Germans can't see Nazis, Australians can't see red blood and Americans freak on the sight of sex.
That reminds me of a pic I saw on rotten.com (no, I don't spend my free time there). Basically, it was a pic of a guy who was half-eaten by wild dogs. He was naked from the waist down. I later ran in to that same pic somewhere else, and it was otherwise identical, except someone had cencored the guys penis from the pic (that was clearly visible in the first pic). So, it was OK to show half-eaten guy (a REALLY disturbing pic), but it was NOT OK to show that guys penis.
(which is likely because then thath 'alleged' infringing would be known to everyone so it could get pulled
So, IBM will send guys to my house and remove the infringing code from the Linux-kernel that is running on my machine? And they will do that also to the millions who are running Linux on their machines? If SCO showed the code, it could NOT be removed from the kernel, since there are millions of copies of the kernel all around the world.
I remember when they found gas-masks in Iraq. It was apparently "clear evidence that Iraq has WMD's". Now, Finland has thousands of gas-masks as well and *gasp* our soldiers routinely carry gas-masks as well! So I guess that proves that Finland has WMD's! When can we expect to be "liberated" by USA? Now, we don't have any oil, but we do have the cleanest water-reservois in the world.
Doom3 uses OpenGL, not Direct3D, so it does not have "DX9 features". And fact is that features-wise, it's targeted at GeForce, not GeForce FX. Of course FX will run it faster, but original GeForce has the needed features to run D3.
I use Bluetooth with my laptopn and Nokia 6130i. I can keep the phone in coat-pocket and use Bluetooth to make data-calls using the laptop. I can walk around with the laptop while the phone stays put (range is about 10-20 meters) and the connection between the phone and the laptop never misses a beat. You would need pretty long wires for that!
I don't have to mess around with wires or IR-ports. I can just take the laptop and connect wirelessly.
Then there are the Bluetooth headsets. I don't use those, but they are pretty cool. No need to carry the phone around, all you need is the headset.
it matters because companies use 3DMark in determining what vid-cards to put in their systems. It matter because there are no other benchmarks besides 3DMark that let you benchmark features that are not yet found on games. That's the point of 3DMark: To test features that are not yet aailable in games. Games are lagging behind when it comes to implementing features. Hell, Doom 3 is targeted at GeForce's feature-set (you know, the ORIGINAL GeForce. After that we have had GeForce 2, GeForce 3, GeForce 4 and GeForce FX)!
You are obviously ignorant. Among others, Dell use 3DMark when the determine what 3D-acceletators to buy. So cheating in it can cause financial damage/gain.
As to the "Just use games to benchmark!". It's not that easy. 3DMark is meant to test vid-cards on demos that use future technologies. Games obviously can't do that, since in order to have reliable benchmarks with them, the games need to be released first. And fact is that games are lagging when it comes to implementing new tech. that's why we need benchmarks like 3DMark, that test those features that are not yet used in games.
you and your like say "Who cares? It's the games that matter". But I think that cheating (no matter what's the app) tells quite alot of the company in question. The fact that NV has been found to cheat (repeatedly) tells me that they are scum
No I don't. And I'm not the only one who considers strategic bombing to be a failure, military-experts seem to agree as well. And saying that strategic bombing was failure is not anti-americanism, how could it be? Besides, RAF bombed as much (if not more) as americans did.
Uh. No. They did it with American Equipment, after the America units fighting in Europe bleed enough of Hitler's assets off to stage a break thru.
Yes, USA did provide SU with equipment. But that amount was miniscule when compared to native Soviet production. You make it sound like Soviets only used american-made equipment, when in reality, overwhelming majority of their equipment was designed and built in SU.
And what is that "american units in Europe bleed enough of Hitlers assets..." is about? SU had made breakthrough long before US forces became involvled in the fighting. When did US bring a major force in to Europe? In operation Overlord. As that operation was underway, Soviet forced practically destroyed Germans Army Group Center and tore a hole in their lines that was about 120 kilometers wide. They did that even though there were no tangible US forces "bleeding Hitlers assets" (apart from Italy, but that was a secondary front).
Americans got to Germany and Berlin first
You got to Germany first since you had shorter way to travel. But Berlin???? US Forces never reached Berlin, what on Earth are you talking about?
Had America not entered the war and raised the spectre of a western front, Hitler would have taken Stalingrad or Moscow or the Oil fields. any one of thoose objectives falling would have ended the government.
Fall of Stalingrad wouldn't have meant fall of SU, same goes to oil-fields (Germans did occupy alot of them, but Soviets destroyed them before that happened). As for Moscow... Again, Soviet production was far bigger than the amount of US equipment they got through Lend-Lease. Sure it helped, but IMO it was not crucial. Native Soviet production was far migger and far more important
In fact, the advantage that US troops has is all about training and very little about combat equipment.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest that US Forces have superior training to everyone else.
bridges were put there for the local population.
Yes, and they were put there in wrong places. I remember when they interviewed an american officer about the bridges and he commented "The reason we are having problems is that the flooding is abnormally strong this year". Right after that they interviewed a local man who said "the flooding is pretty mild this year. We tried to tell them that they are building the bridge in wrong place, but they just wouldn't listen"
The problem with Europeans is that they've got some kind of mindset that American sacrifices don't matter.
Huh? I don't see that happening. IMO, stating the fact that war against Germany was decided in the east does not mean that US sacrifices are not appreciated. Go talk to the people who live in Normandy, and you will see that they REALLY appreciate the sacrifices made by americans
What I do see all the time is the problem with americans who keep on saying "you know, we helped you during WW2, therefore you must do whatever we tell you to do", regardless of the fact it was about 60 years ago. France helped USA in their independence-war, so by american logic, USA should do whatever France wants them to do. But for some reason, it doesn't quite work that way.
Also don't forget about Allied bombing of strategic production facilities. Another factor that made the war in Russia even tougher for Germany.
It has been generally accepted that strategic bombing of Germany was a failure. Regardless of the massive bombing, Germans broke all their previous production-records.
Choice or not, they did help them out, so it's no surprise that they had to pay reparations and didn't get much in the way of aid.
The reason why Finland never got any Marshall Aid was not because we fought alongside Germany (after all, Germany itself received 1309 million dollars in aid (UK, France and Italy received more though). The reason was that we never applied any of the money.
The original poster said it was an important "turning point". What do you think would have happened if Germany hadn't been so worried about the Western Front?
If they hadn't worried about western front They would have stationed close to 100% of their troops to the East instead of about 80% (about 70% after Overlord). I dont think that 20% would have made any huge difference.
Also don't forget about American aid to the Soviets, which was crucial.
sure it helped, but it was miniscule when compared to native Soviet production.
Further, you're ignoring the important fact that America was the only power to have substantial forces involved on both fronts - and fighting the Japanese was every bit as tough (if not moreso) than fighting the Germans.
No I'm not. I mentioned the Pacific theater in one of my posts.
Off-topic: are there any statistics that would show how US losses were spread between European and Pacific theaters?
Hmm. Maybe if you hadn't allied yourself with Germany, Finland would have been a bit better off in the end.
We didn't really have a choice. Let's see, we had just fought a war against Soviet Union. And after the war, they continued their aggressive behavior towards us. We couldn't have turned to Western Powers for help, since Germany controlled Denmark and Norway. We were cut off. Only major power that could have helped us was Germany.
The reparations that were paid to the Soviets were just to keep them from crushing Finland after they steamrolled through Ukraine.
Soviets tried to steamroll Finland. As Overlord began, they started a massive assault against Finland. They attacked with over 40 divisions and over 1000 tanks and airplanes. Modern-day historians have studied the archives of Soviet Union and Red Army, and they clearly tell that their goal was complete and total destruction of Finnish army (they failed at it), occupation of the country (they failed at it) and forced relocation of the Finnish people to the Urals. They were stopped fair and square in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.
Ever hear of Leningrad? The Germans had almost nothing to do with that seige. It was mostly Finnish troops.
It seems history is not your strong areas. Siege was mostly German job. True, finns held the northern areas (well, it's not like we had a choice. What were we supposed to do? Withdraw?). But Marshall Mannerheim had given explisit orders that the Army will NOT advance near Leningrad. Germans repeatedly demanded that Finns must move closer and tighten the siege around Leningrad, but Mannerheim flat-out refused.
IIRC, what happened was that the Germans came to Finland and said "Either you can help us kill Russians, or we can roll over you like we did those pesky French.
No, Germans never threatened Finland with war. German-Finnish cooperation was a natural thing, all things considered. We couldn't work sith Soviets, they still had aggressive feelings towards Finland, we could not work with Western Powers, since there were German-occupied countries between West and Finland. Germany really was the only choice.
Please, if you want to discuss history, learn about it first.
My point was that training of US troops is not sucky, but it's not the greatest in the world either (contrary to the delusions of some jingoists). Performance of US Army in the Iraq war can hardly be used as a yardstick in determining the effectiveness of US Forces. You faced an outmanned and outgunned opponent with poor training, low morale, zero air-support and obsolete equipment.
I still stand by my opinion that America's contribution was critical. Would the war have been won by the Allies anyhow? Maybe/probably/who knows, but by sending our men over there we either turned the tide or gave it more
Of course US involvement hastened the fall of nazi-germany. But the fact is that they were already falling back before US became really involved in the war. Had Normandy never happened, the war would have dragged on for a bit longer (maybe till end of 1945), but the fate of Germany was already sealed. By the time Normandy took place, Germans had completely lost the initiative in the Eastern Front, and in 1944, the Red Army tore huge holes in to German lines and drove in to Poland. Even if second front had not happened, Soviets would have been entering Poland in 1944 (they did that as Overlord was taking place), and from there, it's not that far to mainland Germany. Even if the 30% of troops that fought in the west were transferred to the east, it would have only delayed the inevitable. The 70% that were already there were completely unable to stop the Soviets, I fail to see how the 30% would have changed things in any meaningful way.
And the Fins, well...aren't they born with a rifle in one hand?
You could say so;). Seriously, there are lots of guns here and lots and lots of hunters. People are accustomed to guns, and about 85% of all males serve in the military.
We did pretty well in WW2 if I say so (fought the Soviets twice and survived (including stopping a massive Soviet assault (over 40 divisions) that took place in 1944), fought the Germans and survived. Only country allied with Germany that was NOT occupied after the war), and our peace-keeping missions have been huge successes (which is one reason why we are repeatedly asked to take part in 'em.). Just few weeks ago Finland assumed command of one of the brigades in Kosovo (alongside USA, France and Germany).
Granted it wasn't America alone, but it was America's contribution that was a critical turning point in WWII
Wrong. It was Soviets who defeated Germany. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets, and Soviets fought them ALOT longer than Americans did.
Germanys fate was sealed at Stalingrad. After that, it was all downhill for them. And that took place long before Normandy or tangible US involvement in the war.
Now, war in Pacific was mostly american show with some Commonwealth troops thrown in.
If our training is nothing to write home about, I'd be interested to know whose is.
This might come as a shock to you, but the training of US troops is not superior to training of other armies. No, your training doesn't suck as such, but it's not that great either. That hes been demonstrated in missions where US Troops have worked with troops from other countries. In Bosnia for example US Troops did many stupid things (built bridges on the worst possible locations, had unsuitable equipment for the terrain etc. etc.). And the core training isn't superior either. They held a sharpshooting-competition in Kosovo. Teams were formed based on nationality. Finnish army took the #1 and #2 spots (they had two teams), Swedes were third and Germans (if I remember correctly) were fourth. Americans didn't do that good.
Of course, the British, Canadians and other had NOTHING to do with it. No sirree, there were only american troops fighting the Germans.
We liberated countless islands and land from the Japanese, including the Japanese Mainland. And we sunk hard dollars into their country to help them out.
Regarding that and the Marshall Plan: you didn't do it out of the kindness of your hearts. You did it for your own benefit. Besides, countries that did not receive aid did well. Finland (for example) didn't receive any aid, yet we paid the massive war-repatations to Soviets, re-settled hundreds of thousands of refugees, rebuilt Northern Finland (that was destroyed by withdrawing Germans), rebuilt the damaged cities and buried the dead. Yet we ended up just fine.
That's because we train the hardest, equip the best
Yes, you do have good equipment, but what I have heard, your training is nothing to write home about. The one thing you seem to excel at is shooting at your allies and own troops.
FYI, Europe has Nukes. France could turn east-coast of USA in to nuclear wasteland without their submarines even leaving port. If they wanted to nuke rest of USA; they would have to move a bit.
China goes without power, and the western world continues to get fat and
diseased using our own dams, nuclear plants and coal fired power stations and foul smelling Iraqi oil.
If power-generation is so bad, why do we live alot longer these days than we did before? Would you rather live 1000 years in the past? At least you wouldn't have to suffer from that oh-so awful power-generation! But then again, your expected life-span would be something like 40 years or so.
Industry and power-generation might generate pollution, but the progress in medical science has more than compensated for that.
But if you do it based on number of systems potentially needing an IP then the US will still be high up on the list... probably #1. Certainly not 70% of the IPs, but far more than the population would otherwise indicate.
How many people there are in the USA? Well, I'll make an generous guess and say 300 million. That's about 5% of the global population. Let's be generous and give USA 7 times as many IP-addresses as there are people in the US. That would mean that US would have 5% x 7 = 35% of the available IP-addresses. Seems fair to me. So why do they need 70% of the addresses? It seems that Europe has ALOT less IP-adds than USA does (15%? are the shares of different regions available anywhere?), even though there are more people here and were are equal in technology (in fact, more advanced in mobile tech)
Slashdot Mirror
Example
Another example
And Muslims have been persecuted in USA (espesially after 9/11), so what's your point?
That reminds me of a pic I saw on rotten.com (no, I don't spend my free time there). Basically, it was a pic of a guy who was half-eaten by wild dogs. He was naked from the waist down. I later ran in to that same pic somewhere else, and it was otherwise identical, except someone had cencored the guys penis from the pic (that was clearly visible in the first pic). So, it was OK to show half-eaten guy (a REALLY disturbing pic), but it was NOT OK to show that guys penis.
So, IBM will send guys to my house and remove the infringing code from the Linux-kernel that is running on my machine? And they will do that also to the millions who are running Linux on their machines? If SCO showed the code, it could NOT be removed from the kernel, since there are millions of copies of the kernel all around the world.
I remember when they found gas-masks in Iraq. It was apparently "clear evidence that Iraq has WMD's". Now, Finland has thousands of gas-masks as well and *gasp* our soldiers routinely carry gas-masks as well! So I guess that proves that Finland has WMD's! When can we expect to be "liberated" by USA? Now, we don't have any oil, but we do have the cleanest water-reservois in the world.
Doom3 uses OpenGL, not Direct3D, so it does not have "DX9 features". And fact is that features-wise, it's targeted at GeForce, not GeForce FX. Of course FX will run it faster, but original GeForce has the needed features to run D3.
I use Bluetooth with my laptopn and Nokia 6130i. I can keep the phone in coat-pocket and use Bluetooth to make data-calls using the laptop. I can walk around with the laptop while the phone stays put (range is about 10-20 meters) and the connection between the phone and the laptop never misses a beat. You would need pretty long wires for that!
I don't have to mess around with wires or IR-ports. I can just take the laptop and connect wirelessly.
Then there are the Bluetooth headsets. I don't use those, but they are pretty cool. No need to carry the phone around, all you need is the headset.
it matters because companies use 3DMark in determining what vid-cards to put in their systems. It matter because there are no other benchmarks besides 3DMark that let you benchmark features that are not yet found on games. That's the point of 3DMark: To test features that are not yet aailable in games. Games are lagging behind when it comes to implementing features. Hell, Doom 3 is targeted at GeForce's feature-set (you know, the ORIGINAL GeForce. After that we have had GeForce 2, GeForce 3, GeForce 4 and GeForce FX)!
You are obviously ignorant. Among others, Dell use 3DMark when the determine what 3D-acceletators to buy. So cheating in it can cause financial damage/gain.
As to the "Just use games to benchmark!". It's not that easy. 3DMark is meant to test vid-cards on demos that use future technologies. Games obviously can't do that, since in order to have reliable benchmarks with them, the games need to be released first. And fact is that games are lagging when it comes to implementing new tech. that's why we need benchmarks like 3DMark, that test those features that are not yet used in games.
you and your like say "Who cares? It's the games that matter". But I think that cheating (no matter what's the app) tells quite alot of the company in question. The fact that NV has been found to cheat (repeatedly) tells me that they are scum
No I don't. And I'm not the only one who considers strategic bombing to be a failure, military-experts seem to agree as well. And saying that strategic bombing was failure is not anti-americanism, how could it be? Besides, RAF bombed as much (if not more) as americans did.
Yes, USA did provide SU with equipment. But that amount was miniscule when compared to native Soviet production. You make it sound like Soviets only used american-made equipment, when in reality, overwhelming majority of their equipment was designed and built in SU.
And what is that "american units in Europe bleed enough of Hitlers assets..." is about? SU had made breakthrough long before US forces became involvled in the fighting. When did US bring a major force in to Europe? In operation Overlord. As that operation was underway, Soviet forced practically destroyed Germans Army Group Center and tore a hole in their lines that was about 120 kilometers wide. They did that even though there were no tangible US forces "bleeding Hitlers assets" (apart from Italy, but that was a secondary front).
You got to Germany first since you had shorter way to travel. But Berlin???? US Forces never reached Berlin, what on Earth are you talking about?
Fall of Stalingrad wouldn't have meant fall of SU, same goes to oil-fields (Germans did occupy alot of them, but Soviets destroyed them before that happened). As for Moscow... Again, Soviet production was far bigger than the amount of US equipment they got through Lend-Lease. Sure it helped, but IMO it was not crucial. Native Soviet production was far migger and far more important
I haven't seen anything that would suggest that US Forces have superior training to everyone else.
Yes, and they were put there in wrong places. I remember when they interviewed an american officer about the bridges and he commented "The reason we are having problems is that the flooding is abnormally strong this year". Right after that they interviewed a local man who said "the flooding is pretty mild this year. We tried to tell them that they are building the bridge in wrong place, but they just wouldn't listen"
Huh? I don't see that happening. IMO, stating the fact that war against Germany was decided in the east does not mean that US sacrifices are not appreciated. Go talk to the people who live in Normandy, and you will see that they REALLY appreciate the sacrifices made by americans
What I do see all the time is the problem with americans who keep on saying "you know, we helped you during WW2, therefore you must do whatever we tell you to do", regardless of the fact it was about 60 years ago. France helped USA in their independence-war, so by american logic, USA should do whatever France wants them to do. But for some reason, it doesn't quite work that way.
It has been generally accepted that strategic bombing of Germany was a failure. Regardless of the massive bombing, Germans broke all their previous production-records.
The reason why Finland never got any Marshall Aid was not because we fought alongside Germany (after all, Germany itself received 1309 million dollars in aid (UK, France and Italy received more though). The reason was that we never applied any of the money.
If they hadn't worried about western front They would have stationed close to 100% of their troops to the East instead of about 80% (about 70% after Overlord). I dont think that 20% would have made any huge difference.
sure it helped, but it was miniscule when compared to native Soviet production.
No I'm not. I mentioned the Pacific theater in one of my posts.
Off-topic: are there any statistics that would show how US losses were spread between European and Pacific theaters?
We didn't really have a choice. Let's see, we had just fought a war against Soviet Union. And after the war, they continued their aggressive behavior towards us. We couldn't have turned to Western Powers for help, since Germany controlled Denmark and Norway. We were cut off. Only major power that could have helped us was Germany.
Soviets tried to steamroll Finland. As Overlord began, they started a massive assault against Finland. They attacked with over 40 divisions and over 1000 tanks and airplanes.
Modern-day historians have studied the archives of Soviet Union and Red Army, and they clearly tell that their goal was complete and total destruction of Finnish army (they failed at it), occupation of the country (they failed at it) and forced relocation of the Finnish people to the Urals. They were stopped fair and square in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.
It seems history is not your strong areas. Siege was mostly German job. True, finns held the northern areas (well, it's not like we had a choice. What were we supposed to do? Withdraw?). But Marshall Mannerheim had given explisit orders that the Army will NOT advance near Leningrad. Germans repeatedly demanded that Finns must move closer and tighten the siege around Leningrad, but Mannerheim flat-out refused.
No, Germans never threatened Finland with war. German-Finnish cooperation was a natural thing, all things considered. We couldn't work sith Soviets, they still had aggressive feelings towards Finland, we could not work with Western Powers, since there were German-occupied countries between West and Finland. Germany really was the only choice.
Please, if you want to discuss history, learn about it first.
My point was that training of US troops is not sucky, but it's not the greatest in the world either (contrary to the delusions of some jingoists). Performance of US Army in the Iraq war can hardly be used as a yardstick in determining the effectiveness of US Forces. You faced an outmanned and outgunned opponent with poor training, low morale, zero air-support and obsolete equipment.
Of course US involvement hastened the fall of nazi-germany. But the fact is that they were already falling back before US became really involved in the war. Had Normandy never happened, the war would have dragged on for a bit longer (maybe till end of 1945), but the fate of Germany was already sealed. By the time Normandy took place, Germans had completely lost the initiative in the Eastern Front, and in 1944, the Red Army tore huge holes in to German lines and drove in to Poland. Even if second front had not happened, Soviets would have been entering Poland in 1944 (they did that as Overlord was taking place), and from there, it's not that far to mainland Germany. Even if the 30% of troops that fought in the west were transferred to the east, it would have only delayed the inevitable. The 70% that were already there were completely unable to stop the Soviets, I fail to see how the 30% would have changed things in any meaningful way.
You could say so
We did pretty well in WW2 if I say so (fought the Soviets twice and survived (including stopping a massive Soviet assault (over 40 divisions) that took place in 1944), fought the Germans and survived. Only country allied with Germany that was NOT occupied after the war), and our peace-keeping missions have been huge successes (which is one reason why we are repeatedly asked to take part in 'em.). Just few weeks ago Finland assumed command of one of the brigades in Kosovo (alongside USA, France and Germany).
Wrong. It was Soviets who defeated Germany. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets, and Soviets fought them ALOT longer than Americans did.
Germanys fate was sealed at Stalingrad. After that, it was all downhill for them. And that took place long before Normandy or tangible US involvement in the war.
Now, war in Pacific was mostly american show with some Commonwealth troops thrown in.
This might come as a shock to you, but the training of US troops is not superior to training of other armies. No, your training doesn't suck as such, but it's not that great either. That hes been demonstrated in missions where US Troops have worked with troops from other countries. In Bosnia for example US Troops did many stupid things (built bridges on the worst possible locations, had unsuitable equipment for the terrain etc. etc.). And the core training isn't superior either. They held a sharpshooting-competition in Kosovo. Teams were formed based on nationality. Finnish army took the #1 and #2 spots (they had two teams), Swedes were third and Germans (if I remember correctly) were fourth. Americans didn't do that good.
Of course, the British, Canadians and other had NOTHING to do with it. No sirree, there were only american troops fighting the Germans.
Regarding that and the Marshall Plan: you didn't do it out of the kindness of your hearts. You did it for your own benefit. Besides, countries that did not receive aid did well. Finland (for example) didn't receive any aid, yet we paid the massive war-repatations to Soviets, re-settled hundreds of thousands of refugees, rebuilt Northern Finland (that was destroyed by withdrawing Germans), rebuilt the damaged cities and buried the dead. Yet we ended up just fine.
Yes, you do have good equipment, but what I have heard, your training is nothing to write home about. The one thing you seem to excel at is shooting at your allies and own troops.
They have submarines that have strategic missiles.
FYI, Europe has Nukes. France could turn east-coast of USA in to nuclear wasteland without their submarines even leaving port. If they wanted to nuke rest of USA; they would have to move a bit.
So you are a bit late with your "comments"
If power-generation is so bad, why do we live alot longer these days than we did before? Would you rather live 1000 years in the past? At least you wouldn't have to suffer from that oh-so awful power-generation! But then again, your expected life-span would be something like 40 years or so.
Industry and power-generation might generate pollution, but the progress in medical science has more than compensated for that.
Then how do you explain George Bush junior? Of course, it can be debated whether he's highly educated but stupid, or just stupid...
How many people there are in the USA? Well, I'll make an generous guess and say 300 million. That's about 5% of the global population. Let's be generous and give USA 7 times as many IP-addresses as there are people in the US. That would mean that US would have 5% x 7 = 35% of the available IP-addresses. Seems fair to me. So why do they need 70% of the addresses? It seems that Europe has ALOT less IP-adds than USA does (15%? are the shares of different regions available anywhere?), even though there are more people here and were are equal in technology (in fact, more advanced in mobile tech)