as a proper noun for a letter combination to qualify as a proper noun, well at the vary least in practice anyway ( one could just say 'my pot plant has that name' if a opponent object's to the relevant letter combination.)
..can be a proper noun without breaking any traditional English language grammar constraints in regard what can be classified as a proper noun. Well that's the way I see it.
Firearms deaths do not equal firearm incidents, I assume most firearm incidents cause injury not death, so firearm death stats are not a necessarily relivent in regards correlating firearm incident stats
Thay're about minimising firearm incidents regardless of premeditation or who has a criminal past. A bloody good percentage of firearm incidents are accidents &/or acts of compulsion/impulse.
Example:- Johnny & Jack come home from the pub pissed as farts & get in a argument & end up blueing. One ends up with the upper hand & the other comes off second best with the furniture, in anger he reaches for his legally owned gun & points/threatens his mate & then through drunkeness & carelessness, etc, the gun accidently fires & his mate gets blasted.
Such a scenario correlates with many more firearm incidents than pre-meditated acts by career criminals. Gun control laws & gun storage laws are there to minimise such scenarios. The only effect gun control & storage laws have on preventing firearm acts by career criminals or lifestyle criminals is by limiting the amount of firerms stolen & being diverted into the black market (less legal access often means less illegal access, even if there's no statistical correlation). Of course in regards the US it's too late, the place is so saturated with firearms already.
Most firearm incidents are accidents &/or acts of compulsion/impulse.
Example:- Johnny & Jack come home from the pub pissed as farts & get in a argument & end up blueing. One ends up with the upper hand & the other comes off second best with the furniture, in anger he reaches for his gun & points/threatens his mate & then through drunkeness & carelessness, etc, the gun accidently fires & his mate gets blasted.
Such a scenario correlates with many more firearm incidents than pre-meditated acts by career criminals. Gun control laws & gun storage laws are there to minimise such scenarios. The only effect gun control & storage laws have on preventing firearm acts by career criminals or lifestyle criminals is by limiting the amount of firerms stolen & being diverted into the black market. Of course in regards the US it's too late, the place is so satuated with firearms already.
Most firearm incidents are accidents &/or acts of compulsion/impulse.
Example:- Johnny & Jack come home from the pub pissed as farts & get in a argument & end up blueing. One ends up with the upper hand & the other comes off second best with the furniture, in anger he reaches for his gun & points/threatens his mate & then through drunkeness & carelessness, etc, the gun accidently fires & his mate gets blasted.
Such a scenario correlates with many more firearm incidents than pre-meditated acts by career criminals. Gun control laws & gun storage laws are there to minimise such scenarios. The only effect gun control & storage laws have on preventing firearm acts by career criminals or lifestyle criminals is by limiting the amount of firerms stolen & being diverted into the black market. Of course in regards the US it's too late, the place is so satuated with firearms already.
These type of systems were originally developed to detect & track aircraft in the days before radar came into play. Many countries had developed & equiped their military with such sound detection/tracking systems during the interwar years (ie the 20s' & 30's). They never really matched their assumed potential & often required too much talent & skill from the operators to be practical. At best they were an early warning system
I doubt there's many people that lie as much as cops do on a daily basis & get away with it. & I've yet to see a polices facts statement or brief that wasn't full of lies. No wonder bugger all trust coppers these days
Why US Mail/USPS didn't claim the war memorial was public domain is beyond me. I assume it was built on public land at public expence (either financed directly by govt using tax money or by public subscription), & the designer was paid for the commision.
When creators/designers/artists are paid directly by their employer or a 3rd party who commissioned the work, then it's not unuseal for the 3rd party to end up with the IP rights to the work (in this cas the govt/public I assume).
The machine can only compose in the style of Mozart only after hundreds of hours of programming with Mozart compositions so it can learn that style in the 1st place. (From my quick glance) the creator never claimed that his machine could create a individual style of it's own that could come close to competing with the styles of Mozart 'n Bach, etc.
So the machine has to plagiarise a style before it can compose in that style, it isn't able to innovate it's own composing style. I assume there's the potential for the machine to be programmed with multiple styles concurrently & create a hybrid style that's harmonious, then it's on it might be on it's way to competing with the greats.
The creator had to spend hundreds of hours programing with Bach's compositions before the machine could learn his style, so in effect it's dependent on Bach to compose in his style, same again in regards Mozart. However Bach 'n Mozart were able to create their styles without dependency on being programmed to do those styles in the 1st place, regardless of influences. IOW without Bach or Mozart, etc the machine would not be able to make those compositions in the 1st place.
Someone told me the Wii remote has 2 or 3 of those electronic surface mount 'nano' gyros similar to what those Sedgeway thingos have.
Maybe he was hanging out?
on
The Wii Laptop
·
· Score: 1
& needed to wack up some opioids, drop some benzos or had the DTs 'n needed the hair of the dog or something. Or ran out of ciggies & didn't find any bumpers on the footpath ot front. Who knows, I assume he's just human like the rest of us ('Speak for your self' my red n' tan Kelpy just nodded)
All those background proceeses really clog things up.
My Athon X2 3800+ beats the shit out of every Intel core2 whatever processor PC I've used, simply because the average Dick, Tom or Harry is ignorant in regards the gazillion startup processes running in the background clogging up their computers. Or they don't know how 2 turn off Limewire &/or their security setup's grinding thing down, etc.
If U R getting poor performance from a contemporary AMD proccesor U must B doing something wrong or have bugger all memory.
If these beetles contain corrosion inhibitor molecules to, it'd be perfect for the radiator of my V8 Leyland P76, SQ-36 is getting damned expensive these days.
fact is the cheapist way to provide such services is by a govt monopoly paid via landrates or consolidated revenue (ie income tax)
Take a hypothetical case of a city/county/district/state/nation-wide region where 5 competing networks of similar size each provide full region coverage, each holding about 20% of the market in the network region. Now compare that to a govt telco monopoly with the same city/county/district/state/nation-wide coverage, but instead having 100% of the market. In such a situation the private networks that only have 20% of the market have virtually the same costs as the govt monopoly that holds 100% of the market, but have to spread those costs over a much smaller user base.
Remember in regards things like public utilities, telcos & network infrastructure the economies of scale of govt monopolies are king, easily beating the multiplicity of waste from the unnecesary redundency of private companies competing in the same market.
Sure govt statutory authorities may potentially have higher labour costs but that's more than neutralised by other factors. For example statutory authorities are exempt from local govt zoning laws, can obtaine financing at lower interest, don't pay taxes, have easy & cheap axcess to govt land & private land through eminent domain, can share costs with other govt depts & statory authorities (for example offices in govt buildings) & need little marketing/advertising overheads. Plus revenue via landrates or consolidated revenue makes accounting much cheaper as there's no billing or user account overheads
Fact is the only reasons why many of the worlds utilities & govt telco monopolies were broken up & privatised was because of the now discredited neo-liberalisation ideology of the economic rationalists, the greed of those trying to make a quick buck & politicians wanting quick cash from privatisations to pay for election promises. Hence we have lobbying by upper management in corporatised govt utilities hoping to get the huge payrises & stock options that privatisations bring, lobbying by the business communty because of the big fees that can be made by those in the finance, consultancy & securities scene from privatisations & finally lobbying & backyard deal making by politicians, party faction leaders & bureaucrats with the aim of retiring into a consultancy or company board or being owed a favour by those that do.
Jet engines (AKA 'gas turbine') run on diesel fuel fine. The only reason kerosene became the standard for jet fuel was because there was a excess supply of the stuff in both the UK & the 3rd Riech during WWII as it was a by-product in the manufacture of petrol & other fuels. Incidently the reverse is true too, deisel engines run fine on kerasene too.
BTW a huge proportion of the large steam engines made during the 20th century were designed for the burning of fuel oil (look at the Royal Navy's reason for owning Anglo-Persian cum BP). Other than the tax excise fuel oil & diesel are basically one & the same. During WWII for instance the Sherman tanks supplied to the USMC had diesel engines so that they could be fueled up using the same fuel oil the USN used.
Incidently I've seen both 2 stroke & 4 stroke diesel engines too.
Fact is, regardless of the way the term was used when Mr Diesel invented his engine (languages evolve), today 'diesel' defines a type of fuel (fuel oil adulterated with a little kerosene) not a engine type. There are compression ignited engines that have been expressedly designed for other fuels you know, while there are turbo-prop & 4 stroke engines that have been expressedly designed for diesel fuel too.
fact is the cheapist way to provide such services is by a govt monopoly paid via landrates or consolidated revenue (ie income tax)
Take a hypothetical case of a city/county/district/state/nation-wide region where 5 competing networks of similar size each provide full region coverage, each holding about 20% of the market in the network region. Now compare that to a govt telco monopoly with the same city/county/district/state/nation-wide coverage, but instead having 100% of the market. In such a situation the private networks that only have 20% of the market have virtually the same costs as the govt monopoly that holds 100% of the market, but have to spread those costs over a much smaller user base.
Remember in regards things like public utilities, telcos & network infrastructure the economies of scale of govt monopolies are king, easily beating the multiplicity of waste from the unnecesary redundency of private companies competing in the same market.
Sure govt statutory authorities may potentially have higher labour costs but that's more than neutralised by other factors. For example statutory authorities are exempt from local govt zoning laws, can obtaine financing at lower interest, don't pay taxes, have easy & cheap axcess to govt land & private land through eminent domain, can share costs with other govt depts & statory authorities (for example offices in govt buildings) & need little marketing/advertising overheads. Plus revenue via landrates or consolidated revenue makes accounting much cheaper as there's no billing or user account overheads
Fact is the only reasons why many of the worlds utilities & govt telco monopolies were broken up & privatised was because of the now discredited neo-liberalisation ideology of the economic rationalists & the greed of those trying to make a quick buck & politicians wanting quick cash from privatisations to pay for election promises. Hence we have lobbying by upper management in corporatised govt utilities hoping to get the huge payrises & stock options that privatisations bring, lobbying by the business communty because of the big fees that can be made by those in the finance, consultancy & securities scene from privatisations & finally lobbying & backyard deal making by politicians, party faction leaders & bureaucrats with the aim of retiring into a consultancy or company board or being owed a favour by those that do.
Commonsense dictates that the use of a refridgerated shipping container would be automatic, afterall have you ever seen a institution's mainframe/server computer room that didn't have a dedicated airconditioner? Remember the basic differance between a fridge & a air-conditioner is the output temperature & once you take into account the container's freezer counteracting all the heat from those CPUs, chipsets & hard drives then the end result would probably be a temperature close to that in the average office tower computer room in the CBD (I assume the power supply/s would be made in modular form as part of a external generator with the external generator outputing correctly regulated 5v, 12v & 3.3v currents directly into the container, thus removing a significant proportion of the heat that would otherwise come from the cluster)
Its a bit silly saying Japan wasn't interested in a negotiated cease-fire when Japan's whole point in going to war with the US & Commonwealth was to get a negotiated ceasefire in the 1st place. Yep in Dec 41 Japan had no thought of invading India, the US or Oz, their plan was to just run amoke to such a degree that the allies would seek a quick ceasefire & recognise their hegamy in East-Asia. Of course after Midway any potential terms were getting correspondently worse for the Japanese with each season & the Japanese knew it.
Lets be honest, if the nukes had not existed there still would've been no invasion of the 'home islands' (especially after Okinawa), no matter what hypothetical plans were drawn up. All that would've happened have been a continued blockade & air campaign till Japan met terms, IE a negotiated ceasefire instead of a unconditional surrender (historically relatively rare in war). Really if the allies weren't so hell bent on unconditional surrender (for political reasons) its pretty well considered by many experts the the Japanese would have met surrender terms not long after Germany's exit from the war.
The Japs knew they well 'n truelly beat by Saipan (just read any of the Japanese War ministry papers that were released about 10 years ago), gez by then their war production wasn't even replacing loses by 15% or something, let alone matching war loses, or matching the allies. Even us Aussies alone were almost matching the Japanese in many aspects of war production by then (of course that excludes such things as capital ships 'n subs. Mind you by the last year of the war Japanese aircraft production was abysmal, while such aircraft as Beaufighters, Mustangs & Mosquitoes were being made in Oz). The Japanese only kept fighting because unconditional surrender was unacceptable (which is why unconditional surrender's so rare) as they saw it as a risk to their monarchy.
Actually, the Japs knew they were beat by Midway - they knew the realities of US industrial production (the fact that only 17% of America's war effort was directed at Japan, yet the Americans were more than matching them. These figures become even more spectacular when one realises that Germany was directing arguably 80+% of it's war effort against the Russians) meant they had to force the US to meet it's terms with 6 months of Pearl Harbour or the war was lost. A such Japan had no intention of ever invading Australia, India or the US - their plan was to run amoke, quickly inflicting a number of knockout blows, there-by forcing the allies to accept their terms for peace - recognise the Japanese conquests in China & accept Japanese puppet regimes in the Philipines, Indochina, Malaya & the East Indies. (Going by a doco I saw) by Midway they had given up on the allies accepting terms on the puppet states & just wanted the China conquests recognised, which was still quite rightly unacceptable to the allies. By Saipan their hoped for terms were that the allies would be willing to accept some sort of Japanese hegamony/sphere in Formosa, Manchuria & Korea. By the fall of Germany the Japanese only had 2 conditions left - the monarchy must remain & on paper the surrender must be referred to as a 'negotiated ceasefire' (the Japanese obsession with 'face' is obvious here).
From what I understand the whole 'unconditional surrender' thing started as a policy of faith by Roosevelt & Churchill to Stalin. It became policy in regards to the Nazi regime as an attempt to relieve Stalin's concern/worries/paranoia about the West unilaterally negotiating terms with Hitler. The unconditional surrender policy was only extended to include the Japanese to satisfy American voters, who would otherwise ask 'why are the Germans expected to surrender unconditionally & not the Japs when it was the Japs that attacked us'.
Now lets see what some of America's great war-time leaders thought:- GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, an
Slashdot Mirror
as a proper noun for a letter combination to qualify as a proper noun, well at the vary least in practice anyway ( one could just say 'my pot plant has that name' if a opponent object's to the relevant letter combination.)
..can be a proper noun without breaking any traditional English language grammar constraints in regard what can be classified as a proper noun. Well that's the way I see it.
Firearms deaths do not equal firearm incidents, I assume most firearm incidents cause injury not death, so firearm death stats are not a necessarily relivent in regards correlating firearm incident stats
Thay're about minimising firearm incidents regardless of premeditation or who has a criminal past. A bloody good percentage of firearm incidents are accidents &/or acts of compulsion/impulse.
Example:- Johnny & Jack come home from the pub pissed as farts & get in a argument & end up blueing. One ends up with the upper hand & the other comes off second best with the furniture, in anger he reaches for his legally owned gun & points/threatens his mate & then through drunkeness & carelessness, etc, the gun accidently fires & his mate gets blasted.
Such a scenario correlates with many more firearm incidents than pre-meditated acts by career criminals. Gun control laws & gun storage laws are there to minimise such scenarios. The only effect gun control & storage laws have on preventing firearm acts by career criminals or lifestyle criminals is by limiting the amount of firerms stolen & being diverted into the black market (less legal access often means less illegal access, even if there's no statistical correlation). Of course in regards the US it's too late, the place is so saturated with firearms already.
Most firearm incidents are accidents &/or acts of compulsion/impulse.
Example:- Johnny & Jack come home from the pub pissed as farts & get in a argument & end up blueing. One ends up with the upper hand & the other comes off second best with the furniture, in anger he reaches for his gun & points/threatens his mate & then through drunkeness & carelessness, etc, the gun accidently fires & his mate gets blasted.
Such a scenario correlates with many more firearm incidents than pre-meditated acts by career criminals. Gun control laws & gun storage laws are there to minimise such scenarios. The only effect gun control & storage laws have on preventing firearm acts by career criminals or lifestyle criminals is by limiting the amount of firerms stolen & being diverted into the black market. Of course in regards the US it's too late, the place is so satuated with firearms already.
Most firearm incidents are accidents &/or acts of compulsion/impulse.
Example:- Johnny & Jack come home from the pub pissed as farts & get in a argument & end up blueing. One ends up with the upper hand & the other comes off second best with the furniture, in anger he reaches for his gun & points/threatens his mate & then through drunkeness & carelessness, etc, the gun accidently fires & his mate gets blasted.
Such a scenario correlates with many more firearm incidents than pre-meditated acts by career criminals. Gun control laws & gun storage laws are there to minimise such scenarios. The only effect gun control & storage laws have on preventing firearm acts by career criminals or lifestyle criminals is by limiting the amount of firerms stolen & being diverted into the black market. Of course in regards the US it's too late, the place is so satuated with firearms already.
These type of systems were originally developed to detect & track aircraft in the days before radar came into play. Many countries had developed & equiped their military with such sound detection/tracking systems during the interwar years (ie the 20s' & 30's). They never really matched their assumed potential & often required too much talent & skill from the operators to be practical. At best they were an early warning system
I doubt there's many people that lie as much as cops do on a daily basis & get away with it. & I've yet to see a polices facts statement or brief that wasn't full of lies. No wonder bugger all trust coppers these days
Why US Mail/USPS didn't claim the war memorial was public domain is beyond me. I assume it was built on public land at public expence (either financed directly by govt using tax money or by public subscription), & the designer was paid for the commision.
When creators/designers/artists are paid directly by their employer or a 3rd party who commissioned the work, then it's not unuseal for the 3rd party to end up with the IP rights to the work (in this cas the govt/public I assume).
Until then the machine's just a tribute composer.
The machine can only compose in the style of Mozart only after hundreds of hours of programming with Mozart compositions so it can learn that style in the 1st place. (From my quick glance) the creator never claimed that his machine could create a individual style of it's own that could come close to competing with the styles of Mozart 'n Bach, etc.
So the machine has to plagiarise a style before it can compose in that style, it isn't able to innovate it's own composing style. I assume there's the potential for the machine to be programmed with multiple styles concurrently & create a hybrid style that's harmonious, then it's on it might be on it's way to competing with the greats.
The creator had to spend hundreds of hours programing with Bach's compositions before the machine could learn his style, so in effect it's dependent on Bach to compose in his style, same again in regards Mozart. However Bach 'n Mozart were able to create their styles without dependency on being programmed to do those styles in the 1st place, regardless of influences. IOW without Bach or Mozart, etc the machine would not be able to make those compositions in the 1st place.
Someone told me the Wii remote has 2 or 3 of those electronic surface mount 'nano' gyros similar to what those Sedgeway thingos have.
& needed to wack up some opioids, drop some benzos or had the DTs 'n needed the hair of the dog or something. Or ran out of ciggies & didn't find any bumpers on the footpath ot front. Who knows, I assume he's just human like the rest of us ('Speak for your self' my red n' tan Kelpy just nodded)
Going by the picts the Wii lapy appears to be quite thinner than the 360 lapy
All those background proceeses really clog things up.
My Athon X2 3800+ beats the shit out of every Intel core2 whatever processor PC I've used, simply because the average Dick, Tom or Harry is ignorant in regards the gazillion startup processes running in the background clogging up their computers. Or they don't know how 2 turn off Limewire &/or their security setup's grinding thing down, etc.
If U R getting poor performance from a contemporary AMD proccesor U must B doing something wrong or have bugger all memory.
Everything else was spot on.
If these beetles contain corrosion inhibitor molecules to, it'd be perfect for the radiator of my V8 Leyland P76, SQ-36 is getting damned expensive these days.
In regards utility services, including Telcos.
fact is the cheapist way to provide such services is by a govt monopoly paid via landrates or consolidated revenue (ie income tax)
Take a hypothetical case of a city/county/district/state/nation-wide region where 5 competing networks of similar size each provide full region coverage, each holding about 20% of the market in the network region. Now compare that to a govt telco monopoly with the same city/county/district/state/nation-wide coverage, but instead having 100% of the market. In such a situation the private networks that only have 20% of the market have virtually the same costs as the govt monopoly that holds 100% of the market, but have to spread those costs over a much smaller user base.
Remember in regards things like public utilities, telcos & network infrastructure the economies of scale of govt monopolies are king, easily beating the multiplicity of waste from the unnecesary redundency of private companies competing in the same market.
Sure govt statutory authorities may potentially have higher labour costs but that's more than neutralised by other factors. For example statutory authorities are exempt from local govt zoning laws, can obtaine financing at lower interest, don't pay taxes, have easy & cheap axcess to govt land & private land through eminent domain, can share costs with other govt depts & statory authorities (for example offices in govt buildings) & need little marketing/advertising overheads. Plus revenue via landrates or consolidated revenue makes accounting much cheaper as there's no billing or user account overheads
Fact is the only reasons why many of the worlds utilities & govt telco monopolies were broken up & privatised was because of the now discredited neo-liberalisation ideology of the economic rationalists, the greed of those trying to make a quick buck & politicians wanting quick cash from privatisations to pay for election promises. Hence we have lobbying by upper management in corporatised govt utilities hoping to get the huge payrises & stock options that privatisations bring, lobbying by the business communty because of the big fees that can be made by those in the finance, consultancy & securities scene from privatisations & finally lobbying & backyard deal making by politicians, party faction leaders & bureaucrats with the aim of retiring into a consultancy or company board or being owed a favour by those that do.
Jet engines (AKA 'gas turbine') run on diesel fuel fine. The only reason kerosene became the standard for jet fuel was because there was a excess supply of the stuff in both the UK & the 3rd Riech during WWII as it was a by-product in the manufacture of petrol & other fuels. Incidently the reverse is true too, deisel engines run fine on kerasene too.
BTW a huge proportion of the large steam engines made during the 20th century were designed for the burning of fuel oil (look at the Royal Navy's reason for owning Anglo-Persian cum BP). Other than the tax excise fuel oil & diesel are basically one & the same. During WWII for instance the Sherman tanks supplied to the USMC had diesel engines so that they could be fueled up using the same fuel oil the USN used.
Incidently I've seen both 2 stroke & 4 stroke diesel engines too.
Fact is, regardless of the way the term was used when Mr Diesel invented his engine (languages evolve), today 'diesel' defines a type of fuel (fuel oil adulterated with a little kerosene) not a engine type. There are compression ignited engines that have been expressedly designed for other fuels you know, while there are turbo-prop & 4 stroke engines that have been expressedly designed for diesel fuel too.
fact is the cheapist way to provide such services is by a govt monopoly paid via landrates or consolidated revenue (ie income tax)
Take a hypothetical case of a city/county/district/state/nation-wide region where 5 competing networks of similar size each provide full region coverage, each holding about 20% of the market in the network region. Now compare that to a govt telco monopoly with the same city/county/district/state/nation-wide coverage, but instead having 100% of the market. In such a situation the private networks that only have 20% of the market have virtually the same costs as the govt monopoly that holds 100% of the market, but have to spread those costs over a much smaller user base.
Remember in regards things like public utilities, telcos & network infrastructure the economies of scale of govt monopolies are king, easily beating the multiplicity of waste from the unnecesary redundency of private companies competing in the same market.
Sure govt statutory authorities may potentially have higher labour costs but that's more than neutralised by other factors. For example statutory authorities are exempt from local govt zoning laws, can obtaine financing at lower interest, don't pay taxes, have easy & cheap axcess to govt land & private land through eminent domain, can share costs with other govt depts & statory authorities (for example offices in govt buildings) & need little marketing/advertising overheads. Plus revenue via landrates or consolidated revenue makes accounting much cheaper as there's no billing or user account overheads
Fact is the only reasons why many of the worlds utilities & govt telco monopolies were broken up & privatised was because of the now discredited neo-liberalisation ideology of the economic rationalists & the greed of those trying to make a quick buck & politicians wanting quick cash from privatisations to pay for election promises. Hence we have lobbying by upper management in corporatised govt utilities hoping to get the huge payrises & stock options that privatisations bring, lobbying by the business communty because of the big fees that can be made by those in the finance, consultancy & securities scene from privatisations & finally lobbying & backyard deal making by politicians, party faction leaders & bureaucrats with the aim of retiring into a consultancy or company board or being owed a favour by those that do.
Well since version 3 or 4
& have done for yonks
Commonsense dictates that the use of a refridgerated shipping container would be automatic, afterall have you ever seen a institution's mainframe/server computer room that didn't have a dedicated airconditioner? Remember the basic differance between a fridge & a air-conditioner is the output temperature & once you take into account the container's freezer counteracting all the heat from those CPUs, chipsets & hard drives then the end result would probably be a temperature close to that in the average office tower computer room in the CBD (I assume the power supply/s would be made in modular form as part of a external generator with the external generator outputing correctly regulated 5v, 12v & 3.3v currents directly into the container, thus removing a significant proportion of the heat that would otherwise come from the cluster)
Its a bit silly saying Japan wasn't interested in a negotiated cease-fire when Japan's whole point in going to war with the US & Commonwealth was to get a negotiated ceasefire in the 1st place. Yep in Dec 41 Japan had no thought of invading India, the US or Oz, their plan was to just run amoke to such a degree that the allies would seek a quick ceasefire & recognise their hegamy in East-Asia. Of course after Midway any potential terms were getting correspondently worse for the Japanese with each season & the Japanese knew it.
The Japs knew they well 'n truelly beat by Saipan (just read any of the Japanese War ministry papers that were released about 10 years ago), gez by then their war production wasn't even replacing loses by 15% or something, let alone matching war loses, or matching the allies. Even us Aussies alone were almost matching the Japanese in many aspects of war production by then (of course that excludes such things as capital ships 'n subs. Mind you by the last year of the war Japanese aircraft production was abysmal, while such aircraft as Beaufighters, Mustangs & Mosquitoes were being made in Oz). The Japanese only kept fighting because unconditional surrender was unacceptable (which is why unconditional surrender's so rare) as they saw it as a risk to their monarchy.
Actually, the Japs knew they were beat by Midway - they knew the realities of US industrial production (the fact that only 17% of America's war effort was directed at Japan, yet the Americans were more than matching them. These figures become even more spectacular when one realises that Germany was directing arguably 80+% of it's war effort against the Russians) meant they had to force the US to meet it's terms with 6 months of Pearl Harbour or the war was lost. A such Japan had no intention of ever invading Australia, India or the US - their plan was to run amoke, quickly inflicting a number of knockout blows, there-by forcing the allies to accept their terms for peace - recognise the Japanese conquests in China & accept Japanese puppet regimes in the Philipines, Indochina, Malaya & the East Indies. (Going by a doco I saw) by Midway they had given up on the allies accepting terms on the puppet states & just wanted the China conquests recognised, which was still quite rightly unacceptable to the allies. By Saipan their hoped for terms were that the allies would be willing to accept some sort of Japanese hegamony/sphere in Formosa, Manchuria & Korea. By the fall of Germany the Japanese only had 2 conditions left - the monarchy must remain & on paper the surrender must be referred to as a 'negotiated ceasefire' (the Japanese obsession with 'face' is obvious here).
From what I understand the whole 'unconditional surrender' thing started as a policy of faith by Roosevelt & Churchill to Stalin. It became policy in regards to the Nazi regime as an attempt to relieve Stalin's concern/worries/paranoia about the West unilaterally negotiating terms with Hitler. The unconditional surrender policy was only extended to include the Japanese to satisfy American voters, who would otherwise ask 'why are the Germans expected to surrender unconditionally & not the Japs when it was the Japs that attacked us'.
Now lets see what some of America's great war-time leaders thought:-
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR