I recently read(*) that they amounted to no more than 7% of Russian industrial output.
That number doesn't tell the whole story. Look at what we sent them and what they produced. The entire logistical apparatus of the Red Army was dependent on American trucks and American locomotives. Those T-34s won't do you any good when you can't keep them fueled, repaired and loaded with shells.
However I think that the primary mistake was backing off of Sea Lion
Except that Sea Lion wasn't achievable. How do you land troops across a body of water without air and naval supremacy? Landing operations are hard enough when you have both of those things. They are next to impossible without them.
Sandhurst ran Sea Lion through a few wargames in the 70s. Not once was the German side able to win. The best they could manage was to use mines and submarines to delay the Royal Navy. Mines and submarines could slow down the British response to a landing but they could not stop it. Eventually the Royal Navy would have reached the English Channel and at that point all bets are off.
One liter of water ice that has trapped individual methane molecules in the "cages" of its crystal structure can release 168 liters of methane gas when the ice decomposes."
I wonder if that can be harnessed as an energy source?
If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy?
Probably for a real long time. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is nothing compared to what it used to be.
We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII.
Thousands of Russian nuclear weapons aimed at American soil would seem to qualify as a post WWII threat to the United States. The Germans and Japanese never had the ability to do any meaningful damage to North America. The Soviet Union could have destroyed 200 years of hard work in the time it takes for ICBMs to cross the North Pole....
I don't really care one way or the other as long as they aren't using while in office. I do wish they'd be less hypocritical about it though. A decent number of politicians are honest enough to admit they've used recreational drugs (and probably a larger number still have used them but refuse to admit it) yet they continue to support the failure known as the War on Drugs.
Love him or hate him, but do you honestly think Obama would be President Obama today if all the time he spent on the blackberry he'd instead spent playing XBox?
Well, using cocaine didn't stop him or his predecessor, why would the Xbox?
It is appalling that the Obama administration is working so hard to best Bush II in the scope of this abuse.
:-| <--- This is my surprised face.
Seriously. Senator Obama went back on his word and voted for a bill that gave the telecom giants legal immunity for breaking the law and spying on American citizens. Anybody who believed he was any better than the 43 who came before him wasn't paying attention.
We'll lose our privacy one day. But to whom? Wouldn't you rather it be Google than anyone else?
No. Just because Google is "not evil" (though some would dispute this) today doesn't mean that they will be "not evil" tomorrow. Recall that the US Census Bureau collected seemingly harmless bits of information that eventually wound up being used to assist in the round up of Japanese-Americans.
The fact that my privacy is being stripped away by a seemingly benevolent giant is not cause for celebration.
Then why not sell a streaming version? Best of both worlds -- they get paid money for it and you don't get a hard copy to keep. Wouldn't hurt their eventual DVD sales any.
I was referring to the individual that shot the poor bastard who was doing paperwork in a camera van. Acts of civil disobedience (i.e: smashing the camera) are another matter entirely.
Paying $2/epsiode is not cheap. I would pay $1 for an hour long show (42 minutes in reality) as long as it is commercial free. IF you try to sell me commercials, forget it! 30 minute shows I would pay $.50-$.75, but again, only for a commercial free version.
What about shows that just plain aren't available? I've been following HBO's mini-series The Pacific for the last few weeks. The first episode was a freebie on their webpage. Decent quality stream and no commercials. None of the subsequent episodes were made available though.
I would happily pay for the privilege of watching this show but that isn't an option. The only way I can get it is to sign up for an insane cable package that will cost me $60-$70/mo. Fat chance of that happening. So I've turned to other avenues to see the show....
I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
If you aren't driving faster than the lane to your right, then you should move over.
That might be valid out on the rural interstate but in many urban areas the right most lanes are better used for merging/exiting. If you cruise in them you'll constantly be cut off by people entering or exiting the highway. Ever driven the Baltimore or DC beltways? Try cruising on them in the right lanes. It's not fun.....
Speed limits are largely necessary, and usually appropriate. Your opinion on this is off in some corner, sulking over your last ticket.
Speed limits are necessary, but that doesn't mean certain locales don't artificially lower them to raise revenue. Most traffic engineering studies I've read suggest that speed limits should be set for the 85th percentile, but they rarely are.
My hometown has a stretch of highway that's posted 55mph. Pretty much everybody drives 65mph on it though. If you go 55mph at rush hour you'll get tailgated and have people swerving on either side of you trying to get past. It's actually dangerous to obey the speed limit in this instance and the roadway was designed for 75mph (as all interstates were), so why is it posted 55mph?
Then maybe they should have murdered them all. Laws definitely will change when facing a violent uprising.
Yes, because speed cameras are worth reaching for the ammo box.....
Fucking idiot. I love the 2nd amendment as much as the next guy but you don't reach for the gun over a goddamn speeding ticket. Here's an idea, how about the good citizens of AZ vote the morons out of office who passed the bill to install these things?
Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's not anticompetitive. I believe that it's shutting out other players in the market by unfairly bundling services at a cutrate discount.
So what? You are seriously arguing that I should have to pay more money for the services that I receive just so it's "fair" to companies that can't offer all of those services? Is it also unfair that my grocery store sells beer? I mean, the liquor store down the street can't afford to stock groceries, how are they supposed to compete?
If it meant that I had a choice of internet service providers, yes, I would put up with this.
Of course the "ten companies tearing up the street" image is a straw man. In many locales they would be able to utilize existing telephone poles and/or wiring conduits. New construction could be built with the wiring conduits in mind for multiple service providers. Older construction might have to be torn up to accommodate the new infrastructure, that's a fact of life as technology advances, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I recently read(*) that they amounted to no more than 7% of Russian industrial output.
That number doesn't tell the whole story. Look at what we sent them and what they produced. The entire logistical apparatus of the Red Army was dependent on American trucks and American locomotives. Those T-34s won't do you any good when you can't keep them fueled, repaired and loaded with shells.
However I think that the primary mistake was backing off of Sea Lion
Except that Sea Lion wasn't achievable. How do you land troops across a body of water without air and naval supremacy? Landing operations are hard enough when you have both of those things. They are next to impossible without them.
Sandhurst ran Sea Lion through a few wargames in the 70s. Not once was the German side able to win. The best they could manage was to use mines and submarines to delay the Royal Navy. Mines and submarines could slow down the British response to a landing but they could not stop it. Eventually the Royal Navy would have reached the English Channel and at that point all bets are off.
Sea Lion was a fantasy.
What was their alternative?
I don't know, maybe not purging the leadership of your Army? Maybe letting Generals make the decisions instead of political commissars?
Sweet. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio has a nice rack. Didn't they make a movie about that once that happened to take place underwater? ;)
You can run on electricity alone, you use that to make whatever hydrocarbons you want.
Sure. Of course the only carbon free electrical source that can scale like that is nuclear....
One liter of water ice that has trapped individual methane molecules in the "cages" of its crystal structure can release 168 liters of methane gas when the ice decomposes."
I wonder if that can be harnessed as an energy source?
If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy?
Probably for a real long time. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is nothing compared to what it used to be.
America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined
So what? The US is only 26 or 27th in terms of military spending vs. GDP.
We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII.
Thousands of Russian nuclear weapons aimed at American soil would seem to qualify as a post WWII threat to the United States. The Germans and Japanese never had the ability to do any meaningful damage to North America. The Soviet Union could have destroyed 200 years of hard work in the time it takes for ICBMs to cross the North Pole....
But why do we need to spend so many billions on stealth jets when our number one enemy is planting IODs and have absolutely no air defense?
Because that enemy can't end the American Republic, whereas the countries that the jets and aircraft carriers deter conceivably could?
None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary.
You might have a different viewpoint on this if you lived in Arlington or New York City.
I don't really care one way or the other as long as they aren't using while in office. I do wish they'd be less hypocritical about it though. A decent number of politicians are honest enough to admit they've used recreational drugs (and probably a larger number still have used them but refuse to admit it) yet they continue to support the failure known as the War on Drugs.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Love him or hate him, but do you honestly think Obama would be President Obama today if all the time he spent on the blackberry he'd instead spent playing XBox?
Well, using cocaine didn't stop him or his predecessor, why would the Xbox?
It is appalling that the Obama administration is working so hard to best Bush II in the scope of this abuse.
:-| <--- This is my surprised face.
Seriously. Senator Obama went back on his word and voted for a bill that gave the telecom giants legal immunity for breaking the law and spying on American citizens. Anybody who believed he was any better than the 43 who came before him wasn't paying attention.
We'll lose our privacy one day. But to whom? Wouldn't you rather it be Google than anyone else?
No. Just because Google is "not evil" (though some would dispute this) today doesn't mean that they will be "not evil" tomorrow. Recall that the US Census Bureau collected seemingly harmless bits of information that eventually wound up being used to assist in the round up of Japanese-Americans.
The fact that my privacy is being stripped away by a seemingly benevolent giant is not cause for celebration.
Then why not sell a streaming version? Best of both worlds -- they get paid money for it and you don't get a hard copy to keep. Wouldn't hurt their eventual DVD sales any.
I was referring to the individual that shot the poor bastard who was doing paperwork in a camera van. Acts of civil disobedience (i.e: smashing the camera) are another matter entirely.
Paying $2/epsiode is not cheap. I would pay $1 for an hour long show (42 minutes in reality) as long as it is commercial free. IF you try to sell me commercials, forget it! 30 minute shows I would pay $.50-$.75, but again, only for a commercial free version.
What about shows that just plain aren't available? I've been following HBO's mini-series The Pacific for the last few weeks. The first episode was a freebie on their webpage. Decent quality stream and no commercials. None of the subsequent episodes were made available though.
I would happily pay for the privilege of watching this show but that isn't an option. The only way I can get it is to sign up for an insane cable package that will cost me $60-$70/mo. Fat chance of that happening. So I've turned to other avenues to see the show....
I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
If you aren't driving faster than the lane to your right, then you should move over.
That might be valid out on the rural interstate but in many urban areas the right most lanes are better used for merging/exiting. If you cruise in them you'll constantly be cut off by people entering or exiting the highway. Ever driven the Baltimore or DC beltways? Try cruising on them in the right lanes. It's not fun.....
Get yourself a bazooka and give those lazy DOT assholes something to fix. It worked for Michael Douglas.....
Speed limits are largely necessary, and usually appropriate. Your opinion on this is off in some corner, sulking over your last ticket.
Speed limits are necessary, but that doesn't mean certain locales don't artificially lower them to raise revenue. Most traffic engineering studies I've read suggest that speed limits should be set for the 85th percentile, but they rarely are.
My hometown has a stretch of highway that's posted 55mph. Pretty much everybody drives 65mph on it though. If you go 55mph at rush hour you'll get tailgated and have people swerving on either side of you trying to get past. It's actually dangerous to obey the speed limit in this instance and the roadway was designed for 75mph (as all interstates were), so why is it posted 55mph?
Then maybe they should have murdered them all. Laws definitely will change when facing a violent uprising.
Yes, because speed cameras are worth reaching for the ammo box.....
Fucking idiot. I love the 2nd amendment as much as the next guy but you don't reach for the gun over a goddamn speeding ticket. Here's an idea, how about the good citizens of AZ vote the morons out of office who passed the bill to install these things?
Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's not anticompetitive. I believe that it's shutting out other players in the market by unfairly bundling services at a cutrate discount.
So what? You are seriously arguing that I should have to pay more money for the services that I receive just so it's "fair" to companies that can't offer all of those services? Is it also unfair that my grocery store sells beer? I mean, the liquor store down the street can't afford to stock groceries, how are they supposed to compete?
If it meant that I had a choice of internet service providers, yes, I would put up with this.
Of course the "ten companies tearing up the street" image is a straw man. In many locales they would be able to utilize existing telephone poles and/or wiring conduits. New construction could be built with the wiring conduits in mind for multiple service providers. Older construction might have to be torn up to accommodate the new infrastructure, that's a fact of life as technology advances, isn't it?