He recovered his gonads when he finally realized that after Munich, any promise from Hitler was worthless.
He also had a treaty relationship with Poland which forced his hand.
Chamberlain is ill-used by history. I don't think that he was as bad as portrayed with his "Peace in our time" thing holding a note. It wasn't his fault that he didn't realize the level of Hitler's ambitions. No one did, really.
Churchill was always aggressive and many times too much so, and had some foolish ideas of his own. Think the Dardanalles campaign or the expensive mire of the WWII Italian campaign. Both were primarily the result of Churchill's impetus and were fairly original ideas of his own. And both were costly in human lives and misery and were beneficial to the enemy in tying down Allied forces with minimal Central Powers/Axis involvement.
In any event, Churchill only took over as Prime Minister after the active phase of the 1940 campaign started, in May.
Welfare for developing nations. It wasn't about pollution, it was about money changing hands.
China was specifically exempted as a developing nation as were many other countries. Let's call them the 'recipient nations'. The ones that were penalized were/are the 'donor nations'. Mainly the First World.
Basically, the main objection to the agreement, beside the palpable unfairness of constricting our economic growth while other nations are unfettered, is that to achieve economic growth one must pay for 'carbon credits' which ultimately means the money goes to nations on the recipient nation list, like China. So, i'm paying China for the right to pollute, and they take the money and spend it on forced sterilization or more firewalls. Or on a war with Taiwan. Or us.
The "best" part about Kyoto was that even if it worked, it wasn't going to reduce anything. Everyone knew this. We would be lucky if we tread water under this agreement, and it's likely that global emissions will increase under the Protocol. Specifically because of the exemptions for developing nations which was the identified reason the US would not ratify.
But come on, it was all a wealth-transfer scam, a soak the rich scheme on a global basis. If the US ratified this, it would be insane. Just because the EU is bent on self-destruction doesn't mean we have to follow them over the cliff. Paying people that hate you for the right to virtually exist as a nation is not very smart. As for the rest of the world, most of those nations are recipient nations. Approving the treaty meant windfall cash. Who is going to turn that down?
And if you haven't heard about global cooling you haven't read enough. It was all the rage in the late 70s and early 80s. Then the advocates pretty much turned on a dime and started talking about global warming in the same 'threat of doom' tone. If you look around, you can find lists of contrasting quotes from quite a few people. These are funny and I recommend them. Unfortunately, after reading them, environmental scare tactics aren't very effective against you.
I had an ATI EGA Wonder. It was an utterly great 8-bit card which provided excellent graphics for such stellar titles as F-19 Stealth Fighter and the original Empire in a glorious 16 colors. It was really nice for its day.
I have had a dozen or more ATI cards since then. I had one of their 8514 clone cards which had excellent drivers and lots of nifty utilities. I had a VGA wonder, which was a really solid card and came with full programming information. I had an original Radeon. I even got a Radeon 9000.
I will never buy an ATI card again, however. It's not just that the hardware got cheap: I have lost a couple board-mounted fans on ATI boards. It's that the drivers suck. They just don't work well on many games.
I see these hardware announcements about rocket ship ATI cards and I couldn't care less because I will never plunk cash down on an ATI card which won't work right with my games.
And it's sad because I loved their cards and resisted Nvidia for a long time.
Note I didn't mention Linux support because I just accept that they dont' care about that.
F-19 - this being before the F-117A was even publically announced, which is why the name is wrong. What fun probing into Soviet Russia (ha-ha) with your stealth fighter!
I had EGA so i had a slight advantage. Running on an XT...
Those of you not old enough to remember its 'fellow traveler' support of the Soviet Union and its geopolitical aims can do some reading instead of mouthing off. Learn something.
I find arguing with idealists pointless
on
"H-Prize" Announced
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I spent part of the 80s and a good half of the 90s doing this argument, and i'm done with it. You're wrong, but I couldn't care less whether you come out of this thinking differently, as I find that only experience teaches in this case.]
People suck, and only getting used to the idea can save you from being a fool.
...if the same two things were reversed. People were selfless enough, mostly.
The world runs on immutable rules, the most intractable being human greed. Apathy, too. When you learn to accept these, you become effective, and also stop looking/sounding like an idiot to people like me.
In the Revolutionary War, a bunch of poorly armed and untrained American farmers managed to defeat the elite armies of the most powerful empire in history.
The American forces had the same flintlock muskets as the Brits, often purchased from the same sources.. They lacked shoes and gunpowder more than anything, and that was eventually put right. The colonies were rather productive really and weren't poor.
The American forces were not untrained. Many were militia who had served in the Seven Years War (French & Indian if you are from the US) just over a decade before. A lot still drilled occasionally.
The American forces lost most of the encounters they were involved in. Some notable victories were mostly via encirclement (or cutting of supply lines, same net effect) and surrender: Yorktown, Saratoga. Boston was basically a siege victory: Dorchester Heights was occupied and artillery set up there, which basically commanded the position and forced the Brit withdrawal by accepted standards.
Unfortunately for your theory, American forces were defeated over and over and over again in pitched battle against the Brit regulars and their Hessian mercenaries. From Bunker Hill to Brooklyn to Camden, American troops collapsed in the face of Brit regulars. Even at Monmouth in 1777, it was a near thing and the American forces were hard-pressed to hold the field.
Let's not kid ourselves. Yorktown was won with French army stiffeners and through the application of French naval power. Therefore, American independence was won via the same route.
"Lafayette, we are here" was not just a slogan in 1917.
Rummy came in with ideas about making the Army more 'joint' and 'deployable' and got rid of his crony Army Secretary for just that reason: he wasn't working hard enough on those things.
The guy wants to transform the Army more than anything else, and when you evaluate his activities 100% through an Iraq lens, you aren't getting the whole picture.
Slashdot Mirror
He recovered his gonads when he finally realized that after Munich, any promise from Hitler was worthless.
He also had a treaty relationship with Poland which forced his hand.
Chamberlain is ill-used by history. I don't think that he was as bad as portrayed with his "Peace in our time" thing holding a note. It wasn't his fault that he didn't realize the level of Hitler's ambitions. No one did, really.
Churchill was always aggressive and many times too much so, and had some foolish ideas of his own. Think the Dardanalles campaign or the expensive mire of the WWII Italian campaign. Both were primarily the result of Churchill's impetus and were fairly original ideas of his own. And both were costly in human lives and misery and were beneficial to the enemy in tying down Allied forces with minimal Central Powers/Axis involvement.
In any event, Churchill only took over as Prime Minister after the active phase of the 1940 campaign started, in May.
Welfare for developing nations. It wasn't about pollution, it was about money changing hands.
China was specifically exempted as a developing nation as were many other countries. Let's call them the 'recipient nations'. The ones that were penalized were/are the 'donor nations'. Mainly the First World.
Basically, the main objection to the agreement, beside the palpable unfairness of constricting our economic growth while other nations are unfettered, is that to achieve economic growth one must pay for 'carbon credits' which ultimately means the money goes to nations on the recipient nation list, like China. So, i'm paying China for the right to pollute, and they take the money and spend it on forced sterilization or more firewalls. Or on a war with Taiwan. Or us.
The "best" part about Kyoto was that even if it worked, it wasn't going to reduce anything. Everyone knew this. We would be lucky if we tread water under this agreement, and it's likely that global emissions will increase under the Protocol. Specifically because of the exemptions for developing nations which was the identified reason the US would not ratify.
But come on, it was all a wealth-transfer scam, a soak the rich scheme on a global basis. If the US ratified this, it would be insane. Just because the EU is bent on self-destruction doesn't mean we have to follow them over the cliff. Paying people that hate you for the right to virtually exist as a nation is not very smart. As for the rest of the world, most of those nations are recipient nations. Approving the treaty meant windfall cash. Who is going to turn that down?
And if you haven't heard about global cooling you haven't read enough. It was all the rage in the late 70s and early 80s. Then the advocates pretty much turned on a dime and started talking about global warming in the same 'threat of doom' tone. If you look around, you can find lists of contrasting quotes from quite a few people. These are funny and I recommend them. Unfortunately, after reading them, environmental scare tactics aren't very effective against you.
Therefore an invalid comparison according to TFA which only looked at the dual core offerings.
How is it working if women are leaving jobs due to the china doll treatment (and ensuing failure to integrate) they get?
I've seen it happen before and i am watching it happen now.
Says you.
I suggest you investigate Chinese famines and Soviet forced collectivization.
No one ever got fired for poor performance at the military base I work at.
Is it any wonder that they steal food and shit all over the toilet bowl?
n/t
Cost of goods is going to pale compared to the settlements demanded.
Wait until the fat lady sings.
They wouldn't have any responsibility for testing the oem parts they assemble into a final system, getting it certified, or anything like that.
Didn't think of that, i'm sure. But don't worry, the product liability litigators have.
There's lots of blame to go around here, but the name on the bezel is the one that will pay the lion's share of the settlement ultimately.
I had an ATI EGA Wonder. It was an utterly great 8-bit card which provided excellent graphics for such stellar titles as F-19 Stealth Fighter and the original Empire in a glorious 16 colors. It was really nice for its day.
I have had a dozen or more ATI cards since then. I had one of their 8514 clone cards which had excellent drivers and lots of nifty utilities. I had a VGA wonder, which was a really solid card and came with full programming information. I had an original Radeon. I even got a Radeon 9000.
I will never buy an ATI card again, however. It's not just that the hardware got cheap: I have lost a couple board-mounted fans on ATI boards. It's that the drivers suck. They just don't work well on many games.
I see these hardware announcements about rocket ship ATI cards and I couldn't care less because I will never plunk cash down on an ATI card which won't work right with my games.
And it's sad because I loved their cards and resisted Nvidia for a long time.
Note I didn't mention Linux support because I just accept that they dont' care about that.
All people some time need data processing.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
If he were wearing a purple dinosaur suit and singing, "Barbie is a sleazy slut for my ejaculation...", they might have a point.
Otherwise you can hook a random number generator up to an ASCII table and call that Truth.
Isn't that an Ouija board?
F-19 - this being before the F-117A was even publically announced, which is why the name is wrong. What fun probing into Soviet Russia (ha-ha) with your stealth fighter!
I had EGA so i had a slight advantage. Running on an XT...
No, i'm not changing my society because you want me to. It's just fine as is.
How's that for simple?
Still my favorite game ever. Damn that was fun.
No one bothers with a good plot anymore or much with internal consistency, it's all graphics and 'kill the evil' type stuff.
It is a political, not a scientific organization.
Those of you not old enough to remember its 'fellow traveler' support of the Soviet Union and its geopolitical aims can do some reading instead of mouthing off. Learn something.
I spent part of the 80s and a good half of the 90s doing this argument, and i'm done with it. You're wrong, but I couldn't care less whether you come out of this thinking differently, as I find that only experience teaches in this case.]
People suck, and only getting used to the idea can save you from being a fool.
...if the same two things were reversed. People were selfless enough, mostly.
The world runs on immutable rules, the most intractable being human greed. Apathy, too. When you learn to accept these, you become effective, and also stop looking/sounding like an idiot to people like me.
Some common sense on Slashdot. It's impossible!
Wireless NIPR would be permitted if it met FIPS 140-2. Read your reg.
I know of a few people who are doing it right now actually.
So...bzzzt.
In the Revolutionary War, a bunch of poorly armed and untrained American farmers managed to defeat the elite armies of the most powerful empire in history.
The American forces had the same flintlock muskets as the Brits, often purchased from the same sources.. They lacked shoes and gunpowder more than anything, and that was eventually put right. The colonies were rather productive really and weren't poor.
The American forces were not untrained. Many were militia who had served in the Seven Years War (French & Indian if you are from the US) just over a decade before. A lot still drilled occasionally.
The American forces lost most of the encounters they were involved in. Some notable victories were mostly via encirclement (or cutting of supply lines, same net effect) and surrender: Yorktown, Saratoga. Boston was basically a siege victory: Dorchester Heights was occupied and artillery set up there, which basically commanded the position and forced the Brit withdrawal by accepted standards.
Unfortunately for your theory, American forces were defeated over and over and over again in pitched battle against the Brit regulars and their Hessian mercenaries. From Bunker Hill to Brooklyn to Camden, American troops collapsed in the face of Brit regulars. Even at Monmouth in 1777, it was a near thing and the American forces were hard-pressed to hold the field.
Let's not kid ourselves. Yorktown was won with French army stiffeners and through the application of French naval power. Therefore, American independence was won via the same route.
"Lafayette, we are here" was not just a slogan in 1917.
But you just told us you have a reading comprehension problem.
Rummy came in with ideas about making the Army more 'joint' and 'deployable' and got rid of his crony Army Secretary for just that reason: he wasn't working hard enough on those things.
The guy wants to transform the Army more than anything else, and when you evaluate his activities 100% through an Iraq lens, you aren't getting the whole picture.