The main reason they didn't go for the Typhoon is because they wanted a carrier capability, which doesn't currently exist on the Typhoon - it was part of the proposal to develop it but that certainly would result in extra cost and time.
It's interesting, because the French split from the Eurofighter project (well, really the other countries withdrew from the joint project with France and went on to develop the Eurofighter) because only France wanted a carrier capable aircraft, and now there are several demands for a similar capability for the Eurofighter...
Go see my other posts in the comments for this story, it becomes quite obvious that I have indeed used Dropbox. My point in the post you replied to however specifically answered a point raised in the parent post, who posited that you could just go to S3 directly for the files...
The fact that Dropbox use Amazon S3 is neither here nor there, because *you* will never get access to Dropboxes S3 accounts to get your data. If Dropbox go anywhere, the S3 copy is as inaccessible as it needs to be in order for its existence to not mean a thing.
Not necessarily full local copies, as the local store relies on you not using Selective Sync at all (which removes files from your local computer) and also it requires you to use the Desktop Client - if you just use the website or mobile apps, your files only exist on the Dropbox servers.
In the example given, it isn't even that interesting - with Dropbox, your files are available locally as its a syncing service and not a cloud access service. The only scenario in which you won't have a local copy is if you are using the website only (i.e. not as the service is designed to be used) or have been very very prolific with Selective Sync.
If Dropbox goes away, my files remain available in my local Dropbox folder.
Equally, I blew an Athalon XP back in the day just by seeing if the system would post after I installed the memory and CPU. However, I forgot the heatsink...
System was up all of 30 seconds, if that. Posted fine, got to the "no system disk" bios screen and everything.
However, on second boot, the bios informed me through the beeps of death that the CPU was dead, and that was that.
When the same patient has presented twenty times in 6 months, demanding that the doctor diagnoses his "glandular problem" to solve his weight issue, while being seen in the waiting area clutching a McDonalds bag and drink on several occasions, it's not a wrong statement to make, especially if he intends on going to another doctor if you refuse the diagnosis.
It's not stupid nor unnecessary - sometimes the patient is the issue, and it's fine to note that in the records. As a doctor you can and should make a note of such observations, because it helps with diagnosis later on for other issues.
Why should they become more comprehensible? They are a record by a professional for a professional, not for you - if you require them to become readable by any random person then you are going to create a lot more work for those writing the records, and possibly introduce ambiguity into records where a doctor doesn't want to write a thousand word essay to correctly describe a specific condition within a broad area of similar conditions, avoiding identifying the condition as a similar issue but cannot be treated as such due to preexisting problems when seven words of medical jargon would be more precise anyway.
It's like saying C should be written so that anyone downloading the Linux kernel can immediately understand what's going on. That isn't ever going to happen, even though the code is available - it's still aimed at those with a working knowledge of C, not Joe from the diner.
That's not to say that having your medical record has no benefit - it has loads.
Well, one thing they will certainly be used for is the basis of frivolous lawsuits - when that morbidly obese patient takes issue with his doctors notes on his "McDonalds addiction" and total lack of medical reason for the fact that he has size 60EE man boobs, guess where it's going to end up?
Here in Norfolk, UK, Doctors used to use two terms in medical notes up until the late 1990s (or even later - my wife still sees references to them in notes from 2003 or so), Funny Looking Kid and Normal for Norfolk. The terms refer to congenital issues found in children in the more remote parts of the county, where incest and small breeding stock is still having knock on effects today. The terms were banned after they became legal issues in cases after patients got hold of their notes.
What rubbish - I never took it to be racist at all, what I took from it was that on MLK day, it's probable that streets named after the man may be in use for other things, such as street parties, and as such you would want to avoid those streets if you actually had to travel on that day.
If you can find a way to add a passenger ejection system or aircraft parachute system to a large civil aircraft, anything 737 size or larger or arguments sake, which doesn't add an uneconomical amount of weight to an aircrafts design, then go for it.
The parachute system is fitted to quite a few light aircraft and microlights, but the application is limited because of the amount of weight it adds due to strengthening required to withstand the deployment forces (no point in having the parachute if it's deployment breaks the plane in half).
The major issue in plane design is weight - it dictates economics, and itself is dictated by design requirements, load bearing requirements and safety requirements (among other things). Too much weight and trip costs rise too much, passenger yields go down and the plane is uneconomical to use.
Also note that it's unusual for a fighter pilot to come out of an ejection without injuries directly caused by he ejection - compressed spines, broken limbs etc are the norm rather than the exception.
Germany has to SURRENDER before there can be anti-Allied RESISTANCE.
Otherwise it would be known as "war".
Oh, you are one of those pedantic types are you?
No, the enemy force does not have to completely surrender in order for an action to be reasonably called a resistance - especially if that action is taking place in territory occupied by the enemy and is being carried out by irregular forces.
Or is there some ISO or UN definition of "resistance" that you would like to make known here?
Again, it was non-existent. Your Bruschal example has been shown to be incorrect.
So you are going to resort to "you are wrong", and thats it?
Why are you worth discussing anything with?
Now all you are doing it trying to confuse post-surrender RESISTANCE movements with war-time operations.
Not at all. You however have latched on to one point, tried to "prove it wrong" in your own simplistic manner and then applied that "proof" to my entire argument. Thats not how things work in the real world.
Buschal was a response to attacks in allied occupied territories - just because you don't want to apply the label of "resistance" to those actions doesn't mean it doesn't actually apply.
Nor did I ever say they were.
Which means that you have resorted to a "straw man" argument based off of your extreme claims.
No, I haven't attempted a straw man at all - it is however the perfect example of reductio ad absurdum in a sarcastic context.
You said the following:
"Because being the AGGRESSOR is different. Nazi Germany was the aggressor. The German people knew that."
The fact that there were elements of the military and civilian population who did not agree with Hitler does not grant you permission to start attributing decisions and acceptance of labels to "the German people" as a whole.
Hence my use of sarcasm - its quite clear that Hitler was broadly supported during WW2 by the German people, regardless of small groups of German people opposing him.
Which makes your point that the German people "knew they were the aggressors" simplistic to the extreme, and quite frankly wrong.
Again with the extremes.
Why?
Because you assumed that I had to resort to looking up information just to have an informed discussion. You are the one who tried to cheapen the value of the information by trying to deride its origin rather than the point being made.
I have stated (and demonstrated) that your position on THIS issue is incorrect and now you resort to attempting to re-phrase my position in extreme terms that I have not used.
Is it just so you can beat a "straw man"?
You have "stated" indeed, but nowhere have you "demonstrated". Infact, you have jumped around the points being made without actually answering any of them. You have, in your last post, resorted to attacking myself rather than my points, which hasn't furthered your position at all.
Great. Someone has a different view than yours so they're "spinning" it.
I can tell that this is going to be a GREAT conversation.
Well, firstly you don't have to take part in any conversation, and secondly you are indeed spinning it a little there - regardless of how valid the allied position was in the second world war, to the German civilian they were still invaders and aggressors.
So your original point had little to do with the issue at hand, and certainly didn't differentiate between the two sides.
I said "end the war".
I did NOT say "surrender".
Hitler's own people were trying to kill him so they could end the war.
Right, but they were looking to end the war on their own terms in some cases. Which means that the end of the war was no guarantee.
Actually, it does.
Again, Hitler's own military people were trying to kill him.
Once Germany surrendered, there wasn't an active anti-Allied resistance in Germany.
Prior to that, there WERE Germans who protected Jews in NAZI Germany. Because being the AGGRESSOR is different. Nazi Germany was the aggressor. The German people knew that.
Right, because the *entirety* of the German population was against Hitler...
No. Fraid not.
Your view point is horrifically simplistic - it doesn't matter that Germany started the war or invaded other countries, to the general civilian population they were still being attacked by the allies. Theres not a thing that you can say which changes that basic fact.
"Being the aggressor" is a point of view, not a black-and-white fact where one side voluntarily and willingly assumes one label ("aggressor") and the other one assumes a different label ("invaded", "subjugated" or whatever else you would like to use). There are many many wars in which one side would be labelled the "aggressor" and be morally and ethically right - which just means that its all a view point and not anything meaningful.
In reality, whomever is shooting at you is the "aggressor", regardless of whether they are trying to stop your government from killing 8 million people or whether they are trying to kill those 8 million people. If they are shooting at you, they are the "aggressor".
Nice use of Wikipedia.
The problem is that nothing you just copied invalidates my statement that Hitler killed himself and Germany surrendered to the Allies.
Right, because its impossible that I actually know anything about history...
If you want to take all of your posts as individual, unrelated sentences without any context, then fine - my reply doesn't invalidate your simplistic sentence.
But if you want to take your posts in context, to both my posts and the points within them, then your simplistic sentence falls flat on its head.
The original point was about the effectiveness of area bombing civilian populations, and how if we would stop refraining from using it we would win every war.
In that context, your simplistic sentence is completely invalidated - allied area bombing of the civilian population in Europe started in 1942. If it was to be as effective as the original poster made it out to be, we would not have had to fight Nazi Germany all the way across North Africa and Europe, and destroy its significant military might. If it was to be as effective as made out, Germany would not have waited to surrender a week after its leader killed himself. If it was to be as effective as made out, there would have been *significant* civilian opposition to Hitlers leadership and the military complex well before May 8th 1945.
If the civilian population was to be as devastated as originally pointed out, their industrial complex would not have been able to support the German military right up to the end (new aircraft, tanks and other things were rolling off of German civilian factories - factories that were not using slave labourers, so you can'
London and the Soviet Union fought against foreign invaders (the Germans).
Im not sure how you are spinning that - the German people had no right to feel aggrieved that the British (and eventually Americans) were bombing them? Sure, Germany invaded several countries, but that doesn't change the point here.
Area bombing was accepted by many in the British government and RAF command to be the means with which Germany would be brought to its knees, and the initial Area Bombing Directive was issued in February 1942. More than three whole years before the actual end of the war - I guess it proved as effective as it was thought it was going to be, especially considering allied forces didn't have to take 99% of Germany in the process...
No, area bombing in WW2 is one of those things that everyone attributes great things to, but in reality achieved little - even Albert Spier noted that Germany would have been defeated much earlier if bombing had been concentrated against Germanys fuel production capability instead of towns and cities.
Not to mention a few attempts by the German military to assassinate Hitler on their own so they could end the war.
There is however no evidence that said assassination attempts by the Germany military would have lead to the surrender of Germany - Stauffenberg for example had onerous conditions with which the Allies had to agree to in order for fighting to cease, if his assassination attempt had been successful. It would never have been a straight "Hitler is dead, the war is over, we are now under allied control" deal.
Finally, during the ground invasion of Germany, Hitler killed himself and the German people surrendered to the Allies. And there was not any active anti-Allied resistance movement. They'd fight against their own government when it was run by Hitler, but they accepted the Allied control while it lasted.
"Germany" didn't surrender for another week after Hitlers death - Donitz continued to issue orders directing the military during that time.
Hitler died on the 30th April, and Berlin surrendered on the 2nd May - however, German forces fought on elsewhere in Germany and occupied territories until Donitz surrendered on the 7th and 8th of May.
Also, resistance to allied forces in occupied Germany wasn't massive, but it also wasn't non-existent. It was reduced however by the actions allied troops took - including interning more than a hundred thousand civilians and all known military personel for months after the surrender, as well as actions such as British troops burning one in two buildings in certain towns, American troops demolishing the town of Bruchsal, and Canadian troops destroying the town of Sogol. None of these were combat operations, all were post-surrender activities.
And that is without mentioning the acts the Soviets took against German populaces - one of the main reasons Donitz was so determined to surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets were the reprisals being taken against any German on the eastern front.
The other side of your example is that the population of British cities were not shocked into submission despite almost constant bombing (the London blitz) and entire cities levelled (Coventry)...
Germany fought to the bitter end despite acts such as the fire bombings of Dresden and other examples of wholesale destruction.
The Soviet Union fought to victory despite the complete destruction of Leningrad and Moscow.
The requirement for "data" doesn't apply if the outcome is a person modifying their behaviour based on their own experiences.
If I have several bad experiences, it doesn't matter to me one bit that other people are having good experiences - it doesn't change my experience at all. Statistically my experience might not rise above being an outlier, but it's still my experience and that is what I base further behaviours on.
I'm glad you enjoy good experiences on the railways. It doesn't affect myself at all.
And again the car wins, because you don't have to plan a 200 mile day journey 2 weeks in advance...
The rail network in the UK is really quite poor - let me detail two separate journeys for you which literally made me get a car (and that was no little decision, as it also meant learning to drive;) )...
The first one involved travel from Leicester to Bath, ticket cost was about £40 return. The journey from Bath to Bristol was fine, but then the Virgin train to Birmingham arrived. Full to the brim. My booked and reserved seat was a waste. The conductor announced that the train would not e leaving until enough people got off, but there was no replacement and the next train was an hour wait ( and no guarantee it wouldn't also be full). Eventually I get to Birmingham, where the train to Leicester has nine platform alterations, with the last alteration coming as the train left the station from a platform we could see but not get to! Another missed train, another wait.
The trip back from Leicester to Bath was all done on rail replacement transport - in other word, busses. Fantastic. National Express do a direct service for a tenner, but I had to pay way more than that for four separate stages.
The second journey on the same route, from Leicester to Bath, got me to Bristol - and there I stayed for eight hours, because of a signalling failure on the South West line, where the train was coming from.
Eventually a train turned up after 4 hours, and everyone piled on. Then the conductor announced that the train that had been delayed was behind this train and would be arriving at the platform directly after the current train had left, and anyone with tickets for that train should get off and take it. As I had an "ultra cheap" ticket which required me to take a specific train, I had the choice of staying on and being stiffed for another ticket, or getting on the next train as promised.
I got off, and the train left. Immediately then "my" train had another hour delay announced. They had lied.
In both circumstances, the train companies never bothered to reply to my complaints.
I now own a car and drive places. Fuck rail travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of that choice, SU-27 please.
The main reason they didn't go for the Typhoon is because they wanted a carrier capability, which doesn't currently exist on the Typhoon - it was part of the proposal to develop it but that certainly would result in extra cost and time.
It's interesting, because the French split from the Eurofighter project (well, really the other countries withdrew from the joint project with France and went on to develop the Eurofighter) because only France wanted a carrier capable aircraft, and now there are several demands for a similar capability for the Eurofighter...
Go see my other posts in the comments for this story, it becomes quite obvious that I have indeed used Dropbox. My point in the post you replied to however specifically answered a point raised in the parent post, who posited that you could just go to S3 directly for the files...
The fact that Dropbox use Amazon S3 is neither here nor there, because *you* will never get access to Dropboxes S3 accounts to get your data. If Dropbox go anywhere, the S3 copy is as inaccessible as it needs to be in order for its existence to not mean a thing.
Not necessarily full local copies, as the local store relies on you not using Selective Sync at all (which removes files from your local computer) and also it requires you to use the Desktop Client - if you just use the website or mobile apps, your files only exist on the Dropbox servers.
In the example given, it isn't even that interesting - with Dropbox, your files are available locally as its a syncing service and not a cloud access service. The only scenario in which you won't have a local copy is if you are using the website only (i.e. not as the service is designed to be used) or have been very very prolific with Selective Sync.
If Dropbox goes away, my files remain available in my local Dropbox folder.
Equally, I blew an Athalon XP back in the day just by seeing if the system would post after I installed the memory and CPU. However, I forgot the heatsink...
System was up all of 30 seconds, if that. Posted fine, got to the "no system disk" bios screen and everything.
However, on second boot, the bios informed me through the beeps of death that the CPU was dead, and that was that.
Noting it on medical records also helps with future diagnosis for heart conditions, clogged arteries, high cholesterol etc.
When the same patient has presented twenty times in 6 months, demanding that the doctor diagnoses his "glandular problem" to solve his weight issue, while being seen in the waiting area clutching a McDonalds bag and drink on several occasions, it's not a wrong statement to make, especially if he intends on going to another doctor if you refuse the diagnosis.
It's not stupid nor unnecessary - sometimes the patient is the issue, and it's fine to note that in the records. As a doctor you can and should make a note of such observations, because it helps with diagnosis later on for other issues.
Yeah, its still used in conversation here as well, just not put into writing :)
Why should they become more comprehensible? They are a record by a professional for a professional, not for you - if you require them to become readable by any random person then you are going to create a lot more work for those writing the records, and possibly introduce ambiguity into records where a doctor doesn't want to write a thousand word essay to correctly describe a specific condition within a broad area of similar conditions, avoiding identifying the condition as a similar issue but cannot be treated as such due to preexisting problems when seven words of medical jargon would be more precise anyway.
It's like saying C should be written so that anyone downloading the Linux kernel can immediately understand what's going on. That isn't ever going to happen, even though the code is available - it's still aimed at those with a working knowledge of C, not Joe from the diner.
That's not to say that having your medical record has no benefit - it has loads.
Well, one thing they will certainly be used for is the basis of frivolous lawsuits - when that morbidly obese patient takes issue with his doctors notes on his "McDonalds addiction" and total lack of medical reason for the fact that he has size 60EE man boobs, guess where it's going to end up?
Here in Norfolk, UK, Doctors used to use two terms in medical notes up until the late 1990s (or even later - my wife still sees references to them in notes from 2003 or so), Funny Looking Kid and Normal for Norfolk. The terms refer to congenital issues found in children in the more remote parts of the county, where incest and small breeding stock is still having knock on effects today. The terms were banned after they became legal issues in cases after patients got hold of their notes.
What rubbish - I never took it to be racist at all, what I took from it was that on MLK day, it's probable that streets named after the man may be in use for other things, such as street parties, and as such you would want to avoid those streets if you actually had to travel on that day.
If you can find a way to add a passenger ejection system or aircraft parachute system to a large civil aircraft, anything 737 size or larger or arguments sake, which doesn't add an uneconomical amount of weight to an aircrafts design, then go for it.
The parachute system is fitted to quite a few light aircraft and microlights, but the application is limited because of the amount of weight it adds due to strengthening required to withstand the deployment forces (no point in having the parachute if it's deployment breaks the plane in half).
The major issue in plane design is weight - it dictates economics, and itself is dictated by design requirements, load bearing requirements and safety requirements (among other things). Too much weight and trip costs rise too much, passenger yields go down and the plane is uneconomical to use.
Also note that it's unusual for a fighter pilot to come out of an ejection without injuries directly caused by he ejection - compressed spines, broken limbs etc are the norm rather than the exception.
Germany has to SURRENDER before there can be anti-Allied RESISTANCE.
Otherwise it would be known as "war".
Oh, you are one of those pedantic types are you?
No, the enemy force does not have to completely surrender in order for an action to be reasonably called a resistance - especially if that action is taking place in territory occupied by the enemy and is being carried out by irregular forces.
Or is there some ISO or UN definition of "resistance" that you would like to make known here?
Again, it was non-existent. Your Bruschal example has been shown to be incorrect.
So you are going to resort to "you are wrong", and thats it?
Why are you worth discussing anything with?
Now all you are doing it trying to confuse post-surrender RESISTANCE movements with war-time operations.
Not at all. You however have latched on to one point, tried to "prove it wrong" in your own simplistic manner and then applied that "proof" to my entire argument. Thats not how things work in the real world.
Buschal was a response to attacks in allied occupied territories - just because you don't want to apply the label of "resistance" to those actions doesn't mean it doesn't actually apply.
Nor did I ever say they were.
Which means that you have resorted to a "straw man" argument based off of your extreme claims.
No, I haven't attempted a straw man at all - it is however the perfect example of reductio ad absurdum in a sarcastic context.
You said the following:
"Because being the AGGRESSOR is different. Nazi Germany was the aggressor. The German people knew that."
The fact that there were elements of the military and civilian population who did not agree with Hitler does not grant you permission to start attributing decisions and acceptance of labels to "the German people" as a whole.
Hence my use of sarcasm - its quite clear that Hitler was broadly supported during WW2 by the German people, regardless of small groups of German people opposing him.
Which makes your point that the German people "knew they were the aggressors" simplistic to the extreme, and quite frankly wrong.
Again with the extremes.
Why?
Because you assumed that I had to resort to looking up information just to have an informed discussion. You are the one who tried to cheapen the value of the information by trying to deride its origin rather than the point being made.
I have stated (and demonstrated) that your position on THIS issue is incorrect and now you resort to attempting to re-phrase my position in extreme terms that I have not used.
Is it just so you can beat a "straw man"?
You have "stated" indeed, but nowhere have you "demonstrated". Infact, you have jumped around the points being made without actually answering any of them. You have, in your last post, resorted to attacking myself rather than my points, which hasn't furthered your position at all.
Great. Someone has a different view than yours so they're "spinning" it.
I can tell that this is going to be a GREAT conversation.
Well, firstly you don't have to take part in any conversation, and secondly you are indeed spinning it a little there - regardless of how valid the allied position was in the second world war, to the German civilian they were still invaders and aggressors.
So your original point had little to do with the issue at hand, and certainly didn't differentiate between the two sides.
I said "end the war".
I did NOT say "surrender".
Hitler's own people were trying to kill him so they could end the war.
Right, but they were looking to end the war on their own terms in some cases. Which means that the end of the war was no guarantee.
Actually, it does.
Again, Hitler's own military people were trying to kill him.
Once Germany surrendered, there wasn't an active anti-Allied resistance in Germany.
Prior to that, there WERE Germans who protected Jews in NAZI Germany. Because being the AGGRESSOR is different. Nazi Germany was the aggressor. The German people knew that.
Right, because the *entirety* of the German population was against Hitler...
No. Fraid not.
Your view point is horrifically simplistic - it doesn't matter that Germany started the war or invaded other countries, to the general civilian population they were still being attacked by the allies. Theres not a thing that you can say which changes that basic fact.
"Being the aggressor" is a point of view, not a black-and-white fact where one side voluntarily and willingly assumes one label ("aggressor") and the other one assumes a different label ("invaded", "subjugated" or whatever else you would like to use). There are many many wars in which one side would be labelled the "aggressor" and be morally and ethically right - which just means that its all a view point and not anything meaningful.
In reality, whomever is shooting at you is the "aggressor", regardless of whether they are trying to stop your government from killing 8 million people or whether they are trying to kill those 8 million people. If they are shooting at you, they are the "aggressor".
Nice use of Wikipedia.
The problem is that nothing you just copied invalidates my statement that Hitler killed himself and Germany surrendered to the Allies.
Right, because its impossible that I actually know anything about history...
If you want to take all of your posts as individual, unrelated sentences without any context, then fine - my reply doesn't invalidate your simplistic sentence.
But if you want to take your posts in context, to both my posts and the points within them, then your simplistic sentence falls flat on its head.
The original point was about the effectiveness of area bombing civilian populations, and how if we would stop refraining from using it we would win every war.
In that context, your simplistic sentence is completely invalidated - allied area bombing of the civilian population in Europe started in 1942. If it was to be as effective as the original poster made it out to be, we would not have had to fight Nazi Germany all the way across North Africa and Europe, and destroy its significant military might. If it was to be as effective as made out, Germany would not have waited to surrender a week after its leader killed himself. If it was to be as effective as made out, there would have been *significant* civilian opposition to Hitlers leadership and the military complex well before May 8th 1945.
If the civilian population was to be as devastated as originally pointed out, their industrial complex would not have been able to support the German military right up to the end (new aircraft, tanks and other things were rolling off of German civilian factories - factories that were not using slave labourers, so you can'
London and the Soviet Union fought against foreign invaders (the Germans).
Im not sure how you are spinning that - the German people had no right to feel aggrieved that the British (and eventually Americans) were bombing them? Sure, Germany invaded several countries, but that doesn't change the point here.
Area bombing was accepted by many in the British government and RAF command to be the means with which Germany would be brought to its knees, and the initial Area Bombing Directive was issued in February 1942. More than three whole years before the actual end of the war - I guess it proved as effective as it was thought it was going to be, especially considering allied forces didn't have to take 99% of Germany in the process...
No, area bombing in WW2 is one of those things that everyone attributes great things to, but in reality achieved little - even Albert Spier noted that Germany would have been defeated much earlier if bombing had been concentrated against Germanys fuel production capability instead of towns and cities.
Not to mention a few attempts by the German military to assassinate Hitler on their own so they could end the war.
There is however no evidence that said assassination attempts by the Germany military would have lead to the surrender of Germany - Stauffenberg for example had onerous conditions with which the Allies had to agree to in order for fighting to cease, if his assassination attempt had been successful. It would never have been a straight "Hitler is dead, the war is over, we are now under allied control" deal.
Finally, during the ground invasion of Germany, Hitler killed himself and the German people surrendered to the Allies. And there was not any active anti-Allied resistance movement. They'd fight against their own government when it was run by Hitler, but they accepted the Allied control while it lasted.
"Germany" didn't surrender for another week after Hitlers death - Donitz continued to issue orders directing the military during that time.
Hitler died on the 30th April, and Berlin surrendered on the 2nd May - however, German forces fought on elsewhere in Germany and occupied territories until Donitz surrendered on the 7th and 8th of May.
Also, resistance to allied forces in occupied Germany wasn't massive, but it also wasn't non-existent. It was reduced however by the actions allied troops took - including interning more than a hundred thousand civilians and all known military personel for months after the surrender, as well as actions such as British troops burning one in two buildings in certain towns, American troops demolishing the town of Bruchsal, and Canadian troops destroying the town of Sogol. None of these were combat operations, all were post-surrender activities.
And that is without mentioning the acts the Soviets took against German populaces - one of the main reasons Donitz was so determined to surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets were the reprisals being taken against any German on the eastern front.
The other side of your example is that the population of British cities were not shocked into submission despite almost constant bombing (the London blitz) and entire cities levelled (Coventry)...
Germany fought to the bitter end despite acts such as the fire bombings of Dresden and other examples of wholesale destruction.
The Soviet Union fought to victory despite the complete destruction of Leningrad and Moscow.
We remodelled our bathroom, and when removing the ancient bath we discovered two sealed packs of cigarettes from the 1920s.
Sold them to a collector for £3000 each.
Funny what you find, isn't it?
BIND 9 was an almost total rewrite because BIND 8 was a horrible codebase, and in turn BIND 8 was an almost total rewrite because BIND 4 was so bad.
So what makes them think BIND 10 will succeed?
UK dropped double jeopardy laws in recent years.
It doesn't matter if it's an outlier or not, once again it doesn't have to be data.
I'm posting in a slashdot comments thread, not in a quantative, structured study on the experiences of the average rail passenger.
What the *fuck* is redundant about that?
If you are going to mod, make it fucking relevant.
The requirement for "data" doesn't apply if the outcome is a person modifying their behaviour based on their own experiences.
If I have several bad experiences, it doesn't matter to me one bit that other people are having good experiences - it doesn't change my experience at all. Statistically my experience might not rise above being an outlier, but it's still my experience and that is what I base further behaviours on.
I'm glad you enjoy good experiences on the railways. It doesn't affect myself at all.
And again the car wins, because you don't have to plan a 200 mile day journey 2 weeks in advance...
The rail network in the UK is really quite poor - let me detail two separate journeys for you which literally made me get a car (and that was no little decision, as it also meant learning to drive ;) )...
The first one involved travel from Leicester to Bath, ticket cost was about £40 return. The journey from Bath to Bristol was fine, but then the Virgin train to Birmingham arrived. Full to the brim. My booked and reserved seat was a waste. The conductor announced that the train would not e leaving until enough people got off, but there was no replacement and the next train was an hour wait ( and no guarantee it wouldn't also be full). Eventually I get to Birmingham, where the train to Leicester has nine platform alterations, with the last alteration coming as the train left the station from a platform we could see but not get to! Another missed train, another wait.
The trip back from Leicester to Bath was all done on rail replacement transport - in other word, busses. Fantastic. National Express do a direct service for a tenner, but I had to pay way more than that for four separate stages.
The second journey on the same route, from Leicester to Bath, got me to Bristol - and there I stayed for eight hours, because of a signalling failure on the South West line, where the train was coming from.
Eventually a train turned up after 4 hours, and everyone piled on. Then the conductor announced that the train that had been delayed was behind this train and would be arriving at the platform directly after the current train had left, and anyone with tickets for that train should get off and take it. As I had an "ultra cheap" ticket which required me to take a specific train, I had the choice of staying on and being stiffed for another ticket, or getting on the next train as promised.
I got off, and the train left. Immediately then "my" train had another hour delay announced. They had lied.
In both circumstances, the train companies never bothered to reply to my complaints.
I now own a car and drive places. Fuck rail travel.