German military cipher machines were small variants of the commercial "Enigma" cipher machine.
The additional wheels and the plugboard did not constitute a minor change. While it was certainly possible to break the simpler commercial machine if one could break the harder military machine, the fact remains that the "computer" used by the British was purpose built for a single task. It was not reprogrammable for the simpler commercial machine, a hardware rebuild would have been necessary.
Yes, some of these quotes are evidence that hindsight is 20/20, but that still counters your claims in your previous post that the Japanese would have continued to fight on.
Note that my statement was that **imminent** surrender was a myth. Not eventual surrender. And while the blockade did its work the conventional attacks would continue, casualties would mount on both sides and famine and disease would become increasing threats that could claim many more.
And again, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the Imperial Japanese Prime Minister public stated to the Japanese press that the government rejects the surrender demand and will fight on. The government in fact never reached any sort of consensus to surrender, it was only the personal decision and intervention of the Emperor that led to surrender. Such intervention is a fluke of history, not something that observers at the time could have predicted. The words and actions of the government were to the contrary, to continue the fight. The notion that imminent surrender was foreseen by some is a myth.
That's right, MacArthur said that if he was asked his opinion at that time he would not have seen a reason to use the bomb.
MacArthur was somewhat unique in that he was willing to give the Emperor a pass on his responsibility for initiating the war and any war crimes that occurred. His opinion on ending the war in weeks was entirely contingent upon making such a concession.
Note that such a concession was not actually made, after the surrender the Emperor was in fact investigated to determine his culpability with respect to initiating the war and with war crimes that occurred. No evidence of his culpability was found. The Imperial Japanese had not in fact received the sort of absolute guarantee that they originally desired.
Some historians say MacArthur helped suppress evidence to get his desired outcome, to ensure an easy occupation and/or as a reward for personally intervening with the government and ordering a surrender.
"Hirohito and all members of the imperial family implicated in the war such as Prince Chichibu, Prince Asaka, Prince Takeda and Prince Higashikuni were exonerated from criminal prosecutions by MacArthur, with the help of Bonner Fellers who allowed the major criminal suspects to coordinate their stories so that the Emperor would be spared from indictment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
True or not, the fact remains that the Emperor was at risk of indictment for war crimes after the surrender.
All this aside, MacArthur's objection to the atomic bombing was largely moral in nature and to him a blockade seemed more moral than atomic bombing cities. While an interesting point to debate, it is not evidence of imminent surrender.
In this one Eisenhower said that he thought the dropping of the bomb was completely unnecessary as soon as he heard the news.
Also based on morality, also an opinion dependent upon no prosecution of the Emperor.
There was also a tacit agreement along with the final surrender that the Emperor would not under any circumstances be investigated for war crimes
Tacit seems a gross overstatement. More accurate would be a grand conspiracy to destroy evidence on the part of the Japanese and a willingness by MacArthur to cooperate or at least tolerate such efforts. Again to ease occupation and/or to reward the Emperor for his personal intervention to end the war. The Emperor never had the immunity the Imperial government had originally desired, if evidence had survived and been found prosecution of the Emperor was a possibility.
it is widely known that Hiroshima was spared conventional bombing so that if it was attacked with a nuclear device, it would be easier to analyze the effects.
General Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, General MacArthur, General LeMay, and several other high ranking US officers said that the dropping of the US bomb was completely unnecessary.
The perspective one has at the time the decision was made, with Okinawa fresh in one's mind, and one has after occupation and boots on the ground inspecting the enemy's documents and preparations and interviewing its leadership are two very different things. The comments by the above are often made decades after the war, one in particular admits "I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented."
If the US simply allowed the institution of the emperor to stand (which we ended up doing in the end anyway), the Japanese would have agreed to surrender far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps even before Okinawa.
Note that the Emperor's position in post-war Japan was left open to a degree, more on this at the end of this post.
While the Emperor's safety and symbolic position was permitted to continue after occupation it was done so **after** an investigation into whether the Emperor was responsible for war crimes. We could not have determined the Emperor's status with respect to being a war criminal until after boots on the ground, i.e. after surrender.
Regarding the suggestion of a demonstration. The US had only two bombs and the materials necessary for a third would not be ready for some time. Its not clear if those proposing a demonstration were aware of this. The value of a such a demonstration was speculative, both in its results and its reception. Keep in mind that military and industrial targets that may have been used were already heavily hit by conventional weapons and there was debate as to whether atomic damage could be distinguished from prior convention damage, and whether atomic damage might be interpreted as being much lower than its actual effect due to prior damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the target list because they were in relatively pristine condition and the damage due to atomic bombing could not be misreported.
Most important of all, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the Imperial Japanese government refused to surrender and indicated a willingness to fight on.
"After the successful atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, President Truman in a widely broadcast speech, picked up by Japanese news agencies, warned that if Japan failed to accept the terms of the declaration, it could "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth."[7] As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So in reality, at the time of the decision (1) Truman did not know whether the Emperor was a war criminal responsible for the torture and execution of American POWs. (2) Only had two weapons available in the pre-invasion time frame and the value of a demonstration was unknown. (3) Had Okinawa fresh in his memory.
Again, note that after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the Imperial Japanese government indicated a willingness to fight on.
There were two main reasons for dropping the bomb: 1.) To gather data on how to maximize the damage that a nuclear weapon could cause on an urban environment. This would be useful in a hypothetical future war with the USSR.
Your reference suggests no such thing, unless you are making a very strange interpretation of Halsey's flippant comment about scientists and their toys. While the value of deterring possible Russian aggression was a consideration it was secondary, and as history shows not necessarily an unfounded f
No, Imperial Japan was not suing for peace. A few diplomats were quietly floating the idea with Russia and living in complete fear that they would be discovered by the military and summarily executed for doing so. Even when the Emperor had decided to surrender and recorded a surrender message for the country elements of the military attacked the Imperial Palace to capture and destroy that recording and to "rescue" the emperor from the politicians who were leading him "astray".
"as many as one thousand officers raided the Imperial palace on the evening of August 14, to destroy the recording. The rebels were confused by the layout of the Imperial palace and were unable to find the recording, which had been hidden in a pile of documents. The recording was successfully smuggled out of the palace in a laundry basket of women's underwear and broadcast the following day, although another attempt was made to stop it from being played at the radio station." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
The majority of the Imperial Japanese leadership would only consider an armistice, a peace treaty, like that of WW1 (1919) that would leave Imperial Japanese leadership intact and the home islands unoccupied.
They had run out of bombs, and the kamikaze were coming because they had no fuel to get back to Japan; die in the ocean, or die smashing your plane into a military target.
No. Weapons and ammunition had been stockpiled. This included kamikaze aircraft and boats. Also Kamikazes took off with the full knowledge of and the intent to crash their aircraft into their target.
The arguments around this drift over time. A lot of veterans have started telling me Japan was ready to drop plague-infested fleas on America. They'd hit California, and it would wipe out the entire nation. They've already tested them on China, and it worked.... except China wasn't wiped out, and Japan could never reach California.
The test in China was a limited test. They bombed a couple of villages and sent doctors in to examine the results. The tests included the use of a ceramic bomb casing that fractured and dispersed fleas using a very small charge that allowed most of the fleas to survive. Imperial Japan had successfully, although ineffectively, attacked the US pacific coast with balloons that drifted across the Pacific and dropped incendiary bombs. However the real plan regarding the fleas was to use submarine based aircraft. Yes, submarine based. Imperial Japan developed and built several submarines with a waterproof compartment on top that could house two or three aircraft. They were technological marvels that the US captured, studied, and sunk to avoid having to share them with the Russians.
The whole story paints a narrative where varied analysis tells you that either it's made-up completely, or Japan has a weapon that kills as many people as a conventional drop-bomb.
"This research led to the development of the defoliation bacilli bomb and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague.[28] Some of these bombs were designed with ceramic (porcelain) shells, an idea proposed by Ishii in 1938.
These bombs enabled Japanese soldiers to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas with anthrax, plague-carrier fleas, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and other deadly pathogens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
"They were submarine aircraft carriers able to carry three Aichi M6A Seiran aircraft underwater to their destinations...The I-400-class was designed with the range to travel anywhere in the world and return" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
So how did they ensure they were only spying on just other militaries? Also, they didn't care about rooting out spies on the homeland either? I'm amazed at the technical capabilities they had to not intercept any civilian traffic at all.
Given that their hardware was purpose built, this was before general purpose computing, to specifically crack German military cipher machines the civilian traffic was not at great risk.
That wikipedia is taken seriously as a source of information still astounds me.
It depends entirely on the topic. Want to know about some mathematical concept, it usually works just fine. Some non-controversial historical fact, again, it usually works just fine. Want to know about something that is a politicized issue, good luck, although still possibly a better source than the news shows where many get their info.
Here's a hint: look at the references, they are often an indicator of the quality of the page and a great source of additional information.
I have basic cable so I can plug right into my TV. However with digital TV being common why arn't more TV's handling it so you don't need the cable box.
My TV includes a digital tuner so I can plug my basic digital cable service directly into the TV using the coax cable coming out of the wall, no cable box necessary. These unencrypted channels include all the basic standard definition channels offered by my cable company not just the handful of local terrestrial broadcast channels.
I actually split the coax and have one output go directly into the TV and one into the cable box. The cable company's DVR only has two receivers, on rare occasions I have two shows recording and I switch the TV to the direct input (the TV's receiver) and watch a third show live.
I merely offer an example that nearly any reader can understand. Where an erroneous statement that confirms a political position is readily accepted without question while a statement that contradicts a political position would be required to have extraordinary proof. We could substitute various falsehoods the Clinton administration offered regarding the Integral Fast Reactor project for the simple error regard the cost of nuclear power, compare the long list of nuclear scientists that claim the Clinton administration got it wrong, but that would be an extraordinarily complex discussion that few readers would understand.
I actually have some experience with DC politicians. It is absolutely frightening how dependent they are upon their staffers who research various subjects and issues for them. While it may seem to be a simple misunderstanding regarding solar power being less expensive than nuclear, a falsehood -- in fact its nearly twice as expensive, the simple truth of the matter is that since the falsehood confirms a personally held desire it is simply accepted when offered by a staffer, or in a callous political calculation it is simply repeated because it will be popular with a political base.
Again, the behavior is remarkable similar between the climate deniers and the nuclear deniers. A confirming meme is accepted and repeated. When a member of the community looks at the science and realizes facts are contradictory the member is ostracized. For example a congressman who eventually looks at the science and realizes various beliefs accepted at face value among climate skeptics are wrong and environmental movement leaders who look at the science and realize various beliefs accepted at face value among anti nuclear activists are wrong.
So yes, both groups, climate and nuclear deniers. have remarkably similar behaviors when it comes to accepting confirming information and rejecting contradicting information. They really only differ in terms of their respective political positions that information is filtered through.
Google nuclear deniers. There are some interesting reads. This is just the first thing I found a moment ago but its interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The problem is that the migration from CPU/GPU to ASIC that Bitcoin experienced seems to be repeating itself with scrypt.
Scrypt ASICs are making great improvements in very short amounts of time. Difficulties are rapidly increasing. Ever greater portions of shrinking proceeds have to be spent on power. Things do not look good for GPU based mining. I've heard that 50% of proceeds are already going into power expenses for some.
What has any president since Carter done that's anti-nuclear, other than underfunding energy research?
Underfund and cancel research projects. However the important part is that the speeches that follow parrot the anti-nuclear dogma of the left wing party base. The point being that nuclear denial and embracing political ideology over science is in fact alive and well in both the left and right wings of the political spectrum. It is not merely perception when presidents parrot the ideology when talking to the party base.
And again, I have to wonder how much of that perception is mired in stereotype versus any kind of real substantial population. I don't know, and I won't presume to assert that you're factually wrong, but I do feel the need to wonder.
When multiple white house democratic administrations act in this manner its more than perception. Now these administrations were appealing to their party base so it may not be a majority of democrat but rather the left wing of the party and not its moderates/centrists.
How many liberals faking scientific literacy making that argument do you see on slashdot? Global warming denialism is more endemic to American conservatives than any of the commonly cited stereotypes about liberals.
I think nuclear deniers have a hold on liberal thinking. It is successful enough that research into next gen technology for safer and more efficient reactors gets pulled. Its happened repeatedly over the decades under various democratic administrations to appease the base.
To be fair, GPUs are really, really bad at scrypt. The proper comparison is full CPUs.
Are you sure, I've always heard the opposite? My understanding is that optional software from ATI needs to be installed to get GPU based mining working properly.
Anyways, the next generation of password-hashing functions is likely fix that ASIC advantage, as they will include exponential penalties for less RAM than required. scrypt only has a linear penalty, it seems.
Including the necessary amount of RAM in an ASIC would seem plausible, as is done in video cards.
If the number 1 mining pool is foolish enough to try something like the 51% attack, the perceived value of Bitcoins would plummet. Therefore, they won't do it. They would be the biggest losers from such a move.
Pool operators can't be hacked? Targeted malware can not launch a 51% attack?
It was erroneously thought to be so. ASICs have taken over scrypt mining. Two $90 ASIC scrypt miners (720 kh/s) using 7-8 watts each can beat a Radeon R9 290 (850 kh/s). Their combined hash rate is slightly less but when you factor in power costs they win. Note the ASIC miners are usually controlled by a Raspberry Pi to reduce power costs.
Time and circumstances have changed. The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied
Ignoring the fact that when the ipad mini came out it was the low resolution device (1024×768 px at 163 ppi). Steve jobs had already launched the iphone 4 with its *cough* retina display (960×640 at 326 ppi) two years earlier.
You seen to forget that Jobsy(I like to park in handicapped space) was not the density of pixles...bit the size of the display to quote the foul smelling genius "It's meaningless unless your table includes sandpaper," Jobs said, "so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of their present size." He said 7-inch screens were actually 45 per cent the size of an iPad, which wasn't sufficient.
"Apple has done extensive user testing and we really understand this stuff," he added. "There are clear limits on how close you can place things on a touchscreen, which is why we think 10 inches is the minimum screen size to create great tablet apps.
Lets not start using words like "universal truths"(sic) when you are at best misinformed
And the iPad mini was 8 inches not 7, and at 8 with 1024x768 the 40x40 recommended tap target was large enough. No sandpaper required. As I said, circumstances had changed since Jobs made those comments, pixel density, touch sensor accuracy, etc.
Cook is not filling Steve Jobs' shoes. Steve Jobs' shoes are in a display case at Apple's museum. Cook is wearing his own shoes.
Cook is not Jobs nor is he trying to be Jobs nor should he try to be Jobs. Jobs made lots of product design and development mistakes. His genius was in exploiting those projects where time and circumstances made them successful, in pretty much maximizing the potential of the products that turned out to be successful. In 2001 Jobs brought us both the iPod and the Flower Power iMac.
Cook has to use his own judgement, things Jobs said years ago don't necessarily apply any more. Time and circumstances have changed. The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied.
Jobs' good decisions have a time and a context. They are not necessarily universal truths. His shoes don't need to be worn.
In the long term it's probably much better for Europe if Europeans decide to go the route we Americans did, and create a truly Federal state with it's own Army.
But the EU has been an anti-democratic power for decades, and it seems magic thinking to believe it could evolve in the right direction now. Giving more power to it is an attack on democracy. Giving it an army seems just foolish.
The previous poster mentioned the US Articles of Confederation (the first attempt at governance after gaining independence) and suggested going the American route. Going the American route would not include keeping the current EU. In this analogy the current EU would be discarded like the Articles of Confederation were and member states would create a new governing body and a new set of rules.
In short, the US didn't evolve from one system to another. We completely thew out the old system, learned from its flaws and started over.
So what you're saying is that we need to have a WW3 in Europe and then build from the ashes. Fuck that !
The current EU isn't ideal, yet it's vastly better than having a continent on continual war.
No. There was no war regarding the switch between the two American systems, Articles of Confederation (1777) and United States Constitution (1789). People tried to live under the Articles for about 10 years, 4 of which took place after the British recognized American independence (1783). It didn't seem to be working so well so a constitutional convention was created to fix it. Once assembled the convention delegates decided to discard the Articles and create something new, the Constitution. The delegates then took the Constitution back to the various state legislatures which ratified it.
Perhaps "Confederation" is making you think of the US Civil war and the Confederate States of America (1861). That is about 70 years after the Constitution was ratified.
But as the market grows there will be more transactions and therefore more fees generated without actually increasing them.
Doesn't work that way for miners. Their hardware has a max capacity that they are already running at. And that hardware is expensive. If the return is not sufficient they will not invest in new hardware and will just stop mining. That can destroy a virtual currency. Transaction fees will go up as fewer and fewer new coins are awarded over time.
But as the market grows, volatility decreases, which makes it possible to deal directly in Bitcoin.
That will not eliminate fees. The Bitcoin model will eventually require increased fees on each and every transaction. As mining becomes more difficult and less rewarding, miners need an incentive other than solving blocks. That will be the fees embedded in each transaction.
Keep in mind that miners do not only create new coins. They also verify the transactions in the block chain and get the embedded fees. Without a large number of independent miners this block chain can be corrupted and individual transactions listed can no longer be trusted to be accurate. To keep a large number of independent miners involved they have to be rewarded. Today mining new coins is the main reward, some day it will not be and the fees embedded in transactions will have to provide the necessary reward.
In the long term it's probably much better for Europe if Europeans decide to go the route we Americans did, and create a truly Federal state with it's own Army.
But the EU has been an anti-democratic power for decades, and it seems magic thinking to believe it could evolve in the right direction now. Giving more power to it is an attack on democracy. Giving it an army seems just foolish.
The previous poster mentioned the US Articles of Confederation (the first attempt at governance after gaining independence) and suggested going the American route. Going the American route would not include keeping the current EU. In this analogy the current EU would be discarded like the Articles of Confederation were and member states would create a new governing body and a new set of rules.
In short, the US didn't evolve from one system to another. We completely thew out the old system, learned from its flaws and started over.
Bitcoins have the paperwork overhead of stocks ...
on
Expedia To Accept Bitcoin
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"American regulatory practices"
Such as...?
A recent IRS advisory said virtual currency is to be treated as an assent not a currency. So lets say you receive some bitcoins. At some future date you spend these bitcoins. Since these bitcoins are an asset you have to account for their gain or loss in value for the days you held them an declare a loss or gain on your taxes. In short spending bitcoins has the paperwork overhead of selling stocks, its not like spending dollars at all.
Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO (first in first out) your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.
Not blind. Its simply that the typo is irrelevant. Many readers do not know what a bitcoin is so ignoring the sarcasm and treating the question as real is useful. Especially since many will not notice the typo.
Slashdot Mirror
German military cipher machines were small variants of the commercial "Enigma" cipher machine.
The additional wheels and the plugboard did not constitute a minor change. While it was certainly possible to break the simpler commercial machine if one could break the harder military machine, the fact remains that the "computer" used by the British was purpose built for a single task. It was not reprogrammable for the simpler commercial machine, a hardware rebuild would have been necessary.
Yes, some of these quotes are evidence that hindsight is 20/20, but that still counters your claims in your previous post that the Japanese would have continued to fight on.
Note that my statement was that **imminent** surrender was a myth. Not eventual surrender. And while the blockade did its work the conventional attacks would continue, casualties would mount on both sides and famine and disease would become increasing threats that could claim many more.
And again, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the Imperial Japanese Prime Minister public stated to the Japanese press that the government rejects the surrender demand and will fight on. The government in fact never reached any sort of consensus to surrender, it was only the personal decision and intervention of the Emperor that led to surrender. Such intervention is a fluke of history, not something that observers at the time could have predicted. The words and actions of the government were to the contrary, to continue the fight. The notion that imminent surrender was foreseen by some is a myth.
That's right, MacArthur said that if he was asked his opinion at that time he would not have seen a reason to use the bomb.
MacArthur was somewhat unique in that he was willing to give the Emperor a pass on his responsibility for initiating the war and any war crimes that occurred. His opinion on ending the war in weeks was entirely contingent upon making such a concession.
Note that such a concession was not actually made, after the surrender the Emperor was in fact investigated to determine his culpability with respect to initiating the war and with war crimes that occurred. No evidence of his culpability was found. The Imperial Japanese had not in fact received the sort of absolute guarantee that they originally desired.
Some historians say MacArthur helped suppress evidence to get his desired outcome, to ensure an easy occupation and/or as a reward for personally intervening with the government and ordering a surrender.
"Hirohito and all members of the imperial family implicated in the war such as Prince Chichibu, Prince Asaka, Prince Takeda and Prince Higashikuni were exonerated from criminal prosecutions by MacArthur, with the help of Bonner Fellers who allowed the major criminal suspects to coordinate their stories so that the Emperor would be spared from indictment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
True or not, the fact remains that the Emperor was at risk of indictment for war crimes after the surrender.
All this aside, MacArthur's objection to the atomic bombing was largely moral in nature and to him a blockade seemed more moral than atomic bombing cities. While an interesting point to debate, it is not evidence of imminent surrender.
In this one Eisenhower said that he thought the dropping of the bomb was completely unnecessary as soon as he heard the news.
Also based on morality, also an opinion dependent upon no prosecution of the Emperor.
There was also a tacit agreement along with the final surrender that the Emperor would not under any circumstances be investigated for war crimes
Tacit seems a gross overstatement. More accurate would be a grand conspiracy to destroy evidence on the part of the Japanese and a willingness by MacArthur to cooperate or at least tolerate such efforts. Again to ease occupation and/or to reward the Emperor for his personal intervention to end the war. The Emperor never had the immunity the Imperial government had originally desired, if evidence had survived and been found prosecution of the Emperor was a possibility.
it is widely known that Hiroshima was spared conventional bombing so that if it was attacked with a nuclear device, it would be easier to analyze the effects.
It is erroneously to deduce
General Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, General MacArthur, General LeMay, and several other high ranking US officers said that the dropping of the US bomb was completely unnecessary.
The perspective one has at the time the decision was made, with Okinawa fresh in one's mind, and one has after occupation and boots on the ground inspecting the enemy's documents and preparations and interviewing its leadership are two very different things. The comments by the above are often made decades after the war, one in particular admits "I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented."
If the US simply allowed the institution of the emperor to stand (which we ended up doing in the end anyway), the Japanese would have agreed to surrender far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps even before Okinawa.
Note that the Emperor's position in post-war Japan was left open to a degree, more on this at the end of this post.
While the Emperor's safety and symbolic position was permitted to continue after occupation it was done so **after** an investigation into whether the Emperor was responsible for war crimes. We could not have determined the Emperor's status with respect to being a war criminal until after boots on the ground, i.e. after surrender.
Regarding the suggestion of a demonstration. The US had only two bombs and the materials necessary for a third would not be ready for some time. Its not clear if those proposing a demonstration were aware of this. The value of a such a demonstration was speculative, both in its results and its reception. Keep in mind that military and industrial targets that may have been used were already heavily hit by conventional weapons and there was debate as to whether atomic damage could be distinguished from prior convention damage, and whether atomic damage might be interpreted as being much lower than its actual effect due to prior damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the target list because they were in relatively pristine condition and the damage due to atomic bombing could not be misreported.
Most important of all, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the Imperial Japanese government refused to surrender and indicated a willingness to fight on.
"After the successful atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, President Truman in a widely broadcast speech, picked up by Japanese news agencies, warned that if Japan failed to accept the terms of the declaration, it could "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth."[7] As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So in reality, at the time of the decision (1) Truman did not know whether the Emperor was a war criminal responsible for the torture and execution of American POWs. (2) Only had two weapons available in the pre-invasion time frame and the value of a demonstration was unknown. (3) Had Okinawa fresh in his memory.
Again, note that after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the Imperial Japanese government indicated a willingness to fight on.
There were two main reasons for dropping the bomb: 1.) To gather data on how to maximize the damage that a nuclear weapon could cause on an urban environment. This would be useful in a hypothetical future war with the USSR.
Your reference suggests no such thing, unless you are making a very strange interpretation of Halsey's flippant comment about scientists and their toys. While the value of deterring possible Russian aggression was a consideration it was secondary, and as history shows not necessarily an unfounded f
Japan was already suing for peace.
No, Imperial Japan was not suing for peace. A few diplomats were quietly floating the idea with Russia and living in complete fear that they would be discovered by the military and summarily executed for doing so. Even when the Emperor had decided to surrender and recorded a surrender message for the country elements of the military attacked the Imperial Palace to capture and destroy that recording and to "rescue" the emperor from the politicians who were leading him "astray".
"as many as one thousand officers raided the Imperial palace on the evening of August 14, to destroy the recording. The rebels were confused by the layout of the Imperial palace and were unable to find the recording, which had been hidden in a pile of documents. The recording was successfully smuggled out of the palace in a laundry basket of women's underwear and broadcast the following day, although another attempt was made to stop it from being played at the radio station."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
The majority of the Imperial Japanese leadership would only consider an armistice, a peace treaty, like that of WW1 (1919) that would leave Imperial Japanese leadership intact and the home islands unoccupied.
They had run out of bombs, and the kamikaze were coming because they had no fuel to get back to Japan; die in the ocean, or die smashing your plane into a military target.
No. Weapons and ammunition had been stockpiled. This included kamikaze aircraft and boats. Also Kamikazes took off with the full knowledge of and the intent to crash their aircraft into their target.
The arguments around this drift over time. A lot of veterans have started telling me Japan was ready to drop plague-infested fleas on America. They'd hit California, and it would wipe out the entire nation. They've already tested them on China, and it worked. ... except China wasn't wiped out, and Japan could never reach California.
The test in China was a limited test. They bombed a couple of villages and sent doctors in to examine the results. The tests included the use of a ceramic bomb casing that fractured and dispersed fleas using a very small charge that allowed most of the fleas to survive. Imperial Japan had successfully, although ineffectively, attacked the US pacific coast with balloons that drifted across the Pacific and dropped incendiary bombs. However the real plan regarding the fleas was to use submarine based aircraft. Yes, submarine based. Imperial Japan developed and built several submarines with a waterproof compartment on top that could house two or three aircraft. They were technological marvels that the US captured, studied, and sunk to avoid having to share them with the Russians.
The whole story paints a narrative where varied analysis tells you that either it's made-up completely, or Japan has a weapon that kills as many people as a conventional drop-bomb.
"This research led to the development of the defoliation bacilli bomb and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague.[28] Some of these bombs were designed with ceramic (porcelain) shells, an idea proposed by Ishii in 1938. These bombs enabled Japanese soldiers to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas with anthrax, plague-carrier fleas, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and other deadly pathogens." ...The I-400-class was designed with the range to travel anywhere in the world and return"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... "They were submarine aircraft carriers able to carry three Aichi M6A Seiran aircraft underwater to their destinations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
The truth is
So how did they ensure they were only spying on just other militaries? Also, they didn't care about rooting out spies on the homeland either? I'm amazed at the technical capabilities they had to not intercept any civilian traffic at all.
Given that their hardware was purpose built, this was before general purpose computing, to specifically crack German military cipher machines the civilian traffic was not at great risk.
That wikipedia is taken seriously as a source of information still astounds me.
It depends entirely on the topic. Want to know about some mathematical concept, it usually works just fine. Some non-controversial historical fact, again, it usually works just fine. Want to know about something that is a politicized issue, good luck, although still possibly a better source than the news shows where many get their info.
Here's a hint: look at the references, they are often an indicator of the quality of the page and a great source of additional information.
I have basic cable so I can plug right into my TV. However with digital TV being common why arn't more TV's handling it so you don't need the cable box.
My TV includes a digital tuner so I can plug my basic digital cable service directly into the TV using the coax cable coming out of the wall, no cable box necessary. These unencrypted channels include all the basic standard definition channels offered by my cable company not just the handful of local terrestrial broadcast channels.
I actually split the coax and have one output go directly into the TV and one into the cable box. The cable company's DVR only has two receivers, on rare occasions I have two shows recording and I switch the TV to the direct input (the TV's receiver) and watch a third show live.
I merely offer an example that nearly any reader can understand. Where an erroneous statement that confirms a political position is readily accepted without question while a statement that contradicts a political position would be required to have extraordinary proof. We could substitute various falsehoods the Clinton administration offered regarding the Integral Fast Reactor project for the simple error regard the cost of nuclear power, compare the long list of nuclear scientists that claim the Clinton administration got it wrong, but that would be an extraordinarily complex discussion that few readers would understand.
I actually have some experience with DC politicians. It is absolutely frightening how dependent they are upon their staffers who research various subjects and issues for them. While it may seem to be a simple misunderstanding regarding solar power being less expensive than nuclear, a falsehood -- in fact its nearly twice as expensive, the simple truth of the matter is that since the falsehood confirms a personally held desire it is simply accepted when offered by a staffer, or in a callous political calculation it is simply repeated because it will be popular with a political base.
Again, the behavior is remarkable similar between the climate deniers and the nuclear deniers. A confirming meme is accepted and repeated. When a member of the community looks at the science and realizes facts are contradictory the member is ostracized. For example a congressman who eventually looks at the science and realizes various beliefs accepted at face value among climate skeptics are wrong and environmental movement leaders who look at the science and realize various beliefs accepted at face value among anti nuclear activists are wrong.
So yes, both groups, climate and nuclear deniers. have remarkably similar behaviors when it comes to accepting confirming information and rejecting contradicting information. They really only differ in terms of their respective political positions that information is filtered through.
Google nuclear deniers. There are some interesting reads. This is just the first thing I found a moment ago but its interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The problem is that the migration from CPU/GPU to ASIC that Bitcoin experienced seems to be repeating itself with scrypt.
Scrypt ASICs are making great improvements in very short amounts of time. Difficulties are rapidly increasing. Ever greater portions of shrinking proceeds have to be spent on power. Things do not look good for GPU based mining. I've heard that 50% of proceeds are already going into power expenses for some.
One convenient example: Clinton claiming that solar is cheaper than nuclear. It's not. It's about 85% more expensive.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
What has any president since Carter done that's anti-nuclear, other than underfunding energy research?
Underfund and cancel research projects. However the important part is that the speeches that follow parrot the anti-nuclear dogma of the left wing party base. The point being that nuclear denial and embracing political ideology over science is in fact alive and well in both the left and right wings of the political spectrum. It is not merely perception when presidents parrot the ideology when talking to the party base.
And again, I have to wonder how much of that perception is mired in stereotype versus any kind of real substantial population. I don't know, and I won't presume to assert that you're factually wrong, but I do feel the need to wonder.
When multiple white house democratic administrations act in this manner its more than perception. Now these administrations were appealing to their party base so it may not be a majority of democrat but rather the left wing of the party and not its moderates/centrists.
How many liberals faking scientific literacy making that argument do you see on slashdot? Global warming denialism is more endemic to American conservatives than any of the commonly cited stereotypes about liberals.
I think nuclear deniers have a hold on liberal thinking. It is successful enough that research into next gen technology for safer and more efficient reactors gets pulled. Its happened repeatedly over the decades under various democratic administrations to appease the base.
To be fair, GPUs are really, really bad at scrypt. The proper comparison is full CPUs.
Are you sure, I've always heard the opposite? My understanding is that optional software from ATI needs to be installed to get GPU based mining working properly.
Anyways, the next generation of password-hashing functions is likely fix that ASIC advantage, as they will include exponential penalties for less RAM than required. scrypt only has a linear penalty, it seems.
Including the necessary amount of RAM in an ASIC would seem plausible, as is done in video cards.
This isn't really an issue.
If the number 1 mining pool is foolish enough to try something like the 51% attack, the perceived value of Bitcoins would plummet. Therefore, they won't do it. They would be the biggest losers from such a move.
Pool operators can't be hacked? Targeted malware can not launch a 51% attack?
And scrypt is ASIC resistant.
It was erroneously thought to be so. ASICs have taken over scrypt mining. Two $90 ASIC scrypt miners (720 kh/s) using 7-8 watts each can beat a Radeon R9 290 (850 kh/s). Their combined hash rate is slightly less but when you factor in power costs they win. Note the ASIC miners are usually controlled by a Raspberry Pi to reduce power costs.
Really? I remember Jobs saying nobody wants a small tablet, period.
Because of resolution, tap target size, etc ... all issues that were resolved by the time the mini came out. Again, circumstances changed.
Time and circumstances have changed. The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied
Ignoring the fact that when the ipad mini came out it was the low resolution device (1024×768 px at 163 ppi). Steve jobs had already launched the iphone 4 with its *cough* retina display (960×640 at 326 ppi) two years earlier.
You seen to forget that Jobsy(I like to park in handicapped space) was not the density of pixles...bit the size of the display to quote the foul smelling genius "It's meaningless unless your table includes sandpaper," Jobs said, "so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of their present size." He said 7-inch screens were actually 45 per cent the size of an iPad, which wasn't sufficient.
"Apple has done extensive user testing and we really understand this stuff," he added. "There are clear limits on how close you can place things on a touchscreen, which is why we think 10 inches is the minimum screen size to create great tablet apps.
Lets not start using words like "universal truths"(sic) when you are at best misinformed
And the iPad mini was 8 inches not 7, and at 8 with 1024x768 the 40x40 recommended tap target was large enough. No sandpaper required. As I said, circumstances had changed since Jobs made those comments, pixel density, touch sensor accuracy, etc.
How Tim Cook Is Filling Steve Jobs's Shoes
Cook is not filling Steve Jobs' shoes. Steve Jobs' shoes are in a display case at Apple's museum. Cook is wearing his own shoes.
Cook is not Jobs nor is he trying to be Jobs nor should he try to be Jobs. Jobs made lots of product design and development mistakes. His genius was in exploiting those projects where time and circumstances made them successful, in pretty much maximizing the potential of the products that turned out to be successful. In 2001 Jobs brought us both the iPod and the Flower Power iMac.
Cook has to use his own judgement, things Jobs said years ago don't necessarily apply any more. Time and circumstances have changed. The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied.
Jobs' good decisions have a time and a context. They are not necessarily universal truths. His shoes don't need to be worn.
In the long term it's probably much better for Europe if Europeans decide to go the route we Americans did, and create a truly Federal state with it's own Army.
But the EU has been an anti-democratic power for decades, and it seems magic thinking to believe it could evolve in the right direction now. Giving more power to it is an attack on democracy. Giving it an army seems just foolish.
The previous poster mentioned the US Articles of Confederation (the first attempt at governance after gaining independence) and suggested going the American route. Going the American route would not include keeping the current EU. In this analogy the current EU would be discarded like the Articles of Confederation were and member states would create a new governing body and a new set of rules.
In short, the US didn't evolve from one system to another. We completely thew out the old system, learned from its flaws and started over.
So what you're saying is that we need to have a WW3 in Europe and then build from the ashes. Fuck that ! The current EU isn't ideal, yet it's vastly better than having a continent on continual war.
No. There was no war regarding the switch between the two American systems, Articles of Confederation (1777) and United States Constitution (1789). People tried to live under the Articles for about 10 years, 4 of which took place after the British recognized American independence (1783). It didn't seem to be working so well so a constitutional convention was created to fix it. Once assembled the convention delegates decided to discard the Articles and create something new, the Constitution. The delegates then took the Constitution back to the various state legislatures which ratified it.
Perhaps "Confederation" is making you think of the US Civil war and the Confederate States of America (1861). That is about 70 years after the Constitution was ratified.
But as the market grows there will be more transactions and therefore more fees generated without actually increasing them.
Doesn't work that way for miners. Their hardware has a max capacity that they are already running at. And that hardware is expensive. If the return is not sufficient they will not invest in new hardware and will just stop mining. That can destroy a virtual currency. Transaction fees will go up as fewer and fewer new coins are awarded over time.
As popularity grows, so will fees.
But as the market grows, volatility decreases, which makes it possible to deal directly in Bitcoin.
That will not eliminate fees. The Bitcoin model will eventually require increased fees on each and every transaction. As mining becomes more difficult and less rewarding, miners need an incentive other than solving blocks. That will be the fees embedded in each transaction.
Keep in mind that miners do not only create new coins. They also verify the transactions in the block chain and get the embedded fees. Without a large number of independent miners this block chain can be corrupted and individual transactions listed can no longer be trusted to be accurate. To keep a large number of independent miners involved they have to be rewarded. Today mining new coins is the main reward, some day it will not be and the fees embedded in transactions will have to provide the necessary reward.
In the long term it's probably much better for Europe if Europeans decide to go the route we Americans did, and create a truly Federal state with it's own Army.
But the EU has been an anti-democratic power for decades, and it seems magic thinking to believe it could evolve in the right direction now. Giving more power to it is an attack on democracy. Giving it an army seems just foolish.
The previous poster mentioned the US Articles of Confederation (the first attempt at governance after gaining independence) and suggested going the American route. Going the American route would not include keeping the current EU. In this analogy the current EU would be discarded like the Articles of Confederation were and member states would create a new governing body and a new set of rules.
In short, the US didn't evolve from one system to another. We completely thew out the old system, learned from its flaws and started over.
"American regulatory practices"
Such as...?
A recent IRS advisory said virtual currency is to be treated as an assent not a currency. So lets say you receive some bitcoins. At some future date you spend these bitcoins. Since these bitcoins are an asset you have to account for their gain or loss in value for the days you held them an declare a loss or gain on your taxes. In short spending bitcoins has the paperwork overhead of selling stocks, its not like spending dollars at all.
Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO (first in first out) your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.
Everybody is blind to the typo or what?
Not blind. Its simply that the typo is irrelevant. Many readers do not know what a bitcoin is so ignoring the sarcasm and treating the question as real is useful. Especially since many will not notice the typo.