In WW1, the trench warfare started. Weapons got more powerful and have longer range and better accuracy, so you could kill a soldier from greater distance. Soldiers had to seriously search for cover, and started to dig in. A well defended trench is pretty much invincible, as the deadly fronts showed. They were stuck. Air combat was in it's infancy, so air raids to bomb an enemy trench was not possible yet.
You're ignoring the Eastern Front in WW1.
The problem in WW1 wasn't the accuracy and range of the weapons, it was the very large number of men crammed in a very small space. On the Eastern Front, we had similar numbers of men engaged, but a multi-thousand mile front.
You're also ignoring the trenches in the US Civil War.
Which, coupled with the rifled musket, produced much the same results as in WW1.
WW2 saw the advent of air combat, and major bombing raids. Many cities were bombed, many people killed. Trenches were not built any more, tanks would just drive over them. Fixed positions quickly became obsolete, with aircraft just flying around them and also with the guns becoming more and more mobile themselves. No extreme slaughters as took place in the trenches took place, war had become mobile.
Might want to study the Pacific War a bit more. And the Italian campaign.
Both of which used fixed defenses.
It also should be noted that with the exception of the US Army and British Army, artillery wasn't much more mobile in WW2 than in WW1. Horses pulled more German artillery than trucks, for instance.
I'd pretty much given up on checks (cheques) till this month.
Then the city added a $4.95 "convenience fee" to electronic bill payments.
Back to writing checks for them every month. Hopefully, the people they have to pay to process the checks costs them more than they're earning on their "convenience fee"...
MAYBE a tree uprooted might make it across the pacific... or maybe it would be gobbled up or weighted down by stuff in the water before it made it across the ocean.
Can you say "teak"? Sure you can....
Note that if you "weather-treat" a teak pier, you'll just make the wood MORE vulnerable to salt-water damage.
However it appears that people on the phone when driving don't say "I'm driving". I don't know why. The person on the other end doesn't know you are about to do something that requires your full attention. You are compelled to pay attention to their words because you think the call is important (for whatever reason, be it your boss, or your other half nagging). And accidents happen because of this.
Oddly enough, the accident rate is lower now than it was 20 years ago, both absolutely (total accidents) and relatively (accidents per car/driver/unit-population).
So why this sudden fixation on driving while talking on cellphones? Texting, I see as a problem, unless you're a touch-texter, but talking on the phone?
When accident rates move back above where they were 20 years ago, I'll start considering the possibility that cellphones are a problem. Till then, yak away.
Isn't a question of probable cause. USING marijuana isn't the issue, POSSESSING it is.
Are they profiling? You betcha!
Is the profile something on the order of "blacks are more likely to commit crimes"? Nope. It's more like "young black men are more likely to have some weed on them, and we can get ~$150 in revenue from ticketing them if we see it"....
Note that sobriety checkpoints don't have to have probable cause either.
Yes and so what? They are still supposed to follow the law and respect peoples liberties. If they are actuallty only targeting criminals, then why do these actions so infrequently lead to arrest?
New York is talking about decriminalizing possession of small amount of marijuana, in case you were unaware.
Currently, possession of small amounts of marijuana is punishable by a fine.
You can't fine someone for having marijuana unless you know they have it. One way to find out is to stop and frisk them.
So, they're not targeting criminals, they're targeting people they can issue tickets to.
The company that developed the design, the Root Glass Company, got a design patent on the prototype bottle, but that bottle was never put into production, and the one that was wasn't patented.
You can only Tax what makes money, FOSS would be largely untaxed...
There are places where barter is a means of avoiding taxes - I fix your plumbing, you fix my teeth, that sort of thing.
And there are places that treat that sort of activity as tax evasion, and (if they find out it's happening) they tax you on what you should have earned.
I expect that in the latter sorts of places, FOSS would be considered taxable based on what it's value would be if it were comparable commercial software.
Never make the mistake of underestimating any government's desire for more income.
Go ahead and post a retort to this post. I guarantee you are parrotting something you;ve read- from the Economist, THe Weekly, or the New Yorker - ir dones' \t matter - you're parroting someone else's opinion.
Seems to me I read something that said exactly this same thing recently....
Clooney held a fundraiser in which other people donated something like $40k a head. Now, that is a lot of money. But it's chump change compared to the amount raised by the Republican Super PACs. Romney's personal Super PAC has brought in around $52 million. Karl Rove's has brought in another $28 million. Newt Gingrich has another $24M. Santorum's got a little over $8M. There's another $30M among the smaller Republican Super PACs.
All told, that's around $142 million dollars. All the Democratic PACs have together brought in about $30M. It's pretty clear who the billionaires want to win.
I take it you're not aware that Obama spent a BILLION dollars on his last campaign?
$142 million looks like a lot, until you start comparing it to a billion dollars...
Why not Kenya (low population density) or Congo (launch over the ocean) - both with locations closer to equator?
Congo? Wrong ocean. You want to launch toward the East to get the benefit of Earth's rotation - it's more difficult to reach orbit launching to the west.
Kenya, on the other hand, could probably put together a fairly attractive package of inducements, if ITER didn't make exporting rockets to third world countries illegal.
It should, perhaps, be noted that China and India were specifically exempted from having to limit CO2 production in that international Treaty you mentioned.
Which means that even if the USA had gotten behind the Treaty wholeheartedly, Chine and India would still be in the same situation you now find them - largely ignoring the Treaty.
Note further that with China and India specifically exempted from any binding CO2 limits, Europe and Japan would STILL find themselves at an economic disadvantage, even if the USA had signed onto the Treaty.
You can say "correlation != causation" all you want, but the simple thing is more $$$ = more advertising, and the more advertising = more votes. IOW more $$$ = more votes.
To a certain extent, this is true.
It must be remembered, however, that there are other ways to "advertise".
The "incumbent advantage" is an obvious one - it's pretty easy to get your name in the news just by proposing a new law, even if you have no intention of following through on it. And the evening news is just more advertising for a candidate.
Likewise, if a candidate is preferred by the various news organizations, he/she/it tends to get better coverage than a candidate that is actively disliked by the media. Again, free advertising....
Do remember that it's actually pretty hard to limit campaign spending without tripping over the First Amendment (face it, if a candidate is rich enough, he can just buy a TV station and BECOME part of the media)....
Seems to have worked for Obama, in spite of the pre-existing campaign finance laws.
Do remember that he was the first (and so far only) Presidential candidate to forgo Federal matching funds for his campaign, since skipping those funds meant he didn't have to abide by the campaign finance limits.
Which left him spending three or four times what his opponent spent...
Slashdot Mirror
If that were true, then why is it that ONLY the city, of all the people I pay bills to every month, has instituted this "convenience fee"?
You're ignoring the Eastern Front in WW1.
The problem in WW1 wasn't the accuracy and range of the weapons, it was the very large number of men crammed in a very small space. On the Eastern Front, we had similar numbers of men engaged, but a multi-thousand mile front.
You're also ignoring the trenches in the US Civil War.
Which, coupled with the rifled musket, produced much the same results as in WW1.
Might want to study the Pacific War a bit more. And the Italian campaign.
Both of which used fixed defenses.
It also should be noted that with the exception of the US Army and British Army, artillery wasn't much more mobile in WW2 than in WW1. Horses pulled more German artillery than trucks, for instance.
I'd pretty much given up on checks (cheques) till this month.
Then the city added a $4.95 "convenience fee" to electronic bill payments.
Back to writing checks for them every month. Hopefully, the people they have to pay to process the checks costs them more than they're earning on their "convenience fee"...
Infer. "That's what dummies have come to infer it means."
Note that calling other people dummies is a bad thing when you show your illiteracy in the same sentence. They might decide that YOU are the dummy.
Oh, and this was (almost certainly) a troll....
Or not.
Saying that someone was wrong on the internet isn't necessarily trolling, according to you...
Cyberattacks on Iran sound a lot like an undeclared war to me.
After all, wasn't it Obama who said that a cyberattack was an act of war?
Chill.
The government of ANY country can legally spy on foreign nationals if they choose to do so.
Whether any particular government can spy on its own citizens (with or without a warrant) is that government's (and those citizens') business.
So, we'll worry about our government spying on us, and you can worry about your government spying on you....
Can you say "teak"? Sure you can....
Note that if you "weather-treat" a teak pier, you'll just make the wood MORE vulnerable to salt-water damage.
Oddly enough, the accident rate is lower now than it was 20 years ago, both absolutely (total accidents) and relatively (accidents per car/driver/unit-population).
So why this sudden fixation on driving while talking on cellphones? Texting, I see as a problem, unless you're a touch-texter, but talking on the phone?
When accident rates move back above where they were 20 years ago, I'll start considering the possibility that cellphones are a problem. Till then, yak away.
Isn't a question of probable cause. USING marijuana isn't the issue, POSSESSING it is.
Are they profiling? You betcha!
Is the profile something on the order of "blacks are more likely to commit crimes"? Nope. It's more like "young black men are more likely to have some weed on them, and we can get ~$150 in revenue from ticketing them if we see it"....
Note that sobriety checkpoints don't have to have probable cause either.
New York is talking about decriminalizing possession of small amount of marijuana, in case you were unaware.
Currently, possession of small amounts of marijuana is punishable by a fine.
You can't fine someone for having marijuana unless you know they have it. One way to find out is to stop and frisk them.
So, they're not targeting criminals, they're targeting people they can issue tickets to.
Think of it as a speed trap for pedestrians....
Coca Cola didn't patent that shape.
The company that developed the design, the Root Glass Company, got a design patent on the prototype bottle, but that bottle was never put into production, and the one that was wasn't patented.
I agree.
And the citizens of Richmond who don't want it have the right to shop elsewhere to get their fixes...
And since the entire area around Richmond is urbanized, there will be plenty of places to choose from....
There are places where barter is a means of avoiding taxes - I fix your plumbing, you fix my teeth, that sort of thing.
And there are places that treat that sort of activity as tax evasion, and (if they find out it's happening) they tax you on what you should have earned.
I expect that in the latter sorts of places, FOSS would be considered taxable based on what it's value would be if it were comparable commercial software.
Never make the mistake of underestimating any government's desire for more income.
Seems to me I read something that said exactly this same thing recently....
I take it you're not aware that Obama spent a BILLION dollars on his last campaign?
$142 million looks like a lot, until you start comparing it to a billion dollars...
Sayest thou what?!
Methane is a greenhouse gas - releasing more of it should increase temperatures, not decrease them.
Congo? Wrong ocean. You want to launch toward the East to get the benefit of Earth's rotation - it's more difficult to reach orbit launching to the west.
Kenya, on the other hand, could probably put together a fairly attractive package of inducements, if ITER didn't make exporting rockets to third world countries illegal.
...because they have sovereign immunity, and don't have to deal with it if they don't want to.
Umm, no.
US population growth rate is based largely on immigration, since our reproduction rate is about 2.0 children per woman.
Which is below that 2.1 number you mention above.
In addition, I noted earlier this year that fewer than half the babies born in the USA this year were "white".
All of which seems to suggest pretty strongly that "whites" in the USA have a NEGATIVE growth rate right now.
It should, perhaps, be noted that China and India were specifically exempted from having to limit CO2 production in that international Treaty you mentioned.
Which means that even if the USA had gotten behind the Treaty wholeheartedly, Chine and India would still be in the same situation you now find them - largely ignoring the Treaty.
Note further that with China and India specifically exempted from any binding CO2 limits, Europe and Japan would STILL find themselves at an economic disadvantage, even if the USA had signed onto the Treaty.
Hmm, population doubled in 20 years, and the WORST CASE projection shows population doubling again in 40 years.
Wow, that's explosive growth alright - worst case is half as fast as it's been increasing.
Well, the "evil 1%" amounts to about 70 million people, and the USA has about 330 million.
So it looks like you have no better than a 25% chance of being one of the "evil 1%" if you live in the USA.
And that would be assuming that noone else in the world is part of the 1%....
To a certain extent, this is true.
It must be remembered, however, that there are other ways to "advertise".
The "incumbent advantage" is an obvious one - it's pretty easy to get your name in the news just by proposing a new law, even if you have no intention of following through on it. And the evening news is just more advertising for a candidate.
Likewise, if a candidate is preferred by the various news organizations, he/she/it tends to get better coverage than a candidate that is actively disliked by the media. Again, free advertising....
Do remember that it's actually pretty hard to limit campaign spending without tripping over the First Amendment (face it, if a candidate is rich enough, he can just buy a TV station and BECOME part of the media)....
Seems to have worked for Obama, in spite of the pre-existing campaign finance laws.
Do remember that he was the first (and so far only) Presidential candidate to forgo Federal matching funds for his campaign, since skipping those funds meant he didn't have to abide by the campaign finance limits.
Which left him spending three or four times what his opponent spent...
Got to learn to check my units. Five HOURS, not seconds...