You are confusing Magnitude of the Catastrophe with Magnitude of the Attack. Within 1 hour, they knew the Magnitude of the Attack. How?
Two things: #1 you know that communication network that was destroyed? Draw it on a map. Think about it. They knew it was done with a single attack, most probably a single bomb. The mere size of the communication blackout was enough of a warning.
#2 People moved. While the devastation was large, a man on a horse could travel across it from one one to another and get to another place with a working phone. Trust me, they had a reasonable idea of the physical destruction that the first bomb had.
Yes, it is true, they did not realize the magnitude - for example they had no idea about the radiation. But the Japanese military had a reasonable idea of the # of deaths and property destruction within 24 hours. They were not stupid, just arrogant.
Was the untested bomb done for testing purposes? Possibly. But like many people you are confusing reasons for making a specific choice as the reason for making the general decision. If I decide to buy a red sports car instead of a Station Wagon because I think it will attract more women, that does NOT mean I am buying the car to attract women. I bought the car because I need a vehicle to get to work - if I was married, I still would have bought a car - just a different one.
The decision to use a 2nd bomb was because Japan did not surrender after the first. The decision to use a different bomb instead of the same type was probably made for research reasons.
As others will I am sure tell, you are reading revisionist garbage.
The key point that revisioners always "forget" to talk about is that the US did not drop a bomb on Japan.
We droppoed TWO bombs.Japan not only did not want to "surrender" after we bombmed them, they absolutely REFUSED to surrender after we went and dropped a single nuclear bomb. It took a 2nd to convince the Emperor to over-throw the military junta ruling Japan and surrender.
We dropped the Two Bombs on Japan for ONE purpose: To end the war with the least number of american deaths. Yes, it also put the USSR on notice, that was a side benefit that could have been accomplished with a single bomb - the 2nd bomb pretty much disproves this foolish theory, to anyone who cares more about logic than about proving their personal pet theory.
Your "scholarly work" is a bunch of crap, and is NOT beleived to be true by any respected Historian.
What you describe is not that unusual for "simple, poor, and honest" folk living in any country.
A government has to be INCREDIBALLY bad (as in expect a revolution that year) if it can not provide for the simple, poor, honest folk in a straightforward manner. (i.e. no government contact)
What freedom does is allow you to become rich, and try to be smarter than the people running the government. Only then do you have problems when the government realizes "hey, these people are doing things we haven't regulated yet", or "hey, they are complaining about our mistake, and by doing that giving me a bad name".
No. You are entirely wrong here.YOU are the one being arrogant here.
You have drastically misunderstood his ideas. His idea of freedom is not that people in his culture should be free - it is ALL people have the RIGHT to be free. He might be wrong, but that is his idea. He believes that the Chinese people that disagree are wrong. He has the right to believe they are wrong.
Consider a religious analogy.
I am allowed to believe in one true god, and that all other gods are fake. The fact that I state my belief does not make me arrogant, even if pagans are around, that believe in many gods, one of which has the same name as my god. The Pagans may think the monotheist is arrogant, when he states the other gods don't exist, but he is NOT being arrogant, he is simply telling them what he beleives.
You are proudly, arrogantly proclaiming your belief that he is wrong, freedom is not an actual, universal truth, it is just a cultural thing.
Certain things are true universally. Light speed is the same regardless of what country you are in.
Some of us, me included, believe that Freedom is a universal truth, that some people, such as those in China, and apparently you, have mistakenly thought to just be an American/Western idea.
You seem to be unaware of the more advanced Phishing tactics.
1) The Phishers are not fools. Even now, the majority of them now redirect you back to the real site after stealing your information. They can easily set it up sot that it would be days before the bank/ebay figured out what was up.
2) The more advanced secuirty methods you mentioned would stop some of the tricks that the phishers use, but a smart phisher could steal cash even if you are using the one use codes - the same session you login, they wait till you log out, but don't log you out - instead they do one more "send money to x bank account" transaction.
Any security person can tell you that by definition, any system that is truly "secure" will cost more than the security is worth. This is because if something is worth $x, then thieves are willing to spend $x/2 to defeat the security, which means that a truly secure system will cost at least x/10, and over time it will need to be updated enough times to make it value's > x. All security systems are forced to depend on:
1. the general honesty of people
2. the rarity of anti-security training
3. some level of theft being considered acceptable.
#1 is pretty constant, #2 fluctuates, and we all want #3 to be low.
Part of the problem I was discussing is that the new Phishers do not send you email. They just modify your host file/attack the Domain Server and wait for you to log in normally. Many more people will fall for this.
Not only did I read the article, I happen to be the guy that posted it.
And if you were smart enough to have read my post you would have seen the line about DOMAIN SERVERS being attacked and how this means they do not have to have edited anything on you your computer.
Next time, before you call something stupid, think "Maybe Jarn has no idea what everyone else is talking about".
The author of this book was the morons and fools that make NO attempt at all for security, not even changing the default password, to go and buy special paint and use it on their house?
There is no such thing as "marauding wardrivers." There are a bunch of people, some of home are ethical, but many of whom are not, who take advantage of the incompetent people that leave their wireless connection entirely unguarded.
Spysweeper is the one piece of of software that detected and removed all the pop-up. For all you know there is a ton of spyware sitting on your machine that is sending information back whenver you log on.
I recommend you read what I wrote, instead of ignoring what it and pretending I wrote a bunch of bull crap. It is very easy to lie about what some one says then prove what they sais is wrong/stupid.
I never said an embryo is a cancer. I said that a conservative person would claim that a cancer is an embryo. I later later talked about embroyos regarding the liberal point of view. At no point did I state that embryos are cancerous, at worst you might claim that I implied it, but an actual reading of what I wrote indicates I used cancer them as an example. And your numbers are wrong, the 10 to 25% are what the conservatives like to pretend are facts, the recent studies have shown that most pregancy are never detected because they spontaneously abort in the first month, as such, they are never counted in those false figures you gave.
Your original statems was that Conservatives want to save children and that Liberals want to kill them.
This is the ultimate, prejudiced, obnoxious point of view. It takes the thing we are arguing about, assumes that you are right and I am wrong, then tries to portray me as evil. No liberal ever things "I want to kill children"
The entire arguement is WHEN life begins. If you were actually honest instead of an arrogant person that thinks they must always be right, you would admit that. 99% of Liberals, if presented with reasonable convincing evidence that Life began at conception, would say "Ok, Abortion is murder, it should be illegal."
But the courts have legally decided that Life does NOT begin at conception, that an embryo is NOT a "child" and that kiling it is NOT murder, anymore than removing a cancerous growth is (since your reading skills have previously been demonstrated as poor, please note that I am not stating that embryos are cancers, but instead that they are more similar to a soul-less cancer than to a human being that has a soul.)
Accordingly, the courts have said that Conservatives do NOT want to save children, they want to force people to have children against their will. And Liberals want to allow people to decide not to have children. That is the LEGAL definitions of their actual opionions.
P.S. Don't you just love the fact that when your post includes an off topic, offensive Sig and I get offended by it so I comment on it, I am moded down as Trolling. And then when you do a quick search on the internet for the easy answers, without taking the time do real researcy, you are moded as "informative." No body likes someone that complains, and that's what I get for complaining when I am offended.
Conservatives: World is simple, Authority is never wrong. If the cops accuse you of murder, we can kill you no matter what the evidence says. And if an authority says a cancerous growth on your body is a live human being, tough crap, it get's full rights even if it is killing you.
Liberals: No, life is NOT that simple. You have to actually think and use your BRAIN to decide when a so called "authority" is right. 10% of convicted murders were later found to have DNA evidence proving they were innocent. And 50% of embryos die naturally in the first 3 months of pregancy, so only a total moron would consider them to be a human being (unless you think God is a heartless SOB that kills humans for pleasure you sick fanatic.)
Are you telling me that instead of having them describe their stuff clearly enough for laymen to understand, that laymen should be required to try it out and discover how cool it is?
Sorry, but that sounds incredibally foolish to me. Especially when the article in question is complaining that people are not doing that.
They may in fact have the solution, the best possible programming ideas in the world. But if they are stupid enough to describe what they do using jargon bull-crap like "Yet none of these tools support hypothesizing activities." then it is no surprise that no one is listening to them.
Tell me the truth, when was the last time you said to yourself "You know, what I need here is something that supports Hypothesizing Activities".
It is NOT enough to create the best tools in the world. You also have to tell other people what you have created. You, TuringTest, did a better job of convincing me they had a worthwile idea then they did, simply by mentioning the tools they developed. Their articled did not even do that clearly.
I understand what Natural Language is. And I like the general idea. But the implementations I have seen suck. I could design a better one in my sleep, mainly by implementing some additional positional grammar rules instead of cumbersome key words.
Nice way to totally ignore my point, while being insulting. Try to keep the words like jerk to a minimum, they don't actually hurt my feelings, but they do look a bit immature.
Here, let me simplify it so that you can understand:
1) You already admit that you need help to understand perl (You apparently pay a staff to do it). If Perl was simplified so that even you could understand it, that would free up your staff for more important things. This is called an IMPROVEMENT. The mere fact that you have a staff to do it proves that it WOULD be an improvement. Even if you are so self-centered as to not care what any other person has to do, this would STILL be an improvement because if it was simplified enough so that you could understand other people's code then your personal abilities would be increased.
2) If you are only concerned about the ones you write themselves than you ARE concerned with the "easier to use" aspect of improving Perl. Even if you are some Perl GOD that knows everything that could possible be done with Perl now, that does not mean we can not upgrade perl so that it takes 1/2 as many lines of code to write the same program. This would clearly be an improvement for YOUR PERSONAL USE, even if you personally did not learn how to do a single new thing.
.
P.S. I find it incredibally amusing that in the same posting where you say "ease of understanding a language is worthless" you also correct my grammar and spelling so that my posting would be easier to understand.........
As someone that currently uses computers I find your assumptions to be patently false. And it appears to confuse the terms "Satisfied" with "considers to be perfect"
Current, satisfied user does NOT at all infer you have all the features you need.
"Current" just means you have installed it. "Satisfied" means you do not know of a currently existing product that does it better.
And the bad grammer/incorrect quote for the second part also reveals another mistake you are making.
I said "ease of use/understand." Those are NOT things you can possibly "know", nor are they things that can be "completed/maximized".
Just because you consider something "fast" does not make it move at the speed of light and therefore nothing can go faster.
Similarly, perl is a language that while it satisfies my needs now, can be better, specifically it can be easier to write programs and easier to understand programs that have been written by other people.
Your definition of "Satisfied" is actually the definition of "Perfect". If we used if, no one is satisfied with ANYTHING at all, not their children, not their wife, not anything, because it means that Satisfie
From reading this article, it mainly focuses on the last two that you did not mention. Perl 6 is trying to be a little bit more powerfull and a little bit easier to use/understand.
Unfortunately, the reason is that while Nader is smart, most of the Political insiders consider him to have gone a little crazy.
You don't think Kerry offered him a cabinet level post if he quit? Sure, they did it quitely and sutely "If we were to offer you..." kind of stuff, but they did and he said no. The problem is not Nader's party, it is Ralph himself.
But apparently Nader has gone a little bit meglomaniacal. People that used to work for him know that he was always a bit obsessive (He lives incredibally cheaply).
It is a real pity too, Ralph Nader did a lot for this country when he was younger and deserves to be remembered for the lives he saved and the nature he protected, not the foolishness of his later years.
Kerry's plan is NOT to raise taxes on everyone in the highest tax bracket. Besides, even if it was to do that, there is no way a republican controlled congress would let him get away with it.
Kerry's plan is to create a new tax bracket, that will be for people who are in the top 1%.
Stop beliveing the lies the Republicans are saying about what Kerry's tax plan is and actually listen to what Kerry says.
The following is a chart that the Wall Street Journal did, for married people. This is the WSJ,not a liberal rag.
Taxpayers Income Current Law Kerry Plan Difference
Married* $190,000 $30,500 $30,500 0
Single $275,000 $59,800 $62,300 $2,500
Married $500,000 $111,350 $118,450 $7,100
Married $750,000 $167,250 $190,450 $23,200
Married $1 million $215,250 $250,100 $34,850
Be honest. Look at that chart. Tell me that you would pay more money, but are not "rich".
OK. So, is your combined income less than 190,00
What part of "unlocked without any attempt to notify" do you not understand?
There is an off chance that the Porsche was unlocked. But I am willing to bet you that Porsche had TONS of attempts to notify peopel that it is theirs. From the License Plate number to the engine Block number, it probably had at least 7 attempts.
If you actually read the comments, you don't look quite so incompetent when you reply to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things: #1 you know that communication network that was destroyed? Draw it on a map. Think about it. They knew it was done with a single attack, most probably a single bomb. The mere size of the communication blackout was enough of a warning.
#2 People moved. While the devastation was large, a man on a horse could travel across it from one one to another and get to another place with a working phone. Trust me, they had a reasonable idea of the physical destruction that the first bomb had.
Yes, it is true, they did not realize the magnitude - for example they had no idea about the radiation. But the Japanese military had a reasonable idea of the # of deaths and property destruction within 24 hours. They were not stupid, just arrogant.
Was the untested bomb done for testing purposes? Possibly. But like many people you are confusing reasons for making a specific choice as the reason for making the general decision. If I decide to buy a red sports car instead of a Station Wagon because I think it will attract more women, that does NOT mean I am buying the car to attract women. I bought the car because I need a vehicle to get to work - if I was married, I still would have bought a car - just a different one.
The decision to use a 2nd bomb was because Japan did not surrender after the first. The decision to use a different bomb instead of the same type was probably made for research reasons.
The key point that revisioners always "forget" to talk about is that the US did not drop a bomb on Japan. We droppoed TWO bombs.Japan not only did not want to "surrender" after we bombmed them, they absolutely REFUSED to surrender after we went and dropped a single nuclear bomb. It took a 2nd to convince the Emperor to over-throw the military junta ruling Japan and surrender.
We dropped the Two Bombs on Japan for ONE purpose: To end the war with the least number of american deaths. Yes, it also put the USSR on notice, that was a side benefit that could have been accomplished with a single bomb - the 2nd bomb pretty much disproves this foolish theory, to anyone who cares more about logic than about proving their personal pet theory.
Your "scholarly work" is a bunch of crap, and is NOT beleived to be true by any respected Historian.
A government has to be INCREDIBALLY bad (as in expect a revolution that year) if it can not provide for the simple, poor, honest folk in a straightforward manner. (i.e. no government contact)
What freedom does is allow you to become rich, and try to be smarter than the people running the government. Only then do you have problems when the government realizes "hey, these people are doing things we haven't regulated yet", or "hey, they are complaining about our mistake, and by doing that giving me a bad name".
You have drastically misunderstood his ideas. His idea of freedom is not that people in his culture should be free - it is ALL people have the RIGHT to be free. He might be wrong, but that is his idea. He believes that the Chinese people that disagree are wrong. He has the right to believe they are wrong.
Consider a religious analogy. I am allowed to believe in one true god, and that all other gods are fake. The fact that I state my belief does not make me arrogant, even if pagans are around, that believe in many gods, one of which has the same name as my god. The Pagans may think the monotheist is arrogant, when he states the other gods don't exist, but he is NOT being arrogant, he is simply telling them what he beleives.
You are proudly, arrogantly proclaiming your belief that he is wrong, freedom is not an actual, universal truth, it is just a cultural thing.
Certain things are true universally. Light speed is the same regardless of what country you are in.
Some of us, me included, believe that Freedom is a universal truth, that some people, such as those in China, and apparently you, have mistakenly thought to just be an American/Western idea.
That statement, if you agree with the idea, should be re-worded as:
The only right you are born with is the right to a long, painful death.
A quick one is a bonus.
1) The Phishers are not fools. Even now, the majority of them now redirect you back to the real site after stealing your information. They can easily set it up sot that it would be days before the bank/ebay figured out what was up.
2) The more advanced secuirty methods you mentioned would stop some of the tricks that the phishers use, but a smart phisher could steal cash even if you are using the one use codes - the same session you login, they wait till you log out, but don't log you out - instead they do one more "send money to x bank account" transaction.
Any security person can tell you that by definition, any system that is truly "secure" will cost more than the security is worth. This is because if something is worth $x, then thieves are willing to spend $x/2 to defeat the security, which means that a truly secure system will cost at least x/10, and over time it will need to be updated enough times to make it value's > x. All security systems are forced to depend on:
1. the general honesty of people
2. the rarity of anti-security training
3. some level of theft being considered acceptable.
#1 is pretty constant, #2 fluctuates, and we all want #3 to be low.
Part of the problem I was discussing is that the new Phishers do not send you email. They just modify your host file /attack the Domain Server and wait for you to log in normally. Many more people will fall for this.
And if you were smart enough to have read my post you would have seen the line about DOMAIN SERVERS being attacked and how this means they do not have to have edited anything on you your computer.
Next time, before you call something stupid, think "Maybe Jarn has no idea what everyone else is talking about".
And when you are using a new computer that has never logged onto that account....
The author of this book was the morons and fools that make NO attempt at all for security, not even changing the default password, to go and buy special paint and use it on their house?
There is no such thing as "marauding wardrivers." There are a bunch of people, some of home are ethical, but many of whom are not, who take advantage of the incompetent people that leave their wireless connection entirely unguarded.
Spysweeper is the one piece of of software that detected and removed all the pop-up. For all you know there is a ton of spyware sitting on your machine that is sending information back whenver you log on.
I never said an embryo is a cancer. I said that a conservative person would claim that a cancer is an embryo. I later later talked about embroyos regarding the liberal point of view. At no point did I state that embryos are cancerous, at worst you might claim that I implied it, but an actual reading of what I wrote indicates I used cancer them as an example. And your numbers are wrong, the 10 to 25% are what the conservatives like to pretend are facts, the recent studies have shown that most pregancy are never detected because they spontaneously abort in the first month, as such, they are never counted in those false figures you gave.
Your original statems was that Conservatives want to save children and that Liberals want to kill them. This is the ultimate, prejudiced, obnoxious point of view. It takes the thing we are arguing about, assumes that you are right and I am wrong, then tries to portray me as evil. No liberal ever things "I want to kill children"
The entire arguement is WHEN life begins. If you were actually honest instead of an arrogant person that thinks they must always be right, you would admit that. 99% of Liberals, if presented with reasonable convincing evidence that Life began at conception, would say "Ok, Abortion is murder, it should be illegal."
But the courts have legally decided that Life does NOT begin at conception, that an embryo is NOT a "child" and that kiling it is NOT murder, anymore than removing a cancerous growth is (since your reading skills have previously been demonstrated as poor, please note that I am not stating that embryos are cancers, but instead that they are more similar to a soul-less cancer than to a human being that has a soul.) Accordingly, the courts have said that Conservatives do NOT want to save children, they want to force people to have children against their will. And Liberals want to allow people to decide not to have children. That is the LEGAL definitions of their actual opionions.
P.S. Don't you just love the fact that when your post includes an off topic, offensive Sig and I get offended by it so I comment on it, I am moded down as Trolling. And then when you do a quick search on the internet for the easy answers, without taking the time do real researcy, you are moded as "informative." No body likes someone that complains, and that's what I get for complaining when I am offended.
Conservatives: World is simple, Authority is never wrong. If the cops accuse you of murder, we can kill you no matter what the evidence says. And if an authority says a cancerous growth on your body is a live human being, tough crap, it get's full rights even if it is killing you. Liberals: No, life is NOT that simple. You have to actually think and use your BRAIN to decide when a so called "authority" is right. 10% of convicted murders were later found to have DNA evidence proving they were innocent. And 50% of embryos die naturally in the first 3 months of pregancy, so only a total moron would consider them to be a human being (unless you think God is a heartless SOB that kills humans for pleasure you sick fanatic.)
Best of all, if you were to say figure out how to do that...
And publish it on the web so that tech savvy non-hardware people could copy your design...
People like me would flock to your website and spread the word of your genius...
increasing your reputation...
and possibly helping you get a better job the next time you go looking for one...
hint hint, hint hint.
In other words, to build one you need the right conversion card and that card itself is considered such a device and would be illegal to sell.
What, you think they are going to outlaw PDR but not allow the chips neccesary to make the PDR?
It is even going to be illegal to buy a device and hack it's programming to let you ignore the law.
But if you buy it now, it is legal and it will still be legal to own and use it after that year.
Sorry, but that sounds incredibally foolish to me. Especially when the article in question is complaining that people are not doing that.
They may in fact have the solution, the best possible programming ideas in the world. But if they are stupid enough to describe what they do using jargon bull-crap like "Yet none of these tools support hypothesizing activities." then it is no surprise that no one is listening to them.
Tell me the truth, when was the last time you said to yourself "You know, what I need here is something that supports Hypothesizing Activities".
It is NOT enough to create the best tools in the world. You also have to tell other people what you have created. You, TuringTest, did a better job of convincing me they had a worthwile idea then they did, simply by mentioning the tools they developed. Their articled did not even do that clearly.
I understand what Natural Language is. And I like the general idea. But the implementations I have seen suck. I could design a better one in my sleep, mainly by implementing some additional positional grammar rules instead of cumbersome key words.
It was full of jargon. You had to have a Masters in computer science to understand what they were saying.
They need to take their own advice and write their reports in a more natural style.
If they clarified what they were trying to do, then maybe people would listen to them.
Here, let me simplify it so that you can understand:
1) You already admit that you need help to understand perl (You apparently pay a staff to do it). If Perl was simplified so that even you could understand it, that would free up your staff for more important things. This is called an IMPROVEMENT. The mere fact that you have a staff to do it proves that it WOULD be an improvement. Even if you are so self-centered as to not care what any other person has to do, this would STILL be an improvement because if it was simplified enough so that you could understand other people's code then your personal abilities would be increased.
2) If you are only concerned about the ones you write themselves than you ARE concerned with the "easier to use" aspect of improving Perl. Even if you are some Perl GOD that knows everything that could possible be done with Perl now, that does not mean we can not upgrade perl so that it takes 1/2 as many lines of code to write the same program. This would clearly be an improvement for YOUR PERSONAL USE, even if you personally did not learn how to do a single new thing.
. P.S. I find it incredibally amusing that in the same posting where you say "ease of understanding a language is worthless" you also correct my grammar and spelling so that my posting would be easier to understand.........
Current, satisfied user does NOT at all infer you have all the features you need.
"Current" just means you have installed it. "Satisfied" means you do not know of a currently existing product that does it better.
And the bad grammer/incorrect quote for the second part also reveals another mistake you are making. I said "ease of use/understand." Those are NOT things you can possibly "know", nor are they things that can be "completed/maximized". Just because you consider something "fast" does not make it move at the speed of light and therefore nothing can go faster. Similarly, perl is a language that while it satisfies my needs now, can be better, specifically it can be easier to write programs and easier to understand programs that have been written by other people.
Your definition of "Satisfied" is actually the definition of "Perfect". If we used if, no one is satisfied with ANYTHING at all, not their children, not their wife, not anything, because it means that Satisfie
Programs/Languages can be:
Faster
Smaller
More powerfull (more available features)
Simpler to use/understand
From reading this article, it mainly focuses on the last two that you did not mention. Perl 6 is trying to be a little bit more powerfull and a little bit easier to use /understand.
You don't think Kerry offered him a cabinet level post if he quit? Sure, they did it quitely and sutely "If we were to offer you..." kind of stuff, but they did and he said no. The problem is not Nader's party, it is Ralph himself.
But apparently Nader has gone a little bit meglomaniacal. People that used to work for him know that he was always a bit obsessive (He lives incredibally cheaply).
It is a real pity too, Ralph Nader did a lot for this country when he was younger and deserves to be remembered for the lives he saved and the nature he protected, not the foolishness of his later years.
Kerry's plan is to create a new tax bracket, that will be for people who are in the top 1%.
Stop beliveing the lies the Republicans are saying about what Kerry's tax plan is and actually listen to what Kerry says.
The following is a chart that the Wall Street Journal did, for married people. This is the WSJ,not a liberal rag.
Taxpayers Income Current Law Kerry Plan Difference Married* $190,000 $30,500 $30,500 0 Single $275,000 $59,800 $62,300 $2,500 Married $500,000 $111,350 $118,450 $7,100 Married $750,000 $167,250 $190,450 $23,200 Married $1 million $215,250 $250,100 $34,850
Be honest. Look at that chart. Tell me that you would pay more money, but are not "rich". OK. So, is your combined income less than 190,00
Generally when Kerry refers to the rich, he is refering to the people in the top 1%. That means making over one million US dollars a year.
If you are making more than $1,000,000 a year, you are NOT in the "just in the highest tax bracket". If you make that kind of cash, you are rich.
There is an off chance that the Porsche was unlocked. But I am willing to bet you that Porsche had TONS of attempts to notify peopel that it is theirs. From the License Plate number to the engine Block number, it probably had at least 7 attempts.
If you actually read the comments, you don't look quite so incompetent when you reply to them.