First, on the sentimental note - I saw a TV show a few weeks ago about some little girl who was diagnosed with a disease that killed her.
She wanted her family to remember her, so she wrote a ton -- no one knows how many, but thousands -- of letters, and hid them in various places all over the house.
Her folks and siblings were still finding those letters years after she was gone. As I said, I am not sentimental, but this video kinda shook me.
So, maybe you need to do something like that - that will be a nice memory and a surprise when you find it. Maybe better if you don't know what it says, too.
On the other hand, given this whole project of yours, you should consider your family's life after, if she goes (and I wish they'd come up with that cure for cancer).
If someone else joins the family, what will they think about, well, your whole idea?
So, something that surprises you down the road would be nice, but also consider balancing your life before and after.
Also, my sympathies about what you're going through, and best of luck to you all.
First, you did not need to look for it - in Doom I, you got it as soon as you shot the guys in the first chamber on the left, and it was easy to get one in the other version, too. Second, shotgun? Meh. The biggest fun is doing the level with the chainsaw only, no iddqd:D
"I mean his premise is that because the pentagon didn't validate leaked secretes by combing though them and saying what was sensitive and what wasn't, it's now their fault?"
Even if that is a fault, that isn't THE fault. THE fault is the US army being so utterly incompetent and careless, that they let 90k of reports be accumulated and kept by one person over several years, and then leaked out without them being the wiser.
And, let be serious, if that particular person didn't go on to boast to a snitch, he probably would have had a decent chance of getting away too.
Conclusion - if you're not a US citizen, NEVER EVER deal with the US Army in any capacity if you don't want your details leaked.
Chernobyl's problem wasn't related to the design - it was a runaway experiment, the decision for which was taken against the judgement of professionals at the station by largely junior staff.
While I am too lazy to go lookup stats ATM (just out of bed, and no coffee yet), there has been an obvious increase of Primuses and other hybrid cars since the "eco" tax rebates and subsidies have started there (the subsidies are, I think, about to expire in a month or two).
If the memory serves, the Prius has been a top selling car for two years, and the second and third place are also for hybrids - the shift to "eco" cars is quite massive (it is a different question how "eco" those are, but anyway).
Being massive, it isn't limited to "the rich" - several friends and neighbors that definitely aren't in the category have changed their cars to an "eco" vehicle because of the program.
Besides, what's the problem anyway? Considering that EVs are still a very new category (a first-gen product so to speak), there are very few offerings (compared to gas/diesel), it is normal that mostly people with more disposable income will try it out.
At this stage, a subsidy may actually have a larger effect than sometime later at a point where you'd have a sizable market (of "poor" customers) with a lot of competition.
Nope, they weren't. If you look at the political events and commentaries of the decision makers of the time, and the context in which decisions were made, and focus on those that lead to the decision, not papers written in the 90s, it is quite plain to see that threat of USSR occupation was the only reason why nukes were used.
USSR had, in accordance with the Stalin-Roosevelt agreements in Yalta, moved an army to the East which destroyed the Japanese forces in China in days -- the same army you seem to think scared the US so badly.
Stalin was ready to land in Hokkaido in early September, long before the US could attempt an invasion. And Japan has been giving indications it was ready to surrender since early 1945 anyway.
Outside of the goal of stopping the USSR from occupying a significant portion of Japan, there was no military need for the nukes. Except, of course, testing them a few times to justify the enormous cost of the project.
Of course, you may believe whatever you wish, even if this isn't very well supported by the available evidence, and the context of the 1945 situation.
Why would we care if the Japanese made a separate peace with the USSR?
Truman was already planning to fight the spread of world communism at the time. The threat of the Soviet Army occupying the parts of China that were under Japanese rule was serious enough.
Note, for record, that the USSR was NEUTRAL in the war between the USA and Japan.
Yep, and, for the record, Roosevelt and Stalin have already agreed that USSR will attack Japan; when Roosevelt died, Truman took his place, and decided that inviting USSR in Asia wasn't a very good idea.
You can easily ascertain the facts (which I've explained above) by perusing WWII documents, there's no need for TAs.
Reading through the decision of targeting committee is all you need to see that the goal of scaring the world, and testing the bomb is a primary motivation for using it.
Reading through the documents of US Strategic bombing survey (from 1946), which analyses the issue in detail should convince you bombings weren't necessary or decisive. Documents abound for the attempts of the Japanese government to surrender.
There is substantial historic documentation from contemporaries of Mr. Truman (e.g. his Secretary of War) about his worries that Japan will surrender to Russia first.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. But I understand how eating up the BS produced post-war by the US government's propaganda machine is easier than thinking on your own.
The nuking of Japan wasn't about avoiding an invasion, it was first about preventing the Japanese from a separatist peace treaty with the USSR; and then about showing the USSR (and the rest of the world) who the boss is.
And the second bomb was to show the world there's more than one.
As for the report, it says that U.S. nuclear forensics capabilities are substantial and can be improved
and then, in the same breath are fragile, underresourced and, in some respects, deteriorating,”
So, which is it? Sounds more like a pitch for funding than a genuine worry. Besides, the Clancy legend that a terrorist organization has the resources to build a nuke is quite dubious -- how can you make one in a cave, given that is a difficult task for countries the size of Iran?
Hmmm... I look at your link and I see attacks on the qualifications of the people who prepared the report, and very little actual calculations. So, utter bunk on either side.
Even if you phrase it your way (which is saying the same thing as I do, only from a normative position), the price hike is still not related to efficiency, nor guaranteed to bring it about.
Incidentally, you can argue until you're blue in the face that nuclear is "paying for the whole usage cycle", but that ain't going to make it so.
No, you're misinformed. The purpose of carbon tax is to increase the cost of fossil fuels and force the consumers to choose other, more costly options.
The rationale for carbon tax is lowering the carbon emissions and lowering the risk of global climate [insert keyword of the day]; there is no clear argument as to how this increase will translate into more efficient energy usage, except the wishful thinking copypastaed from economics 101 textbooks.
You may be confused by the fact that those two - carbon emissions and efficiency measures - are usually lumped together in legislation, but they are completely orthogonal problems.
Hence no, we don't necessarily need a carbon tax to raise efficiency, and no, it won't necessarily increase efficiency anyway.
Easy - it is a data massaging technique that removes a bunch of data that disagrees with a certain model from the analysis of the said model. Because removing data is, like, the scientific thing to do if they disagree with your conclusions.
Nope, they are worse - just a bunch of immature, psychotic kids who are in a helicopter playing a FPS game. Except that on the other end of the interface they have a large gun, and on the receiving end there are brown people.
Slashdot Mirror
First, on the sentimental note - I saw a TV show a few weeks ago about some little girl who was diagnosed with a disease that killed her.
She wanted her family to remember her, so she wrote a ton -- no one knows how many, but thousands -- of letters, and hid them in various places all over the house.
Her folks and siblings were still finding those letters years after she was gone. As I said, I am not sentimental, but this video kinda shook me.
So, maybe you need to do something like that - that will be a nice memory and a surprise when you find it. Maybe better if you don't know what it says, too.
On the other hand, given this whole project of yours, you should consider your family's life after, if she goes (and I wish they'd come up with that cure for cancer).
If someone else joins the family, what will they think about, well, your whole idea?
So, something that surprises you down the road would be nice, but also consider balancing your life before and after.
Also, my sympathies about what you're going through, and best of luck to you all.
As a proud gentoo user, I'm too busy recompiling my whole distro, you insensitive clod.
First, you did not need to look for it - in Doom I, you got it as soon as you shot the guys in the first chamber on the left, and it was easy to get one in the other version, too. Second, shotgun? Meh. The biggest fun is doing the level with the chainsaw only, no iddqd :D
Nightmare ...
Hehe. So, the US army intelligence specialists have not got the intelligence to use encrypted communications? Hehehe.
The story sounds like so much PR bullshit though.
"I mean his premise is that because the pentagon didn't validate leaked secretes by combing though them and saying what was sensitive and what wasn't, it's now their fault?"
Even if that is a fault, that isn't THE fault. THE fault is the US army being so utterly incompetent and careless, that they let 90k of reports be accumulated and kept by one person over several years, and then leaked out without them being the wiser.
And, let be serious, if that particular person didn't go on to boast to a snitch, he probably would have had a decent chance of getting away too.
Conclusion - if you're not a US citizen, NEVER EVER deal with the US Army in any capacity if you don't want your details leaked.
Too bad it is not on the side of the beach that has the sand.
That should have been "executed largely by junior staff". Decision was taken by administrators in USSR's equivalent of the Department of Energy.
Chernobyl's problem wasn't related to the design - it was a runaway experiment, the decision for which was taken against the judgement of professionals at the station by largely junior staff.
with predictable results.
http://www.mibz.com/14904-toyota-prius-best-selling-car-in-japan-again.html
the first one on google for "prius best selling japan"
While I am too lazy to go lookup stats ATM (just out of bed, and no coffee yet), there has been an obvious increase of Primuses and other hybrid cars since the "eco" tax rebates and subsidies have started there (the subsidies are, I think, about to expire in a month or two).
If the memory serves, the Prius has been a top selling car for two years, and the second and third place are also for hybrids - the shift to "eco" cars is quite massive (it is a different question how "eco" those are, but anyway).
Being massive, it isn't limited to "the rich" - several friends and neighbors that definitely aren't in the category have changed their cars to an "eco" vehicle because of the program.
Besides, what's the problem anyway? Considering that EVs are still a very new category (a first-gen product so to speak), there are very few offerings (compared to gas/diesel), it is normal that mostly people with more disposable income will try it out.
At this stage, a subsidy may actually have a larger effect than sometime later at a point where you'd have a sizable market (of "poor" customers) with a lot of competition.
So, again, where's the problem?
Nope, they weren't. If you look at the political events and commentaries of the decision makers of the time, and the context in which decisions were made, and focus on those that lead to the decision, not papers written in the 90s, it is quite plain to see that threat of USSR occupation was the only reason why nukes were used.
USSR had, in accordance with the Stalin-Roosevelt agreements in Yalta, moved an army to the East which destroyed the Japanese forces in China in days -- the same army you seem to think scared the US so badly.
Stalin was ready to land in Hokkaido in early September, long before the US could attempt an invasion. And Japan has been giving indications it was ready to surrender since early 1945 anyway.
Outside of the goal of stopping the USSR from occupying a significant portion of Japan, there was no military need for the nukes. Except, of course, testing them a few times to justify the enormous cost of the project.
Of course, you may believe whatever you wish, even if this isn't very well supported by the available evidence, and the context of the 1945 situation.
Why would we care if the Japanese made a separate peace with the USSR?
Truman was already planning to fight the spread of world communism at the time. The threat of the Soviet Army occupying the parts of China that were under Japanese rule was serious enough.
Note, for record, that the USSR was NEUTRAL in the war between the USA and Japan.
Yep, and, for the record, Roosevelt and Stalin have already agreed that USSR will attack Japan; when Roosevelt died, Truman took his place, and decided that inviting USSR in Asia wasn't a very good idea.
You can easily ascertain the facts (which I've explained above) by perusing WWII documents, there's no need for TAs.
Reading through the decision of targeting committee is all you need to see that the goal of scaring the world, and testing the bomb is a primary motivation for using it.
Reading through the documents of US Strategic bombing survey (from 1946), which analyses the issue in detail should convince you bombings weren't necessary or decisive. Documents abound for the attempts of the Japanese government to surrender.
There is substantial historic documentation from contemporaries of Mr. Truman (e.g. his Secretary of War) about his worries that Japan will surrender to Russia first.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. But I understand how eating up the BS produced post-war by the US government's propaganda machine is easier than thinking on your own.
The nuking of Japan wasn't about avoiding an invasion, it was first about preventing the Japanese from a separatist peace treaty with the USSR; and then about showing the USSR (and the rest of the world) who the boss is.
And the second bomb was to show the world there's more than one.
As for the report, it says that
U.S. nuclear forensics capabilities are substantial and can be improved
and then, in the same breath
are fragile, underresourced and, in some respects, deteriorating,”
So, which is it? Sounds more like a pitch for funding than a genuine worry. Besides, the Clancy legend that a terrorist organization has the resources to build a nuke is quite dubious -- how can you make one in a cave, given that is a difficult task for countries the size of Iran?
well, it _is_ junk, at least from the point of view of the interpreter.
Yeah, except that's what he claimeth, not what he proveth.
Hmmm ... I look at your link and I see attacks on the qualifications of the people who prepared the report, and very little actual calculations. So, utter bunk on either side.
Even if you phrase it your way (which is saying the same thing as I do, only from a normative position), the price hike is still not related to efficiency, nor guaranteed to bring it about.
Incidentally, you can argue until you're blue in the face that nuclear is "paying for the whole usage cycle", but that ain't going to make it so.
No, you're misinformed. The purpose of carbon tax is to increase the cost of fossil fuels and force the consumers to choose other, more costly options.
The rationale for carbon tax is lowering the carbon emissions and lowering the risk of global climate [insert keyword of the day]; there is no clear argument as to how this increase will translate into more efficient energy usage, except the wishful thinking copypastaed from economics 101 textbooks.
You may be confused by the fact that those two - carbon emissions and efficiency measures - are usually lumped together in legislation, but they are completely orthogonal problems.
Hence no, we don't necessarily need a carbon tax to raise efficiency, and no, it won't necessarily increase efficiency anyway.
Carbon tax has nothing to do with fuel efficiency.
Easy - it is a data massaging technique that removes a bunch of data that disagrees with a certain model from the analysis of the said model. Because removing data is, like, the scientific thing to do if they disagree with your conclusions.
The military is not some gang of murderers.
Nope, they are worse - just a bunch of immature, psychotic kids who are in a helicopter playing a FPS game. Except that on the other end of the interface they have a large gun, and on the receiving end there are brown people.
I wonder if the NK army will have to paint white crosses on all their soldiers.
The other "right" question is, is this something that is non-obvious and new? I think not.
double-lined. i need to protect them electronics from the alien EMP.