The Germans were using a new tactic never before seen in modern war, the Blitzkrieg. It took a good long time for the French, English, and others to figure out a way to counter this.
Umm, no.
Blitzkrieg gets a lot of press when discussing WW2, but it really wasn't all that innovative - "attack where your enemy isn't" has been a staple of warfare for a long time.
Even the mechanization level of the Wehrmacht tends to be exaggerated - they were somewhat less mechanized than the French Army of the time, actually.
The Germans maintained a few dozen divisions to a level that the US Army would considered "marginally motorized" and the overwhelming body of German troops marched on their own feet, while their artillery and supplies were in wagons pulled by horses, just like in WW1 (or the Franco-Prussian War, for that matter).
It should also be noted that the British, French, and Americans (yes, even the USA did some experimenting between wars) all worked out the concepts of blitzkrieg - Guderian even referenced British and French (by some clown named deGaul, as I recall;-) ) publications on the subject when doing his own papers on the subject.
Ultimately, blitzkrieg consisted of nothing so much as "don't do the same assinine things we did in WW1".
And even then, almost didn't happen - the Invasion of France happened that way after the Germans had to scrap the original plan when some idiot carrying a complete copy of the German operational plans crashlanded in Allied territory and the Allies got an advance look at the plan.
Which was where the Allies completely collapsed mentally, since after capturing the German plans, they assumed the Germans would run with that plan anyway....
After the German defeat Stalin threw his forces at the Japanese again, and the Americans wanted the war over ASAP before the Russians gobbled up territory at the beginning of what was shaping up to be the Cold War.
Note, for the record, that "Stalin threw his forces at the Japanese again" AFTER the Hiroshima bombing.
The Soviets didn't really care much about the Japanese, since the Soviets were a land-power, and the Japanese were a naval power. But the prospect of not getting a piece of the action in the Pacific (they wanted to "share" occupation of Japan, but MacArthur told them to bugger off) caused them to finally declare war on the Japs on the day before the Nagasaki bombing, two days after Hiroshima.
Russia was quite pissed off that the US waited so long to invade while they bore the brunt of the casualties.
Russia was pissed, true.
The first American plan for invasion of France was scheduled for mid-1943. Alas, we couldn't get enough troops and equipment in place in England in time for that plan.
The second plan was the one we went with. And even then, it was on a relative shoestring at first - note the running out of fuel thing in the fall of '44.
Given that the American public was more interested in beating on the Japs (they were the ones who actually attacked us), the invasion in '44 happened as much to keep the focus on "beating Germany first" as any real strategic reason....
During the second world war, there were teams of saboteurs who were tasked with cutting telephone cables across France, in preference to almost any other target, because it was much easier for the British to intercept radio messages than telephone messages.
From what I've read, that was more a matter of the Germans using different codes for radio than for telephone.
I think the last 10,000 years aren't remarkable for have a stable climate (for example, sea level rose about 60 meters during that time), but because they were an unusually warm time for Earth's climate.
An unusually warm time for Earth's climate during the ongoing Ice Age, perhaps.
But not especially warm when looked at during the long term.
Earth has been a hothouse for ~75% or its existence, it's been in one of its cold phases for the last 10-20 million years, and even being in the warm part of a cold phase doesn't bring it up to even "average" temperatures for the planet.
Not, mind you, that that's terribly relevant to the current climate change - we're used to the way things are, we'd like them to remain that way (never mind that that's impossible, with or without CO2 limits), and we're going to do our best to make sure the problem isn't a big issue for OUR LIFETIMES (and damn the grandkids and later generations)....
Well, no. By the definition of "assault weapon", there were none available in the 20's.
Of course, Thompson submachineguns and Browning Automatic Rifles (the fully-automatic-only ones the US Army used in WW2 as squad-level support weapons) and such were perfectly legal then, and were used frequently by assorted gangsters.
Note, for the record, that neither a Thompson SMG nor a BAR would be banned as an "assault weapon" under either the old or new versions of the "assault weapon ban" (though the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun would under the new version).
It's already legal to make a firearm for your own personal use, as long as you're not selling them.
It's also legal to make a muzzleloading CANNON for your own personal use.
Read an article years ago about someone who wanted to do this. Apparently, he checked with the local ATF guys, and they said it wasn't a problem, as long as he didn't try to sell the thing....
I think parts of the presidency are more detailed than you think. Think of OBL raid in abottabad. There were probably several scenarios, each described in detail, and repercussions of each discussed. Then the president sat there with his cabinet and watched it unfold.
A lot is necessarily delegated, but on the important stuff, I bet all good presidents have been very well informed of varying plans, contingencies, pros and cons ect.
When LBJ did that sort of thing during the Vietnam War, it was decried as "micromanaging". Quite properly.
It's not the President's job to closely supervise an operation involving a few tens of people out of the millions of people working for the Pres....
Actually, the "militia" and the "people" were considered synonymous at the time of the Constitution. That is, the "militia" was every able bodied man capable of carrying and using a rifle.
Still is synonymous. Read the Militia Act sometime.
Yes, I'm a member of the Militia. So are my brothers, my neighbors, and basically everyone else of legal age.
A skilled soldier could easily manage 3 shots per minute, A VERY skilled soldier could manage more than ten per minute.
Note by the by, that the "Founder's Intent" for the First Amendment did NOT include computers (they didn't exist then), nor anything written using them. Or even automated printing presses (didn't have those either).
So, do you really want to go with that excuse for eliminating the Second Amendment, since it could easily be used for the First?
I'm not so sure that Interstate Commerce Clause lets Congress pass laws allowing individual States to pass laws affecting Interstate Commerce, which is what this essentially is.
Should be an interesting legal question for the Supremes one of these years.
People claim this is just the free market in action
Actually only the very stupid call "government regulations" and "laws" the Free Market in Action.
The rest of us call it "government interference in the Free Market".
Note that this sort of thing is a side-effect of a government that can do everything for you - if they can do everything for you, they can also do anything TO you....
A nation neither has nor needs the "right" to do in a hacker.
As to whether any particular nation has the power to do so depends largely on whether their laws allow it, or they have the muscle to get away with it.
Or the skill to make sure noone ever finds out they did it, of course.
Besides the fact that international shipping (even from Canada) is quite expensive, you may have to pay import duty on certain items and/or items over a certain value.
And here I thought NAFTA removed all those nasty import duties from stuff from Canada and Mexico....
That's the closest to "constitutional" because you receive and pay your Visa at a bank licensed to your state, and you receive the bill at your postal mailing address. So each statement would only have to account for ONE sales tax per customer.
Hmm...
Since I started collecting credit cards, I've lived in eight (or perhaps nine) States. Which credit cards are associated with any particular bank, I have no clue at all. And could care less.
In addition, my spouse and such of the children as are old enough have access to some (or all) of my credit cards.
The children do not always live at home (when they're away at college, for example), but still get to use the cards.
And then there's the fact that I pay my credit cards online, without receiving paper bills at my home address (I haven't checked to see what mailing address my credit cards use this century - I'd have to just hope that they're consistent with where I actually live now).
Actually, come to think of it, I KNOW that whatever addresses my credit cards think I live at are incorrect, since I didn't bother to update them when I moved last year....
1. Assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, esp. with regard to petty or trivial matters.
2. Intrusively enthusiastic in offering help or advice; interfering.
So, is that an average cost of $3.25 per gallon of amps? Or $3.25 per litre of voltage?
$3.25 for ~30 KWh (charging rate for these things is about 65 KW).
So, 330 of the things in Estonia, they each support one vehicle at a time...~8000 EV's per day supported by the entire network, assuming that every one of them is being used 24/7?
Hmm, wonder how far your average EV goes on 30 KWh....
In short, you exaggerate in order to make the case for entitlement cuts. Boo on you.
I was making a case for entitlement cuts?? Didn't know that...
Alas, all I was doing was pointing out that reducing the military budget doesn't help much when you're increasing everything else.
Oh, and that tax increases don't necessarily produce increases in revenue.
The fundamental assumption on the left is that we could balance the budget by reducing military expenditures and raising taxes. Note that if we were to ZERO the military budget this year, we'd have to increase tax revenues (not rates, but actual receipts) by ~17% to balance the budget).
The fundamental assumption on the right, on the other hand, is that we could balance the budget by reducing "entitlement spending". While it is true that zeroing "entitlement spending" would eliminate the deficit (and allow a large tax decrease), it is not practical to do so, since it would leave many people (specifically everyone making use of Medicare and SSA) destitute. Even a significant reduction in Medicare and SSA would be problematic at best, unless done over a period of decades (during which the National Debt would continue to rise at >$1T per year).
Is there a short term solution that is acceptable to both left and right? No.
Is there a short term solution at all? No.
Is any real solution going to hurt EVERYONE? Yeppers. This isn't something that can be fixed by pointing and saying "raise THEIR taxes, cut THEIR benefits!"....
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, no.
Blitzkrieg gets a lot of press when discussing WW2, but it really wasn't all that innovative - "attack where your enemy isn't" has been a staple of warfare for a long time.
Even the mechanization level of the Wehrmacht tends to be exaggerated - they were somewhat less mechanized than the French Army of the time, actually.
The Germans maintained a few dozen divisions to a level that the US Army would considered "marginally motorized" and the overwhelming body of German troops marched on their own feet, while their artillery and supplies were in wagons pulled by horses, just like in WW1 (or the Franco-Prussian War, for that matter).
It should also be noted that the British, French, and Americans (yes, even the USA did some experimenting between wars) all worked out the concepts of blitzkrieg - Guderian even referenced British and French (by some clown named deGaul, as I recall ;-) ) publications on the subject when doing his own papers on the subject.
Ultimately, blitzkrieg consisted of nothing so much as "don't do the same assinine things we did in WW1".
And even then, almost didn't happen - the Invasion of France happened that way after the Germans had to scrap the original plan when some idiot carrying a complete copy of the German operational plans crashlanded in Allied territory and the Allies got an advance look at the plan.
Which was where the Allies completely collapsed mentally, since after capturing the German plans, they assumed the Germans would run with that plan anyway....
Note, for the record, that "Stalin threw his forces at the Japanese again" AFTER the Hiroshima bombing.
The Soviets didn't really care much about the Japanese, since the Soviets were a land-power, and the Japanese were a naval power. But the prospect of not getting a piece of the action in the Pacific (they wanted to "share" occupation of Japan, but MacArthur told them to bugger off) caused them to finally declare war on the Japs on the day before the Nagasaki bombing, two days after Hiroshima.
Russia was pissed, true.
The first American plan for invasion of France was scheduled for mid-1943. Alas, we couldn't get enough troops and equipment in place in England in time for that plan.
The second plan was the one we went with. And even then, it was on a relative shoestring at first - note the running out of fuel thing in the fall of '44.
Given that the American public was more interested in beating on the Japs (they were the ones who actually attacked us), the invasion in '44 happened as much to keep the focus on "beating Germany first" as any real strategic reason....
American gamble?
The Germans declared war on the USA, not the other way around. Hitler was hoping to get the Japs to attack Siberia by declaring war on the USA.
Didn't work out that way, since the Japs weren't as foolish as the Germans, but hey, it was worth a try....
From what I've read, that was more a matter of the Germans using different codes for radio than for telephone.
Guess which set of codes the Brits had cracked?
An unusually warm time for Earth's climate during the ongoing Ice Age, perhaps.
But not especially warm when looked at during the long term.
Earth has been a hothouse for ~75% or its existence, it's been in one of its cold phases for the last 10-20 million years, and even being in the warm part of a cold phase doesn't bring it up to even "average" temperatures for the planet.
Not, mind you, that that's terribly relevant to the current climate change - we're used to the way things are, we'd like them to remain that way (never mind that that's impossible, with or without CO2 limits), and we're going to do our best to make sure the problem isn't a big issue for OUR LIFETIMES (and damn the grandkids and later generations)....
Well, no. By the definition of "assault weapon", there were none available in the 20's.
Of course, Thompson submachineguns and Browning Automatic Rifles (the fully-automatic-only ones the US Army used in WW2 as squad-level support weapons) and such were perfectly legal then, and were used frequently by assorted gangsters.
Note, for the record, that neither a Thompson SMG nor a BAR would be banned as an "assault weapon" under either the old or new versions of the "assault weapon ban" (though the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun would under the new version).
It's also legal to make a muzzleloading CANNON for your own personal use.
Read an article years ago about someone who wanted to do this. Apparently, he checked with the local ATF guys, and they said it wasn't a problem, as long as he didn't try to sell the thing....
When LBJ did that sort of thing during the Vietnam War, it was decried as "micromanaging". Quite properly.
It's not the President's job to closely supervise an operation involving a few tens of people out of the millions of people working for the Pres....
Umm, they didn't start putting radios in cars 50 years ago.
More like 85....
Still is synonymous. Read the Militia Act sometime.
Yes, I'm a member of the Militia. So are my brothers, my neighbors, and basically everyone else of legal age.
Umm, no.
A skilled soldier could easily manage 3 shots per minute, A VERY skilled soldier could manage more than ten per minute.
Note by the by, that the "Founder's Intent" for the First Amendment did NOT include computers (they didn't exist then), nor anything written using them. Or even automated printing presses (didn't have those either).
So, do you really want to go with that excuse for eliminating the Second Amendment, since it could easily be used for the First?
I'm not so sure that Interstate Commerce Clause lets Congress pass laws allowing individual States to pass laws affecting Interstate Commerce, which is what this essentially is.
Should be an interesting legal question for the Supremes one of these years.
"Spear and Magic Helmet?"
Wikileaks?
We prosecuted someone from Wikileaks?
When was this?
Or are you suggesting that Holder TALKING about prosecuting someone is the same as actually prosecuting someone?
If the latter, you need to learn more about how the law works.
Actually only the very stupid call "government regulations" and "laws" the Free Market in Action.
The rest of us call it "government interference in the Free Market".
Note that this sort of thing is a side-effect of a government that can do everything for you - if they can do everything for you, they can also do anything TO you....
Setting your prices sky-high is NOT "manipulating the market to prevent competition".
Actually, setting your prices sky-high tends to ENCOURAGE competition.
A nation neither has nor needs the "right" to do in a hacker.
As to whether any particular nation has the power to do so depends largely on whether their laws allow it, or they have the muscle to get away with it.
Or the skill to make sure noone ever finds out they did it, of course.
And here I thought NAFTA removed all those nasty import duties from stuff from Canada and Mexico....
Hmm...
Since I started collecting credit cards, I've lived in eight (or perhaps nine) States. Which credit cards are associated with any particular bank, I have no clue at all. And could care less.
In addition, my spouse and such of the children as are old enough have access to some (or all) of my credit cards.
The children do not always live at home (when they're away at college, for example), but still get to use the cards.
And then there's the fact that I pay my credit cards online, without receiving paper bills at my home address (I haven't checked to see what mailing address my credit cards use this century - I'd have to just hope that they're consistent with where I actually live now).
Actually, come to think of it, I KNOW that whatever addresses my credit cards think I live at are incorrect, since I didn't bother to update them when I moved last year....
If that were true, then the problem solved by this bill would be too trivial to make it worth the bother.
Hint: The "sequester" is a Federal Budget issue. "Public Safety" is a Local issue, mostly.
Definition of "officious":
Did you perhaps mean "official"?
$3.25 for ~30 KWh (charging rate for these things is about 65 KW).
So, 330 of the things in Estonia, they each support one vehicle at a time...~8000 EV's per day supported by the entire network, assuming that every one of them is being used 24/7?
Hmm, wonder how far your average EV goes on 30 KWh....
I was making a case for entitlement cuts?? Didn't know that...
Alas, all I was doing was pointing out that reducing the military budget doesn't help much when you're increasing everything else.
Oh, and that tax increases don't necessarily produce increases in revenue.
The fundamental assumption on the left is that we could balance the budget by reducing military expenditures and raising taxes. Note that if we were to ZERO the military budget this year, we'd have to increase tax revenues (not rates, but actual receipts) by ~17% to balance the budget).
The fundamental assumption on the right, on the other hand, is that we could balance the budget by reducing "entitlement spending". While it is true that zeroing "entitlement spending" would eliminate the deficit (and allow a large tax decrease), it is not practical to do so, since it would leave many people (specifically everyone making use of Medicare and SSA) destitute. Even a significant reduction in Medicare and SSA would be problematic at best, unless done over a period of decades (during which the National Debt would continue to rise at >$1T per year).
Is there a short term solution that is acceptable to both left and right? No.
Is there a short term solution at all? No.
Is any real solution going to hurt EVERYONE? Yeppers. This isn't something that can be fixed by pointing and saying "raise THEIR taxes, cut THEIR benefits!"....