And what, pray tell, will you do when it is fixed in 5 weeks as promised? When people, by and large, are signing up with few errors, by the end of November, what will you do?
I don't really understand what they mean. Are they implying that there are entire pygmy tribes somewhere that spend their entire day on IRC? That somewhere there's a bunch of Tunisian goat-herders that only get their news through Usenet?
No they didn't. There is no evidence Stalin was ever in any way, shape, or form serious about invading japan. This gets lost all the time in this discussion...what you are saying is that a crazy dictator who had just lost 20 million folks against the Germans, was now SERIOUSLY considering turning around, sending millions of troops the other way, and invading a country that had not really done him much harm up to that point, only to help the Chinese and Americans. That is ridiculous.
Furthermore, and this is something else that always gets lost...the Japanese knew about the dropping of the first atom bomb. And yet they refused to surrender. And in fact, even after the second one was dropped and the emperor made clear his determination to then surrender, he was under serious threat of an immediate coup attempt by his officers. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender, under any circumstances, to a bunch of Russians.
I have, and I question those studies, as do most modern tenured historians. It's pretty much revisionism to suggest the Japanese were willing to give up under any circumstances; of the demands they wanted to surrender, they wanted to keep their troops in China. They refused unconditional surrender, and that is what we (wisely) demanded.
In addition, no other nation was far along on creating the Bomb. ONLY the US took it seriously; the British provided nothing to the Manhattan project, even when asked repeatedly by Roosevelt, and once they determined we were dead serious about it, they then, towards early '45, started contributing money and materials and wanted to take credit. Hitler basically blew off the bomb, and was much more focused on conventinal warfare.
Remember, the Manhattan project was gigantic...take a look at all the spots in the US that contributed manpower and research into it...it's staggering what we did in that short timeframe.
We can't nuke the whole world into submission NOW, because others have nukes, and they would use them against us.
But at the TIME, we COULD nuke the world into submission. It's true that the two we dropepd were the only ones we had, but we were in the process of developing more because Truman believed it was possible japan wouldn't surrender even after a few cities were bombed. he fully planned on LITERALLY bombing Japan so that no stone rested atop another, to end the threat to the US and to the rest of Asia.
It would have worked against the Japanese regardless of if Hitler was around or not. There's literally nothing you can do in that situation, except either A) Surrender or B) see all your cities get turned into glass. The Japanese chose A.
Would Hitler have chosen the same? Who knows. He might have decided that the German people weren't saving if they couldn't protect themselves from capitalist aggressor atom bombs. But whatever; we would have happily bombed the German armies with a few of those things so that they were no longer a threat to Russia or Western Europe.
I also am in California, and I can attest to the fact that there are lots of lunatics here. Not as many is Florida per-capita-wise, but it's still pretty bad.
They were able to do this partially because of the huge amounts of vehicles and fuel we provided them.
More importantly, and this gets lost all the time in a discussion of the contribution of the Russians...EVEN IF the Russians had lost and the krauts had manged to take Moscow, Kiev, Stalingrad etc and march all the way to Mongolia, and EVEN IF D-Day had not been successful and the krauts had driven us back into the channel...
The US Still would have developed the bomb. And you can be damn sure that Hitler would have had a taste of what The Japanese experienced, and that would have altered his opinion quickly about continuing to fight.
The turning point of the War was not the US entry into it. Nor was it the Russians defeating the Germans. It was the decision to develop the atomic bomb.
As an American, I don't care if someone in Iceland accesses my website. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary for the site to function or make money. If iceland decides to wall of it's internet, then it's citizens won't get access to things like, say, Facebook, which hey may want This is then known as the "Iranian solution"
We built the original infrastructure. The original backbone was developed here, and nearly all the funding came from US sources. Everyuthing else is an extension of that, and built on that framework.
Don't like it? Build your own, like China or Iran, and see how well corporations and people flock to use your "Internet".
I'm a bicycle person. I bike to work regularly in SF. And I agree with the poster. If I had $1 for each time I saw another cyclist blow past a red light, putting folks in a crosswalk in danger, I'd be a rich man.
I live in San Francisco. I bicycle to work a few times a week.
Cyclists almost never obey stop signs, for various reasons, when there are no cars or pedestrians coming in either directions. Cyclists will almost always proceed through a stop sign. And on my way to work, if there are no cars coming, cyclists will often proceed through stop lights. They will almostalways proceed through a red light if it is a T-intersection.
I also drive a car. I almost never see cars proceed through a red light.
My thermostat believes it's Napoleon, and whenever I wander by it on the way to the restroom at night, it always bugs me about how we should be invading Russia and to please make sure I never ship him off to Elba or some such nonsense.
So is "calculating how to increase the damage your weapons will cause so that when you bomb people trying to throw acid in the faces of little girls going to school or cutting off the noses of women who make complaints about rape, they will decide to stop fighting or die."
This whole line of argument was amusing and accurate, up until here. No, news organizations are not the cause of most of the pain and suffering they report on, although it certainly can be said that they profit from it.
I have been reading quite a bit about WWII lately, something I do every few years as an amateur historian. The horrible evils of that war are too numerous to mention, it goes without saying, but from a purely historical point of view, I have lately been coming to the conclusion that Hitler was really a terrible micromanager when it came to war. I understand this view is shared by a lot of historians, but its the sort of conclusion you can come to yourself when you look at the decisions he made..
Now, there was a point, during his rise to power, where he clearly was very good at consolidating his underlings and using his own ability to move crowds to get what he wanted over the long haul. Apparently, he had a tendency to give out completely contradictory or vague orders to underlings, and would leave it to them to work things out. It probably can be said that this worked at least to some effect in the first part of the war, because clearly the Whermacht had a lot of initial success.
Which leads me to wonder if such a leadership style would have any place in a modern business environment; I wonder if any studies have been done on this?
Anyways, he completely fucked up by being a micromanager towards the end of the war in an area he clearly was not an expert in, which was troop movements. For example, had he not micromanaged troop deployments on or around D-Day and left it up to his generals, D-Day probably would not have been a success. He did this repeatedly on the Eastern front, and it's pretty clear that one of the drawbacks of that style of utter top-down leadership style is that yoyu have to know what the fuck you are doing, and he didn't.
And thank God for that, or else the world would have been a different place.
Slashdot Mirror
And what, pray tell, will you do when it is fixed in 5 weeks as promised? When people, by and large, are signing up with few errors, by the end of November, what will you do?
I don't really understand what they mean. Are they implying that there are entire pygmy tribes somewhere that spend their entire day on IRC? That somewhere there's a bunch of Tunisian goat-herders that only get their news through Usenet?
If this is the case, who cares, and why?
No they didn't. There is no evidence Stalin was ever in any way, shape, or form serious about invading japan. This gets lost all the time in this discussion...what you are saying is that a crazy dictator who had just lost 20 million folks against the Germans, was now SERIOUSLY considering turning around, sending millions of troops the other way, and invading a country that had not really done him much harm up to that point, only to help the Chinese and Americans. That is ridiculous.
Furthermore, and this is something else that always gets lost...the Japanese knew about the dropping of the first atom bomb. And yet they refused to surrender. And in fact, even after the second one was dropped and the emperor made clear his determination to then surrender, he was under serious threat of an immediate coup attempt by his officers. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender, under any circumstances, to a bunch of Russians.
I have, and I question those studies, as do most modern tenured historians. It's pretty much revisionism to suggest the Japanese were willing to give up under any circumstances; of the demands they wanted to surrender, they wanted to keep their troops in China. They refused unconditional surrender, and that is what we (wisely) demanded.
In addition, no other nation was far along on creating the Bomb. ONLY the US took it seriously; the British provided nothing to the Manhattan project, even when asked repeatedly by Roosevelt, and once they determined we were dead serious about it, they then, towards early '45, started contributing money and materials and wanted to take credit. Hitler basically blew off the bomb, and was much more focused on conventinal warfare.
Remember, the Manhattan project was gigantic...take a look at all the spots in the US that contributed manpower and research into it...it's staggering what we did in that short timeframe.
We can't nuke the whole world into submission NOW, because others have nukes, and they would use them against us.
But at the TIME, we COULD nuke the world into submission. It's true that the two we dropepd were the only ones we had, but we were in the process of developing more because Truman believed it was possible japan wouldn't surrender even after a few cities were bombed. he fully planned on LITERALLY bombing Japan so that no stone rested atop another, to end the threat to the US and to the rest of Asia.
It would have worked against the Japanese regardless of if Hitler was around or not. There's literally nothing you can do in that situation, except either A) Surrender or B) see all your cities get turned into glass. The Japanese chose A.
Would Hitler have chosen the same? Who knows. He might have decided that the German people weren't saving if they couldn't protect themselves from capitalist aggressor atom bombs. But whatever; we would have happily bombed the German armies with a few of those things so that they were no longer a threat to Russia or Western Europe.
I also am in California, and I can attest to the fact that there are lots of lunatics here. Not as many is Florida per-capita-wise, but it's still pretty bad.
They were able to do this partially because of the huge amounts of vehicles and fuel we provided them.
More importantly, and this gets lost all the time in a discussion of the contribution of the Russians...EVEN IF the Russians had lost and the krauts had manged to take Moscow, Kiev, Stalingrad etc and march all the way to Mongolia, and EVEN IF D-Day had not been successful and the krauts had driven us back into the channel...
The US Still would have developed the bomb. And you can be damn sure that Hitler would have had a taste of what The Japanese experienced, and that would have altered his opinion quickly about continuing to fight.
The turning point of the War was not the US entry into it. Nor was it the Russians defeating the Germans. It was the decision to develop the atomic bomb.
What is wrong with the laws in Elbonia?
Well, I don't know, probably not. Google is a for-profit company, not beholden to the government. I doubt the European version would be the same.
As an American, I don't care if someone in Iceland accesses my website. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary for the site to function or make money. If iceland decides to wall of it's internet, then it's citizens won't get access to things like, say, Facebook, which hey may want This is then known as the "Iranian solution"
Who are actively working to cause direct physical harm to the US and it's interests. Screw 'em.
We built the original infrastructure. The original backbone was developed here, and nearly all the funding came from US sources. Everyuthing else is an extension of that, and built on that framework.
Don't like it? Build your own, like China or Iran, and see how well corporations and people flock to use your "Internet".
I agree. No one says to a 6 year old when they ask "Why is the sky blue" ...
"Do you mean why as in motives or did you actually mean how it is that the sky is blue? Please clarify."
because if you ask that, then they will say, "Why"
and then you are screwed.
I'm a bicycle person. I bike to work regularly in SF. And I agree with the poster. If I had $1 for each time I saw another cyclist blow past a red light, putting folks in a crosswalk in danger, I'd be a rich man.
I live in San Francisco. I bicycle to work a few times a week.
Cyclists almost never obey stop signs, for various reasons, when there are no cars or pedestrians coming in either directions. Cyclists will almost always proceed through a stop sign. And on my way to work, if there are no cars coming, cyclists will often proceed through stop lights. They will almostalways proceed through a red light if it is a T-intersection.
I also drive a car. I almost never see cars proceed through a red light.
But perhaps she floats like a piece of wood. In which case she may be burnt. BURN HER!!!
My thermostat believes it's Napoleon, and whenever I wander by it on the way to the restroom at night, it always bugs me about how we should be invading Russia and to please make sure I never ship him off to Elba or some such nonsense.
Do you disagree with his statistics? Have some that you can find of your own?
So is "calculating how to increase the damage your weapons will cause so that when you bomb people trying to throw acid in the faces of little girls going to school or cutting off the noses of women who make complaints about rape, they will decide to stop fighting or die."
He's right, you know. A "great designer" did a pretty crappy job of designing things, like, say the appendix.
Here's a list of things the "creator" supposedly designed.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
Making fun of a person's accent isn't racist, Mr. Crabby McCrabberton.
This whole line of argument was amusing and accurate, up until here. No, news organizations are not the cause of most of the pain and suffering they report on, although it certainly can be said that they profit from it.
I was considering the Godwin law relevance to my post... I'm not so sure it applies here.
Yes, because had I not mentioned it people would have accused me of ignoring them. Just so you are aware, WWII was a Bad Thing.
But micromanagement still played a part.
I have been reading quite a bit about WWII lately, something I do every few years as an amateur historian. The horrible evils of that war are too numerous to mention, it goes without saying, but from a purely historical point of view, I have lately been coming to the conclusion that Hitler was really a terrible micromanager when it came to war. I understand this view is shared by a lot of historians, but its the sort of conclusion you can come to yourself when you look at the decisions he made..
Now, there was a point, during his rise to power, where he clearly was very good at consolidating his underlings and using his own ability to move crowds to get what he wanted over the long haul. Apparently, he had a tendency to give out completely contradictory or vague orders to underlings, and would leave it to them to work things out. It probably can be said that this worked at least to some effect in the first part of the war, because clearly the Whermacht had a lot of initial success.
Which leads me to wonder if such a leadership style would have any place in a modern business environment; I wonder if any studies have been done on this?
Anyways, he completely fucked up by being a micromanager towards the end of the war in an area he clearly was not an expert in, which was troop movements. For example, had he not micromanaged troop deployments on or around D-Day and left it up to his generals, D-Day probably would not have been a success. He did this repeatedly on the Eastern front, and it's pretty clear that one of the drawbacks of that style of utter top-down leadership style is that yoyu have to know what the fuck you are doing, and he didn't.
And thank God for that, or else the world would have been a different place.