The FCC is playing it's own political game. Broadband Reports has been covering it for quite awhile now. Essentially they plan on ignoring the recommendation of their own study groups. The studies they've done have concluded that "open access" (i.e: Verizon/Time Warner/etc are forced to let competitors use their fiber and copper plants) is the best way to increase competition. They have ignored these studies in favor of moving forward with a "third way" that won't do anything to address the mono/duolopy of ISPs.
That's not pizza, that's frozen cardboard crap masquerading as pizza. Find yourself a local pizzeria and get some real pizza. This may be easier said than done depending on where you live (it's one of the things keeping me in the Northeast) but well worth the effort.
In other news, on May 23, experts are predicting the possibility of a 10 point jump in the average US citizen's IQ.
Yes. But the problem is that once they gain those points they'll be smart enough to realize that you can receive American Idol and Survivor for free from digital over the air broadcasts. They will use their new found IQ points to install a spiffy looking antenna, after which the IQ gains will be negated.
Experienced leaders would have served them better in 1941-1942 than the political hacks they had running the army.
Hell, you don't even need to go to 1941. Do you think tiny little Finland would have bloodied the Red Army as badly as they did if it had been competently lead? I've always admired the Finns for their achievements in the Winter War, but the sad reality of the situation is that the Red Army would have crushed them if it had halfway decent leadership.
Umm, I've gone down on trimmed women and it's never been a problem. Usually the bulk of the remaining hair is on the pubis mons, where it's not much of an issue. I also like there to be some hair there for protection during intercourse, but that's a personal preference.
Regarding razors, I already hate the fact that I have to shave my face. Last thing I want to do is add another area that needs to be maintained. It's funny, because I see all the advertisements for pills to grow hair -- where's the pill to keep it from growing?;) It would make the legs/face/pubic area much easier to maintain. Where's Big Pharma when we need them?
What exactly did they do? They punched a bulge in the Allied lines for three weeks. In exchange they lost the last of their reserves on the Western Front. They managed to inflict a decent number of casualties on the Allied armies but they could have done that anyway and with a more favorable kill/loss ratio if they hadn't launched the Ardennes Offensive. What exactly did they accomplish that I'm overlooking?
Further, you mention that the RAF would be out of reach, disregarding that we are talking about a scenario that focuses on overtaking airbases, whereupon new ranges would be defined from those points, even if the numbers that could be fielded would be quite limited.
Well, it's not quite as simple as landing your aircraft and having your range defined by the new airbase. You'd also need to bring in the ground support crews, fuel, ordinance, spare parts, etc. All of those items will be competing with other equipment for the transport required to ferry them across the channel.
It just seems that the Germans were quite surprising opponents on the field
I agree. But in this case even the German field commanders knew that Sea Lion would be a disaster. Besides, the campaign would have been decided as all military campaigns are -- by logistics. The Germans can't win unless they can deliver sufficient qualities of men, fuel, ordinance and equipment across the English Channel. They can't maintain those supply lines without control of the air and sea, neither of which they had.
So what? All that "hell of a punch" accomplished was to make it easier for the Allies to destroy the remaining Wehrmacht reserves. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on how resourceful they were, but I don't the Ardennes Offensive is a good example of anything other than Hitler's ineptitude.
Besides, I didn't say I was opposed to trimming. I just said I don't understand the appeal in the hairless look. If prefer the product that was the end result of millions of years of sexual selection. To each their own though.
If a 30yo woman has a gigantic bush but still has the mindset of a 10yo
I didn't say I wanted a "gigantic bush". Most of the women that I've been with trimmed. I just don't see the appeal in a completely shaved look. To each their own I guess.
Cutting to merely/short/ is too much work, and is uncomfortable.
Speak for yourself. I find razor burn/stubble and ingrown hairs to be much more uncomfortable than cutting.
As for resupply by air, I think the Berlin airlift proved what was possible in a focused effort. Yes, I realize there was nobody shooting and airfields were used, but I think it would not be impossible for a focused invasion to take an airfield in short enough order.
That was done at Crete. The Germans barely managed to win and paid a very heavy price for doing so. Now scale up Crete to the British Isles, add in the heavy fleet units of the Royal Navy, the use of chemical weapons against the invaders (something Churchill had authorized in the event of a landing), and the resistance of the RAF operating from airbases outside the reach of German air power.
I'm not even sure if it would have made a difference anyway. Even if you take the UK off the board, the United States and Soviet Union would still be in communication via the Arctic and Persian convoys. The United States would have had a nuclear bomb years before the Germans. The final result would have been the same, it just would have come with a higher cost in blood and treasure.
If you put $51 Billion into the system and the net result is 500,000 new jobs, you're talking half a million jobs at $102,000 each! Even with benefits, you could hire an American for that,
Your math is wrong, let me help you:
500,000 jobs x $13,000 for Indian workers = $650,000,000 in wages.
$51,000,000,000 - $650,000,000 = $50,350,000,000 in dividends for shareholders and bonuses for executives
So, all in all, if the question is whether U.S. help was a prerequisite for eventual Soviet victory, the answer is most likely "no"
I would argue that it was, if only in the psychological sense. Would Stalin have been inclined to pursue the war to the end without outside help? The Russians already had a precedent of trading land for peace. Might Stalin have sought similar terms without FDR and Churchill backing him up?
US involvement also ensured that the Japanese wouldn't attack the Soviet Union. The Japanese had already decided not to do this after getting spanked by the Red Army in a few border skirmishes, but who is to say they wouldn't have re-considered it after securing their Southern conquests?
Had Hitler stopped short of Russia, and simply maintained an aerial and naval stalemate with the British, then the Nazis likely would have won the European war.
Conquering Europe was never his goal though. It was only a means to an end. His real goal was to conquer the lands to the East. Everything else he did was to advance that objective.
The Battle of Britain was not a draw in Germany's favor. The Germans lost more aircrew and more aircraft. Towards the end of the campaign the British were building more aircraft than the Germans.
Your idea of building transports and supplying forces by air after the Royal Navy sinks them wouldn't have worked either. You can't supply whole field armies solely by air. Of course aerial supply is a moot point in any event, as the Germans never managed to achieve aerial supremacy.
Attacking the wargames as being biased without any producing any evidence of that bias is hardly fair. If you have any evidence of that bias or have heard of wargames that came to a different conclusion I would be interested in hearing about it. The fact is that the vast majority of military historians have concluded that Sea Lion had no prospect of success. The Germans knew this, which is why they never attempted it.
The French took the noble step of drawing a line in the sand and *choosing* war with Nazi Germany.
They didn't draw a line in the sand. They stood by and did nothing while the Germans raped Poland. Germany had only a handful of divisions guarding the French frontier when they marched into Poland but the French sat behind their lines and declined to launch the offensive that was required by the treaty with Poland.
If the French wanted to draw a line in the sand they should have done it when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland in 1936. In Hitler's own words, "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."
Slashdot Mirror
I hope it's more effective than your first post attempts or somebody will be calling you Daddy soon ;)
The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good"
The FCC is playing it's own political game. Broadband Reports has been covering it for quite awhile now. Essentially they plan on ignoring the recommendation of their own study groups. The studies they've done have concluded that "open access" (i.e: Verizon/Time Warner/etc are forced to let competitors use their fiber and copper plants) is the best way to increase competition. They have ignored these studies in favor of moving forward with a "third way" that won't do anything to address the mono/duolopy of ISPs.
That's not pizza, that's frozen cardboard crap masquerading as pizza. Find yourself a local pizzeria and get some real pizza. This may be easier said than done depending on where you live (it's one of the things keeping me in the Northeast) but well worth the effort.
In other news, on May 23, experts are predicting the possibility of a 10 point jump in the average US citizen's IQ.
Yes. But the problem is that once they gain those points they'll be smart enough to realize that you can receive American Idol and Survivor for free from digital over the air broadcasts. They will use their new found IQ points to install a spiffy looking antenna, after which the IQ gains will be negated.
History is as much about the right leadership as it is purely logistical concerns.
Leadership counts for a lot, but on balance the Austrian Corporal was definitely not the right leadership.
Experienced leaders would have served them better in 1941-1942 than the political hacks they had running the army.
Hell, you don't even need to go to 1941. Do you think tiny little Finland would have bloodied the Red Army as badly as they did if it had been competently lead? I've always admired the Finns for their achievements in the Winter War, but the sad reality of the situation is that the Red Army would have crushed them if it had halfway decent leadership.
Umm, I've gone down on trimmed women and it's never been a problem. Usually the bulk of the remaining hair is on the pubis mons, where it's not much of an issue. I also like there to be some hair there for protection during intercourse, but that's a personal preference.
Regarding razors, I already hate the fact that I have to shave my face. Last thing I want to do is add another area that needs to be maintained. It's funny, because I see all the advertisements for pills to grow hair -- where's the pill to keep it from growing? ;) It would make the legs/face/pubic area much easier to maintain. Where's Big Pharma when we need them?
What exactly did they do? They punched a bulge in the Allied lines for three weeks. In exchange they lost the last of their reserves on the Western Front. They managed to inflict a decent number of casualties on the Allied armies but they could have done that anyway and with a more favorable kill/loss ratio if they hadn't launched the Ardennes Offensive. What exactly did they accomplish that I'm overlooking?
Further, you mention that the RAF would be out of reach, disregarding that we are talking about a scenario that focuses on overtaking airbases, whereupon new ranges would be defined from those points, even if the numbers that could be fielded would be quite limited.
Well, it's not quite as simple as landing your aircraft and having your range defined by the new airbase. You'd also need to bring in the ground support crews, fuel, ordinance, spare parts, etc. All of those items will be competing with other equipment for the transport required to ferry them across the channel.
It just seems that the Germans were quite surprising opponents on the field
I agree. But in this case even the German field commanders knew that Sea Lion would be a disaster. Besides, the campaign would have been decided as all military campaigns are -- by logistics. The Germans can't win unless they can deliver sufficient qualities of men, fuel, ordinance and equipment across the English Channel. They can't maintain those supply lines without control of the air and sea, neither of which they had.
So what? All that "hell of a punch" accomplished was to make it easier for the Allies to destroy the remaining Wehrmacht reserves. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on how resourceful they were, but I don't the Ardennes Offensive is a good example of anything other than Hitler's ineptitude.
Ah, yes, I left a zero off that number. My bad. I shall now precede to bang my head against the keyboard until bloody.
Mess around in the shower. Best of both worlds ;)
Besides, I didn't say I was opposed to trimming. I just said I don't understand the appeal in the hairless look. If prefer the product that was the end result of millions of years of sexual selection. To each their own though.
I believe Papal Infallibility [wikipedia.org] is inherent to Catholic doctrine.
So is the prohibition on divorce, pre-martial sex and birth control but I've known my share of Catholics that have done all of the above.
If a 30yo woman has a gigantic bush but still has the mindset of a 10yo
I didn't say I wanted a "gigantic bush". Most of the women that I've been with trimmed. I just don't see the appeal in a completely shaved look. To each their own I guess.
Cutting to merely /short/ is too much work, and is uncomfortable.
Speak for yourself. I find razor burn/stubble and ingrown hairs to be much more uncomfortable than cutting.
If only we had running water and soap with which to handle this problem.....
If Germany could deliver its armor to Britain and drive it inland quickly it would have been virtually impossible to defend against at that time.
Forgot to mention this, but that armor wouldn't be very useful once the Royal Navy cut off it's resupply of fuel and ordinance.
As for resupply by air, I think the Berlin airlift proved what was possible in a focused effort. Yes, I realize there was nobody shooting and airfields were used, but I think it would not be impossible for a focused invasion to take an airfield in short enough order.
That was done at Crete. The Germans barely managed to win and paid a very heavy price for doing so. Now scale up Crete to the British Isles, add in the heavy fleet units of the Royal Navy, the use of chemical weapons against the invaders (something Churchill had authorized in the event of a landing), and the resistance of the RAF operating from airbases outside the reach of German air power.
I'm not even sure if it would have made a difference anyway. Even if you take the UK off the board, the United States and Soviet Union would still be in communication via the Arctic and Persian convoys. The United States would have had a nuclear bomb years before the Germans. The final result would have been the same, it just would have come with a higher cost in blood and treasure.
If you put $51 Billion into the system and the net result is 500,000 new jobs, you're talking half a million jobs at $102,000 each! Even with benefits, you could hire an American for that,
Your math is wrong, let me help you:
500,000 jobs x $13,000 for Indian workers = $650,000,000 in wages.
$51,000,000,000 - $650,000,000 = $50,350,000,000 in dividends for shareholders and bonuses for executives
I'm not the pope, but I'm going to have to put "intentionally giving people crabs" in the unethical column.
What column does covering up felonies go in?
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been with a woman that hasn't been completely shaved.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather my women didn't remind me of prepubescent girls......
So, all in all, if the question is whether U.S. help was a prerequisite for eventual Soviet victory, the answer is most likely "no"
I would argue that it was, if only in the psychological sense. Would Stalin have been inclined to pursue the war to the end without outside help? The Russians already had a precedent of trading land for peace. Might Stalin have sought similar terms without FDR and Churchill backing him up?
US involvement also ensured that the Japanese wouldn't attack the Soviet Union. The Japanese had already decided not to do this after getting spanked by the Red Army in a few border skirmishes, but who is to say they wouldn't have re-considered it after securing their Southern conquests?
Had Hitler stopped short of Russia, and simply maintained an aerial and naval stalemate with the British, then the Nazis likely would have won the European war.
Conquering Europe was never his goal though. It was only a means to an end. His real goal was to conquer the lands to the East. Everything else he did was to advance that objective.
The Battle of Britain was not a draw in Germany's favor. The Germans lost more aircrew and more aircraft. Towards the end of the campaign the British were building more aircraft than the Germans.
Your idea of building transports and supplying forces by air after the Royal Navy sinks them wouldn't have worked either. You can't supply whole field armies solely by air. Of course aerial supply is a moot point in any event, as the Germans never managed to achieve aerial supremacy.
Attacking the wargames as being biased without any producing any evidence of that bias is hardly fair. If you have any evidence of that bias or have heard of wargames that came to a different conclusion I would be interested in hearing about it. The fact is that the vast majority of military historians have concluded that Sea Lion had no prospect of success. The Germans knew this, which is why they never attempted it.
Yeah but if you have a nuclear weapon you don't need an erection to make the earth move.....
The French took the noble step of drawing a line in the sand and *choosing* war with Nazi Germany.
They didn't draw a line in the sand. They stood by and did nothing while the Germans raped Poland. Germany had only a handful of divisions guarding the French frontier when they marched into Poland but the French sat behind their lines and declined to launch the offensive that was required by the treaty with Poland.
If the French wanted to draw a line in the sand they should have done it when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland in 1936. In Hitler's own words, "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."