Japan surrendered unconditionally. It was the only offer on the table. Before their unconditional surrender they where offering a *CONDITIONAL* surrender.
Given the appalling history of conditional surrenders in the 20th century with aggressor nations there was no way in hell the allies where going to accept a conditional surrender again.
The defeated nation needed to know they where utterly defeated so they never tried it again.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 2
The allies wanted unconditional surrender because the history in the 20th century of conditional surrenders with aggressive nations (see WWI and Germany) had proven to be such catastrophic failures. There was no way on earth the same mistake was going to be made again.
It had nothing to do with wanting revenge, it was making sure that they understood they had been utterly defeated and that to ever risk it again would be stupid beyond belief.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 2
The decision was taken by the leaders in WWII than unlike in WWI the enemy (aka Nazi's and Japan) had to be utterly defeated. There was going to be no repeat of what I call the "Pershing Effect" that is unless they are utterly defeated they don't believe they really lost and you end up doing it all over again.
History had proved with Germany that a ceasefire and negotiated peace had been the biggest mistake of the 20th Century costing tens of millions of lives. They where not going to make that mistake again, unconditional surrender and occupation was the *ONLY* option on the table from the allies.
The nuclear bombing of Japan provided that total and utter defeat of Japan while risking the fewest possible allied lives, and bringing to an end the Japanese death toll across Asia in as short a time as possible.
The idea that the nuclear bombs didn't have an effect on the Japanese war cabinet is pure and total revisionist fantasy.
For starters it is in direct contravention of recorded testimony given by surviving members of the Japanese war cabinet after the war. There are TV documentaries with these interview in for the whole world to see. Neither you or any other person who was not in the Japanese war cabinet can argue with their testimony.
Even at the 11th hour there where attempts by factions of the Japanese military to stage a coup and stop the unconditional surrender.
You are right about the distance thing as the majority of crashes take place getting to and descending from cruising altitude.
However if you take terrorist incidents out of the equation the chances of surviving a plane crash is from memory *OVER* 50%. So take the two worst disasters in the UK in the last 30 years. The British Airtours Flight 28M on 22nd August 1985 where 137 people on board, 55 died. Or you could take the British Midland Flight 92 on 8th January 1989, 126 people aboard 47 died.
Basically people vastly over estimate the likely hood that they will died in an air crash. Further the simple expediency of turning all seats around so you back is against the direction of travel would dramatically increase the chances of survival in the event of a crash.
Wrong airplanes are seen as a "safe" mode of transport as a consequence of how the statistics are generated/reported.
Almost all airplane crashes occur during take off or landing. Once at cruising altitude the number of crashes are very low per mile/km travelled. In effect a flight from London to Paris is almost as dangerous as a flight from London to New York. The statistics however are presented as the number of fatalities per million km/mile travelled.
On other modes of transport such as car and train the chances of an accident are much more evenly distributed along the length of the journey.
If you took these differences into account air travel becomes much more dangerous than is portrayed by the airline industry.
It is different. If and it is a big IF you had the consent of the woman undergoing the procedure then it would probably be O.K. to make and distribute the video of the abortion.
In the absence of such consent it is highly unlikely to be permissible to invade the privacy of the woman. In addition there are issues around patient confidentiality for medical procedures. There is also a lack of a public interest waver around an abortion because it has no impact on you personally and is not in contravention of any laws.
Physics 101 lesson, light does not always obey the inverse square law. Clearly you have never used a flashlight let alone a laser. If you don't understand the conditions required for light to obey the inverse square law it would be better to keep quite rather than spout complete nonsense.
Yeah but you are not going to have a ring laser or fibre optic gyroscope in a consumer "drone". It is going to be a cheap MEMS gyroscope, not something that costs thousands of dollars.
Apart from anything else I suspect that optical gyroscopes need things like export license. Just take a look at the of example ring laser applications on the wikipedia page. It includes things like Trident missiles and a large range of military aircraft.
In fact a little further Googling shows gyroscopes that are advertised as "Non-ITAR", which should tell you all you need to know.
Utter bollocks. A 50% efficient charger for a smart phone would be illegal to sell in the EU and the USA. It would also be frigging difficult to make, even a bog standard old fashioned transformer and linear regulator will be better than 50%, but even a cheap as chips charger would be switched mode and in excess of 80% efficiency.
I have a bunch of PCIe external enclosures stuffed full of GPU cards on the HPC system that I look after. The idea that an external PCIe bus is a bad idea is just ignorant. Obviously the chances of a security compromise on my system from an external PCIe bus is slim to none existent. It's certainly no worse than from having the GPU cards internal to the servers in which they don't fit of course.
Personally I use NFC so my phone automatically adjusts itself when placed in certain positions. Mostly when I put it in the holder in my car, it makes sure the Bluetooth is turned on and set to maximum volume. It turns the WiFi off because I don't need WiFi while driving and might as well save the battery (I don't have kids using tablets in the back so no need for it to be a WiFi hotspot).
That is the only use I have found. Apple Pay type solutions are for backwards countries that still don't chip and pin like the USA.
This is sub Saharan africa we are talking about where people go to the local witch doctor to get a potion based on body parts of albino's on the promise of wealth, success and power . You think they are going to believe that a mosquito bit causes Malaria?
Driving has never been safer because motor vehicles have never been safer and because structurally roads have never been safer. The last one means things like replacing intersections/crossroads with roundabouts where death rates drop 90% as a result.
On the other hand there are numerous cases of people being killed by txting on a phone, just Google it. Just because driving is safer now than ever before does not justify someone txting on a phone while driving.
Actually it is two different learning styles. One is visual aka "look and say", and the other is auditory aka phonics. But hey lets ignore the evidence that proves your personal beliefs are wrong. I could not give a toss about your links, and I have not read them because I don't need to because they are *WRONG*.
The first thing to understand about educational theorists is that they are a bunch of ideologically driven morons, who would not know what experimental design was if it came and bit them in the backside.
No it is not a case of being inordinately lucky. In my school someone who somehow managed to get stuck in a low-tier track but latter showed high tier competence would simply be moved up the sets.
Admittedly there was a cut of point to get into the fast maths and science classes because once they started curriculum coverage rates started diverging making moving into those sets basically impossible. The cut off point was at age 14 at the start of the school year in September. To not make the cut you would have had to show many years of poor educational attainment.
Note the fast maths and fast science where by invitation only and there where plenty that had the opportunity and chose to pass, because it was a lot hard work.
More utter rubbish from someone who has never experienced streaming in a comprehensive school in the United Kingdom. I went to my local school it took everyone of all abilities. The next nearest school in county (think state if you are in the USA) was 15 miles away as I grew up in rural Northumberland. Inside the school we where streamed on ability. You could and pupils did move up the sets if you either showed the ability. Conversely pupils that dropped out where moved down the sets.
The point is had my mathematics class just been picked at random then I would not have been able to get an extra qualification in Statistics. Similarly for my science classes.
Like I said degrading *MY* educational opportunities so that someone else might do better is utterly unacceptable. It is socialism at its utter worst.
The 11+ was abandoned in England 30 years ago (well 29 to be precise it was removed in 1976). The system never existed in Scotland.
There are still vestiges of the system remaining in various parts of the Grammar schools. I was streamed in a Comprehensive school that had been a secondary modern under the 11+ system. Its exam results regularly exceeded those of its paired 500 year old Grammar school in the next town
When it comes to learning to read in English at least there are several methods. My mother now retired who had a reputation of never letting a child leave her class unable to read (reception/ year one teacher) tells me that some children take to phonics and some to whole language/look and say.
The skill of a good teacher is to identify the method that works best for the individual child and use an appropriate reading scheme.
So while phonics on average works best, some children will never get it, and if you continue to force them to study phonics they will become failed readers where a switch to look and see is likely to have more success.
As such the claim that learning styles don't exist is disproved by the single example of where learning styles *DO* exist.
Any study that shows that is complete and utter total crap. I know that to be a fact from the education I personally received in the U.K. It would have been simply impossible for me to have achieved the qualifications I did aged 16 if I had been taught in mixed ability classes.
Explain to me how being grouped in maths class of clever students that where able to speed through the curriculum take the exam early and then speed through a Statistics O level ending up with two qualifications instead of one those in the "fast" maths class I did worse than if I had been in a mixed ability class and only done the standard mathematics O level? You can't it is utterly impossible for me to have done better being in a mixed ability class.
Repeat for a fast science class where instead of three hours a week for each of biology, chemistry and physics the clever students had the option of doing each in two hours a week and fitting another option in.
The result is that by streaming/tracking I was able to achieve 10 good O level results compared to the standard which was 8.
People who think that not streaming children results in better results for ALL children are in fact complete MORONS. Anyone who has done a study that proves that clearly failed to take a statistics qualification at some point because my *SINGLE* example disproves the cherished educational theory.
These are the sorts of MORONS that result in the William Tyndale scandal
Yes I know all about this because my parents who where both teachers visited the school at my Aunt's request where she was a school manager.
Back when I was doing my O levels (last year that did them before they became GCSE) this was a widespread practice at good schools in England and Wales (Scotland has a completely different school system).
I can also clearly remember my school days *BEFORE* we hit the age where streaming was introduced. I remember being extremely frustrated at the slow pace of the lessons for years.
Clever children do better if they are streamed, and holding clever children back so they can pull other people back is completely unacceptable.
Funny because I spent my whole school career from about 11 onwards being what we called in the UK being "setted". I will now add that age 12 my parents split up. I will further add that I had no problems getting into top sets. I will also further add that children moved up and down in sets all the time.
I will further add that for my 'O' levels I was in the "fast" mathematics and "fast" science groups. That is in the space of ordinary maths lessons we studied for a normal Mathematics O level and the a Statistics O level. For the "fast" science instead of taking three science options for physics, chemistry and biology and getting three hours of lessons a week in each, we took it as a combined two options and had two hours in each subject a week, freeing up timetable space to take another option. I and many others where able to get 10 O level is this manner. Two years later my brother followed and got 10 GCSE's.
By not streaming children you are denying the right of clever children to achieve their potential. It is never acceptable to have an educational system that does this *EVER*.
How about streaming the pupils so that those of similar ability are grouped together for their classes. Ok it might not work at primary school level so much as these tend to be smaller often with only enough pupils for a single class per year. However even then you can arrange the class into groups of different abilities.
I have a New Scientist that is over 20 years old that talked about a Concorde replacement. The reckoned even back then you could go twice as far with twice as many passengers for the same cost. That's a quarter of the ticket price of Concorde.
What I never got about Concorde is why they didn't do trans Pacific flights with a fuel stop at say Honolulu where you land fill with fuel and take off again without disembarking the passengers. Still much quicker than a 747 and opening up potentially lucrative Los Angeles/San Francisco to Tokyo routes.
It is a problem and I think you will find adding electric motors to the landing gear is the solution. It is likely to make it's way to ordinary planes as well for exactly the same reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan surrendered unconditionally. It was the only offer on the table. Before their unconditional surrender they where offering a *CONDITIONAL* surrender.
Given the appalling history of conditional surrenders in the 20th century with aggressor nations there was no way in hell the allies where going to accept a conditional surrender again.
The defeated nation needed to know they where utterly defeated so they never tried it again.
The allies wanted unconditional surrender because the history in the 20th century of conditional surrenders with aggressive nations (see WWI and Germany) had proven to be such catastrophic failures. There was no way on earth the same mistake was going to be made again.
It had nothing to do with wanting revenge, it was making sure that they understood they had been utterly defeated and that to ever risk it again would be stupid beyond belief.
The decision was taken by the leaders in WWII than unlike in WWI the enemy (aka Nazi's and Japan) had to be utterly defeated. There was going to be no repeat of what I call the "Pershing Effect" that is unless they are utterly defeated they don't believe they really lost and you end up doing it all over again.
History had proved with Germany that a ceasefire and negotiated peace had been the biggest mistake of the 20th Century costing tens of millions of lives. They where not going to make that mistake again, unconditional surrender and occupation was the *ONLY* option on the table from the allies.
The nuclear bombing of Japan provided that total and utter defeat of Japan while risking the fewest possible allied lives, and bringing to an end the Japanese death toll across Asia in as short a time as possible.
The idea that the nuclear bombs didn't have an effect on the Japanese war cabinet is pure and total revisionist fantasy.
For starters it is in direct contravention of recorded testimony given by surviving members of the Japanese war cabinet after the war. There are TV documentaries with these interview in for the whole world to see. Neither you or any other person who was not in the Japanese war cabinet can argue with their testimony.
Even at the 11th hour there where attempts by factions of the Japanese military to stage a coup and stop the unconditional surrender.
You are right about the distance thing as the majority of crashes take place getting to and descending from cruising altitude.
However if you take terrorist incidents out of the equation the chances of surviving a plane crash is from memory *OVER* 50%. So take the two worst disasters in the UK in the last 30 years. The British Airtours Flight 28M on 22nd August 1985 where 137 people on board, 55 died. Or you could take the British Midland Flight 92 on 8th January 1989, 126 people aboard 47 died.
Basically people vastly over estimate the likely hood that they will died in an air crash. Further the simple expediency of turning all seats around so you back is against the direction of travel would dramatically increase the chances of survival in the event of a crash.
Wrong airplanes are seen as a "safe" mode of transport as a consequence of how the statistics are generated/reported.
Almost all airplane crashes occur during take off or landing. Once at cruising altitude the number of crashes are very low per mile/km travelled. In effect a flight from London to Paris is almost as dangerous as a flight from London to New York. The statistics however are presented as the number of fatalities per million km/mile travelled.
On other modes of transport such as car and train the chances of an accident are much more evenly distributed along the length of the journey.
If you took these differences into account air travel becomes much more dangerous than is portrayed by the airline industry.
It is different. If and it is a big IF you had the consent of the woman undergoing the procedure then it would probably be O.K. to make and distribute the video of the abortion.
In the absence of such consent it is highly unlikely to be permissible to invade the privacy of the woman. In addition there are issues around patient confidentiality for medical procedures. There is also a lack of a public interest waver around an abortion because it has no impact on you personally and is not in contravention of any laws.
Physics 101 lesson, light does not always obey the inverse square law. Clearly you have never used a flashlight let alone a laser. If you don't understand the conditions required for light to obey the inverse square law it would be better to keep quite rather than spout complete nonsense.
Yeah but you are not going to have a ring laser or fibre optic gyroscope in a consumer "drone". It is going to be a cheap MEMS gyroscope, not something that costs thousands of dollars.
Apart from anything else I suspect that optical gyroscopes need things like export license. Just take a look at the of example ring laser applications on the wikipedia page. It includes things like Trident missiles and a large range of military aircraft.
In fact a little further Googling shows gyroscopes that are advertised as "Non-ITAR", which should tell you all you need to know.
Utter bollocks. A 50% efficient charger for a smart phone would be illegal to sell in the EU and the USA. It would also be frigging difficult to make, even a bog standard old fashioned transformer and linear regulator will be better than 50%, but even a cheap as chips charger would be switched mode and in excess of 80% efficiency.
I have a bunch of PCIe external enclosures stuffed full of GPU cards on the HPC system that I look after. The idea that an external PCIe bus is a bad idea is just ignorant. Obviously the chances of a security compromise on my system from an external PCIe bus is slim to none existent. It's certainly no worse than from having the GPU cards internal to the servers in which they don't fit of course.
Fun fact 100% pure nicotine is a power at room temperature and pressure. So a drop of it is doing nothing to anyone.
Personally I use NFC so my phone automatically adjusts itself when placed in certain positions. Mostly when I put it in the holder in my car, it makes sure the Bluetooth is turned on and set to maximum volume. It turns the WiFi off because I don't need WiFi while driving and might as well save the battery (I don't have kids using tablets in the back so no need for it to be a WiFi hotspot).
That is the only use I have found. Apple Pay type solutions are for backwards countries that still don't chip and pin like the USA.
This is sub Saharan africa we are talking about where people go to the local witch doctor to get a potion based on body parts of albino's on the promise of wealth, success and power . You think they are going to believe that a mosquito bit causes Malaria?
Driving has never been safer because motor vehicles have never been safer and because structurally roads have never been safer. The last one means things like replacing intersections/crossroads with roundabouts where death rates drop 90% as a result.
On the other hand there are numerous cases of people being killed by txting on a phone, just Google it. Just because driving is safer now than ever before does not justify someone txting on a phone while driving.
Actually it is two different learning styles. One is visual aka "look and say", and the other is auditory aka phonics. But hey lets ignore the evidence that proves your personal beliefs are wrong. I could not give a toss about your links, and I have not read them because I don't need to because they are *WRONG*.
The first thing to understand about educational theorists is that they are a bunch of ideologically driven morons, who would not know what experimental design was if it came and bit them in the backside.
No it is not a case of being inordinately lucky. In my school someone who somehow managed to get stuck in a low-tier track but latter showed high tier competence would simply be moved up the sets.
Admittedly there was a cut of point to get into the fast maths and science classes because once they started curriculum coverage rates started diverging making moving into those sets basically impossible. The cut off point was at age 14 at the start of the school year in September. To not make the cut you would have had to show many years of poor educational attainment.
Note the fast maths and fast science where by invitation only and there where plenty that had the opportunity and chose to pass, because it was a lot hard work.
More utter rubbish from someone who has never experienced streaming in a comprehensive school in the United Kingdom. I went to my local school it took everyone of all abilities. The next nearest school in county (think state if you are in the USA) was 15 miles away as I grew up in rural Northumberland. Inside the school we where streamed on ability. You could and pupils did move up the sets if you either showed the ability. Conversely pupils that dropped out where moved down the sets.
The point is had my mathematics class just been picked at random then I would not have been able to get an extra qualification in Statistics. Similarly for my science classes.
Like I said degrading *MY* educational opportunities so that someone else might do better is utterly unacceptable. It is socialism at its utter worst.
The 11+ was abandoned in England 30 years ago (well 29 to be precise it was removed in 1976). The system never existed in Scotland.
There are still vestiges of the system remaining in various parts of the
Grammar schools. I was streamed in a Comprehensive school that had been a secondary modern under the 11+ system. Its exam results regularly exceeded those of its paired 500 year old Grammar school in the next town
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So basically you are talking out of your backside about a school system that was abandoned years before I ever got anywhere near an 11+ exam.
When it comes to learning to read in English at least there are several methods. My mother now retired who had a reputation of never letting a child leave her class unable to read (reception/ year one teacher) tells me that some children take to phonics and some to whole language/look and say.
The skill of a good teacher is to identify the method that works best for the individual child and use an appropriate reading scheme.
So while phonics on average works best, some children will never get it, and if you continue to force them to study phonics they will become failed readers where a switch to look and see is likely to have more success.
As such the claim that learning styles don't exist is disproved by the single example of where learning styles *DO* exist.
Any study that shows that is complete and utter total crap. I know that to be a fact from the education I personally received in the U.K. It would have been simply impossible for me to have achieved the qualifications I did aged 16 if I had been taught in mixed ability classes.
Explain to me how being grouped in maths class of clever students that where able to speed through the curriculum take the exam early and then speed through a Statistics O level ending up with two qualifications instead of one those in the "fast" maths class I did worse than if I had been in a mixed ability class and only done the standard mathematics O level? You can't it is utterly impossible for me to have done better being in a mixed ability class.
Repeat for a fast science class where instead of three hours a week for each of biology, chemistry and physics the clever students had the option of doing each in two hours a week and fitting another option in.
The result is that by streaming/tracking I was able to achieve 10 good O level results compared to the standard which was 8.
People who think that not streaming children results in better results for ALL children are in fact complete MORONS. Anyone who has done a study that proves that clearly failed to take a statistics qualification at some point because my *SINGLE* example disproves the cherished educational theory.
These are the sorts of MORONS that result in the William Tyndale scandal
https://www.tes.co.uk/article....
Yes I know all about this because my parents who where both teachers visited the school at my Aunt's request where she was a school manager.
Back when I was doing my O levels (last year that did them before they became GCSE) this was a widespread practice at good schools in England and Wales (Scotland has a completely different school system).
I can also clearly remember my school days *BEFORE* we hit the age where streaming was introduced. I remember being extremely frustrated at the slow pace of the lessons for years.
Clever children do better if they are streamed, and holding clever children back so they can pull other people back is completely unacceptable.
Funny because I spent my whole school career from about 11 onwards being what we called in the UK being "setted". I will now add that age 12 my parents split up. I will further add that I had no problems getting into top sets. I will also further add that children moved up and down in sets all the time.
I will further add that for my 'O' levels I was in the "fast" mathematics and "fast" science groups. That is in the space of ordinary maths lessons we studied for a normal Mathematics O level and the a Statistics O level. For the "fast" science instead of taking three science options for physics, chemistry and biology and getting three hours of lessons a week in each, we took it as a combined two options and had two hours in each subject a week, freeing up timetable space to take another option. I and many others where able to get 10 O level is this manner. Two years later my brother followed and got 10 GCSE's.
By not streaming children you are denying the right of clever children to achieve their potential. It is never acceptable to have an educational system that does this *EVER*.
How about streaming the pupils so that those of similar ability are grouped together for their classes. Ok it might not work at primary school level so much as these tend to be smaller often with only enough pupils for a single class per year. However even then you can arrange the class into groups of different abilities.
Hum, perhaps you might read the relevant manual page "man setleds"
Then perhaps you might read the following web page
http://martybugs.net/electroni...
In short you are just 100% plain wrong in your assertion. You could easily use three flashing LED's to indicate all sorts of error codes.
I have a New Scientist that is over 20 years old that talked about a Concorde replacement. The reckoned even back then you could go twice as far with twice as many passengers for the same cost. That's a quarter of the ticket price of Concorde.
What I never got about Concorde is why they didn't do trans Pacific flights with a fuel stop at say Honolulu where you land fill with fuel and take off again without disembarking the passengers. Still much quicker than a 747 and opening up potentially lucrative Los Angeles/San Francisco to Tokyo routes.
It is a problem and I think you will find adding electric motors to the landing gear is the solution. It is likely to make it's way to ordinary planes as well for exactly the same reason.