and determined by their own whims which scientists were to be fired
Wasn't that more of a "Jewish thing"?
This resulted in many scientists leaving Germany and moving to Allied countries.
Did any (significant number of) non-Jews leave before the war?
Some weapon systems were not practical to deploy
That was the "big" problem, and it spilled over into conventional arms manufacturing: Jerry only made 9000 Panzers, 6000 Panthers, and 1900 diesel-sucking Tigers. All were heavy, slow and complicated. Couldn't be field-repaired. We, OTOH, made 48000 Shermans, and crews knew how to make simple field repairs. (Partly because they were simple, and also maybe because so many American tankers have experience with trucks and cars back home.)
He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate, snip We won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good. We won because we *listened* to them!
How many wonder weapons did the Allies have, besides the B-29 and the A-bomb (neither of which used in Europe), and RADAR (which was a British invention)?
The US advantages were:
a good repeating rifle, the M1,
enormous production capacity,
some great -- but not revolutionary Wonder-weapon -- airplanes,
political leaders that didn't often override ground commanders,
and a completely mechanized army (the Germans still used horse carts...)
Jerry stuck with the Me-109, while the US kept improving, bringing out larger numbers of the P-51, the P-47, the P-39 (and in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair).
Wouldn't the Allies have just been able to use the round about route across USSR?
There's no way that Stalin would have allowed huge American armies into his country.
Besides, where would we have entered it from?
The north? No, because with the UK defeated, the Kriegsmarine would have had a lock on the GIUK gap and the Norwegian Sea.
From the other side of the country? No, because the Trans-Siberian RR isn't that high-capacity, it's REALLY REALLY LONG, and it would have to be done after we defeated the Japanese.
Furthermore, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water increases as temperature decreases (for example, as you go down deeper into the ocean) and also increases as pressure increases (for example, as you go down deeper into the ocean) . There's no reason to think that CO2, if injected deep into the ocean, wouldn't dissolve into the water.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Coca-Cola?
Shake up a can and open it: pressurized liquid sprays all over.
Shake up a can, put it in the refrigerator for a hour of so, and the CO2 dissolves back into the water.
Really? I simply see it as the counterpart to cyberspace.
(Now that is a prefix I hate. Cyber-this and cyber-that. It's like the song "God Bless the USA". Nice, the first 85,000 times, but then you want to go postal. I still can't stand hearing it, 24.5 years later.
Depends on the church. There are computer geeks, etc.
I got my first programming job thru (unintentional) networking at church. Told one "old" (now I'm as old as they were then!) man I was a programmer, who told his friend the owner of a small software house, who approached me after services and gave me his card.
as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
What a stinky, steaming pile of horse crap!!! (Even if Holy Saint Dijkstra said it.)
Hundreds of thousands of programmers got their start writing C-64, TRS-80, Apple & Sinclair BASIC on their home computers before graduating to structured languages, and 10s of thousands of them turned out to e good or great programmers.
In fact, I know that it's perfectly possible to write good structured code in COBOL-74. You "just" need a good knowledge of the features of the language (in addition to the standard prerequisites required by all good programmers).
If you want an adult story however, you should expect some adult language, now a film need not be rife with it,
Nonsense. I just finished watching the 1944 Arsenic and Old Lace. 24 murders, 2 dead bodies, 4 criminally insane family members, bondage and "The Melbourne Method" of torture.
But you don't see anything. It's all "in the cellar", or with the lights out, or in shadow, etc. And no foul language. Any time Cary Grant is about to say something rude, some situation interrupts him.
Very funny and suspenseful.
uncle who starts having sex with his mom
Do we actually see them humping away in bed? No. It's spoken of, referred to. LEFT TO OUR IMAGINATION.
Then Hamlet nearly rapes her.
Ditto previous comments.
Everybody dies a horrible, bloody, violent death
Stage swordplay isn't very explicit. But we understand what Shakespeare wants to tell us.
13 year old girl and a teenage boy meet at a party
Two teens meeting at a party. Oooooohhhhh.
said girl and boy eventually fuck
Off-stage.
The lovers go into the woods to have sex
Again, off-stage.
at least not if your willing to close your eyes... roughly every 3-4 minutes during each of these plays.
Find me scene and line where it (basically) says "they strip off their clothes on-stage and start shagging.
IOW, you don't actually see the rape; your imagination fills in the details. Likewise, there's no "movie magic" to show them graphically hack off her tongue and hands on stage.
And that's my point: imply, infer; don't be explicit.
Sure it can. Writers are constantly told by directors, producers, book editors, wives, etc that their work is sub-standard and to Go Back And Try Again.
On the other hand, not every creative work needs to aspire to fulfill some kind of self-absorbed High Culture milieu.
You're making a false dichotomy.
Last night, my daughter and I watched the 1948 The Three Musketeers. Definitely not High Culture. But exciting, and fun.
But the story would not have been enhanced by showing Lady de Winter stabbing Jason-like at Constance, or the Executioner Of Lisle actually dropping the ax on Lady de Winter's head and seeing blood spurt out her aorta.
Sometimes it's nice to play with boobies and bullets.
Sure. In private, amongst adults, at the gun range!:)
You make it sound as though we have no choice in Cinema
We don't, seeing as how only what gets to the cineplex is what's gets made.
It's a known fact that directors add (note the quotes) "naughty" words to teenage movies, not for the sake of Art, but for the express purpose of getting a higher MPAA rating.
That's the definition of exploitation.
Also allow me to say one word here in argument to your distaste in dramatic content...
You think I dislike drama because??????
Shakespeare.
Last I checked, there's no explicit tits 'n guts in his plays.
I'm of the opinion... that Eyes Wide Shut was largely an excuse to put a bunch of tits on the screen. With a bit more imagination, I think the story of tempation and rejection/falling could have been told in other ways without resorting to the base sexual lusts that they did. It's an interesting story, I just think they took the easy way out.
Another example: the 1978 Halloween. John Carpenter wanted to make a gore-fest, but didn't have the money. IOW, he was restricted. Sooo, he had to be clever, hinting at the blood and graphic violence, thus making the audience use it's imagination.
Will anyone rationally make the argument that Halloween was worse because it wasn't explicit???
He cites a historical comparison between video game and film production
Censorship forces you to either:
think hard and cleverly about how to transmit your message while staying within parameters, or,
"create" generic pablum.
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Slashdot Mirror
even the Me-262
And it's range was too short.
(although that one was too late to make a difference)
If it had only entered service a year earlier.
I guess that's a "non-Jewish" example of political interference...
After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell
Or we started putting Merlin engines in the P-51, and finally had a decent LR fighter.
The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard.
Against P-51s?
and determined by their own whims which scientists were to be fired
Wasn't that more of a "Jewish thing"?
This resulted in many scientists leaving Germany and moving to Allied countries.
Did any (significant number of) non-Jews leave before the war?
Some weapon systems were not practical to deploy
That was the "big" problem, and it spilled over into conventional arms manufacturing: Jerry only made 9000 Panzers, 6000 Panthers, and 1900 diesel-sucking Tigers. All were heavy, slow and complicated. Couldn't be field-repaired. We, OTOH, made 48000 Shermans, and crews knew how to make simple field repairs. (Partly because they were simple, and also maybe because so many American tankers have experience with trucks and cars back home.)
He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate,
snip
We won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good. We won because we *listened* to them!
How many wonder weapons did the Allies have, besides the B-29 and the A-bomb (neither of which used in Europe), and RADAR (which was a British invention)?
The US advantages were:
Jerry stuck with the Me-109, while the US kept improving, bringing out larger numbers of the P-51, the P-47, the P-39 (and in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair).
Wouldn't the Allies have just been able to use the round about route across USSR?
There's no way that Stalin would have allowed huge American armies into his country.
Besides, where would we have entered it from?
The north? No, because with the UK defeated, the Kriegsmarine would have had a lock on the GIUK gap and the Norwegian Sea.
From the other side of the country? No, because the Trans-Siberian RR isn't that high-capacity, it's REALLY REALLY LONG, and it would have to be done after we defeated the Japanese.
Furthermore, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water increases as temperature decreases (for example, as you go down deeper into the ocean) and also increases as pressure increases (for example, as you go down deeper into the ocean) . There's no reason to think that CO2, if injected deep into the ocean, wouldn't dissolve into the water.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Coca-Cola?
Shake up a can and open it: pressurized liquid sprays all over.
Shake up a can, put it in the refrigerator for a hour of so, and the CO2 dissolves back into the water.
And just like with Iridium, the people on the ground would need the correct receivers.
This is is a tech-illiterate fool asking a pie-in-the-sky question.
they would save on takeoff weight then,
Filtering equipment has mass, too. The machinery to separate urine from feces would be particularly large.
as they would not have to carry any water
No potable water until someone takes a piss? And even then you'd only get 250 ml.
(Did you think through your comment before posting?)
So what is the problem Flash, or Linux?
Neither. Probably X Windows. (Yes, I know the correct name is "X Window System", but I don't care!)
It implies a certain contempt
Really? I simply see it as the counterpart to cyberspace.
(Now that is a prefix I hate. Cyber-this and cyber-that. It's like the song "God Bless the USA". Nice, the first 85,000 times, but then you want to go postal. I still can't stand hearing it, 24.5 years later.
Depends on the church. There are computer geeks, etc.
I got my first programming job thru (unintentional) networking at church. Told one "old" (now I'm as old as they were then!) man I was a programmer, who told his friend the owner of a small software house, who approached me after services and gave me his card.
as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
What a stinky, steaming pile of horse crap!!! (Even if Holy Saint Dijkstra said it.)
Hundreds of thousands of programmers got their start writing C-64, TRS-80, Apple & Sinclair BASIC on their home computers before graduating to structured languages, and 10s of thousands of them turned out to e good or great programmers.
In fact, I know that it's perfectly possible to write good structured code in COBOL-74. You "just" need a good knowledge of the features of the language (in addition to the standard prerequisites required by all good programmers).
Get it? Hot? Like the sun or sexually?
Explaining obvious jokes is considered a prime indicator of lameness. For your own good, learn from your mistakes...
That would have been witty and tasteful!
I never said I was witty or tasteful, or an artist who wants millions of people to pay money to watch my art.
although i doubt they got turned directly in to onstage actions at the time
What a dumb shit you are, not knowing what "explicit" means. I'd cowardly anonymize myself too if I were that stupid.
If you want an adult story however, you should expect some adult language, now a film need not be rife with it,
Nonsense. I just finished watching the 1944 Arsenic and Old Lace. 24 murders, 2 dead bodies, 4 criminally insane family members, bondage and "The Melbourne Method" of torture.
But you don't see anything. It's all "in the cellar", or with the lights out, or in shadow, etc. And no foul language. Any time Cary Grant is about to say something rude, some situation interrupts him.
Very funny and suspenseful.
uncle who starts having sex with his mom
Do we actually see them humping away in bed? No. It's spoken of, referred to. LEFT TO OUR IMAGINATION.
Then Hamlet nearly rapes her.
Ditto previous comments.
Everybody dies a horrible, bloody, violent death
Stage swordplay isn't very explicit. But we understand what Shakespeare wants to tell us.
13 year old girl and a teenage boy meet at a party
Two teens meeting at a party. Oooooohhhhh.
said girl and boy eventually fuck
Off-stage.
The lovers go into the woods to have sex
Again, off-stage.
at least not if your willing to close your eyes ... roughly every 3-4 minutes during each of these plays.
Find me scene and line where it (basically) says "they strip off their clothes on-stage and start shagging.
MOVIE ADAPTATIONS DO NOT COUNT!!!
Titus Andronicus anyone?
Here's the key:
IOW, you don't actually see the rape; your imagination fills in the details. Likewise, there's no "movie magic" to show them graphically hack off her tongue and hands on stage.
And that's my point: imply, infer; don't be explicit.
Creativity cannot be forced.
Sure it can. Writers are constantly told by directors, producers, book editors, wives, etc that their work is sub-standard and to Go Back And Try Again.
On the other hand, not every creative work needs to aspire to fulfill some kind of self-absorbed High Culture milieu.
You're making a false dichotomy.
Last night, my daughter and I watched the 1948 The Three Musketeers. Definitely not High Culture. But exciting, and fun.
But the story would not have been enhanced by showing Lady de Winter stabbing Jason-like at Constance, or the Executioner Of Lisle actually dropping the ax on Lady de Winter's head and seeing blood spurt out her aorta.
Sometimes it's nice to play with boobies and bullets.
Sure. In private, amongst adults, at the gun range! :)
You make it sound as though we have no choice in Cinema
We don't, seeing as how only what gets to the cineplex is what's gets made.
It's a known fact that directors add (note the quotes) "naughty" words to teenage movies, not for the sake of Art, but for the express purpose of getting a higher MPAA rating.
That's the definition of exploitation.
Also allow me to say one word here in argument to your distaste in dramatic content...
You think I dislike drama because??????
Shakespeare.
Last I checked, there's no explicit tits 'n guts in his plays.
I'm of the opinion ... that Eyes Wide Shut was largely an excuse to put a bunch of tits on the screen. With a bit more imagination, I think the story of tempation and rejection/falling could have been told in other ways without resorting to the base sexual lusts that they did. It's an interesting story, I just think they took the easy way out.
Another example: the 1978 Halloween. John Carpenter wanted to make a gore-fest, but didn't have the money. IOW, he was restricted. Sooo, he had to be clever, hinting at the blood and graphic violence, thus making the audience use it's imagination.
Will anyone rationally make the argument that Halloween was worse because it wasn't explicit???
I'm going through the movie in my mind, and nothing about it stands out as sexual or graphically violent.
In fact, Hitchcock made the movie B/W because the the Shower Scene in color would be too exploitative.
Maybe you're talking about a remake that I haven't seen,
1998 remake by Gus Van Sant. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155975/
He cites a historical comparison between video game and film production
Censorship forces you to either:
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
This is true. What they need to do is simplify their payroll policy.
That would be the rational thing to do.
But no one ever accused Universities, especially uber-PC systems like UW, of being rational.
Four good coders could "do-over" a payroll system in five years no matter how complex it was
Sure, if you have good specifications.
Re-engineering a 30 year old system that's been accreting features for 30 years, though, isn't an easy task.
Who says metered service is a bad thing?
You must be too young to remember The Bad Old Days.