And how is it different from denying treatment? People don't die because ambulance didn't pick them up after they collapsed on the street, they die because diseases are left without treatment for months and years.
And fully socialized medicine isn't the only solution; I much prefer a mandatory level of insurance for those that can afford it.
"Mandatory insurance for those who can afford it" already exists -- it's called "income tax". It also does not include insurance companies' profits.
Economies of scale work just fine without a small bunch of guys owning everything, and there is nothing risky about it as long as the economy as a whole is healthy.
However at this point production and profit are too small of a reward -- a truly successful company is one that takes over something vital, then acts as a gatekeeper for the rest of the world, collecting ransom for resources. Extreme profit, microscopic amount of actual work -- that's the only business model that your "risk-takers" are willing to bother with. This is why your economy sucks ass now, you have lost all industry and built your whole economy on selling each other pieces of land and paying each other for oil produced and consumed abroad. THEN everything became risky because you have turned your economy into a zero-sum game.
No, when you print things you have to deal with CMYK. However judging by the quality of colors in everything printed, no one bothers with doing it properly anyway.
"GIMP has no CMYK support" is in the same category as "You will lose copyright on anything made with GPL software". It is constantly being repeated by Microsoft marketing people despite being obviously false.
If you read his blog you'd know that he doesn't believe Bios vendors are sabotaging Linux and Linux doesn't claim to be Vista for this reason, it claims to be Vista because the Vista section is the only one that the manufacturers test.
No one claims that vendors are actively sabotaging Linux. Sabotage is in ACPI standard itself that does not provide OS-neutral environment, but allows all kinds of ugly hacks "for Vista" or "for Linux".
If you bothered to read what he wrote, the driver in this case is the video driver, which needs to reinitialize the video card on the way back up from S3 or S4 because the power was cut to it on the way down. He claims that because the Linux video drivers don't get this stuff right, people get crashes on the way back up. Now he's a kernel ACPI specialist, and it seems reasonable he talks from experience.
And those drivers are proprietary, so there is nothing "Linux programmers" can do if Nvidia and ATI aren't willing to fix it.
Plus I know from my experience he's right. All the Linux laptops in my clients test lap have problems switching to and from at least one of the ACPI power states even without any external hardware. Which makes it impossible to test things like S3 with their device plugged in.
If they really wanted to test their devices on a laptop they would easily find out that they can switch to the text console or use non-3D-accelerated driver. This may be suboptimal for the actual use but more than sufficient for testing (it's not their job to test Nvidia drivers). But since they don't actually exist, they can do and claim whatever you want.
The important concept to bear in mind when discussing software issues with Linux apologists is the "Linux Fault Threshold". Clever use of this concept helps you to avoid losing your temper with someone who might actually b...
When your opponent suddenly switched from arguing to spouting pop psychology you know that he lost the argument.
...because encouraging high-risk behavior is SUCH A GREAT WAY TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY ECONOMY. Let's all go gamble instead of working, and the crisis will magically go away.
Other OSes get the same values as Linux, other than the OSYS field.
You are misrepresenting what was in the posting by starting from the middle of it. The code (extracted from BIOS) right above your quote shows that some BIOS gives Vista some parameters that do not match with the values given to Linux -- and apparently other systems get the same treatment as Linux. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything in Linux itself, just some hardware manufacturer is using the ACPI feature designed specifically to distinguish between different operating systems.
I suspect it's something to do with the degree of platform validation performed rather than a subtle attempt to degrade Linux's battery life on the hardware (frankly, we do a good enough job of that ourselves right now), but this is exactly the kind of reason we removed _OSI("Linux") support from the kernel. Vendors will do stupid things with it.
Do you realize what it really means? He kinda accepts some blame for not being efficient, but in the same sentence he said that he had to stop TELLING ACPI SCRIPTS THAT HE ACTUALLY IS RUNNING LINUX because of the amount of brokenness and possibly sabotage that gets triggered in those scripts when they see Linux. So when the choice is to pretend being Vista (and possibly bring up more brokenness of workarounds made specifically for Vista) or using supposedly Linux-specific ACPI definitions, sections "for Vista" give better results.
Do you even know how ACPI works?
See the hardware manufacturer writes a Windows driver that does this right. Maybe they write a Linux driver, maybe they don't.
There are no "drivers" for ACPI, ACPI is designed to interpret scripts stored in BIOS. Those scripts are specific to each motherboard, and the original goal of that standard is to remove dependence on OS and drivers.
Drivers are specific to a components -- they have nothing to do with ACPI other than the fact that they also should implement some power management.
If they do, that driver is most likely closed source like NVidia's and therefore not installed by default. Or it is open source and not complete yet (ATI's). Or you can use the freetard reverse engineered NVidia driver which is not complete. Hell even the closed source driver might have been broken by some freetard developer trying to persuade them to open up by breaking it as often has he can.
All laptops with NVIDIA and ATI graphics adapters I have ever seen being used with Linux, use proprietary drivers. Power management in those drivers is entirely implemented by manufacturers, and all problems are their own fault.
The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation, causing weird kernel errors, strange system freezing, no suspend or hibernate, and other problems, using my modifications below, I've gotten it down to just crashing on the next reboot after having suspended, the horrible thing about disassembling any program is that you have no commenting, so it's hard to tell which does what, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized.
Which is pretty much what the testers at my client complained about.
Do you know which tables are they talking about? Those are the tables PLACED INTO BIOS BY THE MANUFACTURER. If manufacturer's tester found it, then manufacturer should fix them just like any other bug in his own code.
Of course, USB devices have nothing to do with that, so please keep your lies consistent. If you are talking about computer manufacturer, he can fix his ACPI. If you are talking about USB devices' manufacturer, his testers couldn't possibly see anything ACPI-related -- ACPI only can affect USB host, and at that point all devices sh
Except XO does not use ACPI at all. It has its own power management infrastructure that is actually superior to one provided by ACPI, however it took _OLPC_ developer a long time to develop.
The problem was with SD support in OLPC's own kernel. It worked perfectly with the system booted from internal flash, however removable cards were unsupported with power management until late 2008. Since I didn't want to replace anything on the internal flash, I had to wait until SD was supported. Once it were, it taken me merely hours to write scripts that made it work with power management used in Ubuntu -- despite the fact that originally it was designed for ACPI.
If you think, OLPC developers took unreasonably long time fixing their incompatibilities, I agree with you. However this is completely irrelevant.
1. Power management is not done by "Linux distributions". They all use the same code -- kernel ACPI support, pm-utils, suspend2, hal.
2. If you actually read what you linked to, instead of just posting the first link you have found on Google, you would notice that all of those "problems" are either a matter of convenience, or could be easily fixed by hardware manufacturers if they actually checked what their devices do on Linux. If you looked at the patches, they all refer to handling of ACPI configuration in BIOS, so it would be actually easier to put proper handling of those devices in there in the first place. The manufacturer, not Linux developers are supposed to do that.
3. USB devices are hotpluggable by their nature on any system. If hardware manufacturer already supports the driver for Windows, it will be trivial for him to support the same for Linux.
One of my clients makes hardware and they support Linux. They have Ubuntu machines in the test lab and the testers absolutely hate Ubuntu. Whereas thinks like Sleep and Hibernate just work on Windows, even the much maligned Vista, getting them to work on Ubuntu requires endless fiddling around.
Some part of this (either "makes hardware" or "requires fiddling around") is a lie. Power management problems with Linux on laptops are all caused by broken ACPI definitions. ACPI tables/scripts, in their turn, are made for each and every piece of hardware, so all a hardware manufacturer that intends to support Linux has to do is to fix their goddamn ACPI scripts he embeds into their BIOS image. A hardware reseller may not be capable of doing this, however manufacturer already has all knowledge and capabilities he needs for writing and debugging those things, or his hardware won't work with Windows, either.
Anyone's. But since you mentioned Russia and China, why not throw them in.
Because they are less likely to attack than space aliens -- and that's including the probability that space aliens exist at all.
Why not throw that in too. If you look at the past 1000 years before NATO, they seemed to have had a big problem with attacking each other. A lack of that seems to have certainly helped them.
Over the last 2-3 centuries when European countries fought each other it was already mostly one of them against the rest of what is now NATO, plus occasionally Russia or USSR, plus a bunch of others. If by any chance something like that happened again, NATO would not change the balance of power. The only thing NATO does in the military sense is dragging Europeans into US "adventures".
Yes, the millions of lives is debated but it is certainly a fact that the US was planning a massive land invasion, and that Japan was not planning on just letting the US do that. You can play a whole lot of what-if after the fact, but that doesn't mean it would have actually turned out one way or another in reality.
If you claim that actions and their justifications can not be subjected to scrutiny because they were performed by politicians, you are everything that is wrong with Americans.
The President of the United States is in fact a civilian position. Consitution 101...
So what?
Ultimately though it was Truman who decided whether to drop the bomb or not, not the US military, so again I say calling the military "cowardly" for using the bomb is completely misplaced.
How convenient it should be to place all responsibility onto one, unpopular person who was last to sign the paper. I am sure, soon there will be plenty of this in regard to Bush, as people who wrote his "decisions" will try to absolve themselves.
No, the two cities were specifically chosen for their military value. Both had large military industrial complexes
"Military-industrial complex" is supposed to be a country-wide entity.
Nagasaki was an important sea port.
A port. Without a Navy. Great military value, indeed.
Otherwise they would have just nuked Tokyo and there would have been perhaps tens of millions of casualties instead.
After Tokyo firebombing, nukes would probably literally make the rubble bounce.
We had been at war for almost 4 years by that point and a land invasion of Japan was imminent, with the potential of losing millions of lives on both sides.
As was shown above, that was a load of bullshit.
*President Truman* decided to try to end the war quickly with the nukes... the US military did not make that decision so calling them cowardly is quite misplaced.
Commander in chief is not exactly a civilian position, and he is obviously did not make this (or any other war-related) decision without discussing it with the military.
From whose attack? Each other? Except for Russia and China, there isn't enough military power outside of NATO to start a war against any currently-NATO-member country. And neither Russia nor China are going to be interested in such a war in the foreseeable future.
Last time NATO did anything anywhere close to Europe was messing with Balkan conflict, and all they have accomplished was being manipulated by former-Yugoslavia countries into attacking other former-Yugoslavia countries on their behalf. Common defense my ass -- they ended up destabilizing their own region.
Modern Ukrainian nationalists are trying to present idiotic mismanagement of a natural disaster as some kind of deliberate genocide.
For some reason they ignore the fact that most Party officials and bureaucrats who implemented government policies in Ukraine were Ukrainians themselves. They also provide absolutely no motivations for such "genocide" considering that at no point in history before and after the famine there was any significant hostility between Russians and Ukrainians, except for Ukrainian nationalists in Western area that at some point belonged to Poland. Another convenient omission is the fact that at the same time there was a similar famine in Russia -- with similarly disastrous consequences, though involving smaller area.
Relevant statement: Japanese soldiers on average presented no more danger to their enemies than any other comparable military in its (seriously damaged, limited to land forces) condition.
American military can't accept the fact that there are always casualties on their side. They are stubbornly trying to invent a way to eliminate danger when killing people, constantly failing to achieve that because it's unrealistic, and spending untold amounts of money and resources that otherwise would solve all their social problems.
Since cowardice exists on all levels, they are also telling their soldiers that they are really invincible, because otherwise they won't have a military -- no one wants to die for money, and there is no other reason to go there.
Oh? Americans don't sacrifice lives to accomplish a goal?
In general, no, they don't. Military is supposed to be just another kind of work.
Iwo Jima. Tarawa. Normandy. And those are just in that timeframe, you stupid fucking fool.
Yeah, it took a lot of guts to chase worst-trained, worst-equipped parts of German military that were left in Normandy of all places.
Or how about recipients of the Medal of Honor? Take a look at how many of those were granted posthumously. Then I'll be happy to note your retraction of this bullshit, wrong statement.
I never claimed that cowards don't die. Just the contrary.
Wrong
You have great arguments here.
Incorrect. The atomic bomb showed that it really was possible to turn the entirety of Japan into glass if necessary. It was the unstoppable, overwhelming force that, yes, would leave Americans unscathed. It turned a very bad situation for the Japanese into one that everyone not only knew was unwinnable but--and since you are a fucking idiot I will point out to you that this is the important part--were willing to admit was unwinnable.
Firebombing already shown that most of Japan can be turned into ashes (and some cities already were). Only a sadistic monster would go any further.
See above, dipshit. (America's recently developed problem with casualties is largely a product of the media, which has historically been against American military actions abroad at all times.)
No, problem with casualties AFTER THE FACT became apparent when military was unable to hide them. I never accused American military and politicians of honesty when it comes to portrayal of war.
So in other words, the Americans' "wet dream" is to have a perfectly efficient way of projecting political power via warfare? Wow, because nobody else has ever sought that.
Some did, but those are people who are not considered to be role models.
Do you have any grasp on reality whatsoever? Do you understand how politics and the world work? Or is it just "blame the Americans" day in your tiny, broken little mind?
Of course, Americans believe that everyone has to be as bad as their leaders. This is the true measure of their values (don't tell me next time "but we didn't approve what our government does! we are better!").
Aww, the baka gaijin roundeye weeaboo had to make an anime reference! SO KAWAII!!!!1 ^________^
Actually I would find it funny if someone started research in nanotechnology and asked for military funding because it might become useful for that application. Probably would be a better use of military budget than most of their other projects.
Moron. It's really kind of funny, though. You say upthread that you're Russian, and you're castigating the Americans for their actions? Really?
Oh yeah, Americans' unwavering belief that everyone else is worse than themselves.
That's what happens after the fact when people ARE killed (what obviously always happens).
The problem is, Pentagon constantly spends countless amounts of money on developing one "ultimate weapon" after another, and American recruits are constantly being told that military will never actually let them die.
Slashdot Mirror
What company builds their product on top of Linux and then builds a GUI client that only runs on Winders?
Citrix.
And how is it different from denying treatment? People don't die because ambulance didn't pick them up after they collapsed on the street, they die because diseases are left without treatment for months and years.
And fully socialized medicine isn't the only solution; I much prefer a mandatory level of insurance for those that can afford it.
"Mandatory insurance for those who can afford it" already exists -- it's called "income tax". It also does not include insurance companies' profits.
Economies of scale work just fine without a small bunch of guys owning everything, and there is nothing risky about it as long as the economy as a whole is healthy.
However at this point production and profit are too small of a reward -- a truly successful company is one that takes over something vital, then acts as a gatekeeper for the rest of the world, collecting ransom for resources. Extreme profit, microscopic amount of actual work -- that's the only business model that your "risk-takers" are willing to bother with. This is why your economy sucks ass now, you have lost all industry and built your whole economy on selling each other pieces of land and paying each other for oil produced and consumed abroad. THEN everything became risky because you have turned your economy into a zero-sum game.
No, when you print things you have to deal with CMYK. However judging by the quality of colors in everything printed, no one bothers with doing it properly anyway.
"GIMP has no CMYK support" is in the same category as "You will lose copyright on anything made with GPL software". It is constantly being repeated by Microsoft marketing people despite being obviously false.
You mean, American companies sell Chinese products in US for eight times the price they paid in China?
If you read his blog you'd know that he doesn't believe Bios vendors are sabotaging Linux and Linux doesn't claim to be Vista for this reason, it claims to be Vista because the Vista section is the only one that the manufacturers test.
No one claims that vendors are actively sabotaging Linux. Sabotage is in ACPI standard itself that does not provide OS-neutral environment, but allows all kinds of ugly hacks "for Vista" or "for Linux".
If you bothered to read what he wrote, the driver in this case is the video driver, which needs to reinitialize the video card on the way back up from S3 or S4 because the power was cut to it on the way down. He claims that because the Linux video drivers don't get this stuff right, people get crashes on the way back up. Now he's a kernel ACPI specialist, and it seems reasonable he talks from experience.
And those drivers are proprietary, so there is nothing "Linux programmers" can do if Nvidia and ATI aren't willing to fix it.
Plus I know from my experience he's right. All the Linux laptops in my clients test lap have problems switching to and from at least one of the ACPI power states even without any external hardware. Which makes it impossible to test things like S3 with their device plugged in.
If they really wanted to test their devices on a laptop they would easily find out that they can switch to the text console or use non-3D-accelerated driver. This may be suboptimal for the actual use but more than sufficient for testing (it's not their job to test Nvidia drivers). But since they don't actually exist, they can do and claim whatever you want.
The important concept to bear in mind when discussing software issues with Linux apologists is the "Linux Fault Threshold". Clever use of this concept helps you to avoid losing your temper with someone who might actually b...
When your opponent suddenly switched from arguing to spouting pop psychology you know that he lost the argument.
...because encouraging high-risk behavior is SUCH A GREAT WAY TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY ECONOMY. Let's all go gamble instead of working, and the crisis will magically go away.
Other OSes get the same values as Linux, other than the OSYS field.
You are misrepresenting what was in the posting by starting from the middle of it. The code (extracted from BIOS) right above your quote shows that some BIOS gives Vista some parameters that do not match with the values given to Linux -- and apparently other systems get the same treatment as Linux. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything in Linux itself, just some hardware manufacturer is using the ACPI feature designed specifically to distinguish between different operating systems.
I suspect it's something to do with the degree of platform validation performed rather than a subtle attempt to degrade Linux's battery life on the hardware (frankly, we do a good enough job of that ourselves right now), but this is exactly the kind of reason we removed _OSI("Linux") support from the kernel. Vendors will do stupid things with it.
Do you realize what it really means? He kinda accepts some blame for not being efficient, but in the same sentence he said that he had to stop TELLING ACPI SCRIPTS THAT HE ACTUALLY IS RUNNING LINUX because of the amount of brokenness and possibly sabotage that gets triggered in those scripts when they see Linux. So when the choice is to pretend being Vista (and possibly bring up more brokenness of workarounds made specifically for Vista) or using supposedly Linux-specific ACPI definitions, sections "for Vista" give better results.
Do you even know how ACPI works?
See the hardware manufacturer writes a Windows driver that does this right. Maybe they write a Linux driver, maybe they don't.
There are no "drivers" for ACPI, ACPI is designed to interpret scripts stored in BIOS. Those scripts are specific to each motherboard, and the original goal of that standard is to remove dependence on OS and drivers.
Drivers are specific to a components -- they have nothing to do with ACPI other than the fact that they also should implement some power management.
If they do, that driver is most likely closed source like NVidia's and therefore not installed by default. Or it is open source and not complete yet (ATI's). Or you can use the freetard reverse engineered NVidia driver which is not complete. Hell even the closed source driver might have been broken by some freetard developer trying to persuade them to open up by breaking it as often has he can.
All laptops with NVIDIA and ATI graphics adapters I have ever seen being used with Linux, use proprietary drivers. Power management in those drivers is entirely implemented by manufacturers, and all problems are their own fault.
The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation, causing weird kernel errors, strange system freezing, no suspend or hibernate, and other problems, using my modifications below, I've gotten it down to just crashing on the next reboot after having suspended, the horrible thing about disassembling any program is that you have no commenting, so it's hard to tell which does what, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized.
Which is pretty much what the testers at my client complained about.
Do you know which tables are they talking about? Those are the tables PLACED INTO BIOS BY THE MANUFACTURER. If manufacturer's tester found it, then manufacturer should fix them just like any other bug in his own code.
Of course, USB devices have nothing to do with that, so please keep your lies consistent. If you are talking about computer manufacturer, he can fix his ACPI. If you are talking about USB devices' manufacturer, his testers couldn't possibly see anything ACPI-related -- ACPI only can affect USB host, and at that point all devices sh
Except XO does not use ACPI at all. It has its own power management infrastructure that is actually superior to one provided by ACPI, however it took _OLPC_ developer a long time to develop.
The problem was with SD support in OLPC's own kernel. It worked perfectly with the system booted from internal flash, however removable cards were unsupported with power management until late 2008. Since I didn't want to replace anything on the internal flash, I had to wait until SD was supported. Once it were, it taken me merely hours to write scripts that made it work with power management used in Ubuntu -- despite the fact that originally it was designed for ACPI.
If you think, OLPC developers took unreasonably long time fixing their incompatibilities, I agree with you. However this is completely irrelevant.
1. Power management is not done by "Linux distributions". They all use the same code -- kernel ACPI support, pm-utils, suspend2, hal.
2. If you actually read what you linked to, instead of just posting the first link you have found on Google, you would notice that all of those "problems" are either a matter of convenience, or could be easily fixed by hardware manufacturers if they actually checked what their devices do on Linux. If you looked at the patches, they all refer to handling of ACPI configuration in BIOS, so it would be actually easier to put proper handling of those devices in there in the first place. The manufacturer, not Linux developers are supposed to do that.
3. USB devices are hotpluggable by their nature on any system. If hardware manufacturer already supports the driver for Windows, it will be trivial for him to support the same for Linux.
One of my clients makes hardware and they support Linux. They have Ubuntu machines in the test lab and the testers absolutely hate Ubuntu. Whereas thinks like Sleep and Hibernate just work on Windows, even the much maligned Vista, getting them to work on Ubuntu requires endless fiddling around.
Some part of this (either "makes hardware" or "requires fiddling around") is a lie. Power management problems with Linux on laptops are all caused by broken ACPI definitions. ACPI tables/scripts, in their turn, are made for each and every piece of hardware, so all a hardware manufacturer that intends to support Linux has to do is to fix their goddamn ACPI scripts he embeds into their BIOS image. A hardware reseller may not be capable of doing this, however manufacturer already has all knowledge and capabilities he needs for writing and debugging those things, or his hardware won't work with Windows, either.
Most of Russian economy is domestic, not international trade.
Oh yeah, they are all willing to die for a chance to survive and get a college tuition.
Anyone's. But since you mentioned Russia and China, why not throw them in.
Because they are less likely to attack than space aliens -- and that's including the probability that space aliens exist at all.
Why not throw that in too. If you look at the past 1000 years before NATO, they seemed to have had a big problem with attacking each other. A lack of that seems to have certainly helped them.
Over the last 2-3 centuries when European countries fought each other it was already mostly one of them against the rest of what is now NATO, plus occasionally Russia or USSR, plus a bunch of others. If by any chance something like that happened again, NATO would not change the balance of power. The only thing NATO does in the military sense is dragging Europeans into US "adventures".
Yes, the millions of lives is debated but it is certainly a fact that the US was planning a massive land invasion, and that Japan was not planning on just letting the US do that. You can play a whole lot of what-if after the fact, but that doesn't mean it would have actually turned out one way or another in reality.
If you claim that actions and their justifications can not be subjected to scrutiny because they were performed by politicians, you are everything that is wrong with Americans.
The President of the United States is in fact a civilian position. Consitution 101...
So what?
Ultimately though it was Truman who decided whether to drop the bomb or not, not the US military, so again I say calling the military "cowardly" for using the bomb is completely misplaced.
How convenient it should be to place all responsibility onto one, unpopular person who was last to sign the paper. I am sure, soon there will be plenty of this in regard to Bush, as people who wrote his "decisions" will try to absolve themselves.
No, the two cities were specifically chosen for their military value. Both had large military industrial complexes
"Military-industrial complex" is supposed to be a country-wide entity.
Nagasaki was an important sea port.
A port. Without a Navy. Great military value, indeed.
Otherwise they would have just nuked Tokyo and there would have been perhaps tens of millions of casualties instead.
After Tokyo firebombing, nukes would probably literally make the rubble bounce.
We had been at war for almost 4 years by that point and a land invasion of Japan was imminent, with the potential of losing millions of lives on both sides.
As was shown above, that was a load of bullshit.
*President Truman* decided to try to end the war quickly with the nukes... the US military did not make that decision so calling them cowardly is quite misplaced.
Commander in chief is not exactly a civilian position, and he is obviously did not make this (or any other war-related) decision without discussing it with the military.
From whose attack? Each other? Except for Russia and China, there isn't enough military power outside of NATO to start a war against any currently-NATO-member country. And neither Russia nor China are going to be interested in such a war in the foreseeable future.
Last time NATO did anything anywhere close to Europe was messing with Balkan conflict, and all they have accomplished was being manipulated by former-Yugoslavia countries into attacking other former-Yugoslavia countries on their behalf. Common defense my ass -- they ended up destabilizing their own region.
Modern Ukrainian nationalists are trying to present idiotic mismanagement of a natural disaster as some kind of deliberate genocide.
For some reason they ignore the fact that most Party officials and bureaucrats who implemented government policies in Ukraine were Ukrainians themselves. They also provide absolutely no motivations for such "genocide" considering that at no point in history before and after the famine there was any significant hostility between Russians and Ukrainians, except for Ukrainian nationalists in Western area that at some point belonged to Poland. Another convenient omission is the fact that at the same time there was a similar famine in Russia -- with similarly disastrous consequences, though involving smaller area.
Relevant statement: Japanese soldiers on average presented no more danger to their enemies than any other comparable military in its (seriously damaged, limited to land forces) condition.
It's too bad my foes list is already at 200, you ignoramus.
Solution: create another account.
(you must be one charming person)
Explaining specifically for morons:
American military can't accept the fact that there are always casualties on their side. They are stubbornly trying to invent a way to eliminate danger when killing people, constantly failing to achieve that because it's unrealistic, and spending untold amounts of money and resources that otherwise would solve all their social problems.
Since cowardice exists on all levels, they are also telling their soldiers that they are really invincible, because otherwise they won't have a military -- no one wants to die for money, and there is no other reason to go there.
Oh? Americans don't sacrifice lives to accomplish a goal?
In general, no, they don't. Military is supposed to be just another kind of work.
Iwo Jima. Tarawa. Normandy. And those are just in that timeframe, you stupid fucking fool.
Yeah, it took a lot of guts to chase worst-trained, worst-equipped parts of German military that were left in Normandy of all places.
Or how about recipients of the Medal of Honor? Take a look at how many of those were granted posthumously. Then I'll be happy to note your retraction of this bullshit, wrong statement.
I never claimed that cowards don't die. Just the contrary.
Wrong
You have great arguments here.
Incorrect. The atomic bomb showed that it really was possible to turn the entirety of Japan into glass if necessary. It was the unstoppable, overwhelming force that, yes, would leave Americans unscathed. It turned a very bad situation for the Japanese into one that everyone not only knew was unwinnable but--and since you are a fucking idiot I will point out to you that this is the important part--were willing to admit was unwinnable.
Firebombing already shown that most of Japan can be turned into ashes (and some cities already were). Only a sadistic monster would go any further.
See above, dipshit. (America's recently developed problem with casualties is largely a product of the media, which has historically been against American military actions abroad at all times.)
No, problem with casualties AFTER THE FACT became apparent when military was unable to hide them. I never accused American military and politicians of honesty when it comes to portrayal of war.
So in other words, the Americans' "wet dream" is to have a perfectly efficient way of projecting political power via warfare? Wow, because nobody else has ever sought that.
Some did, but those are people who are not considered to be role models.
Do you have any grasp on reality whatsoever? Do you understand how politics and the world work? Or is it just "blame the Americans" day in your tiny, broken little mind?
Of course, Americans believe that everyone has to be as bad as their leaders. This is the true measure of their values (don't tell me next time "but we didn't approve what our government does! we are better!").
Aww, the baka gaijin roundeye weeaboo had to make an anime reference! SO KAWAII!!!!1 ^________^
Actually I would find it funny if someone started research in nanotechnology and asked for military funding because it might become useful for that application. Probably would be a better use of military budget than most of their other projects.
Moron. It's really kind of funny, though. You say upthread that you're Russian, and you're castigating the Americans for their actions? Really?
Oh yeah, Americans' unwavering belief that everyone else is worse than themselves.
That's what happens after the fact when people ARE killed (what obviously always happens).
The problem is, Pentagon constantly spends countless amounts of money on developing one "ultimate weapon" after another, and American recruits are constantly being told that military will never actually let them die.
Both are things driven by cowardice.
Genocide? really?
Care to show any examples ("genocide" as in "exterminating groups of people based on racial or ethnic origin", not "racial discrimination").
Oh, wait, I am talking to an American about racism, genocide and a difference between them.