Yes Hitler's control over the Army was not as absolute as many think. However this lack of absolute control mainly manifested in what one might call "illegal orders", "war crimes". An officer/soldier who refused to obey may be quietly transferred or get away with it. Summary execution often not possible, a formal proceeding also not practical due to the need to document the order refused. However when it came to "legal orders" the story was quite different. Then that old school follow the orders of the **legal** government authority came into play, even if one personally disagreed with those orders. Stalingrad is a great example, the turning point of the war in the east. The Army planners did not think the city important. They wanted their entire southern force to go for the oil fields of the Caucuses. Hitler's personal meddling spit this force and made Stalingrad a target, resulting in the loss of over 800,000 troops, 1,000 aircraft, 500 tanks and probably the failure to take the oil fields or at least deny them to the Soviets. Denying those oil fields to the Soviets, avoiding the losses of Stalingrad, may have transformed the war in the east. Red Army victory no longer a sure thing. So yes, Hitler's meddling was critical.
German tanks were superior in armor and firepower by '43. Even with upgraded guns in '44 the German tanks could knock out Shermans at many times the range a Sherman could knock them out, assuming the Sherman didn't hit one of the more highly sloped (thicker) spots. Even Eisenhower admitted we screwed up and underestimated the German tanks on the Continent, an improvement over what was seen in Africa.
US jets were not available until after the war was over.
The M2 Carbine is inherently not an assault rifle. That is not a matter of controversy but rather of fact. The M2 is firing a pistol calibre, it fits in the submachine gun category. An assault rifle is defined by having an intermediate cartridge that has performance somewhat similar to that of a high powered battle rifle. In other words effective at hundreds of yards.
The Red Army victory in the East was completely enabled by the US. US manufactured high grade steel was used to manufacture T-34 tanks. US food and US manufactured trucks were absolutely critical to the Red Army. The US P-39 was the Red Army's most effective (and beloved) tank busting aircraft. Ongoing US support was necessary for a Red Army victory. If stalemate in the west led to an armistice that ended such US support Red Army victory is also no longer a sure thing.
Seriously, the greatest thing the Allies had going for it was Hitler's meddling. Even in the East. 800,000 troops lost, nearly a thousand aircraft, 500 tanks, all for a target only important to Hitler, a symbolic target. Stalingrad was not even a target for the Army planners, they wanted all their southern forces to go for the caucasus' oil fields. Hitler ordered the southern force split and Stalingrad attacked. His loss was the turning point for the Red Army. Without his meddling, if the full force had gone for the oil fields at Baku, the Red Army might have been severely weakened by the loss of Baku, not to mention the German's strengthened by avoiding the pointless loss at Stalingrad. Red Army victory in the east was no more of a sure thing in WW2 than US/UK/Can victory in the west. Hitler's meddling being key to the turning points of D-Day and Stalingrad.
I agree that instances of superficiality and being ill-informed are not new, however I think there is a much greater frequency of such instances. Journalists being much less likely to research. Journalists being much less likely to be balanced, the rise of "gonzo journalism" behaviors where objectivity and distance is abandoned.
The flaw in your logic is focusing on nuclear not WMD in general. Mass destruction is mass destruction regardless of the technology employed. In WW2 WMDs were not used when both sides had WMD capabilities. In some sort of D-Day failed scenario that left the Nazis in control of the continent as the US completed development and manufacturing of its two bombs the Nazi's capability to drop chemical V2s on Britain may have given the US a pause. Especially given that huge mass of US troops that would be targetable on Britain. Plus in such a stalemate scenario the Nazi's would also be capable of chemical nighttime bomber raids on Britain. Now lets toss in U-boats conducting chemical attacks on US coastal cities. I'm not sure what the Nazi capability to use radioactive dirty bombs would have been, that's another potential for pause. You can't rule out a MAD scenario.
Plus there is the massive horrible casualties mounting in the Pacific as Imperial Japan employs its bleed the US to the bargaining table strategy. Those two bombs may still have gone to the Pacific in a European stalemate scenario. For political reasons of attaining one decisive victory and the practicality of an enemy unable offer a WMD response. Thus giving the German's even more time to entrench and further their atomic/wmd programs.
As I mentioned in my other response failure to achieve allied victory also includes stalemate, not necessarily axis victory. Delivery of atomic weapons required air superiority or the ability to be beyond the reach of enemy fighters. The later was true for Japanese fighters but not German. The Me-262 had altitude and speed advantages over the B-29. Can't have a bomber shot down over enemy territory and wind up being analyzed. Plus using an atomic weapon on Germany would have loosed what few restraints there were, the Nazis may have started loading chemical and biological weapons on V2 rockets. Use of atomic weapons requires a situation were mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) is not a likely path. Its not clear the nukes could have been used in a stalemate scenario where Nazi Germany still retained control of much of Europe. The US atomic program may have been partly motivated to create a MAD environment should the Nazis get to nukes first, to keep nukes off the table as the US chemical warfare capability kept chemicals off the table.
Its not me saying anything. Various churches have said that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with faith. So whether a member of such a church contributes to science or not is not a matter of faith but some other factor.
If your implication is that religion is what was good for science...
I make no such claim. All I point out is that members of the clergy have contributed, and continue to contribute, to science. That religion is not inherently incompatible with science. Religion and science explore areas that do not overlap and hence are not in conflict, crudely: the mechanics of the universe (including life) vs god's actions, intentions and expectations.
As for today, the vatican operates an observatory that participates in leading edge cosmological research. Anecdotally my cousin attending a catholic high school probably received a more rigorous and comprehensive science education than I did at my public high school. At my public state university the dean of the chemistry department was a local parish priest for a few years. So yeah, the clergy still seem to be involved in real science from education through to advanced research.
I did not say Germany was close to victory. I said Allied victory was not a sure thing. Stalemate was also an option, a stalemate leaving the Nazis in control of much of Europe.
I think you are discounting the meddling of Hitler. If local generals were allowed to redeploy armor from the Pas-de-Calais region to Normandy D-day may have failed. If Me-262 (jet fighter) production had not been delayed while a ground attack redesign was explored the US strategic bombing campaign may have been stopped, plus air superiority over Normandy may not have been possible. If the Stg-44 (assault rifle) production had not been halted for a while German infantry may have been much more effective. If Rommel had been allowed to withdraw the Africa Corp as he personally pleaded for in Berlin only to be denied...
Russian victory had much to do with Hitler's meddling as well. Fixating on political/symbolic cities. Not allowing front line units outrunning supplies to make modest rearward movement to more defensible positions while awaiting resupply. His assumption that victory would be swift and that it was unnecessary to prepare vehicles and troops for winter warfare...
Also those great Russian tanks you mention, many were built with US produced steel. Many Russian troops were fed using US food shipments, their supplies transported using US manufactured trucks. One of the most effective tank busting aircraft, and secretly beloved by their pilots, was the US made P-39. Lets not pretend that victory in the East was purely a Russian accomplishment, it was enabled with massive US support. As for Russian casualties, many died unnecessarily due to inept Soviet generals chosen for political loyalty not military prowess.
And the Russians did not have the amphibious capability to take the Japanese home islands. The Imperial Japanese troops on the mainland could not be returned to Japan due to US Navy control of the sea and the devastation of Japan's transport and supply network. Those mainland troops were irrelevant to the defense of the home islands with or without a Russian campaign. Imperial Japan's surrender was the result of a decision by one man, the emperor, and he was largely influence by the atomic bombings.
You could argue that Imperial Japan was at a clear scientific disadvantage but not Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany's defeat was in large part due to (thankfully) terrible human decision making. They were overwhelmed more by numbers and industrial production than by scientific advantages.
You do not understand the power of the NRA, it is not political contributions. It is the millions of NRA voters who will show up on election day, they can swing elections in many districts. Voters are controlling this issue, not money.
Isn't it funny that Americans don't hate the NRA for doing all the time exactly what the worst Unions did a few times until they were busted almost into oblivion?
That is a very poor analogy. Even *if* a union were busted its members are still free to vote however they want, to vote for politicians that would be supportive and protective of their union. The simple fact is that many unions became, as my 40+ year union member grandfather explained, a "racket" just looking out for itself and not the workers. That union leaders became a separate group out to enrich themselves not the members, thus making the unions less relevant to the workers, and leading the workers to consider their union less and less on election day. Again, no government action can prevent a worker from voting against a union backed candidate on election day. The decision to ignore the union is entirely the worker/voter's.
No, the populace isn't much to blame for the poor quality of work done by the media.
Yes they are. Advertisers pay based on what people watch. Media companies' income depends on advertisers, so they produce what people watch. Companies produce shit because people watch shit.
No. Even if your interpretation were accurate the media would be to blame for maximizing profits rather than maximizing information disseminated. Don't forget that people are ignorant in part because the media chooses profits over all else in your hypothesis.
However contrary to your hypothesis the media is still in the business of disseminating news and information and they take short cuts and do it poorly. They lack journalistic integrity. Whatever fraction of the media is devoted to news and information it can still be done right.
I'm don't think you can claim a US scientific advantage in WW2 compared to the Nazis. Manpower and industrial advantages, yes. Plus the US benefited from not having a meddling idiot of a leader getting involved with military strategy, scientific research, engineering development, etc. Rockets, jets, remotely steered missiles, assault rifles, alternative fuels, etc.
A classic comparison is US and German tanks. Not even close to a fair fight. On a related note I once read something that was quite illustrative: A US soldier was guarding German prisoners. To a particularly arrogant looking German officer he asked "if you guys are such supermen how come you're a prisoner". The German officer replied "I commanded an 88mm gun battery. Every time an American tank came down the road we knocked it out. Eventually we ran out of ammunition and you did not run out of tanks."
I know we Americans have for generations grown up thinking that Allied victory in Europe was a sure thing, but it wasn't. It could have gone either way. Again, their bat-shit crazy leader meddling in everything was probably the Allies greatest asset. But as far as scientific and engineering prowess goes both sides excelled in various areas.
Actually history shows scientists being part of the church for many centuries. Members of the clergy proposed and advanced heliocentrism, genetics, the big bang theory, the scientific method, etc. As another poster pointed out don't get confused by those who were persecuted mainly for political reasons, for mocking the pope. Also keep in mind that the fact that people within the church rejected various scientific discoveries at first is not something unique to religion. Many scientists are political in that they defend their turf, their field, their pet theories, their friends who have a stake in a competing theory. When many of the leading men of science rejected the Big Bang Theory they did so because it "smelled of creationism", the theory was put forward by a catholic priest at a catholic university, it didn't matter that this man was a world class physicist and astronomer trained at some of the most prestigious universities.
At one time young PhD candidates were being told not to follow their interest and study string theory. That the consensus was against it and you will potentially damage your career.
Men of science have their biases and politics, both men of science who are religious and men of science who are not religious.
500 years ago scientists fought with the church wanting to control science, refuting heliocentrism.
Oh? That would be why the guy who came up with the notion of heliocentrism was a Catholic Monk, right? Yes, Copernicus was a Dominican.
You're probably thinking of that Galileo kerfluffle, where Galileo called the Pope an idiot in his book about heliocentrism, and the Pope got in a snit at being called a simpleton? Hint: Galileo got in trouble for calling the Pope an idiot, not for heliocentrism, which idea was developed by that aforementioned Dominican....
Its interesting to note that this same Pope had defended Galileo long before this book was written, when Galileo was first advocating the notion of heliocentrism. The same Pope who at a later date asked him to write a book about heliocentrism.
No, the populace isn't much to blame for the poor quality of work done by the media. The members of the media are to blame. The media has largely degenerated into a group that just repeats what others tell them. If they can find two people telling them the same thing they are good to go. Learning the subject matter enough to evaluate these people isn't really important anymore, doing their own investigations isn't really done that much anymore. Just get a couple of people to say the same thing, and if you can find two people to both say something controversial then "bonus points".
And this is not specific to science. It happens with pretty much any topic. Pick any topic that you have some sort of depth of knowledge and experience and you will most likely find that the media is incredibly superficial and ill-informed. Keep this in mind when reading things on topics where you lack knowledge and experience.
And don't try to take this into a political direction. There are plenty of science deniers at both ends of the political spectrum, both ends see things in terms of politics first and science second. Science that supports their politics embraced and science that conflicts with their politics is rejected, both the far left and far right do so.
You are missing the point. Apple represented a transition point, a point where (1) the public began to think "I want a personal computer" and (2) Competitors (ex IBM) followed them into this emerging market.
I lived at that time and I know how it was, and it doesn't look so to me. Apple didn't represented any transition point at that time. Apple II was just one of many micro computer producers for few hobbyists, gamers and enthusiasts, too primitive for anything serious. IBM PC was the thing that moved computers from big business and research facilities to masses.
Again, you miss the point. I was there too. The Apple II was not my first computer. However it was the computer that various non-techie friends and family members were aware of, the machine in their mind when they recognized the concept of a personal computer. A machine that could be theirs, not in some room behind large windows. The fact that the first computer that they eventually purchased was not an Apple II does not change the fact that the Apple II is where they made the conceptual leap. Nor does it change the fact that Apple's success with "average" people -- not the scientists, engineers and priestly class permitted behind those large windows -- is what made the marketing folks at companies like IBM realize the market opportunity.
Oh, and by the way, you are also wrong about the IBM PC being the computer of the masses. Commodore and Atari were there before IBM. IBM was merely a business product for many years.
Tesla seems to have sparked a similar interest in all-electric in the public's mind. Competitors like Porsche are following, http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1....
It sounds like some wrapped reality to me. Yes, Tesla generated a lot of hype, but electric battery cars were well known before Model S (e.g. Nissan Leaf, EV1) and who cares about public's mind really?
The executives at Porsche, much like the executives at IBM with respect to computers. Something has to disrupt their established way of thinking. That disruption was once Apple, not it is Tesla.
No, soldiers do not walk around army bases with loaded guns.
Hate to break the news but this is not exactly a new thing. Its been a pretty standard safety procedure for centuries. In general off a firing range loaded weapons were pretty much limited to military police when performing certain duties. Hell, military personnel have been disarmed while still in harms way. When that F-16 pilot was shot down in the Balkans in the 90s and on the run for a few days, when the Marines went in to rescue him a Marine waited at the ramp of the helicopter to take away the pilot's pistol. Military personnel have always been quite restricted as to when they can carry live ammo.
Yes, but with appropriate enforcement, the number and availability of guns, legal or otherwise, can be driven down to numbers such that gun crime is negligible. See for example: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan.
See Mexico to prove that theory wrong. Much of the gun violence in the US is also related to the drug trade.
There's no magic to it on their part, just a lack of political will on our part. All we need is for politicians to grow a pair and tell the NRA to go fuck itself.
You do not understand the power of the NRA, it is not political contributions. It is the millions of NRA voters who will show up on election day, they can swing elections in many districts. Voters are controlling this issue, not money.
You also do not seem to understand politicians either. Both the left and the right see gun control as a wonderful wedge issue. Neither side is willing to confront the truth, that gun violence is largely the result of failed socioeconomic policies, that the violence is the *symptom*, the socioeconomic policies the actual problem.
See Switzerland, a country where sport shooting is also popular and private ownership of firearms is allowed. However they have proper background checks, safety instruction, safe storage, good education and an effective social safety net.
In the netherlands, 1.9% have guns. Maybe you're confusing it with switzerland, where its 27.2%
You do know why Switzerland has such a huge number, don't you?
Otherwise you shouldn't use it in a discussion.
Perhaps it would help if you knew that Switzerland allows the *private" ownership of firearm as well, not merely taking home a *government* weapon. *Private* firearms that would in some US states be considered "assault weapons".
Switzerland has a history of sport shooting like the US. What they also have is proper background checks, safety training and safe storage. As well as a good education system and social safety net.
The US' problems with firearms are socioeconomic in nature or related to the narcotics industry. Mere possession of firearms by civilians is not the problem. Gun related violence is a *symptom*, not the problem itself.
Australia banned guns, and gun deaths were cut in half.
Yes, the suicidal switching to hanging, overdoes, etc. Death by those went up proportionally.
England, France, Germany, and Japan all prohibit guns, and have lower gun deaths than the U.S.
So does Mexico, yet they have quite a problem.
And Switzerland does not prohibit guns. Sport shooting is popular there too and they do not have a problem. Admittedly they do have background checks, safety instruction, safe storage, good education and a good social safety net.
America has the highest number of gun deaths annually of any developed nation. And it's the only nation which allows its citizens to own guns en masse. Is that some sort of coincidence?
In the US the the gun deaths, other than suicide, are a *symptom*, not the problem itself. The actual problem is in failed socioeconomic policies. Well, except for those deaths related to the narcotics industry and terrorists. Which are things that will not be stopped by gun bans. Do you seriously think that people who are importing tons of illegal narcotics can not add firearms and ammunition to their purchase orders?
The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.
Its also far higher than Switzerland, which also has a history of sport shooting and firearms being possessed by private citizens. Even private firearms that would be considered "assault weapons" in various states in the USA. And yet they don't have a serious problem.
What they do have are proper background checks, proper safety instruction and proper safe storage at home. Well, that and a good educational system and social safety net.
The problem is obviously not the mere possession of firearms by civilians. The actual failing is most likely in the USA' socioeconomic policies. Firearms related deaths are the "symptom", not the actual "disease".
Oh, and like the countries that you cite, Mexico has pretty severe restrictions on civilian possession of firearms. Yet there is a bit of a problem there too.
Armed victims aren't stopping shootings or deterring them. Also you have a poor sense of how targets are being sought.
Comedians/commentators mocked the notion of rushing and attacking a would-be shooter a month or so ago.
Another month or so earlier these same comedians/commentators were praising three unarmed Americans on a French train who rushed and attacked a terrorist armed with an AK-47.
These comedians/commentators have quite selective memories. Others too apparently.
Would you like to amend your claim that a "good guy" has not stopped a terrorist from killing people?
You are missing the point. Apple represented a transition point, a point where (1) the public began to think "I want a personal computer" and (2) Competitors (ex IBM) followed them into this emerging market.
Tesla seems to have sparked a similar interest in all-electric in the public's mind. Competitors like Porsche are following, http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1....
You are confused about the checkboxes being referred to. I am referring to something like the installer of a program you genuinely want that has a default opt-in checkbox offering to install some 3rd party's toolbar/extension for the web browser.
Crapware does not solely come from PC vendor bundling. It also come from various websites and software application bundle's, insidiously default opt-in with respect to the later.
OEM Windows is only part of the solution to a clean PC. One must also pay attention to installers and such. Look for checkboxes, select custom installations rather than default, explore the list of things to be installed and disable things as appropriate.
The is a big difference between invention and mass producing a high performance elegant extremely desirable product. Ideas are plentiful, tech demos are common, what is exceptionally rare is a team that can turn such things into extremely desirable products and transform the marketplace.
Again, you make my point with your comparisons. The EV1 did zero to sixty in 7.6 seconds, not 2.8 like the Tesla and Porsche 911 S. The milestone that the Tesla achieves with matching a racecar's performance with a five seater luxury sedan absolutely transformed the public's view of all electric vehicles. Transforming it from something only a niche market was interested in into something the mass market was interested in, but admittedly can't afford yet.
Computers were in now way new when the Apple II came out. The Commodore PET personal computer may have pre-existed the Apple II, but it was the Apple II that transformed the public's perception and create mass interest in personal computers. And this change in public perception forced a well known and respected legacy market participant, IBM, to investigate personal computers. These changes in public perception are critical, and like IBM in their field in their day, Porsche is exploring the opportunities that only recent technology innovations have brought forward.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, the potato is native to the Andes.
Yes Hitler's control over the Army was not as absolute as many think. However this lack of absolute control mainly manifested in what one might call "illegal orders", "war crimes". An officer/soldier who refused to obey may be quietly transferred or get away with it. Summary execution often not possible, a formal proceeding also not practical due to the need to document the order refused. However when it came to "legal orders" the story was quite different. Then that old school follow the orders of the **legal** government authority came into play, even if one personally disagreed with those orders. Stalingrad is a great example, the turning point of the war in the east. The Army planners did not think the city important. They wanted their entire southern force to go for the oil fields of the Caucuses. Hitler's personal meddling spit this force and made Stalingrad a target, resulting in the loss of over 800,000 troops, 1,000 aircraft, 500 tanks and probably the failure to take the oil fields or at least deny them to the Soviets. Denying those oil fields to the Soviets, avoiding the losses of Stalingrad, may have transformed the war in the east. Red Army victory no longer a sure thing. So yes, Hitler's meddling was critical.
German tanks were superior in armor and firepower by '43. Even with upgraded guns in '44 the German tanks could knock out Shermans at many times the range a Sherman could knock them out, assuming the Sherman didn't hit one of the more highly sloped (thicker) spots. Even Eisenhower admitted we screwed up and underestimated the German tanks on the Continent, an improvement over what was seen in Africa.
US jets were not available until after the war was over.
The M2 Carbine is inherently not an assault rifle. That is not a matter of controversy but rather of fact. The M2 is firing a pistol calibre, it fits in the submachine gun category. An assault rifle is defined by having an intermediate cartridge that has performance somewhat similar to that of a high powered battle rifle. In other words effective at hundreds of yards.
The Red Army victory in the East was completely enabled by the US. US manufactured high grade steel was used to manufacture T-34 tanks. US food and US manufactured trucks were absolutely critical to the Red Army. The US P-39 was the Red Army's most effective (and beloved) tank busting aircraft. Ongoing US support was necessary for a Red Army victory. If stalemate in the west led to an armistice that ended such US support Red Army victory is also no longer a sure thing.
Seriously, the greatest thing the Allies had going for it was Hitler's meddling. Even in the East. 800,000 troops lost, nearly a thousand aircraft, 500 tanks, all for a target only important to Hitler, a symbolic target. Stalingrad was not even a target for the Army planners, they wanted all their southern forces to go for the caucasus' oil fields. Hitler ordered the southern force split and Stalingrad attacked. His loss was the turning point for the Red Army. Without his meddling, if the full force had gone for the oil fields at Baku, the Red Army might have been severely weakened by the loss of Baku, not to mention the German's strengthened by avoiding the pointless loss at Stalingrad. Red Army victory in the east was no more of a sure thing in WW2 than US/UK/Can victory in the west. Hitler's meddling being key to the turning points of D-Day and Stalingrad.
I agree that instances of superficiality and being ill-informed are not new, however I think there is a much greater frequency of such instances. Journalists being much less likely to research. Journalists being much less likely to be balanced, the rise of "gonzo journalism" behaviors where objectivity and distance is abandoned.
The flaw in your logic is focusing on nuclear not WMD in general. Mass destruction is mass destruction regardless of the technology employed. In WW2 WMDs were not used when both sides had WMD capabilities. In some sort of D-Day failed scenario that left the Nazis in control of the continent as the US completed development and manufacturing of its two bombs the Nazi's capability to drop chemical V2s on Britain may have given the US a pause. Especially given that huge mass of US troops that would be targetable on Britain. Plus in such a stalemate scenario the Nazi's would also be capable of chemical nighttime bomber raids on Britain. Now lets toss in U-boats conducting chemical attacks on US coastal cities. I'm not sure what the Nazi capability to use radioactive dirty bombs would have been, that's another potential for pause. You can't rule out a MAD scenario.
Plus there is the massive horrible casualties mounting in the Pacific as Imperial Japan employs its bleed the US to the bargaining table strategy. Those two bombs may still have gone to the Pacific in a European stalemate scenario. For political reasons of attaining one decisive victory and the practicality of an enemy unable offer a WMD response. Thus giving the German's even more time to entrench and further their atomic/wmd programs.
As I mentioned in my other response failure to achieve allied victory also includes stalemate, not necessarily axis victory. Delivery of atomic weapons required air superiority or the ability to be beyond the reach of enemy fighters. The later was true for Japanese fighters but not German. The Me-262 had altitude and speed advantages over the B-29. Can't have a bomber shot down over enemy territory and wind up being analyzed. Plus using an atomic weapon on Germany would have loosed what few restraints there were, the Nazis may have started loading chemical and biological weapons on V2 rockets. Use of atomic weapons requires a situation were mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) is not a likely path. Its not clear the nukes could have been used in a stalemate scenario where Nazi Germany still retained control of much of Europe. The US atomic program may have been partly motivated to create a MAD environment should the Nazis get to nukes first, to keep nukes off the table as the US chemical warfare capability kept chemicals off the table.
Its not me saying anything. Various churches have said that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with faith. So whether a member of such a church contributes to science or not is not a matter of faith but some other factor.
If your implication is that religion is what was good for science ...
I make no such claim. All I point out is that members of the clergy have contributed, and continue to contribute, to science. That religion is not inherently incompatible with science. Religion and science explore areas that do not overlap and hence are not in conflict, crudely: the mechanics of the universe (including life) vs god's actions, intentions and expectations.
As for today, the vatican operates an observatory that participates in leading edge cosmological research. Anecdotally my cousin attending a catholic high school probably received a more rigorous and comprehensive science education than I did at my public high school. At my public state university the dean of the chemistry department was a local parish priest for a few years. So yeah, the clergy still seem to be involved in real science from education through to advanced research.
I did not say Germany was close to victory. I said Allied victory was not a sure thing. Stalemate was also an option, a stalemate leaving the Nazis in control of much of Europe.
...
...
I think you are discounting the meddling of Hitler. If local generals were allowed to redeploy armor from the Pas-de-Calais region to Normandy D-day may have failed. If Me-262 (jet fighter) production had not been delayed while a ground attack redesign was explored the US strategic bombing campaign may have been stopped, plus air superiority over Normandy may not have been possible. If the Stg-44 (assault rifle) production had not been halted for a while German infantry may have been much more effective. If Rommel had been allowed to withdraw the Africa Corp as he personally pleaded for in Berlin only to be denied
Russian victory had much to do with Hitler's meddling as well. Fixating on political/symbolic cities. Not allowing front line units outrunning supplies to make modest rearward movement to more defensible positions while awaiting resupply. His assumption that victory would be swift and that it was unnecessary to prepare vehicles and troops for winter warfare
Also those great Russian tanks you mention, many were built with US produced steel. Many Russian troops were fed using US food shipments, their supplies transported using US manufactured trucks. One of the most effective tank busting aircraft, and secretly beloved by their pilots, was the US made P-39. Lets not pretend that victory in the East was purely a Russian accomplishment, it was enabled with massive US support. As for Russian casualties, many died unnecessarily due to inept Soviet generals chosen for political loyalty not military prowess.
And the Russians did not have the amphibious capability to take the Japanese home islands. The Imperial Japanese troops on the mainland could not be returned to Japan due to US Navy control of the sea and the devastation of Japan's transport and supply network. Those mainland troops were irrelevant to the defense of the home islands with or without a Russian campaign. Imperial Japan's surrender was the result of a decision by one man, the emperor, and he was largely influence by the atomic bombings.
You could argue that Imperial Japan was at a clear scientific disadvantage but not Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany's defeat was in large part due to (thankfully) terrible human decision making. They were overwhelmed more by numbers and industrial production than by scientific advantages.
Isn't it funny that Americans don't hate the NRA for doing all the time exactly what the worst Unions did a few times until they were busted almost into oblivion?
That is a very poor analogy. Even *if* a union were busted its members are still free to vote however they want, to vote for politicians that would be supportive and protective of their union. The simple fact is that many unions became, as my 40+ year union member grandfather explained, a "racket" just looking out for itself and not the workers. That union leaders became a separate group out to enrich themselves not the members, thus making the unions less relevant to the workers, and leading the workers to consider their union less and less on election day. Again, no government action can prevent a worker from voting against a union backed candidate on election day. The decision to ignore the union is entirely the worker/voter's.
Yes they are. Advertisers pay based on what people watch. Media companies' income depends on advertisers, so they produce what people watch. Companies produce shit because people watch shit.
No. Even if your interpretation were accurate the media would be to blame for maximizing profits rather than maximizing information disseminated. Don't forget that people are ignorant in part because the media chooses profits over all else in your hypothesis.
However contrary to your hypothesis the media is still in the business of disseminating news and information and they take short cuts and do it poorly. They lack journalistic integrity. Whatever fraction of the media is devoted to news and information it can still be done right.
I'm don't think you can claim a US scientific advantage in WW2 compared to the Nazis. Manpower and industrial advantages, yes. Plus the US benefited from not having a meddling idiot of a leader getting involved with military strategy, scientific research, engineering development, etc. Rockets, jets, remotely steered missiles, assault rifles, alternative fuels, etc.
A classic comparison is US and German tanks. Not even close to a fair fight. On a related note I once read something that was quite illustrative: A US soldier was guarding German prisoners. To a particularly arrogant looking German officer he asked "if you guys are such supermen how come you're a prisoner". The German officer replied "I commanded an 88mm gun battery. Every time an American tank came down the road we knocked it out. Eventually we ran out of ammunition and you did not run out of tanks."
I know we Americans have for generations grown up thinking that Allied victory in Europe was a sure thing, but it wasn't. It could have gone either way. Again, their bat-shit crazy leader meddling in everything was probably the Allies greatest asset. But as far as scientific and engineering prowess goes both sides excelled in various areas.
Actually history shows scientists being part of the church for many centuries. Members of the clergy proposed and advanced heliocentrism, genetics, the big bang theory, the scientific method, etc. As another poster pointed out don't get confused by those who were persecuted mainly for political reasons, for mocking the pope. Also keep in mind that the fact that people within the church rejected various scientific discoveries at first is not something unique to religion. Many scientists are political in that they defend their turf, their field, their pet theories, their friends who have a stake in a competing theory. When many of the leading men of science rejected the Big Bang Theory they did so because it "smelled of creationism", the theory was put forward by a catholic priest at a catholic university, it didn't matter that this man was a world class physicist and astronomer trained at some of the most prestigious universities.
At one time young PhD candidates were being told not to follow their interest and study string theory. That the consensus was against it and you will potentially damage your career.
Men of science have their biases and politics, both men of science who are religious and men of science who are not religious.
Oh? That would be why the guy who came up with the notion of heliocentrism was a Catholic Monk, right? Yes, Copernicus was a Dominican.
You're probably thinking of that Galileo kerfluffle, where Galileo called the Pope an idiot in his book about heliocentrism, and the Pope got in a snit at being called a simpleton? Hint: Galileo got in trouble for calling the Pope an idiot, not for heliocentrism, which idea was developed by that aforementioned Dominican....
Its interesting to note that this same Pope had defended Galileo long before this book was written, when Galileo was first advocating the notion of heliocentrism. The same Pope who at a later date asked him to write a book about heliocentrism.
No, the populace isn't much to blame for the poor quality of work done by the media. The members of the media are to blame. The media has largely degenerated into a group that just repeats what others tell them. If they can find two people telling them the same thing they are good to go. Learning the subject matter enough to evaluate these people isn't really important anymore, doing their own investigations isn't really done that much anymore. Just get a couple of people to say the same thing, and if you can find two people to both say something controversial then "bonus points".
And this is not specific to science. It happens with pretty much any topic. Pick any topic that you have some sort of depth of knowledge and experience and you will most likely find that the media is incredibly superficial and ill-informed. Keep this in mind when reading things on topics where you lack knowledge and experience.
And don't try to take this into a political direction. There are plenty of science deniers at both ends of the political spectrum, both ends see things in terms of politics first and science second. Science that supports their politics embraced and science that conflicts with their politics is rejected, both the far left and far right do so.
You are missing the point. Apple represented a transition point, a point where (1) the public began to think "I want a personal computer" and (2) Competitors (ex IBM) followed them into this emerging market.
I lived at that time and I know how it was, and it doesn't look so to me. Apple didn't represented any transition point at that time. Apple II was just one of many micro computer producers for few hobbyists, gamers and enthusiasts, too primitive for anything serious. IBM PC was the thing that moved computers from big business and research facilities to masses.
Again, you miss the point. I was there too. The Apple II was not my first computer. However it was the computer that various non-techie friends and family members were aware of, the machine in their mind when they recognized the concept of a personal computer. A machine that could be theirs, not in some room behind large windows. The fact that the first computer that they eventually purchased was not an Apple II does not change the fact that the Apple II is where they made the conceptual leap. Nor does it change the fact that Apple's success with "average" people -- not the scientists, engineers and priestly class permitted behind those large windows -- is what made the marketing folks at companies like IBM realize the market opportunity.
Oh, and by the way, you are also wrong about the IBM PC being the computer of the masses. Commodore and Atari were there before IBM. IBM was merely a business product for many years.
Tesla seems to have sparked a similar interest in all-electric in the public's mind. Competitors like Porsche are following, http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1....
It sounds like some wrapped reality to me. Yes, Tesla generated a lot of hype, but electric battery cars were well known before Model S (e.g. Nissan Leaf, EV1) and who cares about public's mind really?
The executives at Porsche, much like the executives at IBM with respect to computers. Something has to disrupt their established way of thinking. That disruption was once Apple, not it is Tesla.
No, soldiers do not walk around army bases with loaded guns.
Hate to break the news but this is not exactly a new thing. Its been a pretty standard safety procedure for centuries. In general off a firing range loaded weapons were pretty much limited to military police when performing certain duties. Hell, military personnel have been disarmed while still in harms way. When that F-16 pilot was shot down in the Balkans in the 90s and on the run for a few days, when the Marines went in to rescue him a Marine waited at the ramp of the helicopter to take away the pilot's pistol. Military personnel have always been quite restricted as to when they can carry live ammo.
Yes, but with appropriate enforcement, the number and availability of guns, legal or otherwise, can be driven down to numbers such that gun crime is negligible. See for example: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan.
See Mexico to prove that theory wrong. Much of the gun violence in the US is also related to the drug trade.
There's no magic to it on their part, just a lack of political will on our part. All we need is for politicians to grow a pair and tell the NRA to go fuck itself.
You do not understand the power of the NRA, it is not political contributions. It is the millions of NRA voters who will show up on election day, they can swing elections in many districts. Voters are controlling this issue, not money.
You also do not seem to understand politicians either. Both the left and the right see gun control as a wonderful wedge issue. Neither side is willing to confront the truth, that gun violence is largely the result of failed socioeconomic policies, that the violence is the *symptom*, the socioeconomic policies the actual problem.
See Switzerland, a country where sport shooting is also popular and private ownership of firearms is allowed. However they have proper background checks, safety instruction, safe storage, good education and an effective social safety net.
You do know why Switzerland has such a huge number, don't you? Otherwise you shouldn't use it in a discussion.
Perhaps it would help if you knew that Switzerland allows the *private" ownership of firearm as well, not merely taking home a *government* weapon. *Private* firearms that would in some US states be considered "assault weapons".
Switzerland has a history of sport shooting like the US. What they also have is proper background checks, safety training and safe storage. As well as a good education system and social safety net.
The US' problems with firearms are socioeconomic in nature or related to the narcotics industry. Mere possession of firearms by civilians is not the problem. Gun related violence is a *symptom*, not the problem itself.
Australia banned guns, and gun deaths were cut in half.
Yes, the suicidal switching to hanging, overdoes, etc. Death by those went up proportionally.
England, France, Germany, and Japan all prohibit guns, and have lower gun deaths than the U.S.
So does Mexico, yet they have quite a problem.
And Switzerland does not prohibit guns. Sport shooting is popular there too and they do not have a problem. Admittedly they do have background checks, safety instruction, safe storage, good education and a good social safety net.
America has the highest number of gun deaths annually of any developed nation. And it's the only nation which allows its citizens to own guns en masse. Is that some sort of coincidence?
In the US the the gun deaths, other than suicide, are a *symptom*, not the problem itself. The actual problem is in failed socioeconomic policies. Well, except for those deaths related to the narcotics industry and terrorists. Which are things that will not be stopped by gun bans. Do you seriously think that people who are importing tons of illegal narcotics can not add firearms and ammunition to their purchase orders?
The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.
Its also far higher than Switzerland, which also has a history of sport shooting and firearms being possessed by private citizens. Even private firearms that would be considered "assault weapons" in various states in the USA. And yet they don't have a serious problem.
What they do have are proper background checks, proper safety instruction and proper safe storage at home. Well, that and a good educational system and social safety net.
The problem is obviously not the mere possession of firearms by civilians. The actual failing is most likely in the USA' socioeconomic policies. Firearms related deaths are the "symptom", not the actual "disease".
Oh, and like the countries that you cite, Mexico has pretty severe restrictions on civilian possession of firearms. Yet there is a bit of a problem there too.
Maybe the solution is to NOT disarm the victims?
Armed victims aren't stopping shootings or deterring them. Also you have a poor sense of how targets are being sought.
Comedians/commentators mocked the notion of rushing and attacking a would-be shooter a month or so ago.
Another month or so earlier these same comedians/commentators were praising three unarmed Americans on a French train who rushed and attacked a terrorist armed with an AK-47.
These comedians/commentators have quite selective memories. Others too apparently.
Would you like to amend your claim that a "good guy" has not stopped a terrorist from killing people?
You are missing the point. Apple represented a transition point, a point where (1) the public began to think "I want a personal computer" and (2) Competitors (ex IBM) followed them into this emerging market.
Tesla seems to have sparked a similar interest in all-electric in the public's mind. Competitors like Porsche are following, http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1....
You are confused about the checkboxes being referred to. I am referring to something like the installer of a program you genuinely want that has a default opt-in checkbox offering to install some 3rd party's toolbar/extension for the web browser.
Crapware does not solely come from PC vendor bundling. It also come from various websites and software application bundle's, insidiously default opt-in with respect to the later.
OEM Windows is only part of the solution to a clean PC. One must also pay attention to installers and such. Look for checkboxes, select custom installations rather than default, explore the list of things to be installed and disable things as appropriate.
The is a big difference between invention and mass producing a high performance elegant extremely desirable product. Ideas are plentiful, tech demos are common, what is exceptionally rare is a team that can turn such things into extremely desirable products and transform the marketplace.
Again, you make my point with your comparisons. The EV1 did zero to sixty in 7.6 seconds, not 2.8 like the Tesla and Porsche 911 S. The milestone that the Tesla achieves with matching a racecar's performance with a five seater luxury sedan absolutely transformed the public's view of all electric vehicles. Transforming it from something only a niche market was interested in into something the mass market was interested in, but admittedly can't afford yet.
Computers were in now way new when the Apple II came out. The Commodore PET personal computer may have pre-existed the Apple II, but it was the Apple II that transformed the public's perception and create mass interest in personal computers. And this change in public perception forced a well known and respected legacy market participant, IBM, to investigate personal computers. These changes in public perception are critical, and like IBM in their field in their day, Porsche is exploring the opportunities that only recent technology innovations have brought forward.