Yes, we know what stance you choose to take, but again, you provide zero proof to back it up. None. Nada. I've provided a large amount of information that contradicts your stance, and that's just a tiny bit of the information available.
Believe what you want, but if you have no facts to back it up, good luck convincing others.
The debate isn't whether it was horrible or not, getting tired of stating that. The debate is whether it was the lesser evil.
Look up Operation Downfall. All estimates are that Japan would have suffered more casualties simply leading UP to an allied invasion than they did in the two bombings. At that time there were more than 200,000 casualties per month in the pacific theatre. Further, the casualty rate for Operation Downfall, once initiated, was at least as high as that of the bombings at best, and that's not including casualties leading up to invasion.
Next, Japan was in a state of Total War. Do you know what that means? It is not clear whatsoever that those killed in the bombings can be considered simply as innocent civilians.
Again, horrific, terrible, nothing good came of any of it. Such as war. But in light of how the Japanese had conducted war up to that point and the atrocities they committed, combined with the prospect of an invasion of Japan, it is certainly not any more horrific or terrible than any other possible outcome. Numerous Japanese leaders from the time have come out and stated that that was the least horrific outcome of the pacific war. Anything else would have been much much worse for all sides.
What would be better than trying to stuff an obviously huge gray mess of a war into nice little black and white boxes would be to simply accept the horror that war is, learn from our mistakes in the past, and ensure that it never happens again.
So what are you saying? Japan was an innocent victim that committed no aggression or atrocities in WW2?
Enlighten me, please do. What is the real history here then? Without additional information, what are we to do but judge based on what we have before us? You say our views are wrong, but provide zero information to show how or why.
I have a very open mind, please put something before it.
And how is it that the rest of the world came around to these higher standards? The US of today is not the same US of the 1940's. Nobody's trying to say 'What the US did then was good, and thus everything they do now is golden'. The world has changed.
That depends on so many things, that's a ludicrous example. Sure, if the US was the aggressor, wasn't willing to back down, and there was no other choice on China's part, it might be the best option. But again, you're presenting a house of cards here so the point is moot.
Again, you really haven't any clue as to what you are talking about. I strongly suggest before you post again that you look into what the Japanese did as policy to civilians in the places they invaded. To the POW's they took. Further, look in to how they treated their own civilians, women, children.
You have a lot of enlightenment ahead of you if you'll only look for it.
PS: Please don't mistake this for an argument towards stating that what the US did was Just and Good. War sucks. Many innocents died. But to make it out as black and white as you are trying to do is ignorance at best. Remember, Japan was not invaded. Japan had no reason to enter WW2. No one was attacking them. Now look into what they did and why and see the truth from all sides please.
Here's a bit of research for you then: Please look into how many people the Japanese killed in WW2. Further, how they did so. Further, how they treated their POW's. Further, what the mentality of the Japanese civilian was at the time.
Now, do a bit of comparison.
Here's a hint to get you started: War Sucks. On all sides. People die horrible deaths.
Given that, how have you turned this into a black and white 'US Evil, Japan Vilified' situation? Really? Have you ever read up on how Japan came to be in the war in the first place? I strongly suggest you do, it might prove to be very enlightening for you.
Everyone knows it was horrible. NO one in their right mind has ever stated that it wasn't. The only disputable fact is whether it was the lesser of the evils to do so or not.
Yes, Japan had lost the war. Anyone that has done any real research on the subject knows this. But in the same vein, it is also a fact that Japan was NOT going to surrender, despite the fact that they had already lost. We're talking about a country with a mentality that allowed for using it's citizens as suicide bombs. They simply could not surrender. They had to save face. There are interviews out there with Japanese officials that stated that being Nuked was the only way to end the war without mass casualties on both sides. A land invasion of Japan would have been an all out fight for honor, to the death. Period.
Noting is ever Black And White, especially in war. But your argument tries to make it into such a beast. There is little doubt that there was some incentive to beat the Soviets in the nuke arms race. But trying to say that that is WHY those bombs were dropped, well, it's ignorant at best.
Want more proof? What do arguments like yours conveniently overlook? Hint: How many nukes were dropped? If it was as your argument suggests, then why was the 2nd one dropped?
The answer is that the Japanese STILL refused to surrender even after the first one fell. It took TWO for them to finally suck it up and admit defeat, to realize that this was the only easy way out of the war. It's horrible, for sure. But anything less would have required a full on invasion of Japan, and along with it, HUGE casualties well over and above the losses incurred from the two nukes being dropped.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the nukes would have been dropped even if Russia hadn't been working on the bomb as well.
Again, RTFA. It's right there. They live longer, age slower. 3 year old mice having babies...as mentioned in the article, for a mouse that's like an 80 year old human having a baby.
Anything else you'd like summed up from the article?;)
Have to agree, looked at the screenshots and was not impressed at all. Very...meh I guess. And it looks like it requires quite a bit of horsepower to boot.
Ah well, lots of other ways to waste my time right now anyways;)
Ehh? It's too illegal to drop a link, but it's on youtube? If it can be linked, link away. If someone cares, they'll send a cease and desist to where it is actually hosted.
Who ever said chess was subtle? That's just silly. Chess is very finite, complex in state only. It's a very rigid set of rules, and has been proven that all that is required is enough horsepower to compute enough moves to guarantee a win. Just happens to require a lot of horsepower. I used to play chess, wasn't a bad player, but got very bored with it...it's just not that interesting as once you've played it enough, you realize there is no subtlety whatsoever.
Re:Technically right, but...
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
Close. If the seller will accept it you can pay with whatever you want. But the seller can refuse more than 26 pennies if they like. It's not illegal to show up with more though, you just take your chance of being refused service.
Not so sure that's 100% the case. If it were, wouldn't we all be using Imperial measures? Further, Europe was the growth point of 'western' economic and scientific dominance, and there are lots of languages in use there.
Is it possible that the US became dominant in these areas at least in part because of english?
You do have a point, but I just don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be. And I do think the adaptive nature of english certainly doesn't hurt. I'd suggest that a lot of more structured languages are less inclined to evolve as quickly with all of the economic, technological and scientific change that have occurred in the past few hundred years.
Yes, quite. Complicated rules to start, then thousands of exceptions to those rules. But it's the flexibility of the language that has made it so popular...it's just that defining it is particularly tricky.
Never ceases to amaze the level of sarcasm that flies by over the heads of so many around here. Should know better than to throw a sarcastic fanboy/zealot parody out there and have anyone actually get it.
Anyways. Responding as AC now? Typical? Go for the easy mod points, and play it safe the rest of the time?
You were totally comparing the Zune to the iPod. Indirectly, sure, but this isn't a vote and you're not running for office so who are you trying to kid?
Bottom Line: You posted a bunch of issues with the Zune and touted it as being complete crap...but in this very same thread you have pro iPod posts...and yet the things you call the Zune out for are actually things that are BETTER with the Zune than with the iPod. But since you know how to game/., you wrapped it up nicely in an anti-ms flame for the easy points.
That's all fact.
I could give a shit about the Zune, the iPod, Apple OR MS. But I hate bullshit, and I can smell it a mile away.
You sir, stink.
Be up front, don't game the site just for stupid points that don't mean anything, and don't slam things needlessly just to further that end.
Sorry, but when I smell that bullshit, the 'tard' in me sometimes comes out. At least I don't hide it.
Your two specific issues are well known things that changed for traditional VB developers.
Good or bad, things are different for developers in.Net. Just because some think that making things work differently than previously doesn't mean they are broken.
VB.Net is not VB6, despite how much work MS put into making it look the same.
Bullshit. Complete and utter FUD sucking bullshit.
MS is very responsive wrt.NET issues. Obviously you aren't a.NET developer, or have dabbled a bit but are carrying around a very heavy bias for some reason. All kinds of issues? Kinda over-loaded statement there as well don't you think?
I'm not even going to bother because, especially at the current dollar value, your 2 cents ain't worth jack.
You want to actually have a conversation other than digging for free mod points for just bashing MS aimlessly, they feel free to try again. Don't worry, I'll take the inevitable hit for speaking up;)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we know what stance you choose to take, but again, you provide zero proof to back it up. None. Nada. I've provided a large amount of information that contradicts your stance, and that's just a tiny bit of the information available.
Believe what you want, but if you have no facts to back it up, good luck convincing others.
The debate isn't whether it was horrible or not, getting tired of stating that. The debate is whether it was the lesser evil.
Look up Operation Downfall. All estimates are that Japan would have suffered more casualties simply leading UP to an allied invasion than they did in the two bombings. At that time there were more than 200,000 casualties per month in the pacific theatre. Further, the casualty rate for Operation Downfall, once initiated, was at least as high as that of the bombings at best, and that's not including casualties leading up to invasion.
Next, Japan was in a state of Total War. Do you know what that means? It is not clear whatsoever that those killed in the bombings can be considered simply as innocent civilians.
Again, horrific, terrible, nothing good came of any of it. Such as war. But in light of how the Japanese had conducted war up to that point and the atrocities they committed, combined with the prospect of an invasion of Japan, it is certainly not any more horrific or terrible than any other possible outcome. Numerous Japanese leaders from the time have come out and stated that that was the least horrific outcome of the pacific war. Anything else would have been much much worse for all sides.
What would be better than trying to stuff an obviously huge gray mess of a war into nice little black and white boxes would be to simply accept the horror that war is, learn from our mistakes in the past, and ensure that it never happens again.
Maybe you need some starting points in your research. Here's a number of links that might be worth contradicting with the 'truth':
:)
Japanese War Crimes
Japanese Unit 731
Japanese human experimentation
Manila Massacre
Nanking Massacre
Bataan Death March
That should get you started
So what are you saying? Japan was an innocent victim that committed no aggression or atrocities in WW2?
Enlighten me, please do. What is the real history here then? Without additional information, what are we to do but judge based on what we have before us? You say our views are wrong, but provide zero information to show how or why.
I have a very open mind, please put something before it.
The US used the only two bombs they had actually. It was not a case of 'lets try one of these this time'.
And how is it that the rest of the world came around to these higher standards?
The US of today is not the same US of the 1940's. Nobody's trying to say 'What the US did then was good, and thus everything they do now is golden'. The world has changed.
That depends on so many things, that's a ludicrous example.
Sure, if the US was the aggressor, wasn't willing to back down, and there was no other choice on China's part, it might be the best option. But again, you're presenting a house of cards here so the point is moot.
Again, you really haven't any clue as to what you are talking about.
I strongly suggest before you post again that you look into what the Japanese did as policy to civilians in the places they invaded. To the POW's they took. Further, look in to how they treated their own civilians, women, children.
You have a lot of enlightenment ahead of you if you'll only look for it.
PS: Please don't mistake this for an argument towards stating that what the US did was Just and Good. War sucks. Many innocents died. But to make it out as black and white as you are trying to do is ignorance at best. Remember, Japan was not invaded. Japan had no reason to enter WW2. No one was attacking them. Now look into what they did and why and see the truth from all sides please.
Yes, it really is just that simple, isn't it.
Here's a bit of research for you then: Please look into how many people the Japanese killed in WW2. Further, how they did so. Further, how they treated their POW's. Further, what the mentality of the Japanese civilian was at the time.
Now, do a bit of comparison.
Here's a hint to get you started: War Sucks. On all sides. People die horrible deaths.
Given that, how have you turned this into a black and white 'US Evil, Japan Vilified' situation? Really? Have you ever read up on how Japan came to be in the war in the first place? I strongly suggest you do, it might prove to be very enlightening for you.
Everyone knows it was horrible. NO one in their right mind has ever stated that it wasn't.
The only disputable fact is whether it was the lesser of the evils to do so or not.
Yes, Japan had lost the war. Anyone that has done any real research on the subject knows this. But in the same vein, it is also a fact that Japan was NOT going to surrender, despite the fact that they had already lost. We're talking about a country with a mentality that allowed for using it's citizens as suicide bombs. They simply could not surrender. They had to save face. There are interviews out there with Japanese officials that stated that being Nuked was the only way to end the war without mass casualties on both sides. A land invasion of Japan would have been an all out fight for honor, to the death. Period.
Noting is ever Black And White, especially in war. But your argument tries to make it into such a beast. There is little doubt that there was some incentive to beat the Soviets in the nuke arms race. But trying to say that that is WHY those bombs were dropped, well, it's ignorant at best.
Want more proof? What do arguments like yours conveniently overlook? Hint: How many nukes were dropped? If it was as your argument suggests, then why was the 2nd one dropped?
The answer is that the Japanese STILL refused to surrender even after the first one fell. It took TWO for them to finally suck it up and admit defeat, to realize that this was the only easy way out of the war. It's horrible, for sure. But anything less would have required a full on invasion of Japan, and along with it, HUGE casualties well over and above the losses incurred from the two nukes being dropped.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the nukes would have been dropped even if Russia hadn't been working on the bomb as well.
I live in an underwater cave you insensitive clod!
Again, RTFA. It's right there. They live longer, age slower. 3 year old mice having babies...as mentioned in the article, for a mouse that's like an 80 year old human having a baby.
;)
Anything else you'd like summed up from the article?
Your lack of originality disturbs me.
One little nit to pick: No, we are not under British rule in any way, shape, or form, we merely acknowledge our history.
Have to agree, looked at the screenshots and was not impressed at all. Very...meh I guess.
;)
And it looks like it requires quite a bit of horsepower to boot.
Ah well, lots of other ways to waste my time right now anyways
Ehh? It's too illegal to drop a link, but it's on youtube?
;)
If it can be linked, link away. If someone cares, they'll send a cease and desist to where it is actually hosted.
Anyways, think most of us know it by heart
Who ever said chess was subtle? That's just silly. Chess is very finite, complex in state only. It's a very rigid set of rules, and has been proven that all that is required is enough horsepower to compute enough moves to guarantee a win. Just happens to require a lot of horsepower. I used to play chess, wasn't a bad player, but got very bored with it...it's just not that interesting as once you've played it enough, you realize there is no subtlety whatsoever.
Real Life ftw ;)
Close. If the seller will accept it you can pay with whatever you want. But the seller can refuse more than 26 pennies if they like. It's not illegal to show up with more though, you just take your chance of being refused service.
Ah, but the english language is as batshit crazy as the imperial measure system, if not more ;)
:)
Other than that, I'd have to agree with you
Not so sure that's 100% the case. If it were, wouldn't we all be using Imperial measures?
Further, Europe was the growth point of 'western' economic and scientific dominance, and there are lots of languages in use there.
Is it possible that the US became dominant in these areas at least in part because of english?
You do have a point, but I just don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be. And I do think the adaptive nature of english certainly doesn't hurt. I'd suggest that a lot of more structured languages are less inclined to evolve as quickly with all of the economic, technological and scientific change that have occurred in the past few hundred years.
Yes, quite. Complicated rules to start, then thousands of exceptions to those rules. But it's the flexibility of the language that has made it so popular...it's just that defining it is particularly tricky.
My favorite 'exception':
Chive
Archive
Never ceases to amaze the level of sarcasm that flies by over the heads of so many around here. Should know better than to throw a sarcastic fanboy/zealot parody out there and have anyone actually get it.
/., you wrapped it up nicely in an anti-ms flame for the easy points.
Anyways. Responding as AC now? Typical? Go for the easy mod points, and play it safe the rest of the time?
You were totally comparing the Zune to the iPod. Indirectly, sure, but this isn't a vote and you're not running for office so who are you trying to kid?
Bottom Line: You posted a bunch of issues with the Zune and touted it as being complete crap...but in this very same thread you have pro iPod posts...and yet the things you call the Zune out for are actually things that are BETTER with the Zune than with the iPod. But since you know how to game
That's all fact.
I could give a shit about the Zune, the iPod, Apple OR MS. But I hate bullshit, and I can smell it a mile away.
You sir, stink.
Be up front, don't game the site just for stupid points that don't mean anything, and don't slam things needlessly just to further that end.
Sorry, but when I smell that bullshit, the 'tard' in me sometimes comes out. At least I don't hide it.
Your two specific issues are well known things that changed for traditional VB developers.
.Net. Just because some think that making things work differently than previously doesn't mean they are broken.
Good or bad, things are different for developers in
VB.Net is not VB6, despite how much work MS put into making it look the same.
Bullshit. Complete and utter FUD sucking bullshit.
.NET issues. Obviously you aren't a .NET developer, or have dabbled a bit but are carrying around a very heavy bias for some reason.
;)
MS is very responsive wrt
All kinds of issues? Kinda over-loaded statement there as well don't you think?
I'm not even going to bother because, especially at the current dollar value, your 2 cents ain't worth jack.
You want to actually have a conversation other than digging for free mod points for just bashing MS aimlessly, they feel free to try again. Don't worry, I'll take the inevitable hit for speaking up