It needs to be at least a little about the environment, because otherwise our easiest move may be to switch from oil to coal, which we have a lot more of. Of course, coal pollutes like crazy (even so-called "clean" coal), so it would be nice if we could keep the environmental stuff at the forefront too. I do agree that national security is a helpful selling point, though.
Of course it does. Citing from encyclopedias, whether Wikipedia or any other, is not an acceptable practice in any sort of research I've ever heard of.
Using Wikipedia entries even if they're properly cited is unacceptable. If he wanted to use Wikipedia as a research tool, that's fine, but he should have read through the materials cited by the Wikipedia article itself and used them as his sources, with proper citation. If the Wikipedia article cited no sources, then it shouldn't have been used at all.
I think you mean Dunkirk, not the Battle of the Bulge, which came much later and well after the war had been decided.
Regarding Britain, Hitler was convinced for much longer than was rational that Britain had no appetite for a battle to the death, and all that was needed was to bombard them enough to get them to sue for peace. He vastly underestimated the British will to see the conflict through to the end.
That presupposes the Battle of Britain could have been won, when in fact it had already been lost by the end of 1940. After the defeat at the Battle of Britain, Hitler was convinced he needed to take care of the Soviets, thereby freeing all of the resources that were at the time defending his Eastern border against a possible Soviet attack, before he could re-engage Britain.
Of course, the Soviet attitude at the time was that no invasion by Germany could be expected until 1942, and the Soviets themselves were certainly not in any mood to go on the offensive, so Germany likely could have pulled some of the resources in the East to take care of Britain, but they didn't. Even if they had, the British victory had convinced America that Britain may actually be able to survive after all, whereas before the prevailing American opinion was that Britain was doomed. The idea that Britain could survive led the US to step up its support of Britain significantly, so a subsequent campaign in Britain would have been much more difficult for Hitler in any case.
The solution to their problem is to form a lobbying group to get Congress to reform the Laws of Physics. Those laws have been around for centuries and are clearly woefully outdated. Sure, at first the so-called "Laws" of Thermodynamics were a good idea, but now they're just holding us back.
Well, that was his second fatal mistake;). This is one of the things that makes WWII so interesting from a military perspective...there are many points where you can find mistakes by Hitler and his cronies, and you can debate endlessly if the avoidance of that particular error might have turned the tide of the war.
Had Hitler waited, he might have had the air power to definitively defeat Britain, which might have allowed him to take on the Soviets. In my opinion, even with Britain defeated, it would have taken several years of armament production before Hitler could have realistically taken on the Soviets, and it may have never really been possible, but it certainly wasn't possible with the state of his armies in 1941, particularly when he still had to heavily defend the Western Front.
While it's true the Germans made some serious strategic blunders, Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland. Had he understood that the French and British were through with the appeasement policy that had allowed him to absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia, he might have waited a few more years before attacking Poland. As it was, he was convinced the French and British would not fight, and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.
Of course, the success of his audacious moves against Austria and Czechoslovakia against the advice of his military leaders were the primary factor in his consolidation of total power over the military, and therefore over the country, so it seems his recklessness in military matters may have been both the key to his success as well as the reason for his ultimate failure.
The Germans were doomed as soon as they opened up a second front against Russia. The Japanese getting the US involved obviously didn't help, but once Hitler decided to split his forces and assault Russia, his days were numbered. A technology like this may have been effective in the Battle of Britain, but it came too late for that, and stretching the timeline enough to allow for a rebuilding of the Luftwaffe and mass production of these planes, even ignoring the US completely, is not a realistic scenario given the events on the Eastern Front.
According to Wikipedia, this design was proposed in 1943, at which point the Battle of Britain was already lost and a good portion of the German army had just been defeated at Stalingrad. Even without the US or Normandy, it's highly unlikely the Germans could have lasted long enough to produce these things in large enough numbers to make any difference.
This design is one of a number of things the Germans could have accomplished that might have made a difference had they not been so eager to go to war in the first place. The French and British policies of appeasement, and their policy of rearming only in accordance with the provisions of Versailles while allowing the Germans to break that treaty at will without consequence, meant that before the war time was on the Germans' side. Had they waited until 1942 or 43 to attack Poland, as most of the Generals were suggesting, the outcome of the war might have been very different.
It got a bad reputation due to some very nasty security holes 15 years ago, and so lots of people don't want to use it anymore. That and it's possible to make it highly insecure through export options, but if you're dumb enough to export your stuff to the world read/write with root privs, you probably shouldn't be allowed to operate a computer much less set up a home network.
Personally, I would think for a simple home network, having an NFS shared directory is the easiest and most practical solution. Sure you can't just take your laptop away and have all of your content, but given the storage capacity of your average laptop that's unlikely to be realistic anyway.
Of course, make sure you have a good backup solution for your file server, and make sure the file server is well protected behind your firewall, but other than that NFS should be just fine.
Isn't it just a matter of time until it's back out into the air. I'm not sure about the body's absorption of CO2 in the digestion tract but isn't most of it, uh, belched right back out one way or another?
Just put it in cans of RC Cola. It will never again see the light of day.
The lousy part about a recession is that the state gets less money at the same time more people require state services. The solution is to build up a rainy day fund during good times so we can survive the bad times. Unfortunately, when politicians see a big pile of money they want to spend it, and when the people see a big pile of money in government hands they want a tax cut and a big refund. So, few states have any kind of rainy day fund, and those that do have a woefully inadequate one. Welcome to democracy.
Just make the balloons festive colors and tell them we're throwing a nationwide party for Achmadinejad to celebrate his election. Air drop some party hats and noise makers. I'm sure they won't suspect a thing.
California's problem is not all the "tax and spend liberals", it's that it has the most boneheaded system of government ever devised. It's Constitution is huge and unwieldy, and can be changed by a simple majority vote. Its government can't do anything like raise taxes or cut spending to balance the budget because the referendum system blocks them from doing anything that's unpopular with 51% of the voters.
California is a great study in why populist democracy is a lousy way to run a huge and complex state.
In my experience, IT pay sucks throughout the state of Utah, even in Salt Lake. Not sure why that is, but it kept me from settling there, even though I really like the city: Any city will start to suck if you're broke all the time.
4:01 Jack walks around the store 3 times, idly touching various merchandise along the way.
4:02 Homeless man wanders in and goes into the bathroom
4:07 Teenager with long hair reeking of patchouli and weed buys entire stock of Twinkies and 3 bags of Cheetos
4:25 Jack idly flips through latest issue of Penthouse
4:28 Jack kicks homeless man out of the bathroom, sprays Lysol and reminds himself to get the new kid to clean up that mess when he gets in.
4:32 Jack dozes off behind the register
4:43 Door chime wakes Jack, man in dirty flannel and backwards baseball cap buys a pack of Marlboro Lights.
4:52 Jack holds lottery tickets up to light looking for a winner
4:59 Jack dozes off again.
Given the number of press releases and just flat-out product advertisements that masquerade as legitimate articles in newspapers and television news, I seriously doubt it.
The larger issue here is that ALL media outlets do this sort of thing, not just blogs. The FTC should oversee this sort of behavior everywhere, as it is dishonest and misleading to have supposedly trustworthy news sources engage in this kind of behavior. The only reason the practice is becoming a problem with blogs is because some blogs have become just as trustworthy, if not more so, as their old media counterparts in the eyes of their readers.
Don't worry, the film sucked at low-res too. It's the only movie I've ever seen where the constant action was so repetitive it became almost like a drone, and I actually found myself dozing off during the battle scenes (aka pretty much the entire movie).
Whether or not he could write is debatable, but the larger issue is that he completely misunderstood the subjects he was writing about. His writing style was irrelevant since he had nothing interesting to say. He always was good for generating discussion though, even if 90% of it was about the many ways in which he was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Your faulty navigational display sends your mother-in-law off a cliff.
That's not faulty, it's working precisely as intended.
It needs to be at least a little about the environment, because otherwise our easiest move may be to switch from oil to coal, which we have a lot more of. Of course, coal pollutes like crazy (even so-called "clean" coal), so it would be nice if we could keep the environmental stuff at the forefront too. I do agree that national security is a helpful selling point, though.
Well, I suppose the generations of inbreeding that would be required to make that work would explain why humans are so fucked up.
Of course it does. Citing from encyclopedias, whether Wikipedia or any other, is not an acceptable practice in any sort of research I've ever heard of.
Using Wikipedia entries even if they're properly cited is unacceptable. If he wanted to use Wikipedia as a research tool, that's fine, but he should have read through the materials cited by the Wikipedia article itself and used them as his sources, with proper citation. If the Wikipedia article cited no sources, then it shouldn't have been used at all.
I think you mean Dunkirk, not the Battle of the Bulge, which came much later and well after the war had been decided. Regarding Britain, Hitler was convinced for much longer than was rational that Britain had no appetite for a battle to the death, and all that was needed was to bombard them enough to get them to sue for peace. He vastly underestimated the British will to see the conflict through to the end.
That presupposes the Battle of Britain could have been won, when in fact it had already been lost by the end of 1940. After the defeat at the Battle of Britain, Hitler was convinced he needed to take care of the Soviets, thereby freeing all of the resources that were at the time defending his Eastern border against a possible Soviet attack, before he could re-engage Britain.
Of course, the Soviet attitude at the time was that no invasion by Germany could be expected until 1942, and the Soviets themselves were certainly not in any mood to go on the offensive, so Germany likely could have pulled some of the resources in the East to take care of Britain, but they didn't. Even if they had, the British victory had convinced America that Britain may actually be able to survive after all, whereas before the prevailing American opinion was that Britain was doomed. The idea that Britain could survive led the US to step up its support of Britain significantly, so a subsequent campaign in Britain would have been much more difficult for Hitler in any case.
The solution to their problem is to form a lobbying group to get Congress to reform the Laws of Physics. Those laws have been around for centuries and are clearly woefully outdated. Sure, at first the so-called "Laws" of Thermodynamics were a good idea, but now they're just holding us back.
Well, that was his second fatal mistake ;). This is one of the things that makes WWII so interesting from a military perspective...there are many points where you can find mistakes by Hitler and his cronies, and you can debate endlessly if the avoidance of that particular error might have turned the tide of the war.
Had Hitler waited, he might have had the air power to definitively defeat Britain, which might have allowed him to take on the Soviets. In my opinion, even with Britain defeated, it would have taken several years of armament production before Hitler could have realistically taken on the Soviets, and it may have never really been possible, but it certainly wasn't possible with the state of his armies in 1941, particularly when he still had to heavily defend the Western Front.
While it's true the Germans made some serious strategic blunders, Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland. Had he understood that the French and British were through with the appeasement policy that had allowed him to absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia, he might have waited a few more years before attacking Poland. As it was, he was convinced the French and British would not fight, and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.
Of course, the success of his audacious moves against Austria and Czechoslovakia against the advice of his military leaders were the primary factor in his consolidation of total power over the military, and therefore over the country, so it seems his recklessness in military matters may have been both the key to his success as well as the reason for his ultimate failure.
The Germans were doomed as soon as they opened up a second front against Russia. The Japanese getting the US involved obviously didn't help, but once Hitler decided to split his forces and assault Russia, his days were numbered. A technology like this may have been effective in the Battle of Britain, but it came too late for that, and stretching the timeline enough to allow for a rebuilding of the Luftwaffe and mass production of these planes, even ignoring the US completely, is not a realistic scenario given the events on the Eastern Front.
According to Wikipedia, this design was proposed in 1943, at which point the Battle of Britain was already lost and a good portion of the German army had just been defeated at Stalingrad. Even without the US or Normandy, it's highly unlikely the Germans could have lasted long enough to produce these things in large enough numbers to make any difference.
This design is one of a number of things the Germans could have accomplished that might have made a difference had they not been so eager to go to war in the first place. The French and British policies of appeasement, and their policy of rearming only in accordance with the provisions of Versailles while allowing the Germans to break that treaty at will without consequence, meant that before the war time was on the Germans' side. Had they waited until 1942 or 43 to attack Poland, as most of the Generals were suggesting, the outcome of the war might have been very different.
Or, for our Dutch friends, a Google translation:
Dit is onzin!
And then back to English:
This is nonsense!
And, just for fun, to Filipino:
ito ay kalokohan!
And back to English:
This is poppycock!
I think I've made my point.
It got a bad reputation due to some very nasty security holes 15 years ago, and so lots of people don't want to use it anymore. That and it's possible to make it highly insecure through export options, but if you're dumb enough to export your stuff to the world read/write with root privs, you probably shouldn't be allowed to operate a computer much less set up a home network.
Personally, I would think for a simple home network, having an NFS shared directory is the easiest and most practical solution. Sure you can't just take your laptop away and have all of your content, but given the storage capacity of your average laptop that's unlikely to be realistic anyway.
Of course, make sure you have a good backup solution for your file server, and make sure the file server is well protected behind your firewall, but other than that NFS should be just fine.
Isn't it just a matter of time until it's back out into the air. I'm not sure about the body's absorption of CO2 in the digestion tract but isn't most of it, uh, belched right back out one way or another?
Just put it in cans of RC Cola. It will never again see the light of day.
Maybe he's merely advocating that the "obfuscation != security" people should form a line. You shouldn't be so quick to judge.
The lousy part about a recession is that the state gets less money at the same time more people require state services. The solution is to build up a rainy day fund during good times so we can survive the bad times. Unfortunately, when politicians see a big pile of money they want to spend it, and when the people see a big pile of money in government hands they want a tax cut and a big refund. So, few states have any kind of rainy day fund, and those that do have a woefully inadequate one. Welcome to democracy.
Just make the balloons festive colors and tell them we're throwing a nationwide party for Achmadinejad to celebrate his election. Air drop some party hats and noise makers. I'm sure they won't suspect a thing.
California's problem is not all the "tax and spend liberals", it's that it has the most boneheaded system of government ever devised. It's Constitution is huge and unwieldy, and can be changed by a simple majority vote. Its government can't do anything like raise taxes or cut spending to balance the budget because the referendum system blocks them from doing anything that's unpopular with 51% of the voters.
California is a great study in why populist democracy is a lousy way to run a huge and complex state.
In my experience, IT pay sucks throughout the state of Utah, even in Salt Lake. Not sure why that is, but it kept me from settling there, even though I really like the city: Any city will start to suck if you're broke all the time.
Most boring season of 24 EVER.
4 A.M. to 5 A.M.
4:01 Jack walks around the store 3 times, idly touching various merchandise along the way.
4:02 Homeless man wanders in and goes into the bathroom
4:07 Teenager with long hair reeking of patchouli and weed buys entire stock of Twinkies and 3 bags of Cheetos
4:25 Jack idly flips through latest issue of Penthouse
4:28 Jack kicks homeless man out of the bathroom, sprays Lysol and reminds himself to get the new kid to clean up that mess when he gets in.
4:32 Jack dozes off behind the register
4:43 Door chime wakes Jack, man in dirty flannel and backwards baseball cap buys a pack of Marlboro Lights.
4:52 Jack holds lottery tickets up to light looking for a winner
4:59 Jack dozes off again.
Riveting stuff!
Given the number of press releases and just flat-out product advertisements that masquerade as legitimate articles in newspapers and television news, I seriously doubt it.
The larger issue here is that ALL media outlets do this sort of thing, not just blogs. The FTC should oversee this sort of behavior everywhere, as it is dishonest and misleading to have supposedly trustworthy news sources engage in this kind of behavior. The only reason the practice is becoming a problem with blogs is because some blogs have become just as trustworthy, if not more so, as their old media counterparts in the eyes of their readers.
Don't worry, the film sucked at low-res too. It's the only movie I've ever seen where the constant action was so repetitive it became almost like a drone, and I actually found myself dozing off during the battle scenes (aka pretty much the entire movie).
That wouldn't be a problem, he's got an app to track his MacBook on his iPhone. Oh, wait...
in the subject line. Nobody reads them.
Whether or not he could write is debatable, but the larger issue is that he completely misunderstood the subjects he was writing about. His writing style was irrelevant since he had nothing interesting to say. He always was good for generating discussion though, even if 90% of it was about the many ways in which he was wrong.