All depends; are there aliens out there? Perhaps they will work cheaper. Maybe they dont need sleep, have 100 tenticles, and 3 brains that can work independantly.
Somewhere above, in the chain of things I had read, passenger travel at mach 3 ( unattained by the Concorde ) was mentioned.
I brought up the XB-70 and the TU-144 to show that mach 3 travel had been achieved with large aircraft ( someone had brought up the xf-107, a mach 3 interceptor ) of a size that would show that the leap to "passenger carrying" was possible. At mach 3.
Generally speaking, it should make the wrong thing hard to do, as well
Except how do you define "the wrong thing"? I dont really like the compiler telling me I cant do something because someone decided "it's the wrong thing".
Best practices and code review should be used ( imho ) to weed out "wrong things".
There was a test in the New Mexico desert ( Trinity was the code name, IIRC ) of a Nuclear weapon. I think they had a fair idea after that. Before that was when they had a such a question as I understand it.
Funny. The people at the time sure seemed to think something was required.
Why plan for something unneeded?
And Okinawa surely showed us how crushed and destroyed they were. How about the snipers they kept finding in various jungle islands up though the 70's and so. Completely ready to surrender, they were.
We were no better than they were? We were not pure as the new fallen snow, to be quite sure, but just you go read about the Bataan death march as just one single for instance of how bad they were. Read about the treatment of the Chinese, oh, say Nanking. Then come tell me how we fell that low. References, please.
Yes, I suppose. But she played with fire and got burned. I think that is the GP's point. If that is 'disgusting', then mark me as foe also.
It is true that those who died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings were probably not as a unit the commiters of the atrocities ( I find it difficult to believe that there was *no* soldier or sailor who had some attrocity guilt present... ). But then, the soldiers, sailors and civilians at Pearl Harbor were not, as a unit, commiters of atrocities either.
Unfortunately, war is like that, some people, insulated for the most part from the effects of their decisions, decide to have a war, and lots and lots of others die for it on both sides. Funny thing, though, when someone tries to take out those highly placed in the politics of a country, it is called assasination ( which has a negative connotation ), but I digress.
You might be a troll, you might just not understand.
The Japanese did not set their "real military targets" outside cities. The factories producing the means of war for Japan were cottage industries interspersed inside the cities. And the army and naval bases had cities in or near them.
The firebombing in Japan was a change that Curtis LeMay made when the conventional bombings were not effective, due to the unhardened nature of the Japanese military industrial complexes.
As to the moral highground stuff, the allies fought and fought hard. They were not absolutely pure in any sense of the word. But they do have the moral higher ground. If you have read *any* of the historical accounts of axis member's treatment of conquered territories, of prisoners of war, of general treatment of civilians, I doubt you would be trying to make them equivilent.
It's amazing how many people don't even know that Japan surrendered before the bombs were droped. It's really making me sick how many people justify the bomb saying it saved lives, when the war could've been ended even sooner.
It's even more sick that articles, assumed to be researched and trusted, always gloss over the fact Japan already surrendered, and was about to surrender AGAIN unconditionally.
The Japanese troops in the field must have missed the memo.
Did they? There were some in Japan who wanted to start on negotiating a conditional surrender. But did they have the power to make this reality? Personally, I dont think so.
Was that the only condition?
To whom did they offer such?
Did they actually offer a surrender, or offer to talk about it?
Funny, cause if that was the *only* condition, how is it that Japan still has their emperor, but that offer was not accepted?
Seems to me that they could have had people sign a statement that they would not disrupt the proceedings instead of what I see reported in your links. I find this outrageous, personally.
I used to have an office mate that was a staunch republican. At least he could think ( and no, I am not saying that only Republican are devoid of thought, there are as many Kneejerk Democrats as there are Kneejerk Republicans. )
The state of political discourse is discouraging. For me, I find that both sides of the aisle have something of value to contribute to the national discourse. I dont find too many that agree with that these days.
There was some telecom event in the not too distant past where the Bush Administration did not allow certain people to attend because they had made donations that the Bush Administration did not care for.
Slashdot Mirror
ON running out of places to outsource to.
All depends; are there aliens out there? Perhaps they will work cheaper. Maybe they dont need sleep, have 100 tenticles, and 3 brains that can work independantly.
Yes, quite.
Somewhere above, in the chain of things I had read, passenger travel at mach 3 ( unattained by the Concorde ) was mentioned.
I brought up the XB-70 and the TU-144 to show that mach 3 travel had been achieved with large aircraft ( someone had brought up the xf-107, a mach 3 interceptor ) of a size that would show that the leap to "passenger carrying" was possible. At mach 3.
I suppose we will have to disagree ( cordially, I hope ).
I guess I believe that the lack of dreaming is what is bringing us down.
Is everything to be about economic sustainability?
Shall we follow our stomaches always?
Shall we not dream?
But it was done in hardware developed in the ( wait for it ) 1960's.
True enough.
But, once upon a time, flying itself was "hard".
TU-144
XB-70
Not to mention the concorde...
We have had large planes flying fast for a long time.
But since you made fun of it, it will probably poke you in the eye, when you go thru one.
German soldiers get Brit-Fighting undies.
I miss your PDP-11 also...
Except how do you define "the wrong thing"? I dont really like the compiler telling me I cant do something because someone decided "it's the wrong thing".
Best practices and code review should be used ( imho ) to weed out "wrong things".
There was a test in the New Mexico desert ( Trinity was the code name, IIRC ) of a Nuclear weapon. I think they had a fair idea after that. Before that was when they had a such a question as I understand it.
Funny. The people at the time sure seemed to think something was required.
Why plan for something unneeded?
And Okinawa surely showed us how crushed and destroyed they were. How about the snipers they kept finding in various jungle islands up though the 70's and so. Completely ready to surrender, they were.
We were no better than they were? We were not pure as the new fallen snow, to be quite sure, but just you go read about the Bataan death march as just one single for instance of how bad they were. Read about the treatment of the Chinese, oh, say Nanking. Then come tell me how we fell that low. References, please.
Poor Japan?
Yes, I suppose. But she played with fire and got burned. I think that is the GP's point. If that is 'disgusting', then mark me as foe also.
It is true that those who died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings were probably not as a unit the commiters of the atrocities ( I find it difficult to believe that there was *no* soldier or sailor who had some attrocity guilt present... ). But then, the soldiers, sailors and civilians at Pearl Harbor were not, as a unit, commiters of atrocities either.
Unfortunately, war is like that, some people, insulated for the most part from the effects of their decisions, decide to have a war, and lots and lots of others die for it on both sides. Funny thing, though, when someone tries to take out those highly placed in the politics of a country, it is called assasination ( which has a negative connotation ), but I digress.
You might be a troll, you might just not understand.
The Japanese did not set their "real military targets" outside cities. The factories producing the means of war for Japan were cottage industries interspersed inside the cities. And the army and naval bases had cities in or near them.
The firebombing in Japan was a change that Curtis LeMay made when the conventional bombings were not effective, due to the unhardened nature of the Japanese military industrial complexes.
As to the moral highground stuff, the allies fought and fought hard. They were not absolutely pure in any sense of the word. But they do have the moral higher ground. If you have read *any* of the historical accounts of axis member's treatment of conquered territories, of prisoners of war, of general treatment of civilians, I doubt you would be trying to make them equivilent.
The Japanese troops in the field must have missed the memo.
Did they? There were some in Japan who wanted to start on negotiating a conditional surrender. But did they have the power to make this reality? Personally, I dont think so.
Was that the only condition?
To whom did they offer such?
Did they actually offer a surrender, or offer to talk about it?
Funny, cause if that was the *only* condition, how is it that Japan still has their emperor, but that offer was not accepted?
But do you see how that does limit the vast majority of computer buyers?
Not even the OEM's?
There is always the moon....
Start over, learn from the old mistakes. ( make some new ones... )
Seems to me that they could have had people sign a statement that they would not disrupt the proceedings instead of what I see reported in your links. I find this outrageous, personally.
Loyalty oaths? Do you have a link for that?
Agreed on the Ambassadorial appointment.
I used to have an office mate that was a staunch republican. At least he could think ( and no, I am not saying that only Republican are devoid of thought, there are as many Kneejerk Democrats as there are Kneejerk Republicans. )
The state of political discourse is discouraging. For me, I find that both sides of the aisle have something of value to contribute to the national discourse. I dont find too many that agree with that these days.
I had a feeling I should have been clearer.
I added what I added as a "here is another instance of that sort of thing".
Good one, though, I had not heard of yours.
What if they are wrong?
What if ( later on ) this gets used in a political way ( to 'disappear' one's opponents )?
There was some telecom event in the not too distant past where the Bush Administration did not allow certain people to attend because they had made donations that the Bush Administration did not care for.
On a system or mechanism to cycle gas into a confined volume....
Now, I have patented breathing..
Every breath you take,
Every move you make,
I'll be charging you.