Initially, it wasn't a "war for survival" for either in the US or Japan. In 1941 neither could directly threaten the survival of the other other.
US military action was not the greatest threat to Japan's survival in the 1930's-early 1940's.
Lack of resources was. Lack of resources was severely limiting Japan's ability to industrialize, and for a country that desired to have status and power like Great Britain and the US, this was a serious issue. In its own view, Japan's survival was threatened if it was unable to stand with the other major powers.
That is why Japan became increasingly aggressive as the 1930's wore on: to acquire the resources it desperately needed. That is also exactly why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor: to blunt the inevitable US reaction to the grab for resources which Japan simultaneously executed in southwest Asia and the Pacific.
Japan went to war in a misguided attempt to assure its own survival (on the terms it was willing to live with). If that isn't a "war for survival"... what is?
Your US-centricity is showing. Canada just had a 60th anniversary for D-day in which the Canadian troops were able to drive further into the mainland than any other troops.
That's great: Canadians should rightfully be proud.
But, remind me again exactly what Canada's participation in D-Day at Normandy had to do with their participation in the war against Japan, which is clearly what the OP was referring to.
Perhaps your "The only WWII that mattered was in Europe"-centricity is showing?
Turing formulated the TM as a way to show that our formal axiomatic system for mathematics was undecidable (that is, there are statements whose truth values cannot be determined algorithmically).
Not quite. Kurt Godel demonstrated that mathematics (or any sufficiently powerful "formal system") was either complete (all valid statements are decidable) or inconsistent.
Turing demonstrated that -- assuming you want your system to be consistent -- there is no finite, deterministic method for determining whether a given statement in that system is decidable or not.
I.e., not only is mathematics "sullied" by these undecidable statements, but there is no way to neatly characterize them.
This was the last nail in the coffin of the Hilbert Program. (David Hilbert was a leading German mathematician of the early 20th century). Hilbert asserted that mathematics can be characterized as "an inventory of provable formulas", without possibility of inconsistency (i.e., it was not possible for 'A' and 'Not A' to be true at the same time). Godel proved that not all formulas are proveable. Turing destroyed any remaining hope by proving that there was no way cordone off the unprovable formulas.
Denver, however, not only allows right turn on red, but in some cases, LEFT turn on red.
Is there any other town in the WORLD where pedestrians can cross an intersection DIAGONALLY, right through the center of the intersection?
I was rather shocked to see this in my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, about a year ago.
you'll be sitting at a four way stop light for a minute or so to allow granny to walk through THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION.
Oddly enough, Pittsburgh does have one of the oldest populations in the US due to a large number of seniors in the area.
Re:Change one thing at a time
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I particularly liked the rule about "Quit thinking and look". I worked with a guy who used what I call the "Zen method of debugging". He would keep staring at the code, trying to determine what was going on...
Personally, I would consider this to be the anti-Zen method. He was apparently focused so much on what he "knew" to be true, that he failed to consider clues trying to point him in another direction. That is not the Zen way of looking at things.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has a lot to say about this. If you're stuck on a problem, the solution is not to beat on it harder (e.g., stare at the code some more). The solution is to back off, and (to paraphrase from memory) allow yourself to become aware of the one little fact that's out there, waving it's hand, hoping that you might notice it... and that'll point you at the real problem.
Stupidly staring at code is not Zen. Having an open mind for interesting and helpful facts -- whatever their source -- is.
What I don't understand about this type of spam is that often it doesn't contain any actual advertisement, just three or four lines of random words, and the end of the email right there.
I don't get it. If you're not selling a product, what is the spam for?
I think it's "chaff" intended to reduce the effectiveness of Bayesian filters.
It's like a plane ejecting a load of foil strips in order to reduce the effectiveness of ground radar. The radar operator suddenly has a much tougher job of distinguishing between blobs that are actually planes, and blobs that are wads of foil.
If your Bayesian filter is bombarded by e-mails with random subjects, random senders and random contents, it's going to have a harder time distinguishing spam from legitimate mail. So, you either get more unfiltered spam, or you find a better filter (?).
We will not charge your credit card account any fees for using the Search Inside the Book feature.
oh yeah, we forgot the "yet" part..
So, now we're going to direct our annoyance not only at those who do charge us for providing us services, but also those who may charge us. Yeah, that makes lots of sense.
If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart.
Neither is security through obscurity. If I suspect you're up to something, just the frequency and volume of file updates can be significant, never mind the names of the files or their contents (though, of course, that could be useful information as well).
The bombing was irrelevant for purposes of defeating Japan however. The Japanese ability to wage offensive war had been completely destroyed.
Bull. Japan's ability to wage naval warfare had been effectively destroyed, but her ability to wage land warfare had not. In summer 1945, 100,000 lives a month were being lost in China and Southeast Asia either as a direct result of Japanese aggression or as a consequence of their occupation (e.g., starvation).
Japan's core leadership, with the Emperor's explicit agreement, was striving for a major victory of some sort on the Asian mainland, that they could then use as leverage in peace negotiations. Meanwhile, they had raised force levels in Kyushu to such an extent that US planners were having serious second thoughts about the wisdom of invading.
It certainly would have been possible to blockade and strangle Japan (like the deaths caused by that would somehow be better than dying by the bomb). However, that would have done virtually nothing to bring her considerable forces in mainland Asia to heel, or to slow the massive loss of life occurring there monthly.
The best they could've made were wooden ships to sail to Korea
They were already in Korea, in force. If anything, they needed ships to sail from Korea to Japan (to feed the populace there, which was facing severe food shortages in winter 1945), than the other way around.
Replace completely, no. But in most circumstances, the side that has the better technology and knows how to use it has a huge advantage.
Radar fundamentally changed naval and air combat, by enabling detection and targeting of other units at night, in closed-in weather and at enormous ranges. Speed and mobility is nearly always advantageous. Since the 19th century, it's been well-understood that one person with a machine gun has a major advantage against even dozens of highly-motivated attackers with less fire-power.
I think that HTML is a programming language. It's probably even something that one could write a compiler for, though why one would want to is a bit obscure...
Whether or not you can write a "compiler" for a language X is really orthogonal to whether X is a programming language.
If X is a programming language, X can represent state (think variables), it can change state within its representation (assign new values to variables), and it can change its execution path based on its current state (act conditionally based on the current value of its variables).
HTML can do none of those things. It has no means to represent state, let alone change it or behave conditionally based on it. It cannot be reduced -- even in theory -- to a Turing machine.
HTML is, as Jim said, simply a descriptive language. It is markup. It is embedding additional data into a document in order to call out the logical structure of document for anyone who might be interested: a web browser, a search engine, a private catalog service, etc.
It is a language, but not all languages used with computers are programming languages.
Yeah, well, my point is that their editor seems designed to only make that style of page. (Long vertical scroll, [H1] [H2] stuff, and the CVS tags and standards compliance buttons at the bottom, etc.)
That's a fair criticism, but to be honest I'd love to have an editor/browser that did even that much well. I prefer to write documentation in HTML and don't need much more than basic markup. I can link in a stylesheet for a little pop, but that's as fancy as it needs to be. However, in tinkering with Amaya on and off, it just feels clunky and it's definitely not the kind of tool you could hand to geeks and non-geeks alike, and expect them to collaborate happily through it. (E.g., non-geeks draw up a functional spec, geeks make their comments and corrects, non-geeks revise spec, etc., all in a single HTML document.)
Personally, I find Wiki to be a close-enough approximation to the kind of editor/browser functionality Amaya strives for. It's not quite the same, but it's simple enough that all kinds of folks can work on a document without (say) one person trashing another's simple, clean markup by editing it in Word.
As far as the "thousands of American lives were saved" argument...
The argument should be that hundreds of thousands of Asian lives -- those in Japanese-occupied territories and in Japan itself -- were saved. Death rates on the Asian mainland due to Japanese occupation ran at 100K/month in 1945. Japan itself faced severe food shortages in winter 1945-1946.
Not to downplay Allied casualties in the event of the invasion, but folks seem to be barely aware of the incredible destruction the war was causing on the Asian mainland.
The evidence is strong that Japan would've surrendered beforehand if the Emperor's personal safety and ceremonial role in Japanese life were preserved.
The evidence is stronger Japan would not have surrendered. Japan's "Group of Six", who controlled the government at the end of the war, categorically rejected the idea of unconditional surrender even if the Emperor's preservation was guaranteed.
The US had rejected such offers but after the bombs were dropped did accept them.
Sorry. No such offers were made by authorized representatives of the Japanese government prior to Japan's final capitulation: not to neutral countries, and certainly not to the US.
The Japanese Army slaugthered thousands of innocent civilians. So, to punish "them", we slaughthered an order of magnitude more innocent civilians.
Rubbish. The number of Chinese and southeast Asian civilians slaughtered directly by Japan, or killed as a result of Japanese occupation between 1937 and 1945, numbers in the millions. Through summer 1945, it is estimated that 100,000 civilians -- in China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Burma -- a month were dying, thanks to Japan, and that number was expected to continue indefinitely. Moreover, Japan itself was very likely to face an internal food crisis in winter 1945-1946 which would have exacted a heavy toll on her own population.
The atom bombs weren't dropped to "punish" Japan, and to state that the ~200K people -- military as well as civilian -- that they killed far exceeded the death toll wrought by Japan is flat out wrong.
The bombs were dropped in the hope of forcing Japan to a quick and full surrender. The nightmare at that time was an invasion of Japan, with military and civilian casualties proportional ly large compared to those on Okinawa, followed by the need to defeat individual Japanese forces in mainland Asia.
As awful as ~200K deaths is, the alternatives were worse.
I suggest you read the book "Hiroshima".
I suggest you learn the Pacific/Asian war was more than Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.
What would be really nice would be if the W3C actually got around to having tags for things that sites use tables inappropriately for...
This is exactly what CSS is for.
there's no way to specify things like sidebars
Float a div. End of discussion.
If you look at a newspaper or magazine article, you'll notice that all of the high-level layout features (drop quotes, sidebars, separated initial paragraphs, tool- bar-like things, etc) are missing from HTML
Right. Because drop quotes, sidebars, special paragraph spacing, etc., are all presentational considerations. HTML describes structure, not presentation (or at least that's the intent).
CSS describes presentation, and while support is still sketchy in some areas, it can easily address most of the presentational concerns you've raised.
> I've seen a few pages on google where no cache > was available which leads me to think that > there's a way to disable caching also.
This also can happen when a site is listed on Google, the googlebot goes back to respider the site and for whatever reason fails to. If the page is listed in DMOZ, it may still show up in Google search results, but if you try to pull up the cached version, you get a big page of nothing.
Or at least this is one way it can happen. I know: it happened to me.
Not being too bright (still), I once launched an Erector Set. Seriously. It was actually supposed to be a rocket motor test stand (forget why I needed *that*), but it had one design flaw. Though the stand was held down by one of those big 6v lantern batteries, the motor thrust was directed skyward, instead of towards the ground.
And yes, this thing was built from a 70's vintage erector set: potmetal, bolts and nuts.
When the day came, I set this thing up in the back woods. I was 14 or so, so mom was in attendance. Slipped in a nice C-motor, wired it up, stood back, and flipped the switch.
The battery flew a good six feet. The stand -- did I mention it was an erector set? -- shot straight up about 5 feet, tipped over 90 degrees or so and began swirling like a dervish through the woods, bouncing off tree trunks, hurtling sidewards at myself and then my mom (both of us running for our lives at this point), spewing smoke and exhaust every which way, before the motor finally burned out and the thing crashed down in a heap in the grass, about 15 feet from where it started.
We approached it gingerly, coming up to it just in time for one last convulsive, metallic lurch as the ejection charge fired.
Mom, she just looked at me grimly and said "You're not trying that again." Me, I did not become an engineer of any description.
> Your point is fine in theory, but you have to > remember two things. Firstly, the vast majority > of internet users don't even know that they can > change their default font size (let alone how to > do it).
I don't see how this leads to the conclusion that they want the site font to be smaller. Or larger for that matter.
> Had they used the default font size I imagine > many designers would have been put off the site > by the ugly size of the text.
This implies that many designers (cough) don't know how to change the default font size of their own damn browser. If that's the case - if professionals authoring for the Web don't know how to use the most basic tools of their trade - then I'm afraid the Web Standards folks have a real uphill fight on their hands.
Frankly, I think the whole font-size issue is a red herring. The only people who care are "designers" and perhaps their clients. One or the other looks at the page, thinks "Gee, that font is too big" and starts slapping in font tags left and right without considering adjusting their own browser so pages look they way they prefer. To satisfy themselves, they muck with a parameter affecting nearly every visitor to their site. Brilliant.
Factoid: I run privately a small but reasonably well-visited mostly-text site: 50K page views a week. I make a factual error, visitors _love_ to let me know. A link breaks or some stupid browser bug renders part of a page illegible, and maybe someone will contact me about it, but probably not.
Not once have I received a comment about the font size used on the site: the browser's default.
I think that if Germany developed the bomb first, it would have pushed us even harder; not only is it possible, our scientists would have thought, here's how to make it better. Faster. Cheaper.
The Bomb was originally envisioned for use against Germany -- not Japan -- and fear that Germany would develop it first was the single main motivation for the huge effort to develop it in the US. Nobody was draggin' their feet.
Slashdot Mirror
US military action was not the greatest threat to Japan's survival in the 1930's-early 1940's.
Lack of resources was. Lack of resources was severely limiting Japan's ability to industrialize, and for a country that desired to have status and power like Great Britain and the US, this was a serious issue. In its own view, Japan's survival was threatened if it was unable to stand with the other major powers.
That is why Japan became increasingly aggressive as the 1930's wore on: to acquire the resources it desperately needed. That is also exactly why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor: to blunt the inevitable US reaction to the grab for resources which Japan simultaneously executed in southwest Asia and the Pacific.
Japan went to war in a misguided attempt to assure its own survival (on the terms it was willing to live with). If that isn't a "war for survival" ... what is?
That's great: Canadians should rightfully be proud.
But, remind me again exactly what Canada's participation in D-Day at Normandy had to do with their participation in the war against Japan, which is clearly what the OP was referring to.
Perhaps your "The only WWII that mattered was in Europe"-centricity is showing?
Not quite. Kurt Godel demonstrated that mathematics (or any sufficiently powerful "formal system") was either complete (all valid statements are decidable) or inconsistent.
Turing demonstrated that -- assuming you want your system to be consistent -- there is no finite, deterministic method for determining whether a given statement in that system is decidable or not.
I.e., not only is mathematics "sullied" by these undecidable statements, but there is no way to neatly characterize them.
This was the last nail in the coffin of the Hilbert Program. (David Hilbert was a leading German mathematician of the early 20th century). Hilbert asserted that mathematics can be characterized as "an inventory of provable formulas", without possibility of inconsistency (i.e., it was not possible for 'A' and 'Not A' to be true at the same time). Godel proved that not all formulas are proveable. Turing destroyed any remaining hope by proving that there was no way cordone off the unprovable formulas.
So, when are we going to see 'MacOS X 10.blah "Kitten!"'? It sleeps, it purrs, it runs and yowls at night while you're trying to sleep.
I was rather shocked to see this in my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, about a year ago.
Oddly enough, Pittsburgh does have one of the oldest populations in the US due to a large number of seniors in the area.
Personally, I would consider this to be the anti-Zen method. He was apparently focused so much on what he "knew" to be true, that he failed to consider clues trying to point him in another direction. That is not the Zen way of looking at things.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has a lot to say about this. If you're stuck on a problem, the solution is not to beat on it harder (e.g., stare at the code some more). The solution is to back off, and (to paraphrase from memory) allow yourself to become aware of the one little fact that's out there, waving it's hand, hoping that you might notice it ... and that'll point you at the real problem.
Stupidly staring at code is not Zen. Having an open mind for interesting and helpful facts -- whatever their source -- is.
I think it's "chaff" intended to reduce the effectiveness of Bayesian filters.
It's like a plane ejecting a load of foil strips in order to reduce the effectiveness of ground radar. The radar operator suddenly has a much tougher job of distinguishing between blobs that are actually planes, and blobs that are wads of foil.
If your Bayesian filter is bombarded by e-mails with random subjects, random senders and random contents, it's going to have a harder time distinguishing spam from legitimate mail. So, you either get more unfiltered spam, or you find a better filter (?).
So, now we're going to direct our annoyance not only at those who do charge us for providing us services, but also those who may charge us. Yeah, that makes lots of sense.
Neither is security through obscurity. If I suspect you're up to something, just the frequency and volume of file updates can be significant, never mind the names of the files or their contents (though, of course, that could be useful information as well).
Bull. Japan's ability to wage naval warfare had been effectively destroyed, but her ability to wage land warfare had not. In summer 1945, 100,000 lives a month were being lost in China and Southeast Asia either as a direct result of Japanese aggression or as a consequence of their occupation (e.g., starvation).
Japan's core leadership, with the Emperor's explicit agreement, was striving for a major victory of some sort on the Asian mainland, that they could then use as leverage in peace negotiations. Meanwhile, they had raised force levels in Kyushu to such an extent that US planners were having serious second thoughts about the wisdom of invading.
It certainly would have been possible to blockade and strangle Japan (like the deaths caused by that would somehow be better than dying by the bomb). However, that would have done virtually nothing to bring her considerable forces in mainland Asia to heel, or to slow the massive loss of life occurring there monthly.
They were already in Korea, in force. If anything, they needed ships to sail from Korea to Japan (to feed the populace there, which was facing severe food shortages in winter 1945), than the other way around.
I find this astounding. We dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and utterly destroyed the city, and Japan did not take immediate steps to surrender.
Yet Teller (and presumably others) think that they would have reacted more rapidly by demonstration over water?
Replace completely, no. But in most circumstances, the side that has the better technology and knows how to use it has a huge advantage.
Radar fundamentally changed naval and air combat, by enabling detection and targeting of other units at night, in closed-in weather and at enormous ranges. Speed and mobility is nearly always advantageous. Since the 19th century, it's been well-understood that one person with a machine gun has a major advantage against even dozens of highly-motivated attackers with less fire-power.
Whether or not you can write a "compiler" for a language X is really orthogonal to whether X is a programming language.
If X is a programming language, X can represent state (think variables), it can change state within its representation (assign new values to variables), and it can change its execution path based on its current state (act conditionally based on the current value of its variables).
HTML can do none of those things. It has no means to represent state, let alone change it or behave conditionally based on it. It cannot be reduced -- even in theory -- to a Turing machine.
HTML is, as Jim said, simply a descriptive language. It is markup. It is embedding additional data into a document in order to call out the logical structure of document for anyone who might be interested: a web browser, a search engine, a private catalog service, etc.
It is a language, but not all languages used with computers are programming languages.
That's a fair criticism, but to be honest I'd love to have an editor/browser that did even that much well. I prefer to write documentation in HTML and don't need much more than basic markup. I can link in a stylesheet for a little pop, but that's as fancy as it needs to be. However, in tinkering with Amaya on and off, it just feels clunky and it's definitely not the kind of tool you could hand to geeks and non-geeks alike, and expect them to collaborate happily through it. (E.g., non-geeks draw up a functional spec, geeks make their comments and corrects, non-geeks revise spec, etc., all in a single HTML document.)
Personally, I find Wiki to be a close-enough approximation to the kind of editor/browser functionality Amaya strives for. It's not quite the same, but it's simple enough that all kinds of folks can work on a document without (say) one person trashing another's simple, clean markup by editing it in Word.
The argument should be that hundreds of thousands of Asian lives -- those in Japanese-occupied territories and in Japan itself -- were saved. Death rates on the Asian mainland due to Japanese occupation ran at 100K/month in 1945. Japan itself faced severe food shortages in winter 1945-1946.
Not to downplay Allied casualties in the event of the invasion, but folks seem to be barely aware of the incredible destruction the war was causing on the Asian mainland.
The evidence is stronger Japan would not have surrendered. Japan's "Group of Six", who controlled the government at the end of the war, categorically rejected the idea of unconditional surrender even if the Emperor's preservation was guaranteed.
Sorry. No such offers were made by authorized representatives of the Japanese government prior to Japan's final capitulation: not to neutral countries, and certainly not to the US.
Rubbish. The number of Chinese and southeast Asian civilians slaughtered directly by Japan, or killed as a result of Japanese occupation between 1937 and 1945, numbers in the millions. Through summer 1945, it is estimated that 100,000 civilians -- in China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Burma -- a month were dying, thanks to Japan, and that number was expected to continue indefinitely. Moreover, Japan itself was very likely to face an internal food crisis in winter 1945-1946 which would have exacted a heavy toll on her own population.
The atom bombs weren't dropped to "punish" Japan, and to state that the ~200K people -- military as well as civilian -- that they killed far exceeded the death toll wrought by Japan is flat out wrong.
The bombs were dropped in the hope of forcing Japan to a quick and full surrender. The nightmare at that time was an invasion of Japan, with military and civilian casualties proportional ly large compared to those on Okinawa, followed by the need to defeat individual Japanese forces in mainland Asia.
As awful as ~200K deaths is, the alternatives were worse.
I suggest you learn the Pacific/Asian war was more than Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.
This is exactly what CSS is for.
Float a div. End of discussion.
Right. Because drop quotes, sidebars, special paragraph spacing, etc., are all presentational considerations. HTML describes structure, not presentation (or at least that's the intent).
CSS describes presentation, and while support is still sketchy in some areas, it can easily address most of the presentational concerns you've raised.
Newspapers use stylesheets. So should you.
> I've seen a few pages on google where no cache
> was available which leads me to think that
> there's a way to disable caching also.
This also can happen when a site is listed on Google, the googlebot goes back to respider the site and for whatever reason fails to. If the page is listed in DMOZ, it may still show up in Google search results, but if you try to pull up the cached version, you get a big page of nothing.
Or at least this is one way it can happen. I know: it happened to me.
Not being too bright (still), I once launched an Erector Set. Seriously. It was actually supposed to be a rocket motor test stand (forget why I needed *that*), but it had one design flaw. Though the stand was held down by one of those big 6v lantern batteries, the motor thrust was directed skyward, instead of towards the ground.
And yes, this thing was built from a 70's vintage erector set: potmetal, bolts and nuts.
When the day came, I set this thing up in the back woods. I was 14 or so, so mom was in attendance. Slipped in a nice C-motor, wired it up, stood back, and flipped the switch.
The battery flew a good six feet. The stand -- did I mention it was an erector set? -- shot straight up about 5 feet, tipped over 90 degrees or so and began swirling like a dervish through the woods, bouncing off tree trunks, hurtling sidewards at myself and then my mom (both of us running for our lives at this point), spewing smoke and exhaust every which way, before the motor finally burned out and the thing crashed down in a heap in the grass, about 15 feet from where it started.
We approached it gingerly, coming up to it just in time for one last convulsive, metallic lurch as the ejection charge fired.
Mom, she just looked at me grimly and said "You're not trying that again." Me, I did not become an engineer of any description.
> Your point is fine in theory, but you have to
> remember two things. Firstly, the vast majority
> of internet users don't even know that they can
> change their default font size (let alone how to
> do it).
I don't see how this leads to the conclusion that they want the site font to be smaller. Or larger for that matter.
> Had they used the default font size I imagine
> many designers would have been put off the site
> by the ugly size of the text.
This implies that many designers (cough) don't know how to change the default font size of their own damn browser. If that's the case - if professionals authoring for the Web don't know how to use the most basic tools of their trade - then I'm afraid the Web Standards folks have a real uphill fight on their hands.
Frankly, I think the whole font-size issue is a red herring. The only people who care are "designers" and perhaps their clients. One or the other looks at the page, thinks "Gee, that font is too big" and starts slapping in font tags left and right without considering adjusting their own browser so pages look they way they prefer. To satisfy themselves, they muck with a parameter affecting nearly every visitor to their site. Brilliant.
Factoid: I run privately a small but reasonably well-visited mostly-text site: 50K page views a week. I make a factual error, visitors _love_ to let me know. A link breaks or some stupid browser bug renders part of a page illegible, and maybe someone will contact me about it, but probably not.
Not once have I received a comment about the font size used on the site: the browser's default.
The entire issue is an overblown non-issue.
I think that if Germany developed the bomb first, it would have pushed us even harder; not only is it possible, our scientists would have thought, here's how to make it better. Faster. Cheaper.
The Bomb was originally envisioned for use against Germany -- not Japan -- and fear that Germany would develop it first was the single main motivation for the huge effort to develop it in the US. Nobody was draggin' their feet.
And what about The USS Enterprise, aircraft carrier?
"The"? Erm, Time for a history lesson methinks...
A History of Ships Named Enterprise
Regarding CVs in particular, The Galloping Ghost made the name Enterprise famous, even if she's hardly remembered today.