliberately engages in war crimes).
Hmm. The Pearl Harbour attack was fought on US soil, when the US was trying to stay out of direct conflict in the war, was it not?. The 9/11 attacks were on US soil, when the US was not at war with anyone in the Middle East/South West Asia, was it not? You are conveniently (disingenuously?) forgetting that many wars that the US is involved in are either because: a) someone made attacks on US soil; b) someone attacked US citizens (eg. Iran hostage crisis); c) someone threatened US allies or critical interests (First Gulf War; Cold War; Korea; Vietnam); d) the UN required forces to act (to stop the Bosnian ethnic cleansing; Somalian chaos).
The US can be involved in wars that are not a direct threat to its existence. In fact, the US tried to maintain the Monroe Doctrine for a long time (which is basically your position) but found out that even if the US avoided trouble it did not mean trouble would not come to the US. Therefore the US decided to be pro-active and head off trouble (the entire Cold War was containment of Soviet aggression: hence Korea, Cuban Crisis, Vietnam, defending Germany); then stop Saddam in Kuwait (preventing Saddam to control the flow of oil, which would have been very damaging to US interests and more importantly, its *citizens* and their expected way of life).
By totally missing these key facts then a rational point-of-view looks like your post. If you put the actual facts back in then your post does not stand up to rational scrutiny.
nb. Vietnam was a war necessary for containment of Soviet aggression (required as a result of the "Domino Theory"). The war had little to do with Vietnam itself, it was just an arena where Soviet and Chinese backed forces were opposed by US forces trying to stem communist expansion (where the expansion was violent because it was undesired by the Southern Vietnamese). Why do so many people struggle to understand this basic fact when they write about the Vietnam War? they other thing they don't get is that the US left with the South intact and communist expansion halted (and Vietcong destroyed) -it was not until three years later (basically a different war) where the North Vietnamese Army invaded the South in a conventional war (not a guerilla war - since the Vietcong had been destroyed half a decade earlier). The US had actually achieved its most of its strategic aims at the time (which were to do with Soviet expansion, not caring about Vietnam itself).
No. World War II in Europe has one of the clearest reasons for starting of any war. Your statement is false as it asserts that the cause and continuation of the war was the responsibility of the Allies due to their stated conditions for victory. Clearly if Hitler had not started the war then such conditions would be moot. Stop portraying the Allies as the responsible party (FFS, Chamberlain grabbed his ankles to try maintain peace), the responsibility for starting the war lies *solely* with the Axis powers. Again the aggressor (the Axis) is being portrayed as the victim by Anonymous Cowards (no wonder they remain AC - who would want to claim responsibility for such muddle-headed crap).
Bullshit! Israel has had both nukes and conventional forces that could have attacked the Iranian programme for the last decade. They have chosen not to - instead giving time for diplomatic means until it is nearly too late. What the Israelis have been pointing out is that the Iranian nuclear weapon programme (for which more and more evidence getting uncovered as time goes on) is not an Israeli problem, it is in fact a threat to the whole World (which the rest of the World actually agrees with, finally). The Israelis have been making a lot of noise not because they want to start a war - it is because the US and Europeans are too damn apathetic to do anything about Iran apart from hand wringing. The Israelis don't want war, but they don't want Iran to be able to threaten them (and the Middle East, and Europe) with nukes either.
Actually you miss the elephant in the room. The US is so vastly powerful they could steam roll any country (at the moment) provided: a) they thought it was worth doing (Afghanistan and Iraq did not mobilize all US forces available - so no, these are not in the same category as a WWII Total War); b) a substantial fraction of the US population was prepared to make sacrifices to win, and c) the US Government thought the benefit of fighting was enough to pay for it.
Iraq was won with a small fraction of available US forces and zero conscription (it just wasn't needed), and Afghanistan actually has mostly been won apart from drug-money and Pakistan (ISI and Haqqani) backed remnants of a insurgency. It is fairly clear that the US achieved their aims (kill Osama, destroy afghan terrorist camps, install friendly government) and doesn't feel the need to do much more (doesn't need to turn Afghanistan into a modern European-style civilized country, since the Afghans themselves are not really into this). So yeah, the US doesn't feel the need to commit in a total way to these fights - but it easily could have if it had *really* wanted to (Internet or no Internet). The truth is the US/Pentagon doesn't really care anymore, but don't make the mistake as thinking it is the same as not having the capability if they actually did get fighting mad.
> While GWT is a traditional fat client architecture (like Flash etc) Wicket/Vaadin are more like a terminal service with the client being executed on the server.
Both statements here are untrue. GWT is not a 'fat client' at all - it requires no plugin and is compiled to Javascript before deployment (runs like any other Javascript in your browser). Vaadin is an extension to GWT that is also compiled to Javascript and runs client-side. You must be getting your 'wires crossed' and mistaking GWT/Vaadin with some other technology.
Well, if you are trying to make a dynamic system fit into a page-oriented system there will be some impedance there. Trying to swim against the tide is always more work - it might have been better to do it "GWT's Way" instead (put the module in the driver's seat instead of a bundle of pages).
lol. Hopefully you are aware that Oracle was defeated on claims of copyright and patent infringement. Just pointing it out in case you weren't aware (or if anyone takes you seriously). Java is *FREEEEEEEEEEEE*!!!
Lol. ASP.NET Is so last century (just like JSP solutions in Java). It is easy to spot these sites designed to be mostly page-oriented and just a bit of a yawn to use. GWT is much much better (plus portable to lots of different server O/S for your big, or little, server farms). The Microsoft research to reproduce GWT, called Project Volta, is stillborn. This is a shame because Volta would have given the.NET dudes some of the goodness of GWT (although still platform-limited, as ever with MS).
Slashdot Mirror
... although 'electric field' is an abstract concept. We'd also have to go into particle exchange to explain it. Down the rabbit hole we'd go.
Easy. The electric field of a moving charge when you are not in the rest frame of the charge results in .... a magnetic field. This is why electric fields and magnetic fields are related (although having an inkling about Special Relativity helps too). No video or song for you (believe me, you wouldn't like to hear me sing - although I can dance :) ).
Wrong analogy. It would be more like something like this: you force us to eat a meal together, but I say we can only stop once you've eaten your brussel sprouts. You can't complain that you won't stop eating because of my conditions - you shouldn't have forced us to eat!
Factually incorrect. Please let me explain.
The Iraqi and Afghan wars did not bankrupt the US government - far from it. As a percentage of GDP these wars are *vastly* cheaper than any of the previous wars the US fought (although more in absoluter terms due to inflation, those wars are much cheaper due to the massive increase in US GDP since say, the Vietnam War era).
The "bankrupting" of the government is due to a loss of confidence in the ability of America to repay her debts. This is due to the financial sector getting the government to deregulate its activities and do all sorts of shady things. This resulted in a bubble of speculation which looked like an economic "boom" to those not paying attention. When the boom finally bust and all the dodginess was exposed there was a loss of confidence in the US. This is what is causing the current financial woes of the US. Even worse, the financial sector is trying to convince the US government to remove even more protections. Expect another "boom" to follow - which is just as illusory as the last speculative bubble.
The Iraqi and Afghan wars may have been wasteful, but they certainly were not bankrupting.
> They think they are the children of god, and thus being, have a "promised land" that they took originally from others. Some Israelis think this, not all of them. Israeli Government policy used to be influenced by such people, who believed in a "Greater Israel" but this has been discarded (one of the reasons that Israel *unilaterally* removed itself from Gaza - since they actually want to have a *democratic* state and holding Gaza was incompatible with this).
Actually the current Israelis mostly bought swamp land from the inhabitants of the region (who we now call Jordanians) - note also that most of the "Palestinians" are immigrants from other countries (lots from Egypt) that go back fewer generations than the non-Arab Israelis (ignoring the Arab Israelis here). Then the UN gave land to the Israelis. The neighbouring Arab countries promptly invaded (which means the historical facts are that the Israelis were *not the aggressors*) and the Israelis obtained more land as a result of their War of Independence. The aggressors these days are the militants who fire rockets into Israel, prompting armed response.
Sounds like your grasp on history is pretty tenuous. Which is why I feel the need to point out how wrong you are, in case other readers mistake your historically inaccurate viewpoint as having any semblance to reality. Please check your facts.
I disagree. The Wehrmacht was ruled by Prussians, and they would not surrender on a whim. There was dissent within the armed forces but it was dealt with ruthlessly because that is how the German government did business. Nothing to do with the Allied terms of surrender.
The Iraqi civilians didn't like the American presence but the Shia tolerated them as a necessary evil to get rid of Saddam and Baath. They didn't like when the US soldiers did mindless things - which will happen when you give 18 year old kids with few prospects Hummers, small arms and a license to be bad-ass (as explained to me by an Iraqi Kurd as we flew in to Beirut). One exception to this was Moqtada Al Sadr, the Iranian-backed cleric that had his troublesome 'Mahdi Army' until it was crushed first by the US and then later by the Iraqi Army. So the majority of Iraqis didn't express antipathy for the US (despite the media trying to sensationalising the US occupation as continually losing until *gasp* it suddenly won [basically they ignored the progress on the ground trying to sell press until the reality became too obvious for them to deny]).
A minority of Iraqis, the Sunnis, did hate the Coalition for invading. It turns out that they hate the Shia more and that is where the real trouble was - a sectarian war where the US was caught in the middle.
The US may be filled with many butt-ignorant ignoramuses where half of them can't place their country on the map - but the Pentagon and US Army is filled with smart dudes who actually do know what they are doing. Fighting a ground war in Iraq was pure genius. It meant that all the jihadis were drawn to fight on someone else's soil, where their ideology was shown to be discredited (result: most people in the Middle East now dislike suicide bombers where previously they were admired, especially if they attacked Americans). Plus, the US also got to control Iraqi Oil, which will matter in the next half century (even if the US obtains energy independence they still prevent Russian from energy dominance and have a good lever over China) which was very smart.
There would be no conditions for surrender if the war had not started. It is that simple. If you start a war you cannot complain about the terms the other side will accept surrender on - to do so is ridiculous (as in, don't start the fscking war). Both claims would be true if they were independent, but they are not. If the war was not started by the Axis then the second claim cannot be true or false, it simply doesn't exist (think of it as a logical a NULL value).
As for the Allied terms prolonging the war, that is revisionist b.s. The Axis were never going to surrender as long as they thought they had a chance of winning, and they did think they would win until very near the end - they thought their "wonder weapon" programme would reverse the tide until a few months before the end; this belief meant that the Allies terms of surrender meant nothing to the Germans, and therefore did not result in prolonging the war. It was only devastation of German infrastructure and capacity (that is, civilian population) that brought the war to its conclusion. From this point of view Dresden had its desired effect, ending the war sooner rather than later. The terms of surrender also had the desired effect, no chance of Germany staging Round 3 in another twenty years. The Germans could have accepted the terms in 1944 but they chose not to (still believing they could win).
You assume the current culture of China is 4000 years old. No, the Communist Party of China actively tried to suppress many ancient aspects of ancient China (Confucianism etc). Recently the CCP have woken up and started to re-use the old cultural icons for their own purposes. The real inheritors of the 4000 year old tradition is the Republic of China (kicked out of the mainland as enabled by Stalin and cronies) - but no one talks about ROC in Taiwan anymore since the PRC either bribes (small countries in the Pacfic and Carribean) or threatens (large countries with the closing of access to mainland China's markets) anyone who recognizes the Republic of China as the trues representatives of the Chinese people (the PRC Communists are so tetchy about this because their legitimacy comes solely through force, not through democratic representation as with the ROC).
Sometimes corporations (not usually the US government) do discredit dissidents. Mostly the dissidents work hard to discredit themselves - but they can't see that even though they may have valid points in some areas doesn't mean they always have valid (or reasonable) points all the time. Unfortunately most dissidents have egos that are so large that they fantasize that their government is out to get them. In fact, most reasonable people see them as full of shit (apart from one to two good points the dissidents may make from time to time).
This is not a feature only of US airports, try such and idiotic stunt it in *any* airport around the world. Anywhere in the world if you have a rant like that you will be in trouble - even in countries that don't like the US. So your dig at the US is: -1 Not Insightful.
Since you have used the words "total war", and have a nice German quote there I think I'll supply another for you (which you probably already know, but is for the benefit of other Slashdotters):
Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt erst vorstellen können?
I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even yet imagine?
This is a fragment of a speech made by chief Nazi Propagandist Josef Goebbels, and is known as the Sportspalast Speech of 1943. In it he was talking about a total war in the East (against the Soviet Union) but it is clear that Nazi Germany was about to make the transition to "Total War". Given this transition (and earlier indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure in the West, such as the "London Blitz", but also later the V1 and V2 attacks) then why are people re-litigating the decision of the Allies to win such a Total War against Nazi Germany by systematically and thoroughly destroying any means of the Nazis to continue the war (destroying not only factories but the civilians that can be used to create and working in new factories) ?
If someone targets your civilians then they can hardly complain if you target theirs. The debate of whether it is moral or not should center on the first attack on civilians, not on second (since by the earlier attack the aspects of morality have already been waived).
That said, there is one country that still preserves human life even when its citizens have been deliberately targeted. That country is Israel. Islamic Radicals routinely rocket Israeli cities with the express purpose of killing civilians (as there are no military bases in the targeted cities). The Palestinian militants also place their rocket launching facilities amongst their own civilian residential areas, trying to get propaganda coups from any Israeli retaliation. These are both war crimes. So what do the Israelis do? they telephone the inhabitants of the residential block telling them to get out as the building will be bombed. Now you may think that is a shit thing to do, but what else can you do. The Israelis always get a slandered by Slashdotters (especially the particularly ignorant ones, who listen to hearsay and don't actually know the *facts* of what goes on) but in fact that these days the Israelis are one of the most ethical armies in the World (going so far as to honestly investigate and prosecute their own soldiers for breaking their military legal code even when fighting an enemy that is both duplicitous and deliberately engages in war crimes).
Hmm. The Pearl Harbour attack was fought on US soil, when the US was trying to stay out of direct conflict in the war, was it not?. The 9/11 attacks were on US soil, when the US was not at war with anyone in the Middle East/South West Asia, was it not? You are conveniently (disingenuously?) forgetting that many wars that the US is involved in are either because: a) someone made attacks on US soil; b) someone attacked US citizens (eg. Iran hostage crisis); c) someone threatened US allies or critical interests (First Gulf War; Cold War; Korea; Vietnam); d) the UN required forces to act (to stop the Bosnian ethnic cleansing; Somalian chaos).
The US can be involved in wars that are not a direct threat to its existence. In fact, the US tried to maintain the Monroe Doctrine for a long time (which is basically your position) but found out that even if the US avoided trouble it did not mean trouble would not come to the US. Therefore the US decided to be pro-active and head off trouble (the entire Cold War was containment of Soviet aggression: hence Korea, Cuban Crisis, Vietnam, defending Germany); then stop Saddam in Kuwait (preventing Saddam to control the flow of oil, which would have been very damaging to US interests and more importantly, its *citizens* and their expected way of life).
By totally missing these key facts then a rational point-of-view looks like your post. If you put the actual facts back in then your post does not stand up to rational scrutiny.
nb. Vietnam was a war necessary for containment of Soviet aggression (required as a result of the "Domino Theory"). The war had little to do with Vietnam itself, it was just an arena where Soviet and Chinese backed forces were opposed by US forces trying to stem communist expansion (where the expansion was violent because it was undesired by the Southern Vietnamese). Why do so many people struggle to understand this basic fact when they write about the Vietnam War? they other thing they don't get is that the US left with the South intact and communist expansion halted (and Vietcong destroyed) -it was not until three years later (basically a different war) where the North Vietnamese Army invaded the South in a conventional war (not a guerilla war - since the Vietcong had been destroyed half a decade earlier). The US had actually achieved its most of its strategic aims at the time (which were to do with Soviet expansion, not caring about Vietnam itself).
No. World War II in Europe has one of the clearest reasons for starting of any war. Your statement is false as it asserts that the cause and continuation of the war was the responsibility of the Allies due to their stated conditions for victory. Clearly if Hitler had not started the war then such conditions would be moot. Stop portraying the Allies as the responsible party (FFS, Chamberlain grabbed his ankles to try maintain peace), the responsibility for starting the war lies *solely* with the Axis powers. Again the aggressor (the Axis) is being portrayed as the victim by Anonymous Cowards (no wonder they remain AC - who would want to claim responsibility for such muddle-headed crap).
Bullshit! Israel has had both nukes and conventional forces that could have attacked the Iranian programme for the last decade. They have chosen not to - instead giving time for diplomatic means until it is nearly too late. What the Israelis have been pointing out is that the Iranian nuclear weapon programme (for which more and more evidence getting uncovered as time goes on) is not an Israeli problem, it is in fact a threat to the whole World (which the rest of the World actually agrees with, finally). The Israelis have been making a lot of noise not because they want to start a war - it is because the US and Europeans are too damn apathetic to do anything about Iran apart from hand wringing. The Israelis don't want war, but they don't want Iran to be able to threaten them (and the Middle East, and Europe) with nukes either.
Actually you miss the elephant in the room. The US is so vastly powerful they could steam roll any country (at the moment) provided: a) they thought it was worth doing (Afghanistan and Iraq did not mobilize all US forces available - so no, these are not in the same category as a WWII Total War); b) a substantial fraction of the US population was prepared to make sacrifices to win, and c) the US Government thought the benefit of fighting was enough to pay for it.
Iraq was won with a small fraction of available US forces and zero conscription (it just wasn't needed), and Afghanistan actually has mostly been won apart from drug-money and Pakistan (ISI and Haqqani) backed remnants of a insurgency. It is fairly clear that the US achieved their aims (kill Osama, destroy afghan terrorist camps, install friendly government) and doesn't feel the need to do much more (doesn't need to turn Afghanistan into a modern European-style civilized country, since the Afghans themselves are not really into this). So yeah, the US doesn't feel the need to commit in a total way to these fights - but it easily could have if it had *really* wanted to (Internet or no Internet). The truth is the US/Pentagon doesn't really care anymore, but don't make the mistake as thinking it is the same as not having the capability if they actually did get fighting mad.
> While GWT is a traditional fat client architecture (like Flash etc) Wicket/Vaadin are more like a terminal service with the client being executed on the server.
Both statements here are untrue. GWT is not a 'fat client' at all - it requires no plugin and is compiled to Javascript before deployment (runs like any other Javascript in your browser). Vaadin is an extension to GWT that is also compiled to Javascript and runs client-side. You must be getting your 'wires crossed' and mistaking GWT/Vaadin with some other technology.
Well, if you are trying to make a dynamic system fit into a page-oriented system there will be some impedance there. Trying to swim against the tide is always more work - it might have been better to do it "GWT's Way" instead (put the module in the driver's seat instead of a bundle of pages).
JSF is indeed awful, IMHO. Have you tried GWT+vaadin yet? Pretty fine if you are in the Java space.
Whatever snake that can only live in one environment, kinda moves backwards, and is not very dynamic compared to other more recently evolved snakes :)
nb. Python are not venomous. They kill their prey by crushing (which is how you oughta feel right now - just kidding - nice joke you made).
lol. Hopefully you are aware that Oracle was defeated on claims of copyright and patent infringement. Just pointing it out in case you weren't aware (or if anyone takes you seriously). Java is *FREEEEEEEEEEEE*!!!
Structs are ancient and pretty yukky compared to the newer tech out there :( I'm surprised anyone would use them for anything new.
Lol. ASP.NET Is so last century (just like JSP solutions in Java). It is easy to spot these sites designed to be mostly page-oriented and just a bit of a yawn to use. GWT is much much better (plus portable to lots of different server O/S for your big, or little, server farms). The Microsoft research to reproduce GWT, called Project Volta, is stillborn. This is a shame because Volta would have given the .NET dudes some of the goodness of GWT (although still platform-limited, as ever with MS).