Nowhere to invade Germany from, no-one providing convoy assistance, no-one building radar, no-one breaking codes, no-one holding the Germans up in Africa.
No point being modest mate - we did a lot more than that. Convoy assistance? We f**king defeated the German Navy. Holding up the Germans in Africa? We defeated them (eventually). And no matter what Memphis Belle shows, we defeated the Luftwaffe on the Western front and bombed more of Germany than the US (not sure if this is a good thing though regarding the massacre in Dresden etc. under "Bomber" Harris).
The major British impact on the war after the US entered was on the technical side:
Which is why on D-day, of the four beaches invaded, two were taken by British troops, one by a mixture of Aussies, Kiwis and Candians and one by Americans.
Being British I get extremely tired by all this crap spouted by Yanks about them saving our "asses" from the Nazis. It was an ALLIED victory, not an American, not a Russian and not a British victory. The British defeated the German Navy, allowing US troops to get to Europe. The British defeated the Luftwaffe allowing the Allies to fly troops into France and to bomb Germany. The Brits under Monty defeated the Germans in North Africa. Then the Yanks got involved...
And don't get me started on WW1 - US involvement was ansolutely minimal - the Turks had more of an impact.
I want to chip my Xbox so that I can play games from any regions - why should I have to wait another 2 months to buy KOTOR in Europe when I can chip my Xbox and buy it from the States? The fact that we have artificial regions allowing companies to artificially maintain price is cartel behaviour and is being investigated by the EU as such.
How is forcing somebody (be it company or individual) to make somebody else's voice heard free speech? I think it is you that doesn't "Get it"
How is forcing somebody to allow a response by the person they discuss NOT free speech?
Based of an example in the UK - say I am a huge corporate, maybe a large burger chain, I accuse (perhaps in national papers in the UK) some (fairly poor) environmentalists of something nasty. In order to respond they have to go to court at their own expense, which they can ill afford, which they do although it bankrupts them. That is a very expensive form of free speech.
However, once this law is in place they can respond in the same publications that the large corporate has used. It enhances free speech as it means you right to reply is limited by your lack of personal resources.
Of course it couldn't be anything to do with the fact that US steel mills use outdated technologies would it?
Most European steel companies went through this in the 80s when we started getting cheap imports from the far East so we responded by building modern steel mills that produce better quality steel and at a lower price than those in the US. The US responded by making it dificult to import steel to protect it's industry. Why should we be penalised because we built modern factories and use modern methods? Just below it is below cost price in the US does not mean it is elsewhere. The hypocricy of the US administration when it comes to free trade is outrageous - that is why there are currently 3 motions against the US instigated by the EU.
at least i dont have to worry about been held without trial on terrorism charges
Er, you do - there have been a fair number of people that that has happened to in the UK. We've had laws allowing this for a while (I think since the mid 80s).
I seem to remember hearing about a chip in the early seventies that would catch fire if a certain instruction was run due to a flaw in the design - i.e. the instruction switched on all the components at once causing the chip to overheat...
It's not the speed of the balde that is important - rather the interval and the width of the blade. 20 RPM with two blades means a blade passes through any point every 1.5 seconds - it all depends if the fish can swim more than the width of the blade's cross-section in 1.5 seconds.
At least give us credit for trying to make things better by exploring our options given, oh mighty tree hugger.
Exlporing your options by looking at more efficient two ton trucks that will invariably be used to transport one person? What's wrong with using a small car to drive to work?
Yeah, I guess you could try towing a boat or horse trailer with a Focus or a Prius. As long as you never find a hill. Power is not all about speed, you know.
Then why not buy a diesel? As much torque for towing with a smaller and more fuel efficient engine. My father tows a horse box with a two litre diesel Land Rover, my father in law a larger boat with a Merc (much better fuel economy and handling).
You've obviously not looked at the new Explorers. They do in fact have 4-wheel independent suspensions. Ford did a ground-up rebuild on the Explorers in the last couple years.
I have friends who are engineers at Ford and they will readily admit that the Ford SUVs in the US use very old fashioned technology - my first car was built in 1985 and had 4 wheel independant suspension. I admit I have not tried a 2003 Explorer - I did have the "pleasure" of driving a 2001 a year ago and was scared shitless by it's lack of control at speed - it hit a rut on a bend at 80 on a freeway and felt as though it was going to roll. My current car (and even the Range Rover I used to drive 10 years ago) would have coped with that without any histionics.
Absolutely - very few people have any need for one of these. Most cities are full of them driven by mother's taking their kids to school because they perceive them to be safer, whereas statistics show that you are much more likely to have a serious crash in an SUV due to the relative instability.
To those of you that claim you need an SUV for the interior space - Explorer's waste internal space like there is no tomorrow - if you want internal space for your kids buy an MPV - they are safer (as they are based on a more stable car chassis) and generally have far better fuel economy and lower emmissions.
To those of you that you need it for towing - do you need to tow at crazy speeds? Why do you need a "performance" vehicle that can tow?
SUVs fill a "lifesyle" need - they are generally not great off road, handle like a pig on the road and are not very comfortable. It's a cheap way for American car companies to dress up trucks built on 1970s technology as "desirable" vehicles and sell them at a premium and vast profit. If you want a decent SUV buy a BMW, Volvo or Porsche - these are based on chassis designed only for the SUV and use "high tech" features such as independant rear suspensions (most American SUVs don't) and handle as well as cars in all safety tests.
I have no doubt that it will be handled as well as the war on terror, i.e. as soon as they discover they can't get the real culprits they will go after some high profile easy, but unrelated, targets.
They are really screwing up then - I just get vast amounts of spam for loans, credit cards and mortgages that are all in dollars, septic tanks(!) in Wisconsin, degrees by mail at US colleges that I have never heard of and US dating agencies for singles in Ohio.What do you get spam for that is applicable to me?
So by the same token you would consent to US companies being taken to court in Europe, the Far East of Australasia for sending spam to us?
I receive vast numbers of spam emails every day, most of which is only applicable to US citizens. I very rarely get anything that is applicable to anyone in Europe...
Re:What happens when these countries get wired?
on
Los Angeles Gets Own TLD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not Loas saying anything - that would indicate some kind of democracy in action. It's some wealthy autocrat getting a kickback...
So it's not rape, but it is still selling something you perosonally don't own in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly is openly promoting terrorist activities not a threat?
Of course the US government and people have never supported terrorism in other countries.
Nowhere to invade Germany from, no-one providing convoy assistance, no-one building radar, no-one breaking codes, no-one holding the Germans up in Africa.
No point being modest mate - we did a lot more than that. Convoy assistance? We f**king defeated the German Navy. Holding up the Germans in Africa? We defeated them (eventually). And no matter what Memphis Belle shows, we defeated the Luftwaffe on the Western front and bombed more of Germany than the US (not sure if this is a good thing though regarding the massacre in Dresden etc. under "Bomber" Harris).
The major British impact on the war after the US entered was on the technical side:
Which is why on D-day, of the four beaches invaded, two were taken by British troops, one by a mixture of Aussies, Kiwis and Candians and one by Americans.
Being British I get extremely tired by all this crap spouted by Yanks about them saving our "asses" from the Nazis. It was an ALLIED victory, not an American, not a Russian and not a British victory. The British defeated the German Navy, allowing US troops to get to Europe. The British defeated the Luftwaffe allowing the Allies to fly troops into France and to bomb Germany. The Brits under Monty defeated the Germans in North Africa. Then the Yanks got involved...
And don't get me started on WW1 - US involvement was ansolutely minimal - the Turks had more of an impact.
Perhaps Nitrogen prefers to be N2 other than in NH4?
It does, much like oxygen prefers to be O2 than O3. Obviously nothing to do with will though and all to do with bonding.
The majority of these criminals were orphans who stole bread, prostitutes and the ilk
I, for one, think that stealing prostitutes is a heinous crime... Not sure about stealing ilks though.
Idiot.
I want to chip my Xbox so that I can play games from any regions - why should I have to wait another 2 months to buy KOTOR in Europe when I can chip my Xbox and buy it from the States? The fact that we have artificial regions allowing companies to artificially maintain price is cartel behaviour and is being investigated by the EU as such.
Doh! Meant to say: It enhances free speech as it means you right to reply is NOT limited by your lack of personal resources.
How is forcing somebody (be it company or individual) to make somebody else's voice heard free speech? I think it is you that doesn't "Get it"
How is forcing somebody to allow a response by the person they discuss NOT free speech?
Based of an example in the UK - say I am a huge corporate, maybe a large burger chain, I accuse (perhaps in national papers in the UK) some (fairly poor) environmentalists of something nasty. In order to respond they have to go to court at their own expense, which they can ill afford, which they do although it bankrupts them. That is a very expensive form of free speech.
However, once this law is in place they can respond in the same publications that the large corporate has used. It enhances free speech as it means you right to reply is limited by your lack of personal resources.
(airlines *cough* *cough*)
Unlike the rescue plans worked out for US airlines after Sept. 11?
A strong president in the time of war...
The fact he started it doesn't lend weight to your argument.
Of course it couldn't be anything to do with the fact that US steel mills use outdated technologies would it?
Most European steel companies went through this in the 80s when we started getting cheap imports from the far East so we responded by building modern steel mills that produce better quality steel and at a lower price than those in the US. The US responded by making it dificult to import steel to protect it's industry. Why should we be penalised because we built modern factories and use modern methods? Just below it is below cost price in the US does not mean it is elsewhere. The hypocricy of the US administration when it comes to free trade is outrageous - that is why there are currently 3 motions against the US instigated by the EU.
After that will be smart gun technology that lets law enforcement remotely disable the gun regardless of who is firing it.
Won't that upset all the gun nuts who want to guns to stop the government taking over - i.e. the NRA?
at least i dont have to worry about been held without trial on terrorism charges
Er, you do - there have been a fair number of people that that has happened to in the UK. We've had laws allowing this for a while (I think since the mid 80s).
I seem to remember hearing about a chip in the early seventies that would catch fire if a certain instruction was run due to a flaw in the design - i.e. the instruction switched on all the components at once causing the chip to overheat...
It's not the speed of the balde that is important - rather the interval and the width of the blade. 20 RPM with two blades means a blade passes through any point every 1.5 seconds - it all depends if the fish can swim more than the width of the blade's cross-section in 1.5 seconds.
Er... sounds like a fish blender to me!
At least give us credit for trying to make things better by exploring our options given, oh mighty tree hugger.
Exlporing your options by looking at more efficient two ton trucks that will invariably be used to transport one person? What's wrong with using a small car to drive to work?
Yeah, I guess you could try towing a boat or horse trailer with a Focus or a Prius. As long as you never find a hill. Power is not all about speed, you know.
Then why not buy a diesel? As much torque for towing with a smaller and more fuel efficient engine. My father tows a horse box with a two litre diesel Land Rover, my father in law a larger boat with a Merc (much better fuel economy and handling).
You've obviously not looked at the new Explorers. They do in fact have 4-wheel independent suspensions. Ford did a ground-up rebuild on the Explorers in the last couple years.
I have friends who are engineers at Ford and they will readily admit that the Ford SUVs in the US use very old fashioned technology - my first car was built in 1985 and had 4 wheel independant suspension. I admit I have not tried a 2003 Explorer - I did have the "pleasure" of driving a 2001 a year ago and was scared shitless by it's lack of control at speed - it hit a rut on a bend at 80 on a freeway and felt as though it was going to roll. My current car (and even the Range Rover I used to drive 10 years ago) would have coped with that without any histionics.
There are a few Japanese and European cars that do have engines that "switch off" cylinders when idling etc.
Electronic variable valve timing has been around on Japanese cars for years and I don't see Honda at the bottom of reliability surveys...
Absolutely - very few people have any need for one of these. Most cities are full of them driven by mother's taking their kids to school because they perceive them to be safer, whereas statistics show that you are much more likely to have a serious crash in an SUV due to the relative instability.
To those of you that claim you need an SUV for the interior space - Explorer's waste internal space like there is no tomorrow - if you want internal space for your kids buy an MPV - they are safer (as they are based on a more stable car chassis) and generally have far better fuel economy and lower emmissions.
To those of you that you need it for towing - do you need to tow at crazy speeds? Why do you need a "performance" vehicle that can tow?
SUVs fill a "lifesyle" need - they are generally not great off road, handle like a pig on the road and are not very comfortable. It's a cheap way for American car companies to dress up trucks built on 1970s technology as "desirable" vehicles and sell them at a premium and vast profit. If you want a decent SUV buy a BMW, Volvo or Porsche - these are based on chassis designed only for the SUV and use "high tech" features such as independant rear suspensions (most American SUVs don't) and handle as well as cars in all safety tests.
Then handle it like the "war on terror."
I have no doubt that it will be handled as well as the war on terror, i.e. as soon as they discover they can't get the real culprits they will go after some high profile easy, but unrelated, targets.
Maybe we could do a trade?
If you can send me all the spam valid for the UK and I will send you all my US spam at least we would have relevant spam...
They are really screwing up then - I just get vast amounts of spam for loans, credit cards and mortgages that are all in dollars, septic tanks(!) in Wisconsin, degrees by mail at US colleges that I have never heard of and US dating agencies for singles in Ohio.What do you get spam for that is applicable to me?
Now the porn is applicable worldwide...
So by the same token you would consent to US companies being taken to court in Europe, the Far East of Australasia for sending spam to us?
I receive vast numbers of spam emails every day, most of which is only applicable to US citizens. I very rarely get anything that is applicable to anyone in Europe...
It's not Loas saying anything - that would indicate some kind of democracy in action. It's some wealthy autocrat getting a kickback...
So it's not rape, but it is still selling something you perosonally don't own in the first place.